![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Should "Long Island" actually be "Brooklyn" in the bit about bridges to the east? -- Marj Tiefert
Geographically, Long Island begins at the East River. Thus, it would include Queens and Broolyn. Politically, however, Long Island consists of two counties: Nassau and Suffolk. New Yorkers referring to "Long Island" generally mean those two counties -- as distinct from New York City.
I am told that this usage was not always in effect. Before New York City became an almalgamation of the five boroughs of Manhattan, Staten Island, the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn many people spoke of towns such as Flushing as being "on Long Island". But not any more.
By the way, I've often heard "the city" used (esp. by Long Islandels) to mean Manhattan alone, as in:
And for some folks, New York City is "the city" no matter where they are. Even in Tokyo or Los Angeles, they'll say, e.g., "I'm going back to the city" next week (meaning NYC).
User:Ed Poor, amateur philologist
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/07/18/new.york.explosion/index.html
I guess it looks more dramatic than what it really was: http://www.zelaron.com/gear/manhattan.jpg - Zelaron 00:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, who ranks as the 1st and 2nd?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.81.39 ( talk) 01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone is being either hateful or just immature. The very beginning of the article starts with a Pulitzer-worthy sentence: "Omg, like manhattan is teh biggest and ^rettiest city in the world ^^"
Wow. I have been trying to wipe the ignorance off of the page but my computer is giving me issues. If someone could fix that I would really appreciate it.
Thanks a bunch.
~Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.82.34 ( talk) 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Added list of neighborhoods. I propose we put neighborhoods under the city as in city/neighborhood, as some of these won't merit big entries and others (e.g., soho, financial district) are at least somewhat ambiguous with other cities. - User:K.lee
Can we have defs for the meanings of "uptown" and "downtown", please?
"New York County and the Borough of Manhattan are coextensive. As a part of New York City, New York County contains no other political subdivisions."
I have never been to New York, but I am doing my reading and hoping to go soon.
I find the sentences in quotes above to be unintelligible. What does "coextensive" mean? Surely there is a reasonable word or phrase that can be used in place of "coextensive".
Does the second sentence mean that the boundary of NY City is the same as the boundry of NY County? If not, what does it mean?
Thanks, Don Bailey Denver March 14, 2004
Beginning at the northerly United States bulkhead line of the Harlem river at the junction of the Hudson and Harlem rivers; thence along the northerly and easterly United States bulkhead lines of the Harlem river to the low-water mark on the westerly bank of the Spuyten Duyvil creek as it existed prior to its being filled in; thence along said low-water mark of Spuyten Duyvil creek to the easterly United States bulkhead line of the Harlem river; thence southerly along the easterly United States bulkhead line of the Harlem river to a point where said United States bulkhead line of the Harlem river intersects the northerly United States bulkhead line of the Bronx kills; thence along the northerly line of the United States bulkhead line of the Bronx kills to the intersection of the northerly United States bulkhead line of the East river; thence across the East river to the low-water mark on the shore of Long Island, so as to include Randall's Island and Ward's Island; thence along the low-water mark on the shore of Long Island to the southerly side of Red Hook; thence across the Upper bay to the westerly boundary of the state; thence northerly along such westerly boundary of the state to a point where a perpendicular drawn from the point or place of beginning intersects such westerly boundary of the state; thence easterly along such perpendicular to the point or place of beginning; including all the islands or parts thereof situated within the aforedescribed bounds.
I've heard that although Manhattan has 1M people residential, it has 30M employees working there. Does anyone have the facts to back that up, as I think it would be nice in the article. Additionally, Brooklyn is described as "it would be the 4th largest city," and I'd like to see a comparison like that--for example comparing Manhattan to whole other states.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zandperl ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 22 March 2004 (UTC)
Not quite. Manhattan has a concept of "north on the grid" (of streets), which is different from due north (or magnetic north, for that matter). As the map shows, Manhattan is a long, narrow island; most streets are laid out parallel or perpendicular to the long sides of the island. Going northeast along a long street is called going "north on the grid" (or just "north", more commonly). Uptown means north on the grid, and downtown means south on the grid. — msh210 22:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Technically, Msh210, you're right. But, seriously, who thinks "north" in Manhattan means due north?
I was under the impression that manhattan's etymology came from a corruption of the word Manahachtanienk--"the island where we became intoxicated", so named by the indians because they got drunk there by white settlers in 1524 or 16(09|04|05)--every site I go to features a different date. Other Internet sites say "high island". Which ones right, or, failing that, shouldn't there be some indication as to the disputed origin? -- Combuchan 23:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The article states "On 28 May and 12 July the sunrise and sunset are aligned with the street gridlines, so that the Sun is visible at the horizon from street level." Does anyone have a source for this? The sunset part seems particularly implausible, as Manhattan streets generally run from northwest(ish) to southeast(ish). I could see where the sunrise might be aligned on (approximately) those dates, which are roughly equidistant (equitemporal?) from the vernal equinox.
Just wondering.... -- uFu
error: "On May 28 and July 12 the sunrise and sunset are aligned with the street grid lines, so that the sun is visible at the horizon from street level." This statement is still incorrect. The sun may be visible on the said dates only when setting in the west. The corresponding rising dates in the east would be around the winter solstice (approx. 6-months from the setting dates), since the 'east-west' street grid points to the southeast. The sun does not rise in the southeast during May and July. I don't have the exact dates, but a cursory calculation for the said setting dates seems accurate. I will remove the word sunrise from the article, but it would be nice if someone with the proper calculation software could add the correct rise dates.
J. Crocker
18:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Article should mention that the island was bought from a neighboring tribe, and not the ones Manhattan belonged to (The Choctaws).
Anyone like the new photo arrangement? I myself was looking at getting the Times Square one full right, but server was acting up, so I gave up. Now I see somebody put all photos at top.-- JimWae 19:16, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
On my screen (1600x1200), ALL the photos are up top and the first paragraph is squeezed into 8% of the screen width on the left. After that there are no more photos. Maybe try putting them all in one table no wider than the widest jpg -- JimWae 20:13, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
I fixed it for me - photos were NOT inside table before
" {| align =right " | [[Image:xxx.jpg|right " |- " |...
-- JimWae 20:24, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
I didn't notice the table wasn't done right because on my screen (1440 x 900) all the pics looked fine -- all were along the right side (I think its a browser issue?). Thanks for fixing it, now I know I have to look more carefully when I do tables Paradiso 21:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The first sentence under the history section states...
"The name Manhattan ("hilly island" or "place of intoxication") is..."
Is this really true and not vandalism?
Thanks. - Short Verses 05:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
No, it's one possible origin of the name; noone's really sure which is the correct explanation (though one would tend to think "hilly island" is a little more straightforward). See the discussion titled 'Etymology?' above.-- Pharos 07:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
According to [1], Hudson sailed into NY harbor on sept. 3 and began exploring the hudson river on sept. 12. There's no reason to say that Sept. 11 is a proper exact date for Hudson's "discovery" of New York. Also, Verrazano and Gomez most likely observed the coastline of the island (though perhaps without realizing it was an island) in their earlier visits to New York Harbor. Lastly, it's not clear, from the sources I can find, whether Hudson ever made landfall on Manhattan island itself... need help from someone who knows better. k.lee 17:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The diagram labeled "Manhattan Borough lies between the East River and the Hudson River." doesn't help one unfamiliar with the geography. Usually bright colors identify what is labeled, suggesting that Manhattan is the yellow or blue areas. ( SEWilco 20:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC))
Around the 17th century, Manhattan was called Mannados. Does anyone know more details? Please add this to the article. Thanks, Scriberius 07:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Manhattan was not called Mannados. The map on this site is almost quite certain a fake one. The Dutch called the island (certified document, known as the Van Schagen letter) already "Manhattans". Mannados has a real latin feel to it, doesn't it?
In case anyone feel like using it, I found a map over Manhattan from circa 1850: . Am currently using it in the Central Park article, so just wanted to let the folks associated with this article know about it... Bjelleklang - talk 22:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Paragraphs 6 ,7 & 8 of the History section seem to ramble on with poor structure and require citations for those quotes. Any discussion of the history of individual liberties in New York City should include discussion of the slave trade (one of the major businesses before the civil war) and be more NPOV, or not be there at all (and be in the entry for New York City history, rather than Manhattan). I'd like to solicit some discussion about these paragraphs and how they can be improved before any substantive edits are made (having already changed "our nation" to "United States").
