Talk:East Harlem

Nelson Antonio Denis

Parts of the article read like his campaign manager wrote it. There are citations in many cases, but the tone sounds like "electioneering" to me. Thousandrobots (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thousandrobots,

I checked the citations and they are accurate. The discussion regarding the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and its application to an urban renewal setting is a recitation of facts and events as they occurred. Your concern about electoneering is understandable but Denis is not in office, he has not campaigned for anything in seven years, and the facts and events presented in the article all occurred ten years ago. They are part of the history of urban renewal in Spanish Harlem.

Regards,

MBernal615 (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thousandrobots is correct. Puffery removed. See below. (Also I see that MBernal615 was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Nelsondenis248). ScottyBerg (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Boundary

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

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

Pictures

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

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

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

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

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

Point of View Content and Questionable Relevancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. The following sentence makes many assumptions and assertions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Land Use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well the tenements were built in the 1920's I believe maybe earlier and the projects were built in the 1950s and 60s. I figured by putting the land use near the top you deal out all information on the makeup of the neighborhood, demographics above that which is the most important. Then go into history right after land use and then todays social issues. Finally gentrification and it's effects on the community which has become an issue in recent years. Wikiwiki718 (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The building structure list is minutia in the extreme. It should be at the bottom of the article, if included at all. I can let it slide until another editor weighs in. --Knulclunk (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Bodega

Has anyone considered replacing the seemingly New York specific word bodega (which means 'wine cellar' or 'wine merchant' in other parts of the world) with 'convenience store'? 82.139.84.114 (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. --Knulclunk (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Unused refs

• Hinds, Michael DeCourcy. "BATTLING TO CONTROL E. 96TH GROWTH", The New York Times, May 13, 1984. Accessed December 5, 2007. "EAST 96TH STREET is not just a dead piece of real estate - it is a socially important corridor, said August Heckscher. With El Barrio to the north and Yorkville to the south, it could be the meeting place of two cultures, a river into which both flow." mynameinc-Review me 02:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

BODEGA vs. CONVENIENCE STORE

On December 15, 2008 the term Convenience Store was substituted for the word Bodega in this article.

It was a well-intentioned edit, but a 7-Eleven is a convenience store. A Shell gas station may contain a convenience store. A grocery store in Spanish Harlem is not a convenience store.

This is the Wikipedia definition of a Convenience Store:

• A convenience store is a small store or shop that sells items such as candy, ice-cream, soft drinks, lottery tickets, cigarettes and other tobacco products, newspapers and magazines, along with a selection of processed food and perhaps some groceries. Stores that are part of gas stations may also sell motor oil, windshield washer fluid, radiator fluid, and maps.

It is clear then, that a convenience store does not sell Goya beans, Canola rice, Bustelo coffee, Malta India, Agua Florida, yuca, batata, mamey, quenepas, mariposas, sofrito, gingebre, dulce de coco, pechuga de pollo, pico de gallo, espuelitas de gallo, carne de res, carne de cerdo, or any of the hundreds of other food staples that constitute the food selection of Latino consumers, or any human consumer for that matter. The Convenience Store article in Wikipedia further states:

• In general,the word Bodega is sometimes used wherever there is a large enough hispanic population.

The word Bodega is thus culturally and regionally specific, and is the correct term for grocery stores in Spanish Harlem.

The term "convenience store," in this particular instance, actually creates more confusion than it resolves.

Please comment on this matter if you can. It may seem a matter of semantics...but language is important.

That is why we edit (and exchange ideas) on Wikipedia!

Thank you,

MBernal615 (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, MBernal615. I am starting to think the ethnic cleansing of Manhattan is spilling over onto the Internet. As is the case in New York City as a whole, the majority of the residents of El Barrio/ Spanish Harlem are Latino and Black. As such, an encyclopedic entry regarding a region where people live and work should acknowledge THEIR realities and perspectives, and not just the rules and spare time of a few Web surfers. I appreciate Wikipedia's efforts trimming the "puffery," and slanted views, and including more factual entries - even when the facts don't sit well with the ruling class or political agendas. (NYLatinoJournal (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC))

Listen to this self-important politcal correctitude!

"Ethnic cleansing" --- used in the rest of the world to refer to such things as murdering hundreds of people and throwing their bodies into mass graves --- being appropriated to complain about shitty neighborhoods being improved. A most impressive display of overly dramatic exaggeration!

