Jump to content

Talk:Manhattan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Early text

Should "Long Island" actually be "Brooklyn" in the bit about bridges to the east? -- Marj Tiefert

try this public domain map of new york (over 800k bytes)
Brooklyn is on the western part of long island.
All people I've known from Brooklyn consider themselves to be from Brooklyn, not from Long Island, FWIW...  ;-)

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:

Are you going into the city?
No, just Queens.

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

Transformer explosion?

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)

Nation's Third-largest Central Business District?

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)

Very Beginning of Article

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)

Neighborhood list

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

Subpages are deprecated. We'd need to have titles like "Soho (New York)" or "Inwood (Manhattan)". )"Inwood (New York City)" would do, but there's at least one other Inwood in the state, in Nassau County--I've stopped telling people I live in Inwood because then I have to explain that no, I don't live on the Island.)
I'm inclined to delink the neighborhoods for now, and just write short descriptions under the neighborhood headers. Any that get long or complicated can be pulled out. Vicki Rosenzweig
And while I'm on the subject, does anyone not a real estate developer actually talk about "Nolita"?Vicki Rosenzweig
Ha. Evidently the Times does (did you see the Magazine this past week?). As you can see from my history I haven't done much wikipedia-ing. This neighborhood-izing edit was part of my being bold. The slash business was a bad idea, but I do think disambiguation will pay off in the long run. I am fixing the links to use something more readable like the Soho, London, England entry for now. -k.lee 02:52, 8 October 2002 (UTC)

Can we have defs for the meanings of "uptown" and "downtown", please?

  • Done. -- Cjmnyc 04:03, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Difficult to understand the beginning sentences

"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

"New York County" and the "Borough of Manhattan" are separate political entities with identical borders. If that's any clearer<G>. Manhattan is only one part of New York City. Manhattan is coterminous/coextensive with New York County, not New York City. The "County" is smaller than the "City", admittedly rather a confusing thing! As a visitor, you'll never need the terms "New York County" or "Borough of Manhattan", you'll just refer to it as "Manhattan". -- Nunh-huh 05:15, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"Manhattan" in common usage refers to the island of Manhattan, not to the political boundaries, so I think this is where the confusion comes in. In books, movies, magazine articles and everyday speech, when one hears Manhattan, one is almost always hearing a reference to the island with that name. When the political entity is referenced, it is called "the borough of Manhattan", whose boundaries are, as you say, identical with the boundaries of New York County. This includes Marble Hill, Roosevelt Island and other islands. (I'm quite sure that many locals don't even know this -- I've known residents of Manhattan Island who don't even know the name of the county in which they reside.)
People in the "outer boroughs" very often refer to the island of Manhattan as "The City", adding further to the confusion. Manhattan Island once was, indeed, the entirety of the City of New York. Consolidation of what is today the City of New York began in 1898 and even then the political boundaries were different than they are today.
The section of City law that defines the borough of Manhattan is below:
§ 2-202 Division into boroughs and boundaries thereof. The city of New York is hereby divided into five boroughs to be designated, respectively: Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.
1. The borough of Manhattan shall consist of the territory known as New York county which shall contain all that part of the city and state, including that portion of land commonly known as Marble Hill and included within the county of New York and borough of Manhattan for all purposes pursuant to chapter nine hundred thirty-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred eighty-four and further including the islands called Manhattan Island, Governor's Island, Bedloe's Island, Ellis Island, Franklin D. Roosevelt Island, Randall's Island and Oyster Island, bounded by the following described line:

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.

(ADC - New York City Administrative Code, Title 2, "Boundaries of the City" )
ScottyFLL 16:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

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)

Uptown/downtown

In Manhattan, uptown means north and downtown means south

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?

Etymology?

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)

  • Of course, noone really knows the correct etymology. Those two are the main "theories", although I think there are also a couple of other possible interpretations. I added an alternate etymology of "place of intoxication" into the article, but I imagine the reference to a specific drunken party the name is supposed to refer to is probably even more dubious than an essentially unknowable etymology.--Pharos 00:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I read somewhere that this was an interpretation of the Lenape document Walum Olum or of a sequel to the Walum Olum, as noted in some book entitled Red Record, or something like that. — Rickyrab | Talk 30 June 2005 02:41 (UTC)

Sunrise/Sunset?