Robbins 23:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that this edit [ [3]] involved changing honored to honoured. Doesn't that violate the policy on regional uses of English? Manhattan is, after all, an American subject. Sumergocognito 06:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this and the articles about specific regions of Manahattan would hugely benefit from maps. -- DanDanRevolution 02:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
My edit regardind travel to Staten Island has been removed by an anonymous. I reverted it. The original text before my edit makes impression that there are problems with travel to Staten Island by car, because there is no bridge to Staten Island. I fixed that impression. If somebody beleives that this edit is useless - that is his/her personal POV. -- HenryS 23:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop the edit war. If a county is the most densely populated county in the USA, it is the most densely populated county in any part of the USA. Period. -- HenryS 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
For some unknown reason a user signed with fake Id
Ufwuct made a not-just-two-clicks-job to rearrange items in this discussion, according the rule (s)he prefers. The timestamp for this change was 20:42, 9 July 2006. I would not strongly oppose this kind of arrangement. But I have a reasonable questions:
It is the part of the Wiki Bulletin Board common rules to put newer items on the top. See for example
[4]
Should we follow other than the common WikiBB arrangement style for this particular discussion? If yes, why?
Thank you -- HenryS 15:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that the first map in the History section is set with North to the right? That's confusing...it isn't the "usual" way and isn't the way the other maps on the page are oriented. If there's a reason, that's fine to do it that way, but then the orientation should be mentioned in the caption. DMacks 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Allthough these number have a citation, I doubt their validity. Current US$ 600-700 would mean an average inflation of roughly 1 % over the whole period. whereas an average inflation of 2% (still low, but more likely) would result in a modern day equivalent of US$ 10,000+. That number is more in line with what I remember reading most often. -- Lokimaros 16:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Since this is a new listing I'll post a comment rather than passing or failing the article: line citations are pretty thin for an article of this length and it's troubling to see this categorized with articles having invalid ISBN numbers. As a former Manhattanite I'm pleased with the presentation as a whole - I especially looked for the bit about a small part of Manhattan being contiguous with the Bronx. Was hoping for other mentions in the geography section about semiprecious mineral deposits (discovered while creating the subway system) and a mention that Central Park is thoroughly landscaped and therefore not representative of Manhattan's pre-urban terrain. Mostly though, what stopped me from awarding GA was citations. Please continue to improve. Durova 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm afraid I forgot about this article and didn't check back onto this talk page. User:Daniel Case now seems to have removed its nomination from the GA listings but not put any feedback here or changed this article's Candidate tag. Perhaps this was a mistake. I've drooped him a note on his talk page. TimVickers 03:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
No, Tim, it wasn't. I was in the midst of writing this out when I got your message. Then we got into an edit conflict when I tried to save.
Judging from the above discussion and this talk page in general, I'm going to make a lot of people unhappy by doing this, but here goes:
Second is, yes, sourcing. If I read an article with direct quotations from 17th-century sources, I want to be satisfied that whoever put them there can tell me where they came from. If they're in the main History article, they should be here, too. It's not enough to incorporate them by implied reference.
Also, we have a nice picture of ... Robert Morgenthau, the current district attorney. I would expect a picture of the borough president would be a better choice. Is Mr. Stringer that camera-shy?
I can see you have, on the whole, a very fine article here. You should not be discouraged from entertaining visions of a golden star in the upper right hand corner. It has all the pieces; they just need to be better put together.
And this is New York we're talking about. This article has to be able to make it anywhere.
You can easily fix this and renominate at your lesiure. Daniel Case 03:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
According to the data in the citation, the NYC subway system has less miles of track than london.-- Rotten 14:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In other articles, the $24 claim is called a "legend" or "not particularly meaningful" (e.g., Peter Minuit) both because the natives didn't think they were "selling" anything and because there were no American dollars until the end of the 18th century. This myth needs to be properly explained rather than propagated. If no one with better knowledge of the history steps forward, I guess I'll change it using my rather limited knowledge of the subject (gleaned mainly from sources like Wikipedia and backed up by common sense). Until then, I'll put up a contradict-other tag. Calbaer 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know who bought Manhattan, whether it was for beads or dollars or Dutch Guilders. I believe it was orignally owned, in the European sense, by the Dutch. It then fell into English hands. There is a legend that the owner was one Robert Edwards, who left it to his descendants who live in Wales. There is also mention that Queen Anne left it to the Catholic Church. I think it was leased for 100 years, the lease finally expired in 1877. Does the Catholic church now receive the rent? Does anyone know?
If anyone knows anything about the location known as "Prince", I have just started Prince, Manhattan. Your contributions would be welcome. -- Beland 21:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Under the CULTURE heading, I'm having trouble understanding why a march to commemorate the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire is the opening example of culture in Manhattan. Can anyone shed some light on this???
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.242.28.5 ( talk) 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a new panorama of the Manhattan skyline taken from Liberty Park in New Jersey here. Feel free to add this to the article if appropriate Kevinp2 04:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"However, if the money had been invested at anything above a 6.25% return (essentially a bond's current yield), it would be worth over $250 billion today, which exceeds Manhattan's estimated value of $200 billion." Where does the figure of $200 billion come from? This site [5] estimates the potential value of Central Park alone at $529 billion; its land (developer) value would be $132 billion. [6] Pallas44 18:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is very thorough and well written, but it needs more inline citations. Ideally, every paragraph should have at least one reference.
Also, the list of external links is too long. See WP:EL for guidelines.
The article should be removed from category:Boroughs of New York City.
Epbr123 19:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Good improvements have been made so far but these statements still need quotations:
"it gave rise to what would become the most diverse city in the world"
"New York County is named in honor of the Royal Majesty of Great Britain, the Duke of York"
"The borough has an area of 33.8 mi² (87.5 km²), of which 32.01% is water."
"Chelsea is a neighborhood with a large gay population"
"Manhattan's Chinatown is the largest in the Western hemisphere."
"The term uptown refers to the northern part of Manhattan (generally speaking, above 59th Street) and downtown to the southern portion (typically below 23rd Street or 14th Street)."
"Manhattan's Borough President is Scott Stringer, elected as a Democrat in 2005."
"Republicans constitute more than 20% of the electorate only on the Upper East Side and the Financial District."
"The Manhattan zip code 10021, on the Upper East Side, is home to more than 100,000 people and has a per capita income of over $90,000." Is this from the 2005 census?
"Manhattan's vibrant visual art scene in the 1950s and 1960s defined the American pop art movement"
"The oldest public-access television channel in the United States is the Manhattan Neighborhood Network,"
"The Lincoln Tunnel, which carries 120,000 vehicles per day .... is the world's busiest vehicular tunnel."
"The Queens Midtown Tunnel, ..... was the largest non-Federal project of its time when it was completed in 1940."
"The City University is the largest urban university system in the United States as well as the third largest system in terms of enrollment."
Also, I won't judge the GA award on this but some of the language in the history section is complex and might be difficult to understand by some readers. For example, "Consequently, the negotiations assured that the legal and political tradition of tolerance as the basis of cultural diversity and pluralism since 1624 was perpetuated by the Articles of Transfer under English authority. Thus safeguarded, the notion of tolerance endured after conclusive jurisdictional establishment of English dominion over New Netherland in 1674, and through the formation of the United States of America, when it was reintroduced as a constitutional right under the Bill of Rights in 1791."
Epbr123 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Here are the actions taken so far:
I'm afraid there are more citations needed:
"In the 2004 presidential election, Democrat John Kerry received 82.1% of the vote in Manhattan and Republican George W. Bush received 16.7%."
"is a phenomenon sometimes referred to as Manhattanhenge"
"The Upper West Side is often characterized as a liberal and family-friendly alternative to the Upper East Side"
"Upper East Side, one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the United States."
"Manhattan has not voted for a Republican in a national presidential election since 1924."
"Lower East Side and East Village, have been associated with the "Bohemian" subculture, though many artists have relocated to Brooklyn from these neighborhoods."
The Presidential elections results table also needs a citation.
This part should be taken out of the brackets and written more formally: "(Though even north and south here are relative - north in Manhattan is a logical north, determined by the main axis of the island, and corresponding to the direction of the avenues of the street grid. Uptown is actually more like north-by-northeast.)"
This line doesn't seem to make sense, "Later, in 1624, no-trading-nature colonists joined to the older ones"
Epbr123 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Back to the drawing board... Alansohn 22:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
For round two, here are the results of all of the changes made to address the issues listed above:
The article now fulfills all the GA criteria. Well done! Epbr123 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In the article on Manhattan history, it is stated that it is the second oldest city after Santa Fe NM. For the record, your site on Santa Fe lists it founding year around 1607 to 1608. St Augustine, Fla was founded in 1565, making it the Nations Oldest City. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iandugan ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
...is not in Manhattan, or even NYC, surely - as every trivia buff knows? But it says so in the introduction.... richardcarroll1981 00:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 1450 feet, use 1450 feet, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 1450 feet.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst ( Talk) 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a comprehensive understanding of what this proposal will eventually (or at least potentially) entail? Shouldn't it be put somewhere in the article? DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I tried accessing Manhattan's edit page to fix the misleadingly low population density, but the box is not included in the script.