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia --- a source of knowledge --- not a place to cheerlead over the use of local jargon. Almost no one outside of these neighborhoods knows what "bodega" means, but by all means let's cater to the racist ideology of a few local zealots and their persecution complexes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.94.226 (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rename?

{{movenotice|East Harlem}} I think that "East Harlem" is better than "Spanish Harlem" as a title for this article. It gets far more Google hits, and is more ethnically neutral. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Far more Google hits and being more ethnically neutral" should not be the criteria used to change the name of, or define a real community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYLatinoJournal (talk • contribs) 19:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This notice was on the talk page for at least two months before, without opposition, the article was renamed. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, actually one month, but that's still more than the required time. In fact, based on the talk page log I believe I brought this to the attention of the "requested moves" noticeboard. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In no way shape or form questioning your connectedness to Wikipedia, or the Internet. I simply question when folks in the fold make arbitrary decisions based on their own logic, which may or may not be a skewed perspective from the reality, or consensus - which requires a different kind of connection. Is the accuracy of Wikipedia based on what the most active visitors to the site say? I have been informing folks to be more vigilant over the "branding" and image of our actual community on the Internet. Unfortunately, half of them are just somewhat connected, a quarter of them are just buried in Facebook or shopping, and less than a quarter can see any significant correlation between the Internet and "brick and mortar" business. I could produce more accurate demographics if you need them. The point is, I can't tell you what level of connectedness the "leaders" of the community have. But I have lived and worked here for a while, and I can tell you, this is a controversial topic, and we should respect the process from it's source, and not by Google hits, or the ethnic neutrality perspectives of a Wikipedia enthusiast. --NYLatinoJournal (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is flat out racism (not the personal prejudice kind, but the institutional/structural kind), there is no such thing as ethnic neutrality, the status quo is to prefer specific ethnic groups, any attempt to institute neutrality reinforces defaults (which are inequitable—spend some time reading the Wikipedia pages on racism). Internet demographics skew white and are not ethnically neutral. People who do not have Internet access are overwhelmingly poor and black or Latino (the demographics of poverty being tightly interrelated with race), white Americans and Europeans are the overwhelming majority of tourists to NYC, and even if the majority of traffic to those searches are from New Yorkers, tourist searches will still have some biasing effect. Rebranding of the neighborhood has occurred many times, and this time it is an effort by real estate and other commercial interests to make the neighborhood more attractive to white settlers and ethno-tourists who want an 'exotic' meal as long as they don't have to look at any poor people. As someone who lives on 116th St, and cherishes the cultural assets of my barrio, and someone who imagines the Internet as a tool for eliminating this kind of bias based on ignorance and misinformation, this 'unchallenged renaming' makes me sick to my stomach. Apologos (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Another quick thing, Scotty: in your spare time, do a historical music and other culture reference search for that particular corner of Manhattan and tell me how often "El Barrio," "Spanish Harlem," and "East Harlem" are used. There's even a Grammy-Award winning band known as, "Spanish Harlem Orchestra." --184.75.95.70 (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Spanish" is an incorrect label, as few Spaniards ever lived there. 69.171.160.93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC).

Rubbish! "Spanish" refers to the language of the dominant ethnic culture, which was I believe Puerto Rican. Spanish Harlem is anyway a much more distinctive and interesting name than East Harlem. Made famous by the song of the same name of course. Ethnic neutrality?! Oh what! Jesus. Give me a break New Yorkers! Seriously: You need to get a life guys! John2o2o2o (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Puffery and other article issues

This article has numerous issues, some overcoverage of the food issue but, more importantly, excessive OR and unreferenced text. The "Urban renewal" section was laden with puffery and extravagant claims about a local politician (apparently placed there by sockpuppets of a banned editor having a COI), as well as other puffery concerning non-notable programs, all of which has been removed. Housing and lack of recreational facilities is a serious problem in East Harlem. Let's make the section about that and not use this as an advertising vehicle, please. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you expect from an article that lists Moon Knight among other "notable people"? Is Moon Knight a person? or are there two types of such people to consider, to include the broader group of people and the narrower group of actual people? Need Wikipedia make the distinction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.45 (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Education

The first sentence of the education section says that East Harlem has significantly higher drop out rates -- as compared to what?! Mississippi? or the rest of New York City? This sentence needs to be improved.