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

What you're talking about is called the sunrise/sunset azimuth, which is the observed angle (equivalent to compass directions) of the sun at the point at which it crosses the horizon.
Let's check out the facts: first off, alignment of both sunrise/sunset with the grid cannot happen on the same day, so you have to look at each separately. Since Manhattan North is approximately 29 degrees east of north, the sunset azimuth to align with the grid would be approximately 299 degrees (since 270 is due west by convention, with values increasing clockwise). Likewise sunrise azimuth to align with the grid would be approximately 119 degrees (90 degrees is due east).
If you go to the U.S. Navy's site, it will calculate the solar altitude/azimuth tables for you, showing the values at various times throughout the day for any location/date. The sunset azimuth is (by definition) the value of the azimuth (2nd column) when the solar altitude (1st column) is zero while crossing from positive to negative. Conversely the sunrise azimuth is the value when the altitude is zero, crossing from negative to positive.
Using the form they provided, I entered New York, NY and then experimented with various dates. If I enter in May 28 or July 12, I see that the azimuth at sunset is approximately 299 degrees, which means those dates are accurate for the sunset alignment (on July 12 it happens around 19:20, if you want to check for yourself).
You can verify that sunrise/sunset alignments definitely do not occur on the same day. On July 12, for example, the sunrise azimuth is around 59 degrees (in the NE part of the sky).
I did some experimenting and found that for that New York City, I get sunrise azimuth of 119 degrees on/around December 6 and January 12. Those may be off by a day or so. -- Decumanus 19:15, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)


Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Got my astronomical terminology confused. I meant to say that the two dates given straddle the summer solstice, not the equinox.
So the article is actually wrong. I'll dig around on the USNO site, and fix it.
Thanks for the info. uFu 23:23, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


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)

Okay, it's taken me a year, but here's what I've got. According to this page, the approximate deviation of Manhattan avenues from true north is +28.9. By the foregoing discussion, that gives us a sunrise azimuth of 118.9, and a sunset azimuth of 298.9. Using a little trial-and-error here to determine when the sun's altitude is zero when its azimuth equals these values, I get dates for 2006 of Jan 11 and Dec 2 for the sunrise, and May 25 and Jul 17 for the sunset. That should be accurate to within one minute and 1/10 of a degree. uFu 19:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Article should mention that the island was bought from a neighboring tribe, and not the ones Manhattan belonged to (The Choctaws).

Photo arrangement

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)

  • I hope everyone likes what I did - there are no more large gaps in the text caused by the photos, and I made them all the same width for a more professional look. I like the fact that there are a lot of great photos in the article, but this can cause weird layout issues. Paradiso 19:29, 30 Mar 2005 (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)

Place of Intoxication?

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)

Feh, Staten Island is hillier. — Rickyrab | Talk 30 June 2005 02:38 (UTC)

Henry Hudson discovery and 9/11

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)

  • Actually, that link you cite says explicitly that September 11 was the day Hudson entered Upper New York Bay (which is the first real chance to see Manhattan), and that on that night he anchored off Manhattan Island.--Pharos 17:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, I "corrected" that bit as best as I could see. Is there any disagreement?--Pharos 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • He was likely born in England (sailed both for England and Dutch East India Company). England still used the Julian calendar then, need to check on when Dutch transitioned, so getting the exact date will be tricky. Where is the link? --JimWae 17:56, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • According to http://www.norbyhus.dk/calendar.html, different parts of The Netherlands switched to New Style calendar before & after his journey --JimWae 18:12, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
    • I really don't think theres any dispute that he was an Englishman (some people are just confused about him flying under different flags). The link is just the one k.lee gave above, [2]--Pharos 18:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Location diagram

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))

Mannados

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?

Additional map

File:NewYorkInThe50s.jpg

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

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)

US and UK English

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)

On second thought, I just reverted the anon. His/Her memory of the Glorious Revolution was a bit sketchy besides the improper spelling and what looked like a POV thing. Sumergocognito 06:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Need geographic region maps

I think this and the articles about specific regions of Manahattan would hugely benefit from maps. --DanDanRevolution 02:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Travel to Staten Island

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)

Densely populated county

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)