The sidebox itself shows Manhattan's density at "25,846/sq mi (9,979/km²)", which is way off from the "nearly 67,000" in the article, and the nearly 67,000 that I calculated.
Several editors have expressed an interest in splitting the articles, since they feel it is too long. However, none of them has proposed anything specific here. Is there a consensus to split the article, or should the {{ toolong}} template be removed? Silly rabbit 12:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please thoroughly recheck the sidebox data? I suspect some of the data in there still to be wrong. - E.g.: The text's 1st paragraph reads:
"With a 2000 population of 1,537,195[1] packed into a land area of 22.96 square miles (59.47 km²), [...]"
whereas the infobox has:
"Land: 51.8 km² (20 sq mi)". -- Gulliveig 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I am at the moment building a roll call of islands that make up the Thousand Islands. I have come across one named Manhattan Island. I noticed there is a redirection for the page Manhattan Island to a page on Manhattan. At some point I would like to construct a page about Manhattan Island.
Coordinates: 44°21'9"N 75°55'0"W —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebMachiavelli ( talk • contribs) 08:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The September 11th attacks are mentioned only in passing in this article. Given their significance, it would seem that they should be mentioned in the history section. Stavrolo ( talk) 05:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
re: The first sentence of the second par: "Manhattan is the commercial, financial, and cultural center of the United States and, to varying extents, of the world."
The end of this sentence isn't verified by the citation, which only says that New York is the media and cultural center of the US, not the world. Readin' Writin' ( talk) 07:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I've changed it to "Manhattan is a major commercial, financial, ...". New York is not the center of the world, or even the US. But I did also add that major radio and TV companies are based there. Which I suppose is why people assume the world originates in NY. Wolfram.Tungsten ( talk) 20:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to prove that NYC enjoys a reputation as one of the two or three greatest cultural and economic centers in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckkgourmet ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The box on the right lists a nickname of Manhattan as being "The City". That seems a little silly, doesn't it? Sure people from outer boroughs call Manhattan "The City," but people from Schaumburg IL call Chicago "The City" and people from all over the Bay Area call San Francisco "The City." Isn't that just a generic term for the biggest city in any particular area? Hardly a unique nickname for Manhattan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.29.87 ( talk) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
New York, New York specifically identifies the Borough of Manhattan. "New York City" refers to all five boroughs of the City of New York. Please stop arbitrarily reverting my LEGITIMATE edits! This means you, JamesMLane! 24.168.116.169 ( talk) 15:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.-- Pharos ( talk) 23:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't care for User:Ian Fortuno's additions to this page. First, many of the photos are low quality and he removes high quality to put them on - that includes the current panorama. Second, the captions are highly inaccurate, outdated and almost laughable (e.g. the West Village is known as a "Bohemian Capital" - maybe in the 50's and 60's!) Third, he inserts way too many photos that end up stacking. Can I get other comments from people who are familiar with his additions to this article? --David Shankbone 18:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Watching QI, someone said that the British swapped manhattan island with the Dutch for the spice islands in Indonesia, and got "full marks" for being correct and interesting. Googling didn't bring up much. Any clues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.32.66 ( talk) 21:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Updadate to that.. It's true! Spice Islands. Perhaps a link, and writeup should be added? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.32.66 ( talk) 21:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The math just doesn't add up. Prehaps someone can explain it to me. According to this article, the population of Manhattan is 1,611,581, and the land on the island is 22.96 sq mi. in size. When I devide the population by the size, I get 70,068, not 66,940, as is implied by the density on this page. Dkerear ( talk) 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) #Puzzling ref-breaking problem at Manhattan about a strange problem in this article. Graham 87 07:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that beginning with a statment about Manhattan being an island borough may throw people off about the importance of the borough. Its being an island is in no way distinct - in fact NOT being an island is what distinguishes The Bronx. More relevant is Manhattan's role as the center for the entire city - but I am not entirely clear on how best to word this. It is the center for the entire NYC historically, financially, culturally, ... Btw, a run-on-sentence is one with 2 (or more) subjects & 2 predicates - but no obvious separation that would qualify it as a compound sentence. Somebody (Buddha-something) keeps reverting to a RoS - and now wants to end a sentence with a comma. Is anyone else awake out there or do I need to keep reverting this person all by myslf? I think he either knows very little about English syntax or is just trying to be annoying. -- JimWae ( talk) 02:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It reads: "In 1874, the western portion of the present Bronx County was transferred to New York County, and in 1895 the remainder of the present Bronx County was annexed." First off, I think it should be clarified that at the time of these annexations, "present Bronx County" was part of Westchester County. Moreover, when the annexations occurred, did the present-day Bronx join the city of New York, or were there still separate municipalities that existed on the mainland apart from the city that joined New York County? In other words, when the New York County annexed portions of Westchester County, were the former municipalities absorbed into the city, or did they remain separate municpalities within New York County? 98.221.133.96 ( talk) 02:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
An uncritical paragraph about Stuyvesant Town was added in the wrong place and then quickly deleted by an IP editor as an "obvious advertisement". But (sitting in Providence), I think that Stuyvesant Town/ Peter Cooper Village is probably significant: it gets a non-trivial entry in The Encyclopedia of NYC (1995) together with mention (not in what was offered Wikipedia) of controversy over a racial bar, later withdrawn amid public outcry. Is it worth writing a balanced sentence or two somewhere else, perhaps comparable to the treatment of Co-op City in the borough article for The Bronx? —— Shakescene ( talk) 22:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It's hardly surprising that there's an infinite supply of great photographers and great photographs of Manhattan (usually used to represent the entire City). Is there some rational way of organizing this so someone's great photo isn't replaced without discussion a couple of months later by another great photo? (Day vs evening, looking north vs looking south, from GE building or Empire State, Times Square vs Statue of Liberty, etc., etc.) I can't judge these things very well myself, and maybe there is a natural selection of the fittest photos, but this all looks very haphazard and random to me. —— Shakescene ( talk) 23:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
According to the census bureau, Manhattan population reached a peak in 1910 with 2,762,522 inhabitants, and then decreased to 2,284,103 in 1920 and 1,698,281 in 1960. But the article claims that the white flight started only in the 60s. It seems to be obviousliy wrong, according to the table in the demographic section. It seems obvious that white flight started in the 1910s in Manhattan (mainly to the outer borough), and in the 50s in the outer boroughs. -- Revas 23:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
What needs to be understood with the demographical patterns of Manhattan is that white flight was never really the reason for what you'd refer to as exodus in Manhattan. If you were going be natural increasing standards today, with the large foreign born rate too, you would probably come to the conclusion that there's an exodus too. Manhattan's population, especially in the twentieth century, can't be measured by growth, in a similar way to other places in the state and country, because there's such a large and rapid in-and-out population? What I mean by that is that so much of Manhattan isn't native to it, but are mostly people from other states and other countries and many of these people return home, or leave to another place. This is how Manhattan's maintained a young, wealthy population. Prior to WWII, it was more a mix between that and people who were able to trace immigrant roots to the city, but if you look at apartment reconstruction in Tudor City, for example, that was done in the 1920's. They tore down the tenements than, essentially starting the wealthy influx of out-of-state people. By the 1960's, neighborhoods all over the Lowe East Side really turned into hipster/transplant havens and it's become more and more every since and virtually is only that today. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk)
Any reference to white flight would be very irrelevant, especially postwar, because the new population that comes in Manhattan has been white. So, it's really just young white people replacing slightly older white people. Many of the foreigners who are here, some white, some not, are wealthy too and representative of this influx. The place's where they are not are in upper Manhattan, which is where this influx is much less prevalent, but transplants are somewhat integrated into their populations too. Those places, a while ago, used to be home to many working and middle class white American's. In Harlem for example, up until probably around the 1920's, it was probably Jewish and European, but African-American's had moved into the neighborhood. There was a white population that was existent there probably until the 1950's, especially more so in the surrounding areas like Washington Heights and Inwood, but most of this population was replaced by Latino immigrants in the 50's and 60's (mainly Puerto Ricans). There's still some European-American population in this neighborhood, but it's becoming more now because more of the transplants have taken interest into this area. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk)
When we're talking about the other boroughs, it's a lot different. When you think of Manhattan, especially below the 100's, in modern day, but especially over the past entire century, you need to think of it like students at a college campus. People come in, people come out. The only people who stay for a while are the teachers. The teachers are well out-numbered by the students though. Manhattan really doesn't have an identity, like the other boroughs. However, many parts of Brooklyn, especially over the past few decades, like Park Slope and Carroll Gardens, have lost their identity and more will continue to, as is in Queens, like Long Island City. So, to answer your question, the reason white flight was never a prevalent thing in Manhattan is because white transplants, from other states, replaced white's who left. Some of those people were transplants from states too. This is very common in exclusively wealthy areas like Miami Beach, Hollywood, Orange County, California, ect. Rich people are much more likely to move around with work and have more accessibility to do it than others. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