Lama Lamahassoun (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right. That section is pretty bad, and is not adequately sourced. I've tried to fix. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Consistency of nomenclature..."East Harlem" Xela Zeugirdor (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? Sometimes we say "New York City", sometimes we say "New York" if the context makes it clear that we're talking about the city and not the state, we can call it "Gotham" or "The Big Apple" in those rare contexts where that makes sense -- so there's not need to write "East Harlem", "East Harlem", "East Harlem", "East Harlem" over and over again, when it's possible that "Spanish Harlem" or "El Barrio" make sense to use. BMK (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Issues

Why don't we need the Chinese pinyin in this statement?

The Chinese population has increased dramatically in East Harlem (東哈萊姆) since 2000.

Some readers don't know how to read Chinese characters, so this pronunciation may help. --Epicgenius (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Because I've removed the Chinese characters entirely, as they are totally unnecessary in the English Wikipedia. We don't give the name of the subject in a new language each time we talk about another ethnic group. BMK (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Got it. I thought the {{zh}} would be helpful, but it actually belongs in the Chinatowns article. Epicgenius (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

On another note, the East Harlem apartment explosion only is relevant toward the end of the article. Maybe the hatnote should be adjusted to reflect that. Epicgenius (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You did, and I reverted. We usually don't interrupt the flow of a section with a "main" template. Some people would put the "See also" template at the bottom - I don't like it sylistically, but I won't object. BMK (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant section, sorry. I think it would be fine as is for now, though I'll have to find a solution later. Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Question about categories

An editor has repeatedly placed "Dominican American" as the lead (the first category) at the bottom of this article. He then accuses anyone of reverting that of engaging in "ethnic" editing. Since I am Puerto Rican, lived in East Harlem for nearly 20 years, and have family in East Harlem, I am acutely aware of the demographics of my neighborhood. Those demographics are clearly noted in this East Harlem article, as well.

For the record, BMK is engaging in obvious "ethnic editing" which is inaccurate and dishonest...then he turns around and accuses other editors of what he is doing.

We don't see "Puerto Rican" as the lead category in Washington Heights. Why? Because that would be false and dishonest.

I will not engage in an edit war over something as obvious as this. I trust that other editors will assist in correcting this. For the record, BMK is engaging in obvious "ethnic editing" which is inaccurate and dishonest...then he turns around and accuses other editors of what he is doing. Sarason (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Inclusion of categories is driven by supportive sources within the text of the article. Dominican American population may be "rising" but nothing in the article supports the addition of it as a category. The reverse (finding "East Harlem" mentioned in leading numbers in the "Dominican American" article) does not support the addition of Dominican Americans to this article either. The editor repeatedly adding Dominican American cat to this article needs to prove his case first. Removed Dominican American as a cat. Mercy11 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• The order of the categories makes entirely no difference, it's not an indication of which one is primary. In fact, they're very often in alphabetical order. What you keep doing is moving the Puerto Rican cat up and removing the Dominican cat. I don't see any justification for this. If the Domincan cat shouldn't be there, get a consensus for that here before you remove it again. BMK (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Correct, the order makes no difference, at least for purposes of "weighted" priorities. And, in fact, Wikipedia will often show cats in a different order than physically entered by editors. Mercy11 (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• As for being "dishonest", that's a personal attack which I would ask you to withdraw. I am neither Domincan nor Puetro Rican nor Latino in any way, just a mutt, a mix of Northern European ethnicities and nationalities. My editing of Wikipedia is never based on personal extrinsic connections, only on what is best for the article. Since section titles on talk pages are supposed to be neutral, I have changed this one. BMK (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it raises to the level of a PA. It was more like a failure to AGF by Sarason. Mercy11 (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've posted a neutral pointer on the talk page of WikiProject Categories to get some neutral eyes in who know more about categories than I do. BMK (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• There was an objection to the addition of the Dominican Americans cat. Per WP:BOLD and WP:CONSENSUS, with an objection but without consensus, any newer version goes back to its previous undisputed version. Per WP:BURDEN, the burden is on the editor adding the unsourced information, not the editor removing it. That means the burden would be on the editor supporting its stay, i.e., Beyond My Ken/aka BMK. Mercy11 (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• That is incorrect, as I did not add that category, it's been in the article for a while. BMK (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• The category "Dominican American" was added in this edit by User:Solar-Wind on March 6, 2013, nine months before my first edit to the article. The cat has therefore been in the article for over a year. It is supported by information in the article, so any removal should have been discussed either before it happened, or, at the latest, immediately after my revert of the first removal -- that's what WP:BRD specifies. BMK (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I support Sarason's alphabetization of the cats -- and was considering doing it myself, but didn't want to appear provocative. BMK (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• But not the addition of both parent and child categories on the same article, or multiple cats covering the same topic - one is enough. BMK (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on East Harlem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130317001127/http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/pub/mnneeds_2012.pdf to http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/pub/mnneeds_2012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928060104/http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/lucds/mn11profile.pdf to http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/lucds/mn11profile.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525030524/http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/home/home.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/home/home.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Rezoning