The previous user's explanation for his revert was not correct, as New York City is not the same as the New York Metropolitan Area. I reverted for that reason. It was not apparent to me that the user even read or understood the sentence, so I reverted. If someone else wishes to change the wording, they are welcome to, as you have already done. A simple "removed redundancy" in the edit description would have been sufficient (and in contrast to the previous user's edit description, accurate). I see your point and will not attempt to change that sentence.
However, your version constitutes yet a third version of the sentence, not a restoration of the original version. That's fine by me. However, accusations of an edit war do not breed good will with other Wikipedians, nor does your curt tone ("Period." (as if you are THE final authority on the matter)). If you have concluded that this is indeed an "edit war", then since you have provided a third version (and not a restoration), an outside observer would most likely conclude that you are participating in the "edit war". Therefore, I don't think it is in anybody's best interests to make these charges. Thanks. Ufwuct 00:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the wording by the previous user, who used the fake Id for unknown reason
  1. Neither you nor me is THE final authority in the case. The Math is. If a county has the highest rate among the US counties, it has the highest rate among counties of any part of the US (including NY State, or NY Metropolitain Area, East Coast or whatever you wish).
  2. There is NOTHING related to the population of New York County. Please make sure, that the term population density is NOT the same as the term population. There is nothing related to New York Meropolitain Area definition as well.
  3. It was technically much easier to edit directly, than to restore the distant edit, while keeping the futher ones. I just did so. I apologize, if that insulted somebody.
  4. Regarding edit wars. I was against that particar war, because the authors, who used words "X is the most Y in the US and in (any part of the US)" fight not against other editors but against The Math, which is the absolute truth in our Universe. So this war must be stopped by the truth and that is beyond any discusion and multiply points of view.
  5. Finaly. It is my strong belief, that we are here to provide the true information in the Wikipedia articles, not to chat around. Again, the Wikipedia is about knowledge not about the editor's Ego. The article is everything, the chat and personal ambitions are nothing. Thank you --HenryS 14:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


On the arrangement

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)

To follow up on your inquiry, please see this page. (I'm not clear on the rationale for the posting at the top at the bulletin board, but perhaps they want to make new announcements the most prominent.) Also, on this talk page, new topics are posted at the bottom. I've made the same mistake before (posting at the top of talk pages) and it's not too big of a deal, so don't worry about it. Ufwuct 00:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Orientation of 1660 Map

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)

$ 600-700 American

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)

Inflation is a 20th century phenomenon (you might even say post-WWII). Before that, there was no steady inflation (instead, deflation was more common). Pallas44 18:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

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)

I agree, with more citations this could easily be a FA candidate, so GA seems inappropriate here. TimVickers 03:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, it should be allowed, like any other article, to go through GA evaluation on its way to FA. Judgesurreal777 03:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not a question of disallowing this, I just feel this article is so good that making it GA would be undervaluing it. I'll make this GA if you feel it is appropriate, but you could easily submit this for FA with just a few more citations. TimVickers 14:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
If you feel it is GA though, please pass it. I am going to keep working on this article till it gets to FA, but for now I want it to achieve this quality distinction. And when I add more references, then I'll submit it :). Also, if you pass it, you can give some suggestions. Judgesurreal777 16:44, 16 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)


Failure

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:

  • Lede: "Manhattan is both the Island of Manhattan and also the Borough of Manhattan ..." Not quite. Starting off with this sort of easily disprovable (and easily correctable) statement is not good. It's even worse when the map right next to it disproves the assertion. It's horrendous when this is in the article text as well.
  • History section: First, it needs to be subdivided some. I realize it's summing up what's over at History of New York City, but you have over ten paragraphs straight there.

    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.

  • Statements that should be sourced but are not: "a phenomenon sometimes referred to as Manhattanhenge (by analogy with Stonehenge)" By who? "... the Upper East Side, one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the United States"; And again, "Manhattan is one of the highest-income places in the United States with a population greater than 1 million. The Manhattan zipcode 10021, on the Upper East Side, is home to more than 100,000 people and has a per capita income of over $90,000."
  • Culture. "Manhattan has been the scene of many important American cultural movements." Agreed. But then why the segue into the protests after the Triangle Factory fire? First, it's a social or political movement; and second, even if you accept it as a cultural movement it's not the first one that comes to mind (later the Harlem Renaissance is mentioned ... I could also think of the Ash Can School, the Beat Generation and a few other things first).
  • Politics and government: I think you could have a little bit more here. How about the tensions between Manhattan and the outer boroughs due to the former being so disproportionately wealthy and populous and thus getting its way all the time? You know, the way Queens and Staten Island resent Manhattan the way the rest of the country resents New York? An excellent place to mention Lindsay and the snowstorm (it's not in the Lindsay article, which is amazing considering it did him in politically), if nothing else.

    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?

  • Transportation: The one-sentence grafs at the end of the section need to be better integrated into the rest of the section.
  • "The world-renowned City University of New York (CUNY) ..." A peacock term. Change it or source it.