Pharos is on the right track, but I don't believe he explained in enough detail and may have mislead you. For example, he mentioned a migration from the Lower East Side to Brooklyn. Is he talking about back than, now or what? What he forgot to mention was what happened to Brooklyn's population in these places they moved to? The population in those places didn't grow. And in the Bronx? During the year's Manhattan lost population, the Bronx had an even nastier population decline. Back 50-60 years ago, the level of expenses in on the Lower East Side and Brooklyn were not as disproportional, so it wouldn't make sense for people from one place, to take over the other. Plus, he didn't describe to you who took over the population of the lower east side. Since the 1960's, it's been transplants from other states, or wealthy people from other countries. Not working class immigrants. Definitely not since the 1980's, especially. Yes, some Puerto Rican immigrants moved to neighborhoods such as the Alphabet City, but those neighborhoods have been revamped and turned into the same corporate Disney World type environment every other neighborhood is in lower Manhattan. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk)
Brooklyn and the Bronx have much more of those traditional immigrant groups that people would say moved to the lower east side, but what they're not mentioning is that the transplants haven't taken over and remolded the identity of these places. You can still find plenty of people in Brooklyn and the Bronx, who have roots to the place. Find me people who can on the lower east side or any single or double digit block in Manhattan, and I'd give you a dollar a person and never go broke. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
He also gave you the wrong vibe on Manhattan. He makes it sound as the only way you could leave Manhattan, is if you were poor and improving your lifestyle. In Manhattan, I know there's gaps between wealthy and poor, but over the years, it's become more a gap among ridiculously wealthy and middle class. In other words, each notch was pushed up a notch. You can't afford to live in any wealthy part of Manhattan being poor, nor should you be able to. What ever projects or lower income buildings there are scattered around lower Manhattan will all be gone in the next 10 to 20 years. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
Plenty of people who've left Manhattan, throughout the years, have plenty of money. Many middle to upper middle class people, native or not, over the past century, have been run out because of inflation, expense or a lack of desire to continue living expensively. Like I said though, the college campus is a good example. Think of it as being a campus that won't expand it's population too. All the sky scrapers you see today, that were mostly built last century took up a lot of space. During the 1960's and 1970's, the city had some economic problems. Although there were plenty more other cities that experienced worse industrialization and had much more crime, Manhattan wasn't as desirable a place to live than. Wealthy artists, musicians and academia slowly transpired it into a desirable happening place, that you now see in modern day. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
Shouldn't the subject of this paragraph be about the borough, not the island? I suggest starting the first sentence with something like:
The Borough of Manhattan, which includes Manhattan Island, Roosevelt Island, the neighborhood on the US mainland called Marble Hill, along with various other islands, is one of the Five Boroughs which form the City of New York, covers the same territory and the same people as the County of New York, a subdivision of the State of New York in the Northeastern United States
I agree that the wording is cumbersome but maybe someone can clean that up. The articles on the other four boroughs focus on the borough, not the main landmass, including the island/borough of Staten Island. It makes sense that Manhattan folllow this pattern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranever ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The Borough of Manhattan, which includes Manhattan Island, Roosevelt Island, various other islands and the Marble Hill neighborhood on the U.S. mainland, is one of the Five Boroughs that form the City of New York. The Borough of Manhattan covers the same territory and the same people as the County of New York, a subdivision of the State of New York in the Northeastern United States
Your sentence is better than mine, maybe we can get rid of Northeastern US.
I think this article should be about political entity / the borough because any reader who types Manhattan into Wikipedia is probably going to be looking to read about skyscrapers, Broadway, etc. The question is whether the island itself is notable enough to get its own article like Geography_of_Ireland or Geography_of_Cuba, (I can't imagine it's not) and if so, add Geography_of_Manhattan or maybe build it into Geography_and_environment_of_New_York_City. Ranever ( talk) 23:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
-With all due respect, the intro is terrible. How about something on the lines of: Manhattan is one of the five boroughs of New York City. Its territory consists primairly of the Island of Manhattan, as well as several surrounding islands, and a small portion of the mainland. The borough of Manhattan is coextensive with the County of New York. ? This article is about the borough, but the intro implies its about the island. 98.221.133.96 ( talk) 08:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel the article is about the borough. The island does essentially have its own page, but since each part is so notable, they are broken into pieces Lower East Side, Harlem, TriBeCa, etc.. Maybe we could make Manhattan_(Island) a reference page to all the individual neighborhoods. All the statistics on demographics, government, etc. are (or at least should be) for the entire borough.
About the NE US reference, I agree that people may not realize where NYC is on the map of the US, but is that important? Do I need to know where Manhattan is in relation to Boston or Philadelphia to learn about it? I don't know. I think the reference in New York City is enough.
Also, I think the word coterminous is relatively simple and self-explanatory. Ranever ( talk) 02:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe this article descriptively talks enough about the impact of migrants from other states in the twentieth century tab. Since the 1980's, but especially since the early-to-mid 1990's, when Giuliani took over as mayor, and crime went down dramatically, and many apartments, especially in lower Manhattan (ex. Alphabet City) were turned around, Manhattan's wealth began to go up. Since the 1990's, Manhattan's experienced less immigration, from traditional immigrant groups (ex. Mexicans, Chinese, Arabs) because of the inflation that caused rent to become unaffordable for virtually any working or middle class American. The gradually younger, more homosexual and wealthy population that's come about shows the prevalance of American's moving into all of Manhattan I want to keep it as brief, yet descriptive as possible, so here's what I'll write:
Since the early-to-mid 1990's, inflation have driven rent prices much higher, often causing it to become unaffordable for working and middle class American's and immigrants. As the city became much safer and more desirable, many young U.S. citizens from other states have moved into a variety of neighborhoods in the borough. Manhattan has experienced a gradual transformation that now encompasses population that is now predominantly found to be of well-educated Americans and foreigners in their 20's and 30's. There is an especially prominent population of youth aspiring in the arts in various Lower East Side neighborhoods, such as SoHo, TriBeCa and Greenwich Village. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.112.131 ( talk) 07:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Returning World War II veterans and immigrants from Europe created a postwar economic boom and led to the development of huge housing developments, targeted at returning veterans, including Peter Cooper Village—Stuyvesant Town which opened in 1947.
There was a nearly identical quote on the article about New York City. Instead of referring to Peter Cooper Village-Stuvesant Town, they referred to Eastern Queens. While European's had a large impact on the arts, music and academia, numerically speaking, they didn't impact Manhattan's population much. There's no source to this statement though, so until one is provided, I'll revise it to read as this:
Returning World War II veterans created a postwar economic boom and led to the development of huge housing developments, targeted at returning veterans, including Peter Cooper Village-Stuyvesant Town which opened in 1947.
I'm not sure if that's who it was directly intended for either. It doesn't sound like it'd make sense, because wealthier people usually are less likely to fight in wars, something Manhattan has much less of. Most people who live in Peter Cooper Village-Stuyvesant Town, are upper-middle class and wealthy, and probably weren't veterans. I'm not saying vets didn't live there, but I doubt this was who it was specifically designed for. It was probably more designed for wealthy New Yorker's, American's from other states and foreigners. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
I added comment about French tightrope walker and street information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielGlazer ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.
This article covers the topic well and has an excellent source of free images. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Good job on addressing the issues. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. I went through and fixed some of the link redirects and a few other dead links, please review my edits. Altogether the article is well-written and has a great source of free images. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
There has to be some way of indicating to those looking for an article about Manhattan Island or about New York County that this is it (the end of the line); there is no other further specific article about either the island or the county (although I think there may once have been).
In the past, I've tried to show this in the disambiguation or other hatnotes which have since been stripped in the name of simplicity. So the only (and, to my mind, not-altogether-sufficient) way is to bold-face Manhattan Island and New York County on their first appearance in the lead. (I'd prefer to explain this more explicitly in the text, but in the endless wars over and rewrites of the lead sentences, this gets taken out.) Every now and then, someone understandably wants to take away the existing boldface, and I revert. So what's the solution? —— Shakescene ( talk) 21:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Should "Long Island" actually be "Brooklyn" in the bit about bridges to the east? -- Marj Tiefert
Geographically, Long Island begins at the East River. Thus, it would include Queens and Broolyn. Politically, however, Long Island consists of two counties: Nassau and Suffolk. New Yorkers referring to "Long Island" generally mean those two counties -- as distinct from New York City.
