Talk:Chinatown, Manhattan

message: Aren't these two places in Manhattam?  Should these just merge?  --Patebrims (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Little Fuzhou and Chinatown, Manhattan ought to be merged

message: After the Fuzhou population established their own community within Manhattan's Chinatown next to the Cantonese population, the increasing Fuzhou population then shifted over to Brooklyn's Chinatown and now it is home to the fastest growing Fuzhou population than Manhattan's Chinatown and all Chinese communities in NYC and there are now hardly new Fuzhou immigrants settling in Manhattan's Chinatown. Back in the early 2000s I went over to Brooklyn's Chinatown and it looked more like Mott Street, mostly Cantonese, but there was already a lot Fuzhou people there. Then a few years later, I go back and the Fuzhou population tripled and now the whole Chinese Community is starting to look like East Broadway(Little Fuzhou). The increasing Fuzhou population is replacing the Cantonese a lot faster in Brooklyn's Chinatown than Manhattan's Chinatown. 
I also see an inequality in the Cantonese and Fuzhou populations with both Manhattan's and Brooklyn's Chinatowns because from what I have noticed the amount of Fuzhous in Brooklyn's Chinatown are almost just as much as in Manhattan's Chinatown and also beginning to replace Manhattan's Chinatown as having the largest Fuzhou population in NYC. There may be a lot of Fuzhou in Manhattan's Chinatown, but they are mostly in certain parts of Manhattan's Chinatown and the Cantonese population is a lot larger in Manhattan's Chinatown than Brooklyn's Chinatown and the Cantonese are declining fast in Brooklyn's Chinatown than in any Chinese communities in NYC.
I think most likely Brooklyn's Chinatown will become Fuzhou Town in the next 5-10 years and surpass Manhattan's Chinatown as having the largest Fuzhou population.
I just wanted to talk about it and get replies on what you all think and if any of you agree Brooklyn's Chinatown is becoming Brooklyn's East Broadway.
-- Cantai101 07:44, 1 Jan 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Brooklyn Chinatown" is discussed in our Sunset Park, Brooklyn article.--Pharos 08:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I see the article. As of now, Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn have Chinatowns, but ethnic Chinese are rarely seen in the Bronx and even Staten Island.--Jusjih 06:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Brooklyn's Chinatown is a lot more residential than Manhattan Dfa89yasd89fyasd89y (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Look at the history section, the borders of Chinatown are listed. Dyl 01:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It claims 2 miles in the east/west direction, but the island isn't 2 miles wide at that point! --Dekkerdreyer 21:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Measure along Grand street. It's approximate since lower Manhattan is somewhat triangular. Dyl 02:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone agree that Brooklyn's Chinatown is now becoming Brooklyn's East Broadway? 

message: This blog contains informative information about Chinatown. Here, you can find information on dining, shopping, recpices, events, culture, history, landmarks and more! Here is the blog's address: Chinatown New York City Blog
ok? did you anderstand it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.158.241.193 (talk • contribs) 
:Unfortunately, that site is not appropriate for the external links section per WP:EL. Ytny (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding this blog to the links on the Chinatown, Manhattan page 

message: To the authors of the History section, please add some kind of year reference to every paragraph. For example, the first paragraph on "garment industry", I am not sure if it is about today or early 1900s. --Voidvector 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Context 

message: The person using IP address 67.115.155.107 has spent a lot of effort editing the Chinatown articles re-claiming that the Chinatowns of SF and Vancouver are larger than that of Manhattan (and ignoring Flushing,NYC ; the LA Chinatowns, Toronto, etc..). This person only lists a tourist website and a travel guide book as his/her proof. Not the most reliable of sources. 
1. Here's something more reliable and verifiable. Use the official 2000 US Census website, available here  to get the Asian populations within the Chinatown zipcodes.
SF Zipcode	Asians residents	Comment
94108     	7904            	traditional center of SF Chinatown
94103     	5456            	adjacent to the South
94109     	15678           	adjacent to the West
94104     	238             	adjacent to the East
94105     	135             	adjacent to the East
94133     	14829           	adjacent to the North
NYC Zipcode	Asians residents	comment
10013      	11489           	traditional center of Manhattan Chinatown
10012      	4752            	adjacent to the North
10014      	1666            	adjacent to the North-East
10002      	41798           	adjacent to the East
10007      	375             	adjacent to the South
10038      	4948            	adjacent to the South East
Add up the numbers - you get SF Chinatown with an Asian population of 44,240 and Manhattan Chinatown with an Asian population of 65028. It's been claimed that since 2001, Manhattan Chinatown has shrunk for various reasons. That might be so, but until some 
reliable numbers show up (like a Census) those claims are not verifiable.  Unfortunately, that Census website doesn't have 2006 numbers for any of these zipcodes. 
2.  For the area calculations, this person uses the out-dated traditional boundaries for Manhattan Chinatown while at the same time uses modern day boundaries for the other cities.
3. I'm not making the claim that Manhattan Chinatown is the largest in North America, as I haven't done the research. But I do believe that SF Chinatown is not the largest anymore. 
Dyl (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dis-information from 67.115.155.107 