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)

Largest system by mileage?

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)

$24 myth

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)

They bought it from the natives for things that, if American dollars existed back then, would be worth $24. Samuel 69105 11:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if the story is true (I'm not sure on that), it is usually told in a way that makes the Indians sound stupid and the Europeans wily ("Manhattan island for only $24?! What a steal!"). But in the early 1600s, $24 was no small amount, first of all. Second, unless I'm mistaken, there were Indian villages on the island for quite some time afterwards. Third, I think it is misleading to describe these kind of early European-Indian treaties/agreements in terms of modern real estate transactions -- the idea of land ownership as we understand it today was novel to the Europeans as well as the Indians. To modern readers, "bought the island for $24" implies full "fee simple" ownership was purchased, and I highly doubt that was the case. My 2 cent opinion is to either tell the story in detail with the proper context and citations, or qualify it by saying it is has become a kind of "American myth", perhaps with some basis in fact, but usually told in a misleading way. Pfly 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Have settled it 4 August 2008, with references. Not a myth, just wrong calculation. 60 dutch guilders quoted in the historical document was worth say $1000 now. OK? Dutch wikipedia user: hansmuller 80.60.203.201 (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Who Owns Manhattan

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?

What are you talking about. 208.120.84.99 19:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Under the Treaty of Breda (1667), the British traded the small Indonesian island of Run for Manhattan, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banda_Islands) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.221.168 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Prince, Manhattan

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)

Culture and the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

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)

New panorama available

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)

Unsourced value of Manhattan

"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)

GA Review

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)

  • Where does anything say an article should have an inline reference per paragraph to be a GA? If there are any specific claims that need a reference now that would be helpful... --W.marsh 20:02, 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:

  • "it gave rise to what would become the most diverse city in the world" REMOVED
  • "New York County is named in honor of the Royal Majesty of Great Britain, the Duke of York" SOURCED
  • "The borough has an area of 33.8 mi² (87.5 km²), of which 32.01% is water." CORRECTED AND SOURCED
  • "Chelsea is a neighborhood with a large gay population" SOURCED
  • "Manhattan's Chinatown is the largest in the Western hemisphere." SOURCED
  • "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)." REWORDED AND SOURCED
  • "Manhattan's Borough President is Scott Stringer, elected as a Democrat in 2005." SOURCED
  • "Republicans constitute more than 20% of the electorate only on the Upper East Side and the Financial District." SOURCED
  • "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? SOURCED (FROM 2000 CENSUS)
  • "Manhattan's vibrant visual art scene in the 1950s and 1960s defined the American pop art movement" REWORDED
  • "The oldest public-access television channel in the United States is the Manhattan Neighborhood Network," SOURCED
  • "The Lincoln Tunnel, which carries 120,000 vehicles per day .... is the world's busiest vehicular tunnel." SOURCED
  • "The Queens Midtown Tunnel, ..... was the largest non-Federal project of its time when it was completed in 1940." SOURCED
  • "The City University is the largest urban university system in the United States as well as the third largest system in terms of enrollment." SOURCED
  • Also, many people won't know the meaning of the word "coterminous". Linked to Wiktionary Alansohn 19:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)



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:

  • "In the 2004 presidential election, Democrat John Kerry received 82.1% of the vote in Manhattan and Republican George W. Bush received 16.7%." SOURCED
  • "is a phenomenon sometimes referred to as Manhattanhenge" SOURCED
  • "The Upper West Side is often characterized as a liberal and family-friendly alternative to the Upper East Side" REWORDED AND SOURCED
  • "Upper East Side, one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the United States." SOURCED
  • "Manhattan has not voted for a Republican in a national presidential election since 1924." SOURCED
  • "Lower East Side and East Village, have been associated with the "Bohemian" subculture, though many artists have relocated to Brooklyn from these neighborhoods." SOURCED
  • The Presidential elections results table also needs a citation. SOURCED
  • 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.)" REWORDED AND SOURCED
  • This line doesn't seem to make sense, "Later, in 1624, no-trading-nature colonists joined to the older ones" REWORDED AND SOURCED Alansohn 15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

The article now fulfills all the GA criteria. Well done! Epbr123 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Second oldest city

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).