I am told that this usage was not always in effect. Before New York City became an almalgamation of the five boroughs of Manhattan, Staten Island, the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn many people spoke of towns such as Flushing as being "on Long Island". But not any more.
By the way, I've often heard "the city" used (esp. by Long Islandels) to mean Manhattan alone, as in:
And for some folks, New York City is "the city" no matter where they are. Even in Tokyo or Los Angeles, they'll say, e.g., "I'm going back to the city" next week (meaning NYC).
User:Ed Poor, amateur philologist
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/07/18/new.york.explosion/index.html
I guess it looks more dramatic than what it really was: http://www.zelaron.com/gear/manhattan.jpg - Zelaron 00:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, who ranks as the 1st and 2nd?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.81.39 ( talk) 01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone is being either hateful or just immature. The very beginning of the article starts with a Pulitzer-worthy sentence: "Omg, like manhattan is teh biggest and ^rettiest city in the world ^^"
Wow. I have been trying to wipe the ignorance off of the page but my computer is giving me issues. If someone could fix that I would really appreciate it.
Thanks a bunch.
~Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.82.34 ( talk) 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Added list of neighborhoods. I propose we put neighborhoods under the city as in city/neighborhood, as some of these won't merit big entries and others (e.g., soho, financial district) are at least somewhat ambiguous with other cities. - User:K.lee
Can we have defs for the meanings of "uptown" and "downtown", please?
"New York County and the Borough of Manhattan are coextensive. As a part of New York City, New York County contains no other political subdivisions."
I have never been to New York, but I am doing my reading and hoping to go soon.
I find the sentences in quotes above to be unintelligible. What does "coextensive" mean? Surely there is a reasonable word or phrase that can be used in place of "coextensive".
Does the second sentence mean that the boundary of NY City is the same as the boundry of NY County? If not, what does it mean?
Thanks, Don Bailey Denver March 14, 2004
Beginning at the northerly United States bulkhead line of the Harlem river at the junction of the Hudson and Harlem rivers; thence along the northerly and easterly United States bulkhead lines of the Harlem river to the low-water mark on the westerly bank of the Spuyten Duyvil creek as it existed prior to its being filled in; thence along said low-water mark of Spuyten Duyvil creek to the easterly United States bulkhead line of the Harlem river; thence southerly along the easterly United States bulkhead line of the Harlem river to a point where said United States bulkhead line of the Harlem river intersects the northerly United States bulkhead line of the Bronx kills; thence along the northerly line of the United States bulkhead line of the Bronx kills to the intersection of the northerly United States bulkhead line of the East river; thence across the East river to the low-water mark on the shore of Long Island, so as to include Randall's Island and Ward's Island; thence along the low-water mark on the shore of Long Island to the southerly side of Red Hook; thence across the Upper bay to the westerly boundary of the state; thence northerly along such westerly boundary of the state to a point where a perpendicular drawn from the point or place of beginning intersects such westerly boundary of the state; thence easterly along such perpendicular to the point or place of beginning; including all the islands or parts thereof situated within the aforedescribed bounds.
I've heard that although Manhattan has 1M people residential, it has 30M employees working there. Does anyone have the facts to back that up, as I think it would be nice in the article. Additionally, Brooklyn is described as "it would be the 4th largest city," and I'd like to see a comparison like that--for example comparing Manhattan to whole other states.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zandperl ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 22 March 2004 (UTC)
Not quite. Manhattan has a concept of "north on the grid" (of streets), which is different from due north (or magnetic north, for that matter). As the map shows, Manhattan is a long, narrow island; most streets are laid out parallel or perpendicular to the long sides of the island. Going northeast along a long street is called going "north on the grid" (or just "north", more commonly). Uptown means north on the grid, and downtown means south on the grid. — msh210 22:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Technically, Msh210, you're right. But, seriously, who thinks "north" in Manhattan means due north?
I was under the impression that manhattan's etymology came from a corruption of the word Manahachtanienk--"the island where we became intoxicated", so named by the indians because they got drunk there by white settlers in 1524 or 16(09|04|05)--every site I go to features a different date. Other Internet sites say "high island". Which ones right, or, failing that, shouldn't there be some indication as to the disputed origin? -- Combuchan 23:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The article states "On 28 May and 12 July the sunrise and sunset are aligned with the street gridlines, so that the Sun is visible at the horizon from street level." Does anyone have a source for this? The sunset part seems particularly implausible, as Manhattan streets generally run from northwest(ish) to southeast(ish). I could see where the sunrise might be aligned on (approximately) those dates, which are roughly equidistant (equitemporal?) from the vernal equinox.
Just wondering.... -- uFu
error: "On May 28 and July 12 the sunrise and sunset are aligned with the street grid lines, so that the sun is visible at the horizon from street level." This statement is still incorrect. The sun may be visible on the said dates only when setting in the west. The corresponding rising dates in the east would be around the winter solstice (approx. 6-months from the setting dates), since the 'east-west' street grid points to the southeast. The sun does not rise in the southeast during May and July. I don't have the exact dates, but a cursory calculation for the said setting dates seems accurate. I will remove the word sunrise from the article, but it would be nice if someone with the proper calculation software could add the correct rise dates.
J. Crocker
18:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Article should mention that the island was bought from a neighboring tribe, and not the ones Manhattan belonged to (The Choctaws).
Anyone like the new photo arrangement? I myself was looking at getting the Times Square one full right, but server was acting up, so I gave up. Now I see somebody put all photos at top.-- JimWae 19:16, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
On my screen (1600x1200), ALL the photos are up top and the first paragraph is squeezed into 8% of the screen width on the left. After that there are no more photos. Maybe try putting them all in one table no wider than the widest jpg -- JimWae 20:13, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
I fixed it for me - photos were NOT inside table before
" {| align =right " | [[Image:xxx.jpg|right " |- " |...
-- JimWae 20:24, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
I didn't notice the table wasn't done right because on my screen (1440 x 900) all the pics looked fine -- all were along the right side (I think its a browser issue?). Thanks for fixing it, now I know I have to look more carefully when I do tables Paradiso 21:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The first sentence under the history section states...
"The name Manhattan ("hilly island" or "place of intoxication") is..."
Is this really true and not vandalism?
Thanks. - Short Verses 05:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
No, it's one possible origin of the name; noone's really sure which is the correct explanation (though one would tend to think "hilly island" is a little more straightforward). See the discussion titled 'Etymology?' above.-- Pharos 07:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
According to [1], Hudson sailed into NY harbor on sept. 3 and began exploring the hudson river on sept. 12. There's no reason to say that Sept. 11 is a proper exact date for Hudson's "discovery" of New York. Also, Verrazano and Gomez most likely observed the coastline of the island (though perhaps without realizing it was an island) in their earlier visits to New York Harbor. Lastly, it's not clear, from the sources I can find, whether Hudson ever made landfall on Manhattan island itself... need help from someone who knows better. k.lee 17:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The diagram labeled "Manhattan Borough lies between the East River and the Hudson River." doesn't help one unfamiliar with the geography. Usually bright colors identify what is labeled, suggesting that Manhattan is the yellow or blue areas. ( SEWilco 20:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC))
Around the 17th century, Manhattan was called Mannados. Does anyone know more details? Please add this to the article. Thanks, Scriberius 07:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Manhattan was not called Mannados. The map on this site is almost quite certain a fake one. The Dutch called the island (certified document, known as the Van Schagen letter) already "Manhattans". Mannados has a real latin feel to it, doesn't it?
In case anyone feel like using it, I found a map over Manhattan from circa 1850: . Am currently using it in the Central Park article, so just wanted to let the folks associated with this article know about it... Bjelleklang - talk 22:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Paragraphs 6 ,7 & 8 of the History section seem to ramble on with poor structure and require citations for those quotes. Any discussion of the history of individual liberties in New York City should include discussion of the slave trade (one of the major businesses before the civil war) and be more NPOV, or not be there at all (and be in the entry for New York City history, rather than Manhattan). I'd like to solicit some discussion about these paragraphs and how they can be improved before any substantive edits are made (having already changed "our nation" to "United States").