message: The actual boundaries of Chinatown (ie blocks where the majority of the signage is bilingual, predominately Chinese businesses abound, etc) are significantly wider than the article describes. I've walked in Chinatown and observed this, but you can also go on Google Streetview and clearly see this. I do not have citeable information with which to actually edit the article with, yet, but it is a part of this article that someone or myself could work on. 
Here are some Google Streetviews that describe the wider boundaries I'm talking about
Allen at Canal St
Mid-block Madison St between Market St and Catherine St
Grand St At Mott St
Jcrav2k6 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The person using IP address 67.115.155.107 spread a lot of misinformation in his/her zeal to say that SF Chinatown is larger than Manhattan Chinatown. Previously, I had listed more modern boundaries for NYC Chinatown, but that person would keep reverting my edits. After awhile, I just gave up as life is too short to deal with unreasonable people. Dyl (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: This article is about the neighborhood called "Chinatown", not "the community of Chinese Americans". Greenwich Village doesn't become bigger when all the artists and LGBT people start moving into Chelsea. --Voidvector (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Greenwich Village is clearly a physical location. But I'm not sure so about Chinatown - why isn't it the "community of Chinese Americans that live near the historical Chinese center of Manhattan"? Would you say that Little Italy's borders are the same as 100 years ago - given the vastly different populations between now and then? If all of the Chinese moved out of the area, would it still be Chinatown? Dyl (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article title is "Chinatown, Manhattan" which is clearly styled as the name of the physical location, so the boundary is  whatever the city says it is. If the title was "New York Chinatown", then it would be a different matter. Same applies to Little Italy. --Voidvector (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know if there is any "official" boundary. If it does exist, somebody needs to search the NYC government sources for it. The boundaries that I previously listed were from my personal experience. I can't speak for the later edits done by 67.115.155.107, that person's edits doesn't match what I have experienced/seen. The same issue exists for the Chinatown, San Francisco article - that person changed the boundaries to match that person's perception of current day population growth. Dyl (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Here is a map that might be useful; for research purposes only (?) -- It is copyrighted (hope it's okay to post a link to it here):http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/21/nyregion/21chinatown-map.html ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Street Boundaries 

message: Dyl- I hate to rain on your parade, but NY Chinatown is NOT even close 2 square miles as you've suggested. Based on my research, and from what I was able to cover by foot(east of the Bowery and well into the lower e. side), its actual size is more or less 1/2 mile at its widest, and likewise in length. For it to be 2 sq. mi. would mean it would have to cover almost the entire lower east side close to the east river, while reaching as far north as E. 23rd to the doorsteps of the Metro Life Bldg.! Since the area covered is less than a perfect square of 1/2 miles on each side, this puts its actual size at just under 1/2 sq. mi.(somewhere between .35 and .4 sq. mi. based on my estimation). To better substantiate my findings, I had a piece of tracing paper cut into a perfect square simulating 1 sq. mi.(each side representing 1 mi. on the map's scale). Overlaying it over the map showed that it had dwarfed the Chinatown area slightly more than twice. I don't know where people come up with the "2 square miles" figure which I've also spotted on some NY Chinatown websites. It could be that they're mathematically challenged and added up all four sides when they should've multiplied 2 sides! As a visual frame of reference, take a look at Central Park on a map. At roughly 1.4 sq. mi., this colossus of an urban oasis can fit about 4 Chinatowns within its bounds. Also, concerning the disapproval of others modifying Wikipedia's text to reflect their own perception of things....Isn't that supposed to be the purpose in the first place? Doesn't the original text also reflect the perceptions of the peron(s) who wrote it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlopChop (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY Chinatown is NOT 2 Square Miles 