Statue of Liberty

...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)

  • Liberty Island, on which stands the Statue of Liberty, is entirely within the Borough of Manhattan. See this link for details of New York's Eighth Congressional District. Also see this link, which covers the Supreme Court's review of issues relating to Ellis Island. "The Compact comprises eight articles, the first three of which directly concern us here. Article First sets the relevant stretch of the "boundary line" between New York and New Jersey as the middle of the Hudson River "except as hereinafter otherwise particularly mentioned." Article Second provides that "New York shall retain its present jurisdiction of and over Bedlow's and Ellis's islands; and shall also retain exclusive jurisdiction of and over the other islands lying in the waters above mentioned and now under the jurisdiction of that state.", Bedlow's (or Bedloe's) Island now better known as Liberty Island. If you have the source that shows the opposite, I'd love to see it. Alansohn 05:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Recommendations for improvement (simple compliance you may expect for FA)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Congestion Pricing

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)

Why not add this sort of details to Transportation in New York City, instead of sticking every minute detail into this article. It makes the article too lengthy. See WP:SIZE. Pepsidrinka 12:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't edit sidebox at the top of the page

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.

  • Density was corrected. It appears that the density per km² was entered and then automatically converted to the stats previously shown. Alansohn 06:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Split?

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)

Per Wikipedia:Article size#A rule of thumb: ">100 KB; Almost certainly should be divided up". An article isn't necessarily better because its long. Diving it will hopefully make it easier for readers to find the information they are looking for.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, but tagging articles as part of an administrative mark-and-sweep without regard for how an article is to be divided up is worse than useless. The {{verylong}} template should be accompanied by a discussion of how to divide up the article. Otherwise it is just templatecruft or article defacement. No one is debating the Wikipedia guidelines on article length. But if this truly is in the interest of improving the article, then it must be accompanied by some constructive discussion. Until then, the template should stay off the page. Period. Silly rabbit 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Rules of thumb are great, but they have little relevance if no thought is put in to how to address the issue, or if there is one. This is a worthy topic for discussion as to how to split or trim this article (even though a good part of the increased size is related to extensive footnotes), but the tag adds nothing to the issue. Alansohn 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the tag - it's junky, and it's lazy to apply it without giving suggestions. I think the entire article could use editing (for instance, do we really need to mention Valerie Solanas under culture?) section-by-section. Additionally, I think that two industries central to New York could use their own articles: Sports and Media. --David Shankbone 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about this. I've now had a closer look at the article and I realize I was wrong. The one big issue for this article is, imho, not to duplicate information on NY, not the length of the article. So, happy editing, I won't steal your attention any further.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradicting figures within Article

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)

The template was converting from km² to square miles, and it does not seem that there was a reliable source used for the data. Inconsistencies in the source data and the conversion created discrepancies. The underlying borough template was changed to take the Census Bureau data (which is in units of square miles), and then convert to km² for the benefit of all those metrically inclined. The data has been corrected for Manhattan and the four other boroughs, as well. Alansohn 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That was fast. Thank you. --Gulliveig 06:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Manhattan Island

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)

9/11 Attacks

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)

Center of the world?

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)

Manhattan most certainly is the center of the world Travis Cleveland (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2008 (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)

Nickname "The City"

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)

  • I think you've answered your own question; In both of your examples, people outside of Chicago and San Francisco call those places "The City", not rather unique. What is special about Manhattan is that people who live in the city's four outer boroughs will use "The City" to refer to Manhattan alone. Here, "The City" is being used as a nickname for New York City's smallest borough, not for the city as a whole. Alansohn (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that Nickname: "The City" is pretty silly, as this is the common local name for the most prominent city in a metro area. "The Big Apple" is a much more reasonable nickname for Manhattan from a worldwide perspective, and that 5 boroughs example above is really reaching for it, since you are really just playing word games. You might as well say NYC is unique in that it has an extra, superfluous set of county names that other big cities do not. San Jose California is the biggest city in the Bay Area, but "The City" is San Francisco of course. An interesting fact, but so what? "The City" is a local thing. NOBODY in San Jose, San Francisco, or Omaha, NE thinks "The City" is Manhattan, NY.Joebob2k6 (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

New York, New York IS Manhattan, NOT New York City!

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)

Well, it's best that both of you look at the local map of new york, municipalities are usually part of major city.