This neighborhood is currently being considered for a re-zoning project by the City of New York. The city's rezoning plan was announced in October 2016. Currently an environmental impact study is being conducted. I think this would possibly be a relevant addition to the article. Sokvetchy (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

References

•  Done Until there is more to report, I've only added it to the lead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on East Harlem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109010909/http://www.apaforprogress.org/chinese-american-population-harlem-nyc-surges to http://www.apaforprogress.org/chinese-american-population-harlem-nyc-surges
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109010909/http://www.apaforprogress.org/chinese-american-population-harlem-nyc-surges to http://www.apaforprogress.org/chinese-american-population-harlem-nyc-surges
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015085551/http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs023pct.pdf to http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs023pct.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016051109/http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/supermarket/index.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/supermarket/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry

Just wondering why the Cuban population is mentioned considering there are less than 500 Cubans in the neighborhood. The Dominican population is also quite large according to these statistics, but I think it should be noted that East Harlem is more Puerto Rican, African American, and Mexican. What I am saying is also coming from a person who knows New York quite well.

https://statisticalatlas.com/neighborhood/New-York/New-York/East-Harlem/Race-and-Ethnicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuchaki (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well, maybe so, but your link doesn't have that information, and we really can't go on hearsay, we need to have reliable sources of information to base our articles on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Updated Link: https://statisticalatlas.com/neighborhood/New-York/New-York/East-Harlem/Ancestry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuchaki (talk • contribs) 01:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this issue to the talk page. It's not the case that Dominicans aren't mentioned as living there, so pointing out that it's a largely Dominican neighborhood is meaningless. There are and were a great number of Cubans living there, and the area is considered one of the Cuban areas of NYC, seen in such anecdotal and non-encyclopedic content as the number of Cuban restaurants, etc. The greater point is that at one time a large part of the North American Hispanic population of Manhattan lived there, from multiple countries. This is just an example of something not broken and in no need of a fix. JesseRafe (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on East Harlem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130224002454/http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110803/harlem/east-harlem-tries-serve-huge-influx-of-chinese-residents to http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110803/harlem/east-harlem-tries-serve-huge-influx-of-chinese-residents
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121008003622/http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110414/harlem/lowincome-parents-worry-cuts-childcare-will-force-them-out-of-work to http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110414/harlem/lowincome-parents-worry-cuts-childcare-will-force-them-out-of-work
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170907081030/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170824/east-harlem/el-barrio-rezoning-gale-brewer-mayor-bill-de-blasio to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170824/east-harlem/el-barrio-rezoning-gale-brewer-mayor-bill-de-blasio
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130224002454/http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110803/harlem/east-harlem-tries-serve-huge-influx-of-chinese-residents to http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110803/harlem/east-harlem-tries-serve-huge-influx-of-chinese-residents
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dnainfo.com/20110208/harlem/veggie-vans-slated-sell-fresh-produce-east-harlem

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of entry from "Notable person" section

I have removed the following entry in several different forms.

* Funky Frank (Born 1966), Frank Lynn of Puerto Rican descent who was born and raised in El Barrio who became a leading figure and part of one of the five elements of the Hip-Hop culture which was Break Dancing and featured on the Front Cover of the National "Dance Magazine" Publication on April 1984. [https://jackmitchell.com/magazine-covers-by-jack-mitchell.php"

My reasons are as follows:

• In order to keep "Notable persons" sections from growing like crazy, we generally require that the subject have either a Wikipedia article or that the entry be supported by a reference from a reliable source as to their notability and their connection to East Harlem.
• Funky Frank has no Wikipedia article.
• The reference provided is to the cover of Dancemagazine.
• The cover of a magazine is a picture, it does not have any substantive information except to show that the subject appeared on the cover. It does not support the statements made that:
  • Funky Frank was born in 1960
  • Funky Frank is of Puerto Rican descent
  • Funky Frank was born and raised in "El Barrio" (East Harlem)
  • Funky Frank was a leading figure of Hip-Hop culture
• The only statement the reference supports is that he appeared on the specified cover.