message: Just heard in the news that some politico up in New York wants to redistrict the lower east. Apparently, some SE asian groups in the area have been voicing their concerns of ill-treatment by the chinese community. The proposed measures would call for redistricting and creating two new additional sections out of chinatown. In effect, it would dramaticaly reduce the area size of chinatown to slightly more than that of Philadelphia's. Another alternative would be to rename chinatown to the International Asian District to reflect the diversity of the neighborhood, similar to that of Seattle's International District.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobFromPhilly (talk • contribs) 17:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Chinatown size to be reduced by city hall? 

message: As a born and bred New Yorker now living in Rhode Island, it pains me to say that Manhattan's Chinatown IS shrinking. And, this is not happening little by little, but at an alarming rate. With each visit to NY, I have noticed the ever-changing demographics. I can remember a time during the late 1990s when Chinatown reached as far west as B'way, from Kenmare to Chambers in the south. And from B'way it ran a large stretch of Kenmare/Delancey all the way to Ludlow in the east. As things are now, its western frontiers have been pushed back to Lafayette from Grand to Canal in the north, on Baxter from Canal to Worth in the south. With the exception of a tiny stretch of Delancey between the Bowery and Eldridge, Chinatown's northern edge now runs mostly along Grand St. There also seems to be a retreat towards Allen in the east. With these changes, it appears that San Francisco's Chinatown is now probably larger in size. If this trend continues, it may even fall behind L.A.'s Chinatown, and that's a scary thought.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandolphMulligan (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York's  Chinatown IS Shrinking 

message: My keyboard is malfunctioning, or rather my keyboard's relationship with my RAM and browser, so extended posts are difficult for me at present; this is being composed in TextEdit without ready reference to preceding posts on the wikipage.  Due to aggressive edits and accusatory edit comments/talkpage posts by User:Thmc1 in relation to comparative size/populaton figures for SF/Vanc/NYC Chinatowns, I set about looking this morning for any kind of actual maps of "official" Chinatown, Manhattan; as with other such cases, an editor's opinion of where an area's boundaries are do not matter, all that can be cited and USED is anything from a reliable source.  Only two of the following items, including the Manhattan map from WikiTravel, have any kind of actual boundary on them; others only indicate the vicinity of Chinatown.  Also by the sound of some of the comments in preceding sections, despite the map on explorechinatown.org showing a much-larger-than-traditional Chinatown, it appears that may be a "best case" or "wishful thinking"/marketing boundary, and not reflective of actual usage. It sounds like from the just-preceding section that the City of New York DOES have an official boundary; if so that's the only one that can be used.  There are further comments on Talk:Chinatown, San Francisco which echo some of the above as to the overblown area/scale of estimates on NYC's Chinatown.  My own view is that if the "shifting boundaries" argument is used, then Vancouver's Chinatown would include Chines living outside the OFFICIAL boundaries of Chinatown (which is only 1.84 ha. but serves as a "Chinese downtown" for the whole city), or in other areas of the city that could be construed as "Chinatown" by the loose standards being asserted for Manhattan's and other Chinatowns, then Vancouver's Chinatown could be "estimated" to have 200,000 residents (easily, given the Chinese population of the city proper is 168,215, that of the metropolitan area well over 400,000).  Applying hard definitions in one case, and broad definitonos/estimates in another, is not just sloppy it's also original research using apples and oranges to make a potato.  Vancouver's extended Chinatown also overlaps with that city's Little Italy and also with other elements of the city's ethno-cmomercial landscape; and if "defined" by the same loose standards apparently at play with Manhattan, Flushing and Sunset Park, can be "estimated" to be a good 15-20 sq. mi., and THAT is not including the dominantly Chinese suburb of Richmond nor the Metrotown area of South Burnaby.  My concern overall with the "Chinatown pissing contest" (aka "my wonton is bigger than your wonton") is that it's comparing statistics and estimates which have no equivalence to each other, and the two definitions (of several available) for "Chinatown" include "official" Chinatowns as recognized by municipalities and/or business associations, and the idea of "anywhere that has Chinese commerce/residents and (maybe) Chinese street signs".  Digging through zip codes/postal codes to compile statistics is also, as all here must realize or should, WP:Original research and making any conclusions/estimations based on them is WP:Synthesis.  The line I added the "or" tag to about "most...estimates" is typical of the problem; no actual estimates were provided, only a claim that that's what those estimates said, without any reference to the data set/definitions/urban geography used to determine them.
Anyway here's the available maps I found on a first look; those on explorechinatown.com and nychinatown.org seem to have the most weight, organization-wise, but I suspect that either the civic government of NYC or the NYC Tourism Office may have an official definition available.  Including Little Italy and the historically-Jewish Lower East Side as part of Chinatown is just "not on"; somewhere I saw a page bragging that Chinatown was "the largest and most famous of the city's ethnic neighbourhoods", which is further too-typical braggadocio; it's news to me that Chinatown is bigger than Harlem, or bigger than Spanish Harlem........ 
*http://www.schmap.com/newyork/sights_chinatown/
*http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cid=17FCB51AAA4E0C7A!801
*http://www.nychinatown.org/maps/index.html
*http://www.mustseenewyork.com/maps/soho-littleitaly-china-map.html
*http://www.nychinatown.org/canal2.html
*http://gonyc.about.com/od/manhattan/l/bl_littleitaly.htm
*http://www.explorechinatown.com/Gui/Content.aspx-Page=Locate.htm 
*http://www.explorechinatown.com/PDF/explorechinatownmap.pdf 
*http://wikitravel.org/upload/shared//2/2d/Manhattan_districts.png
Skookum1 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "My wonton is bigger than your wonton"