Wikipedian NYC Meetup

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 1/13/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

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)

Ian Fortuno's edits

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)

Swapped for spice islands in indonesia

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)

It doesn't belong here at all, this article being already too big. The swap was for the whole of Dutch North America, and is mentioned in New Netherland#English incursions and Treaty of Breda. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Under the Treaty of Breda (1667), the British traded the small Indonesian island of Run for Manhattan, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banda_Islands) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.221.168 (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it

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)

Perplexing ref problem at this article

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) #Puzzling ref-breaking problem at Manhattan about a strange problem in this article. Graham87 07:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Now archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 39#Puzzling ref-breaking problem at Manhattan. I'll repost about the problem to the village pump if it ever happens again because it is quite serious. Graham87 09:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Manhattan's role as center of city

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)

New York County 1874-1898

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)

I've been working far too much on The Bronx and have run, naturally into a similar quandary. I think that studying The Bronx#Before 1914, several parallel discussions in Talk:The Bronx, and their various references and legal citations would be extremely helpful in sorting this out. Also helpful are The Encyclopedia of New York City (edited by Kenneth T. Jackson, Yale 1995; ISBN 0-300-05536-6) and this boosterist article in The New-York Times real-estate section from 1896, FUTURE OF NEW WARDS; New-York's Possession in Westchester County Rapidly Developing.. What I'm writing below reflects, and is largely though not totally based, on those sources.
So far as I can tell, the "Annexed District of the Bronx" (annexed, that is, to the then City of New-York, and constituting the 22nd to 24th Wards) stayed within Westchester County until 1 January 1898. Again, so far as I can tell, the former villages, towns and parts of towns that were annexed to New York were extinguished as separate municipalities. (In the late 19th century, Bronxites successfully petitioned the City to put [all or some?] of the Annexed District under Street Commissioners, but it's unclear to me how much authority the Commissioners would have had, and how much, if at all, they displaced the administrative or democratic authorities that still governed Manhattan neighborhoods.)
Administratively speaking, there was no separate County of Bronx until the State Legislature passed an act, later signed by the Governor, in 1912, which took practical effect on 1-2 January 1914. (If you visit The Bronx#Before 1914, you can see a reference to a pair of New York Times articles from 3 Jan. 1914 which report on the simultaneous start of work by Mayor John Purroy Mitchel [elected Nov. 1913] and opening of the Bronx County Courthouse, with all its officers, on January 2nd. BRONX COUNTY IN MOTION. New Officials All Find Work to Do on Their First Day.) Before then, elections were reported for the Bronx and Manhattan together, and the folks who'd complained previously about long northbound court and records trips to White Plains, the seat of Westchester County, now complained about long trips to southern Manhattan, seat of New York County.
Although this may seem clear in a murky sort of way, there's at least one spanner or monkey-wrench in the works. That is a reference somewhere in The Encyclopedia of New York City which says that Bronx County was in fact created at Consolidation on 1 January 1898, although practical effect was not given until 1912-1914. This suggests that until then New York County's offices and officers were somehow performing ministerial functions for a Bronx county that had a legal and juridical existence if not a practical one. The Encyclopedia's article on the Bronx (by Gary D. Hermalyn and Lloyd Ultan, the Bronx Borough Historian), however, says the county came into existence in January 1914.
The only bright side to all this confusion is that any progress in checking, clarifying and confirming some point will do double duty in informing the articles for both The Bronx and Manhattan — in fact more than double duty by also helping to strengthen such articles as Government of New York City and Government and politics of the Bronx.
Good luck! Shakescene (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I found an article from the New York Times dated May 1873 here [7] that seems to suggest the Westchester municipalities were annexed by both the city and county of New York simultaneously. Hence, New York City did not reach into portions of Westchester County, and the municipalites did not join New York County while remaining independent of the city. The idea at the time, I guess, was that the city and county of New York would be coterminous, and thus any annexations would be both on the municipal and county level simultaneously. I will conduct further research, but a new question is raised that isn't thoroughly addressed here: when did the City of New York grow to include all of Manhattan Island? Apparently, if I understand correctly, Harlem was a municipality separate from NYC as late as 1873. I suspect that at some point in the 1870s, it was decided that the county and city would be coextensive, all municipalities on Manhattan island would be annexed into New York City, and all mainland Westchester County annexations would also be dual city-county annexations as well. Again, more research is needed, but I think this information, once properly sourced, is imperative to the article, or at least other articles dealing with the city's history. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The City of New-York was not consolidated with the County of New-York before 1873, since Gov. Hoffman vetoed a bill to do so the previous year, and The New-York Times of Jan. 5th, 1873 urged the enactment of a new bill to so in the upcoming legislative session. See A NECESSARY LAW.; Shall the City and County of New-York be Consolidated? The Act Vetoed by Gov. Hoffman. I don't know when that eventually happened, but I guess it must have at some point to make sense of later references to the "City and County of New-York". Of course, there's a sense that the boroughs have still not fully consolidated with their coterminous counties, as have the City & County of San Francisco, partly because the boroughs don't have governments of their own, just Borough Presidents and Community Boards with all formal municipal powers vested in the 5-borough City of New York. In this sense Manhattan is today less consolidated with New York County than it was before 1898. [You will not find current official documents from the "City of San Francisco" or the "County of San Francisco", only from the City and County of San Francisco. On the other hand, almost all current New York documents refer the the "City of New York", the "County of Kings", the "County of Bronx", the "Borough of the Bronx", etc. Since the Borough (but not County) of Richmond changed its name, Queens is indeed the only place where the borough and county names are identical.]
The article on Harlem by Jeffrey S. Gurock & Calvin B. Holder in the Encyclopedia of NYC says that after it was settled by the Dutch and named Nieuw Haarlem, "because of its remoteness from settled areas of New York City it remained a largely autonomous village for many years", but seems to imply that the City of New-York had at least a nominal authority.
My impression had been the counter-intuitive one that the City of New-York straddled New-York and Westchester Counties between 1 Jan. 1874 and 31 Dec. 1897, but there seem to be indications that the County of New-York absorbed the former villages at the same time that the City did, for example the 1873 article you cited. I wonder if the bill changed between introduction and enactment.
I'm hundreds of miles away from New York (in Providence, Rhode Island), but I think that to settle these questions more definitively, someone closer to the sources will just have to consult or re-consult those books of New York state laws from 1873, 1895 and 1912. Shakescene (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village

