Talk:East Harlem

Boundary

Changed boundary from 86th St to 96th St, as this is traditionally the boundary. With the rate of gentrification, though, it might be 103rd St soon enough. 69.86.199.51 04:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree the traditional southern boundary is East 96th. Unless the yuppies start moving into the projects, I doubt that line will move any time soon Wikiwiki718 (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I'd love to see a picture of 116th Street here instead. It may be more representational. --Knulclunk 04:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Knulclunk 12:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel a photograph of the skyline, public housing projects and tenements, would be more representative then a retail strip. Would make for a good opening photo and maybe add a photograph of the retail along East 116th Street in a gallery. Wikiwiki718 (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I find pictures of skylines terribly boring, pictures of people shopping or living much more representative. But I see your point, a picture of the projects between 96 and 116 or the new/abandoned structures north of 116 might also be good. I would put them lower in the article though. You can't really have just one picture such a large neighborhood, any picture automatically sets POV, right? >sigh< --Knulclunk (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I found a very interesting skyline shot, the problem is it may be too small. The reason why I say a skyline shot is becuase it will pretty much show the entire area at a glance. Good for an opening becuase it is general. It also makes people really look at at to try and find interesting details. After the intro photo maybe a small photo to the left of history of a 1950s or 1960s street scene. Next a small photo right of social problems of a crime scene or mural. Then at the bottom a small gallery of 4 photos. One can have the 116th street shot, another of a row of tenements, maybe local kids playing in a hydrant or old men playing dominoes, and finally a housing project complex. Wikiwiki718 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Point of View Content and Questionable Relevancy

I tried to clean up the section on History of Puerto Rican Migration, but it still reads rather like a political pamphlet.

I'd also question the extent to which the section belongs in an article which is, after all, about a neighbourhood of Manhattan. What views do readers have about significantly altering or removing this section? Philopedia (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The section was added last night and reads like a high school book report. Yes, it is heavily POV. There are some usable facts within it, but it does require a full rewrite. Knulclunk (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement, Knulclunk. I'm going to remove the whole section. Perhaps you are right and there is salvagable, even useful material there (once the apologetics are deleted!) But that material would fit much better in, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_migration_to_New_York. I do hope the original contributer will see that point. Of course, I respect his efforts nonetheless! Philopedia (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the contribution. You see apart of my University project is creating and editing existing entries on Wikipedia. I had a profound interest on the Puerto rican Diaspora especially in El Barrio. Can someone please tell me what they think I should fix, or rather where it would fit as a whole. Thank You, and sorry.--Domenic.Demasi 02:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domenic.Demasi (talk • contribs)

I reread the section several times to try to see if I could take out the parts that sounded to much like they had a certain Point of View (POV), but you may have to rewrite it. Here are my recommendations:

1. The dates of the migration are very important, the handover of PR to the US and the 1917 citizenship act seem crucial to me. The PR pre-migration history of Spanish occupation does not seem important for this article.

2. The facts on poverty, crime, and ethnic makeup, if sourced, IS important. Please use inline sources, so other editors can see that your numbers came from somewhere.

3. You implied that corporate and government policies may have forced many migrants to leave PR and come to NYC. If this is true, then you should note the specific policies with references. You should not simply quote someone's theory, unless the person is widely accepted as an expert by the mainstream. Even then, they should be attributed in the copy, for example; Professor Maria Smith of Columbia University suggests, "the policies set forth by the U.S. installed governor in 1920 lead the way to blah, blah, blah..."

4. The following sentence makes many assumptions and assertions:

"The Puerto Rican community has fell victim to poverty through social marginalization due to the transformation of New York into a global city, thus eliminating the manufacturing sector to a more profitable service sector, forcing a loss of jobs, and a struggle to assimilate into the larger New York City population, creating class distinction and racism."

The PR community is a victim? Socially marginalized by who? How? Where did the jobs go? What jobs did the community USE to do? Who does them now? Is the community excluded from the NYC population? How? Why? What class distinction? Racism? By who?

5. Is all of Spanish Harlem PR? What about Cuban, DR, etc?

6. Many of your statements are rewritten several times. You only need to make each point once, this is not a persuasive or argumentative essay. Stick to the facts in chronological or cause/effect order.

Thank you for contributing, please don't be discouraged! Good Luck! --Knulclunk (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Domenic! Thanks for coming back and soliciting viewpoints! I'd like to support Knulclunk's comments and reiterate my view that the points you put forward really belong under a different heading; something along the lines of "the Puerto Rican experience in the United States".

My motivating assumption is that people coming to this article are primarily interested in such questions as
1) what is the make up and history of the neighbourhood?
2) how to get around (shopping, churchs, hospitals, schools, transport..)
3) how this neighbourhood fits together with adjacent areas.

Your contributions are at most peripheral, and I found that you long entry was inappropriate. Beyond that, I wanted to take the chance to apologise to you for acting so percipitously to remove your contribution. It's obvious that you care about the entry, and I wish in hindsight that I had given you time to respond before making the deletion. Philopedia (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Land Use

I feel the land use category is an important independent topic:

• Many people do not know the structural makeup of the neighborhood. East Harlem is first dominated by public housing, and secondly tenements.

• Gives information on geographical area. Spanish Harlem is 2.2 square miles.

• Not really part of urban renewal becuase those two things mentioned are not renewal.

• I listed the housing projects under land use since they are the most significant landmarks in the area. They take up the most space and people may be seeking the information in search of housing or statistical data.

• The urban renewal section should be information on the latest developments. The development of a mall east of Pleasant Avenue, construction of new apartment buildings as mentioned, and the brief sentence at the top of the section describing what happened and why the area is being rebuilt. Wikiwiki718 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I strongly disagree. The size and locations of buildings is secondary compared to the history or resident makeup. A neighborhood is about people, not the high rises. I can accept the list of buildings may be interesting to someone, but it should be lower in the article. --Knulclunk (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as location in the article, I felt the Urban renewal section covered the time frame (1970s) that most of these structures were built. The location now is a poor choice, the information is far too specific for the top of the article. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the tenements were built in the 1920's I believe maybe earlier and the projects were built in the 1950s and 60s. I figured by putting the land use near the top you deal out all information on the makeup of the neighborhoood, demographics above that which is most important. Then go into history and then todays issues. Wikiwiki718 (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)