It is quite possible that if the article from Dancemagazine could be found, that all of these statements could be supported. It is also very possible that other reliable sources could support all these statement, but the one reference provided at this moment do not offer substantive support for the entry, and, since there is no Wikipedxia article, the entry should not be kept in the list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Having not edited this article, I agree with BMK. Lists of notable ____ almost always requires that notability be established via the creation of an article that has endured community scrutiny. Funky Frank might be a local hero, but without an established article we can't judge whether or not he's notable. For all we know, his mom added his name to the article. Having significant independent sources that speak to his notability would be a suitable alternative, but "significant coverage" usually comes from independent write-ups that are more than passing mentions. A cover photo does not meet the standard. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Puerto Rican street in East Harlem.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Intro section

I believe the sentence "East Harlem has historically suffered from many social issues, such as the highest jobless rate in New York City, teenage pregnancy, AIDS, drug abuse, homelessness, and an asthma rate five times the national average." is too negative and only partially supported by the referenced Manhattan Community District Needs document. For example, there may be many homeless in the area, but that seems to be only supported by the fact that there are homeless shelters as opposed to people sleeping in the streets. In any event, inclusion in the introduction is distracting since these are not defining characteristics for residents and visitors. It's inclusion in the introduction gives strong negative impression rather than providing a neutral tone. This kind of negative description could be in another area or removed.

The Manhattan Community District Needs document says that East Harlem is a “renter-occupied” community with 93.6% of housing units renter occupied and only 6.4% of housing units owner-occupied. I had made edit to use this text instead of the current sentence as Edit 868019000, which was reverted. Comments anyone? Hoardneed (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

East Harlem is one of the last affordable neighborhoods in Manhattan, so it's starting to undergo gentrification. Be that as it may, we report what WP:reliable sources tell us, without concern for whether it is "too negative" or not. Your personal observations are not appropriate to use for the article, as they are considered to be WP:original research, which is not allowed. If you think that the article is non-neutral, then the solution it to come up with reliable sources to balance it out -- but they must be actual 'reliable sources' by our definition (see the link above). Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Beyond My Ken, I don't propose to add any personal observations. Instead, I propose to add that East Harlem is a “renter-occupied” community with 93.6% of housing units renter occupied and only 6.4% of housing units owner-occupied to the introduction. This observation comes from the same Manhattan Community District Needs document that the current "East Harlem has historically suffered from many social issues, such as the highest jobless rate in New York City, teenage pregnancy, AIDS, drug abuse, homelessness, and an asthma rate five times the national average" supposedly comes from. This current packed statement is not plainly supported by the document, even in parts, therefore it's someone's observation possibly pieced together from this and other documents and opinion. I also have issue with the negative portrayal being foremost in the introduction, as if this defines the area, which it may for outsiders to some extent, as a caricature of problems, but I think its more neutral to discuss negative issues in sections rather than in the intro, as better written articles do. In sections, a more thorough and balanced treatment can be given. For example, the concern of high jobless rate could be mentioned in context with a high rate of employment in informal sectors, which I know to be the case. I understand that it needs to be supported via sources of course. It can also be cleared up that the high rate of "homelessness" is due to high numbers of homeless people living in shelters in the area. The current sentence would lead a person to conclude that homeless must be living in the streets all around the neighborhood, which I know not to be the case. East Harlem being a site for homeless that originally resided elsewhere, both in homes and on streets, is not what one is lead to believe from the sentence saying the area suffers from high rates of homelessness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoardneed (talk • contribs) 14:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sourced information is always appropriate, but it really shouldn't be in the lede -- which is intended to be a summary of the article -- unless it's in the body of the article as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

East Harlem - Part of Harlem or Not?

Okay so to fully disclose, I do not live in East Harlem or anywhere in Harlem, but I do live in NYC and I generally get the sense that while East Harlem is its own distinct neighborhood, it is still considered part of the greater Harlem area (which we note in our Harlem article). Right now in the intro paragraph it says that it is not. I would like to change this but I am not sure exactly of what sources to use. As noted in the Harlem article, the Encyclopedia Brittanica says that East Harlem is part of the greater Harlem while the Encyclopeduia of New York says it is not.

So what do you all think? The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Images

I think the notable people section would be better with images. --2603:7000:2143:8500:A824:3071:27F8:A319 (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Current Italian American Population of East Harlem

My Aunt and Uncle lived in East Harlem until 2020. Would like to get a full population count of Italian Americans in East Harlem. Current count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:B901:8500:2D3C:1E0:FC1F:A144 (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)