Robbins 23:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that this edit [ [3]] involved changing honored to honoured. Doesn't that violate the policy on regional uses of English? Manhattan is, after all, an American subject. Sumergocognito 06:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this and the articles about specific regions of Manahattan would hugely benefit from maps. -- DanDanRevolution 02:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
My edit regardind travel to Staten Island has been removed by an anonymous. I reverted it. The original text before my edit makes impression that there are problems with travel to Staten Island by car, because there is no bridge to Staten Island. I fixed that impression. If somebody beleives that this edit is useless - that is his/her personal POV. -- HenryS 23:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop the edit war. If a county is the most densely populated county in the USA, it is the most densely populated county in any part of the USA. Period. -- HenryS 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
For some unknown reason a user signed with fake Id
Ufwuct made a not-just-two-clicks-job to rearrange items in this discussion, according the rule (s)he prefers. The timestamp for this change was 20:42, 9 July 2006. I would not strongly oppose this kind of arrangement. But I have a reasonable questions:
It is the part of the Wiki Bulletin Board common rules to put newer items on the top. See for example
[4]
Should we follow other than the common WikiBB arrangement style for this particular discussion? If yes, why?
Thank you -- HenryS 15:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that the first map in the History section is set with North to the right? That's confusing...it isn't the "usual" way and isn't the way the other maps on the page are oriented. If there's a reason, that's fine to do it that way, but then the orientation should be mentioned in the caption. DMacks 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Allthough these number have a citation, I doubt their validity. Current US$ 600-700 would mean an average inflation of roughly 1 % over the whole period. whereas an average inflation of 2% (still low, but more likely) would result in a modern day equivalent of US$ 10,000+. That number is more in line with what I remember reading most often. -- Lokimaros 16:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Since this is a new listing I'll post a comment rather than passing or failing the article: line citations are pretty thin for an article of this length and it's troubling to see this categorized with articles having invalid ISBN numbers. As a former Manhattanite I'm pleased with the presentation as a whole - I especially looked for the bit about a small part of Manhattan being contiguous with the Bronx. Was hoping for other mentions in the geography section about semiprecious mineral deposits (discovered while creating the subway system) and a mention that Central Park is thoroughly landscaped and therefore not representative of Manhattan's pre-urban terrain. Mostly though, what stopped me from awarding GA was citations. Please continue to improve. Durova 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm afraid I forgot about this article and didn't check back onto this talk page. User:Daniel Case now seems to have removed its nomination from the GA listings but not put any feedback here or changed this article's Candidate tag. Perhaps this was a mistake. I've drooped him a note on his talk page. TimVickers 03:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
No, Tim, it wasn't. I was in the midst of writing this out when I got your message. Then we got into an edit conflict when I tried to save.
Judging from the above discussion and this talk page in general, I'm going to make a lot of people unhappy by doing this, but here goes:
Second is, yes, sourcing. If I read an article with direct quotations from 17th-century sources, I want to be satisfied that whoever put them there can tell me where they came from. If they're in the main History article, they should be here, too. It's not enough to incorporate them by implied reference.
Also, we have a nice picture of ... Robert Morgenthau, the current district attorney. I would expect a picture of the borough president would be a better choice. Is Mr. Stringer that camera-shy?
I can see you have, on the whole, a very fine article here. You should not be discouraged from entertaining visions of a golden star in the upper right hand corner. It has all the pieces; they just need to be better put together.
And this is New York we're talking about. This article has to be able to make it anywhere.
You can easily fix this and renominate at your lesiure. Daniel Case 03:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
According to the data in the citation, the NYC subway system has less miles of track than london.-- Rotten 14:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In other articles, the $24 claim is called a "legend" or "not particularly meaningful" (e.g., Peter Minuit) both because the natives didn't think they were "selling" anything and because there were no American dollars until the end of the 18th century. This myth needs to be properly explained rather than propagated. If no one with better knowledge of the history steps forward, I guess I'll change it using my rather limited knowledge of the subject (gleaned mainly from sources like Wikipedia and backed up by common sense). Until then, I'll put up a contradict-other tag. Calbaer 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know who bought Manhattan, whether it was for beads or dollars or Dutch Guilders. I believe it was orignally owned, in the European sense, by the Dutch. It then fell into English hands. There is a legend that the owner was one Robert Edwards, who left it to his descendants who live in Wales. There is also mention that Queen Anne left it to the Catholic Church. I think it was leased for 100 years, the lease finally expired in 1877. Does the Catholic church now receive the rent? Does anyone know?
If anyone knows anything about the location known as "Prince", I have just started Prince, Manhattan. Your contributions would be welcome. -- Beland 21:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Under the CULTURE heading, I'm having trouble understanding why a march to commemorate the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire is the opening example of culture in Manhattan. Can anyone shed some light on this???
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.242.28.5 ( talk) 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a new panorama of the Manhattan skyline taken from Liberty Park in New Jersey here. Feel free to add this to the article if appropriate Kevinp2 04:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"However, if the money had been invested at anything above a 6.25% return (essentially a bond's current yield), it would be worth over $250 billion today, which exceeds Manhattan's estimated value of $200 billion." Where does the figure of $200 billion come from? This site [5] estimates the potential value of Central Park alone at $529 billion; its land (developer) value would be $132 billion. [6] Pallas44 18:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is very thorough and well written, but it needs more inline citations. Ideally, every paragraph should have at least one reference.
Also, the list of external links is too long. See WP:EL for guidelines.
The article should be removed from category:Boroughs of New York City.
Epbr123 19:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Good improvements have been made so far but these statements still need quotations:
"it gave rise to what would become the most diverse city in the world"
"New York County is named in honor of the Royal Majesty of Great Britain, the Duke of York"
"The borough has an area of 33.8 mi² (87.5 km²), of which 32.01% is water."
"Chelsea is a neighborhood with a large gay population"
"Manhattan's Chinatown is the largest in the Western hemisphere."
"The term uptown refers to the northern part of Manhattan (generally speaking, above 59th Street) and downtown to the southern portion (typically below 23rd Street or 14th Street)."
"Manhattan's Borough President is Scott Stringer, elected as a Democrat in 2005."
"Republicans constitute more than 20% of the electorate only on the Upper East Side and the Financial District."
"The Manhattan zip code 10021, on the Upper East Side, is home to more than 100,000 people and has a per capita income of over $90,000." Is this from the 2005 census?
"Manhattan's vibrant visual art scene in the 1950s and 1960s defined the American pop art movement"
"The oldest public-access television channel in the United States is the Manhattan Neighborhood Network,"
"The Lincoln Tunnel, which carries 120,000 vehicles per day .... is the world's busiest vehicular tunnel."
"The Queens Midtown Tunnel, ..... was the largest non-Federal project of its time when it was completed in 1940."
"The City University is the largest urban university system in the United States as well as the third largest system in terms of enrollment."
Also, I won't judge the GA award on this but some of the language in the history section is complex and might be difficult to understand by some readers. For example, "Consequently, the negotiations assured that the legal and political tradition of tolerance as the basis of cultural diversity and pluralism since 1624 was perpetuated by the Articles of Transfer under English authority. Thus safeguarded, the notion of tolerance endured after conclusive jurisdictional establishment of English dominion over New Netherland in 1674, and through the formation of the United States of America, when it was reintroduced as a constitutional right under the Bill of Rights in 1791."
Epbr123 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Here are the actions taken so far:
I'm afraid there are more citations needed:
"In the 2004 presidential election, Democrat John Kerry received 82.1% of the vote in Manhattan and Republican George W. Bush received 16.7%."
"is a phenomenon sometimes referred to as Manhattanhenge"
"The Upper West Side is often characterized as a liberal and family-friendly alternative to the Upper East Side"
"Upper East Side, one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the United States."
"Manhattan has not voted for a Republican in a national presidential election since 1924."
"Lower East Side and East Village, have been associated with the "Bohemian" subculture, though many artists have relocated to Brooklyn from these neighborhoods."
The Presidential elections results table also needs a citation.
This part should be taken out of the brackets and written more formally: "(Though even north and south here are relative - north in Manhattan is a logical north, determined by the main axis of the island, and corresponding to the direction of the avenues of the street grid. Uptown is actually more like north-by-northeast.)"
This line doesn't seem to make sense, "Later, in 1624, no-trading-nature colonists joined to the older ones"
Epbr123 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Back to the drawing board... Alansohn 22:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
For round two, here are the results of all of the changes made to address the issues listed above:
The article now fulfills all the GA criteria. Well done! Epbr123 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In the article on Manhattan history, it is stated that it is the second oldest city after Santa Fe NM. For the record, your site on Santa Fe lists it founding year around 1607 to 1608. St Augustine, Fla was founded in 1565, making it the Nations Oldest City. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iandugan ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
...is not in Manhattan, or even NYC, surely - as every trivia buff knows? But it says so in the introduction.... richardcarroll1981 00:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 1450 feet, use 1450 feet, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 1450 feet.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst ( Talk) 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a comprehensive understanding of what this proposal will eventually (or at least potentially) entail? Shouldn't it be put somewhere in the article? DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I tried accessing Manhattan's edit page to fix the misleadingly low population density, but the box is not included in the script.