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)

Photo Wars here and in New York City article

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)

Start of urban exodus in Manhattan

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)

  • Good question. The migrations from say, the Lower East Side to Brooklyn and the Bronx were not "white flight". They were simply movements of people who had moved up a notch socioeconomically and were able to leave the crowded slums of Lower Manhattan. There wasn't the racial element to this that was involved in the "white flight" of the 60s.--Pharos 23:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok. So maybe we can put something like : After reaching a peak before WWI, Manhattan started to see its population plumeting, mainly because of the stop of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, and the move of people who could escape the island slums to the outer boroughs.--Revas 01:11, 23 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. Tom71.245.112.131 (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. Tom71.245.112.131 (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. Tom71.245.112.131 (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. Tom71.245.112.131 (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. Tom71.245.112.131 (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. Tom71.245.112.131 (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. Tom71.245.112.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC).

First paragraph of article

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)

¶ I wrote that lead sentence that way because — added to all the confusion between New York state, New York City, New York County and the Borough of Manhattan — this article is both about the borough and about the island which existed long before the borough. (The article also covers, incidentally, New York City as it existed before 1874, and even as it existed before 1898, although that history has another home in New York City).
In the ordinary way of handling things, either
After experimenting with various other wordings, this seemed to be the best way of dispatching with the island so it wouldn't clutter or confuse all that other discussion about the County, City and State. It seemed relatively elegant (compared to the alternatives), but it does have the possible disadvantage of confusing readers as to the topic of the article. (On the other hand, those looking for an article about Manhattan Island know that there's no further place to look.) I was trying to be clear, unambiguous, informative and accurate at the same time, without getting tangled up in too many participles and dependent clauses.
But although I've tried, I certainly don't believe that it's impossible to work out a better sentence that carries out the seven or eight different definitions and distinctions that need to be made. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Addenda: (1) I had changed my original wording to say that Manhattan Island formed "much the largest part" of the Borough, but someone else deleted it. It depends on how much weight you give to the water area as opposed to the land area of the borough. The island covers only about half of the combined water+land area, but a much bigger percentage of the land area. Perhaps adding the same words ("much the") or similar words would help clarify things; maybe not.
(2) Just so we're arguing about comparable things rather than quibbling, here's my attempt to make the paragraph suggested above at least formally grammatical:

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

—— Shakescene (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
"Covers the same people" ? Oddly worded in my opinion. Why not just say that the Borough of Manhattan is coterminous or coextensive with New York County? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 08:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Most people (i.e. the average reader, not the average editor) don't know at least without stopping what "coterminous" means. "Co-extensive" is slightly better. (Telling people to look it up by providing a Wiktionary link is just arrogant and condescending; this isn't a specialist article about chemistry.) But I tried to use simple words that explain what coterminous or coextensive mean. Maybe something like "share the same geographical limits" would do the same job. And there's the trap of thinking that "coterminous" or "coextensive" are more precise or more scientific because they sound grander or more "encyclop[a]edic", when they're less precise and less scientific if you can't easily explain what they mean. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this fear of using "big words" if they do a better job at articulating the situation at hand. I believe you're over-complicating things by trying to use 'simple phrases.' Saying they are coterminous is the most succinct way of describing the situation at hand. And I don't believe the use of that one word is "arrogant," "condescending," "grand," or "unscientific." It just means that for all intents and purposes, the Borough of Manhattan and New York County are one-in-the-same. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Brief passing remarks: (1) I put in Northeastern United States because what's obvious to most Americans isn't obvious to everyone outside the U.S.; for example, how many non-natives know off-hand without thinking: is San Francisco north or south of Los Angeles? is Houston north, south, east or west of San Antonio? on which side of India is Bombay (Mumbai) and on which side Calcutta (Kolkata)? is Peking (Beijing) closer to the Chinese coast than Shanghai? is Melbourne south of Sydney? On which larger body of water is Tokyo Bay?
(2) see #Difficult to_understand the beginning sentences above for more discussion of similar questions (one editor thinks that readers come here more for the island than for the borough). —— Shakescene (talk) 05:39, 23 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)

It's about both the island and the borough. It can be argued (as at least one editor argued in #Difficult to_understand the beginning sentences) that it's more about the island than the borough, which I think is true in some places, while in (for example) the statistical and government sections, it's about the Borough of Manhattan and/or the County of New York. I think that when people (at least outside New York) think of Manhattan, they are thinking of the island (and not Liberty Island or Roosevelt Island or Marble Hill).
But anyway, while I probably admire my own solution too much because it solved a lot of the confusion and repetition that other phrasings (many of which I tried myself) led to, it doesn't avoid the confusion inherent in this article's inherent (and perhaps unavoidable) identity crisis. Putting the borough or the county first doesn't by itself solve the confusion. But that doesn't mean there isn't some better way of doing this. I did try to add some emphasis and clarity to the "Hatnote" at the top of the page which distinguishes meanings of "Manhattan". Best wishes for the holiday. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:25, 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)

Not enough is written about the impact of transplants to Manhattan's new identity

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)

Lack of evidence or source in reference to European immigrants

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. Tom71.245.112.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC).

(1) The draft and both externally-applied and internally-felt patriotic pressures were far greater in World War II than in later wars. (For example, future Pres. George H.W. Bush, a Senator's son, and future Sen. John H. Chafee of Rhode Island's "Five Families" left Yale mid-year to volunteer with the naval forces.) So upper-class New Yorkers were quite likely to be veterans; until the 1980's, I think most members of Congress were World War II veterans. But that's not relevant because
(2) When Stuyvesant Town was built by Metropolitan Life in 1943-7, guided by Robert Moses under Mayor Fiorello La Guardia, it had 8,756 rent-stabilized apartments. According the the Encyclopedia of New York City, most of the 11,000 applicants for the first apartments in 1947 were "veterans of the Second World War." The successful applicants, because of the Met Life's policy until 1950, were also all young, white and married. (article on Stuyvesant Town by B. Kimberly Taylor, page 1134 of the 1995 edition.) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:54, 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)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Manhattan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

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.

  1. "Starting in the 1990s, crime rates dropped drastically and the outflow of population turned around, as the city once again became the destination not only of immigrants from around the world, but of many U.S. citizens seeking a cosmopolitan lifestyle." Needs a citation.
  2. "Local party platforms center on affordable housing, education and economic development. Controversial political issues in Manhattan include development, noise, and the cost of housing." Needs a citation.
  3. "Manhattan is home to the only official Italian American school in the U.S., La Scuola d'Italia." Needs a citation.
  4. The article currently has over 15 dead links (and multiple redirects). These need to be fixed or replaced with new sources. The Internet Archive can help in resurrecting dead links.

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)

GA Sweeps: Kept

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)

Indicating this is the only page for Manhattan Island and New York County

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)

I don't think of it as a major problem. People looking for one or the other will end being redirected here. We could probably do without the bolded words, since I would think that if you were redirected, you would stop to read the first sentence anyway. Ian Fahey (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that I myself once looked for the article about Manhattan Island (which I think once existed as an unmerged separate page a year or two before I became acquainted with Wikipedia's New York pages) and got perplexed/frustrated with getting bounced back. Unless you know that there's no other article about Manhattan Island or New York County, you could waste a lot of effort. Perhaps the redirects could be soft ones that explain this in text, as might happen in a printed index. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manhattan/Archive_1&oldid=1136987014"