The sidebox itself shows Manhattan's density at "25,846/sq mi (9,979/km²)", which is way off from the "nearly 67,000" in the article, and the nearly 67,000 that I calculated.
Several editors have expressed an interest in splitting the articles, since they feel it is too long. However, none of them has proposed anything specific here. Is there a consensus to split the article, or should the {{ toolong}} template be removed? Silly rabbit 12:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please thoroughly recheck the sidebox data? I suspect some of the data in there still to be wrong. - E.g.: The text's 1st paragraph reads:
"With a 2000 population of 1,537,195[1] packed into a land area of 22.96 square miles (59.47 km²), [...]"
whereas the infobox has:
"Land: 51.8 km² (20 sq mi)". -- Gulliveig 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I am at the moment building a roll call of islands that make up the Thousand Islands. I have come across one named Manhattan Island. I noticed there is a redirection for the page Manhattan Island to a page on Manhattan. At some point I would like to construct a page about Manhattan Island.
Coordinates: 44°21'9"N 75°55'0"W —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebMachiavelli ( talk • contribs) 08:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The September 11th attacks are mentioned only in passing in this article. Given their significance, it would seem that they should be mentioned in the history section. Stavrolo ( talk) 05:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
re: The first sentence of the second par: "Manhattan is the commercial, financial, and cultural center of the United States and, to varying extents, of the world."
The end of this sentence isn't verified by the citation, which only says that New York is the media and cultural center of the US, not the world. Readin' Writin' ( talk) 07:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I've changed it to "Manhattan is a major commercial, financial, ...". New York is not the center of the world, or even the US. But I did also add that major radio and TV companies are based there. Which I suppose is why people assume the world originates in NY. Wolfram.Tungsten ( talk) 20:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to prove that NYC enjoys a reputation as one of the two or three greatest cultural and economic centers in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckkgourmet ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The box on the right lists a nickname of Manhattan as being "The City". That seems a little silly, doesn't it? Sure people from outer boroughs call Manhattan "The City," but people from Schaumburg IL call Chicago "The City" and people from all over the Bay Area call San Francisco "The City." Isn't that just a generic term for the biggest city in any particular area? Hardly a unique nickname for Manhattan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.29.87 ( talk) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
New York, New York specifically identifies the Borough of Manhattan. "New York City" refers to all five boroughs of the City of New York. Please stop arbitrarily reverting my LEGITIMATE edits! This means you, JamesMLane! 24.168.116.169 ( talk) 15:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.-- Pharos ( talk) 23:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't care for User:Ian Fortuno's additions to this page. First, many of the photos are low quality and he removes high quality to put them on - that includes the current panorama. Second, the captions are highly inaccurate, outdated and almost laughable (e.g. the West Village is known as a "Bohemian Capital" - maybe in the 50's and 60's!) Third, he inserts way too many photos that end up stacking. Can I get other comments from people who are familiar with his additions to this article? --David Shankbone 18:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Watching QI, someone said that the British swapped manhattan island with the Dutch for the spice islands in Indonesia, and got "full marks" for being correct and interesting. Googling didn't bring up much. Any clues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.32.66 ( talk) 21:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Updadate to that.. It's true! Spice Islands. Perhaps a link, and writeup should be added? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.32.66 ( talk) 21:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The math just doesn't add up. Prehaps someone can explain it to me. According to this article, the population of Manhattan is 1,611,581, and the land on the island is 22.96 sq mi. in size. When I devide the population by the size, I get 70,068, not 66,940, as is implied by the density on this page. Dkerear ( talk) 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) #Puzzling ref-breaking problem at Manhattan about a strange problem in this article. Graham 87 07:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that beginning with a statment about Manhattan being an island borough may throw people off about the importance of the borough. Its being an island is in no way distinct - in fact NOT being an island is what distinguishes The Bronx. More relevant is Manhattan's role as the center for the entire city - but I am not entirely clear on how best to word this. It is the center for the entire NYC historically, financially, culturally, ... Btw, a run-on-sentence is one with 2 (or more) subjects & 2 predicates - but no obvious separation that would qualify it as a compound sentence. Somebody (Buddha-something) keeps reverting to a RoS - and now wants to end a sentence with a comma. Is anyone else awake out there or do I need to keep reverting this person all by myslf? I think he either knows very little about English syntax or is just trying to be annoying. -- JimWae ( talk) 02:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It reads: "In 1874, the western portion of the present Bronx County was transferred to New York County, and in 1895 the remainder of the present Bronx County was annexed." First off, I think it should be clarified that at the time of these annexations, "present Bronx County" was part of Westchester County. Moreover, when the annexations occurred, did the present-day Bronx join the city of New York, or were there still separate municipalities that existed on the mainland apart from the city that joined New York County? In other words, when the New York County annexed portions of Westchester County, were the former municipalities absorbed into the city, or did they remain separate municpalities within New York County? 98.221.133.96 ( talk) 02:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
An uncritical paragraph about Stuyvesant Town was added in the wrong place and then quickly deleted by an IP editor as an "obvious advertisement". But (sitting in Providence), I think that Stuyvesant Town/ Peter Cooper Village is probably significant: it gets a non-trivial entry in The Encyclopedia of NYC (1995) together with mention (not in what was offered Wikipedia) of controversy over a racial bar, later withdrawn amid public outcry. Is it worth writing a balanced sentence or two somewhere else, perhaps comparable to the treatment of Co-op City in the borough article for The Bronx? —— Shakescene ( talk) 22:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It's hardly surprising that there's an infinite supply of great photographers and great photographs of Manhattan (usually used to represent the entire City). Is there some rational way of organizing this so someone's great photo isn't replaced without discussion a couple of months later by another great photo? (Day vs evening, looking north vs looking south, from GE building or Empire State, Times Square vs Statue of Liberty, etc., etc.) I can't judge these things very well myself, and maybe there is a natural selection of the fittest photos, but this all looks very haphazard and random to me. —— Shakescene ( talk) 23:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
According to the census bureau, Manhattan population reached a peak in 1910 with 2,762,522 inhabitants, and then decreased to 2,284,103 in 1920 and 1,698,281 in 1960. But the article claims that the white flight started only in the 60s. It seems to be obviousliy wrong, according to the table in the demographic section. It seems obvious that white flight started in the 1910s in Manhattan (mainly to the outer borough), and in the 50s in the outer boroughs. -- Revas 23:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
What needs to be understood with the demographical patterns of Manhattan is that white flight was never really the reason for what you'd refer to as exodus in Manhattan. If you were going be natural increasing standards today, with the large foreign born rate too, you would probably come to the conclusion that there's an exodus too. Manhattan's population, especially in the twentieth century, can't be measured by growth, in a similar way to other places in the state and country, because there's such a large and rapid in-and-out population? What I mean by that is that so much of Manhattan isn't native to it, but are mostly people from other states and other countries and many of these people return home, or leave to another place. This is how Manhattan's maintained a young, wealthy population. Prior to WWII, it was more a mix between that and people who were able to trace immigrant roots to the city, but if you look at apartment reconstruction in Tudor City, for example, that was done in the 1920's. They tore down the tenements than, essentially starting the wealthy influx of out-of-state people. By the 1960's, neighborhoods all over the Lowe East Side really turned into hipster/transplant havens and it's become more and more every since and virtually is only that today. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk)
Any reference to white flight would be very irrelevant, especially postwar, because the new population that comes in Manhattan has been white. So, it's really just young white people replacing slightly older white people. Many of the foreigners who are here, some white, some not, are wealthy too and representative of this influx. The place's where they are not are in upper Manhattan, which is where this influx is much less prevalent, but transplants are somewhat integrated into their populations too. Those places, a while ago, used to be home to many working and middle class white American's. In Harlem for example, up until probably around the 1920's, it was probably Jewish and European, but African-American's had moved into the neighborhood. There was a white population that was existent there probably until the 1950's, especially more so in the surrounding areas like Washington Heights and Inwood, but most of this population was replaced by Latino immigrants in the 50's and 60's (mainly Puerto Ricans). There's still some European-American population in this neighborhood, but it's becoming more now because more of the transplants have taken interest into this area. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk)
When we're talking about the other boroughs, it's a lot different. When you think of Manhattan, especially below the 100's, in modern day, but especially over the past entire century, you need to think of it like students at a college campus. People come in, people come out. The only people who stay for a while are the teachers. The teachers are well out-numbered by the students though. Manhattan really doesn't have an identity, like the other boroughs. However, many parts of Brooklyn, especially over the past few decades, like Park Slope and Carroll Gardens, have lost their identity and more will continue to, as is in Queens, like Long Island City. So, to answer your question, the reason white flight was never a prevalent thing in Manhattan is because white transplants, from other states, replaced white's who left. Some of those people were transplants from states too. This is very common in exclusively wealthy areas like Miami Beach, Hollywood, Orange County, California, ect. Rich people are much more likely to move around with work and have more accessibility to do it than others. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
Pharos is on the right track, but I don't believe he explained in enough detail and may have mislead you. For example, he mentioned a migration from the Lower East Side to Brooklyn. Is he talking about back than, now or what? What he forgot to mention was what happened to Brooklyn's population in these places they moved to? The population in those places didn't grow. And in the Bronx? During the year's Manhattan lost population, the Bronx had an even nastier population decline. Back 50-60 years ago, the level of expenses in on the Lower East Side and Brooklyn were not as disproportional, so it wouldn't make sense for people from one place, to take over the other. Plus, he didn't describe to you who took over the population of the lower east side. Since the 1960's, it's been transplants from other states, or wealthy people from other countries. Not working class immigrants. Definitely not since the 1980's, especially. Yes, some Puerto Rican immigrants moved to neighborhoods such as the Alphabet City, but those neighborhoods have been revamped and turned into the same corporate Disney World type environment every other neighborhood is in lower Manhattan. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk)
Brooklyn and the Bronx have much more of those traditional immigrant groups that people would say moved to the lower east side, but what they're not mentioning is that the transplants haven't taken over and remolded the identity of these places. You can still find plenty of people in Brooklyn and the Bronx, who have roots to the place. Find me people who can on the lower east side or any single or double digit block in Manhattan, and I'd give you a dollar a person and never go broke. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
He also gave you the wrong vibe on Manhattan. He makes it sound as the only way you could leave Manhattan, is if you were poor and improving your lifestyle. In Manhattan, I know there's gaps between wealthy and poor, but over the years, it's become more a gap among ridiculously wealthy and middle class. In other words, each notch was pushed up a notch. You can't afford to live in any wealthy part of Manhattan being poor, nor should you be able to. What ever projects or lower income buildings there are scattered around lower Manhattan will all be gone in the next 10 to 20 years. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
Plenty of people who've left Manhattan, throughout the years, have plenty of money. Many middle to upper middle class people, native or not, over the past century, have been run out because of inflation, expense or a lack of desire to continue living expensively. Like I said though, the college campus is a good example. Think of it as being a campus that won't expand it's population too. All the sky scrapers you see today, that were mostly built last century took up a lot of space. During the 1960's and 1970's, the city had some economic problems. Although there were plenty more other cities that experienced worse industrialization and had much more crime, Manhattan wasn't as desirable a place to live than. Wealthy artists, musicians and academia slowly transpired it into a desirable happening place, that you now see in modern day. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
Shouldn't the subject of this paragraph be about the borough, not the island? I suggest starting the first sentence with something like:
The Borough of Manhattan, which includes Manhattan Island, Roosevelt Island, the neighborhood on the US mainland called Marble Hill, along with various other islands, is one of the Five Boroughs which form the City of New York, covers the same territory and the same people as the County of New York, a subdivision of the State of New York in the Northeastern United States
I agree that the wording is cumbersome but maybe someone can clean that up. The articles on the other four boroughs focus on the borough, not the main landmass, including the island/borough of Staten Island. It makes sense that Manhattan folllow this pattern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranever ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The Borough of Manhattan, which includes Manhattan Island, Roosevelt Island, various other islands and the Marble Hill neighborhood on the U.S. mainland, is one of the Five Boroughs that form the City of New York. The Borough of Manhattan covers the same territory and the same people as the County of New York, a subdivision of the State of New York in the Northeastern United States
Your sentence is better than mine, maybe we can get rid of Northeastern US.
I think this article should be about political entity / the borough because any reader who types Manhattan into Wikipedia is probably going to be looking to read about skyscrapers, Broadway, etc. The question is whether the island itself is notable enough to get its own article like Geography_of_Ireland or Geography_of_Cuba, (I can't imagine it's not) and if so, add Geography_of_Manhattan or maybe build it into Geography_and_environment_of_New_York_City. Ranever ( talk) 23:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
-With all due respect, the intro is terrible. How about something on the lines of: Manhattan is one of the five boroughs of New York City. Its territory consists primairly of the Island of Manhattan, as well as several surrounding islands, and a small portion of the mainland. The borough of Manhattan is coextensive with the County of New York. ? This article is about the borough, but the intro implies its about the island. 98.221.133.96 ( talk) 08:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel the article is about the borough. The island does essentially have its own page, but since each part is so notable, they are broken into pieces Lower East Side, Harlem, TriBeCa, etc.. Maybe we could make Manhattan_(Island) a reference page to all the individual neighborhoods. All the statistics on demographics, government, etc. are (or at least should be) for the entire borough.
About the NE US reference, I agree that people may not realize where NYC is on the map of the US, but is that important? Do I need to know where Manhattan is in relation to Boston or Philadelphia to learn about it? I don't know. I think the reference in New York City is enough.
Also, I think the word coterminous is relatively simple and self-explanatory. Ranever ( talk) 02:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe this article descriptively talks enough about the impact of migrants from other states in the twentieth century tab. Since the 1980's, but especially since the early-to-mid 1990's, when Giuliani took over as mayor, and crime went down dramatically, and many apartments, especially in lower Manhattan (ex. Alphabet City) were turned around, Manhattan's wealth began to go up. Since the 1990's, Manhattan's experienced less immigration, from traditional immigrant groups (ex. Mexicans, Chinese, Arabs) because of the inflation that caused rent to become unaffordable for virtually any working or middle class American. The gradually younger, more homosexual and wealthy population that's come about shows the prevalance of American's moving into all of Manhattan I want to keep it as brief, yet descriptive as possible, so here's what I'll write:
Since the early-to-mid 1990's, inflation have driven rent prices much higher, often causing it to become unaffordable for working and middle class American's and immigrants. As the city became much safer and more desirable, many young U.S. citizens from other states have moved into a variety of neighborhoods in the borough. Manhattan has experienced a gradual transformation that now encompasses population that is now predominantly found to be of well-educated Americans and foreigners in their 20's and 30's. There is an especially prominent population of youth aspiring in the arts in various Lower East Side neighborhoods, such as SoHo, TriBeCa and Greenwich Village. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.112.131 ( talk) 07:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Returning World War II veterans and immigrants from Europe created a postwar economic boom and led to the development of huge housing developments, targeted at returning veterans, including Peter Cooper Village—Stuyvesant Town which opened in 1947.
There was a nearly identical quote on the article about New York City. Instead of referring to Peter Cooper Village-Stuvesant Town, they referred to Eastern Queens. While European's had a large impact on the arts, music and academia, numerically speaking, they didn't impact Manhattan's population much. There's no source to this statement though, so until one is provided, I'll revise it to read as this:
Returning World War II veterans created a postwar economic boom and led to the development of huge housing developments, targeted at returning veterans, including Peter Cooper Village-Stuyvesant Town which opened in 1947.
I'm not sure if that's who it was directly intended for either. It doesn't sound like it'd make sense, because wealthier people usually are less likely to fight in wars, something Manhattan has much less of. Most people who live in Peter Cooper Village-Stuyvesant Town, are upper-middle class and wealthy, and probably weren't veterans. I'm not saying vets didn't live there, but I doubt this was who it was specifically designed for. It was probably more designed for wealthy New Yorker's, American's from other states and foreigners. Tom 71.245.112.131 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
I added comment about French tightrope walker and street information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielGlazer ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.
This article covers the topic well and has an excellent source of free images. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Good job on addressing the issues. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. I went through and fixed some of the link redirects and a few other dead links, please review my edits. Altogether the article is well-written and has a great source of free images. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
There has to be some way of indicating to those looking for an article about Manhattan Island or about New York County that this is it (the end of the line); there is no other further specific article about either the island or the county (although I think there may once have been).
In the past, I've tried to show this in the disambiguation or other hatnotes which have since been stripped in the name of simplicity. So the only (and, to my mind, not-altogether-sufficient) way is to bold-face Manhattan Island and New York County on their first appearance in the lead. (I'd prefer to explain this more explicitly in the text, but in the endless wars over and rewrites of the lead sentences, this gets taken out.) Every now and then, someone understandably wants to take away the existing boldface, and I revert. So what's the solution? —— Shakescene ( talk) 21:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)