message: I just reversed yet another "New York is biggest" type edit by the ever-persistent User:Thmc01 on Chinatown, Vancouver; he also used a non-official San Francisco travel cite to back up his claim that "even San Francisco says it's second", which is not my recolletion of SF's official sources at all.  After checking http://www.vancouverchinatown.org or http://www.vancouverchinatown.ca whichever it is), where it says clearly that it's the "second largest in North America after San Francisco's", I re-amended the entry here to add that cite and also to delete the populaton comparison; it's pretty clear that User:Thmc01 is confusing Chinese populations with physical Chinatowns.  The actual area of Vancouver's Chinatown I can figure out, might even be on that talkpage or above somewhere, and as far as I can tell that's the only non-original research usage that's avaialble.  What are the areas of SF's and Manhattan's Chinatowns according to their official boundaries?Skookum1 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Vancouver's Chinatown isn't that big Dfa89yasd89fyasd89y (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Size ranking from User:Thmc01 AGAIN

message: The following broken links were removed but because they are significant I'm placing them here so we can one day find working versions of them again (e.g., through Wayback, etc.):
*Museum of Chinese in the Americas
*Chinatown: A Neighborhood Plan
-Dpr (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Amidst all this discussion about which Chinatown is biggest(Manhattan vs. Flushing), it's quite strange that nothing was ever mentioned about San Francisco's 2 largest Chinatowns(old and new/Richmond Dist.), which in respect are just as large, if not larger than NYC's . It's just perplexing that such narow-minded views of the world can still exist amongst New Yorkers. Of course, there's an ulterior motive at play here. It really has nothing to with Manhattan vs. Flushing, and everything to do with dis-crediting and downplaying the signifigance of San Francisco's Chinese community by ignorant people. And, let's not forget that there are also BIG Chinatowns in other cities throughout the world like Vancouver and Toronto. The last time I checked, NY doesn't have the tallest building(Dubai) or the most subway tracks(London) in the world. Simply put, NY is not the whole world.MealMachine (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are actually lots of huge Chinatowns throughout south east Asia like Singapore, Malaysia, Philipines, Vietnam, etc. South east Asia is where the majority of overseas Chinese are concentrated. But the first Chinatown that anyone would think of in America would probably be the SF one, and that's the most well known Chinese American community. Dfa89yasd89fyasd89y (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denial of other Chinese Communities 

message: I have removed several images originally from the public domain, because they violate one or both of the following laws concerning PD images.
 
1. Photographs in the pd may only be duplicated from an original source. It is illegal to make a copy from a copy. Since Daniel Ostrow, the author of "Manhattan Chinatown: Postcard History" is the only known owner of such photos, one would have to go to him for permission in borrowing them. The photos would then have to be transported to Wikipedia's head office in San Francisco to be scanned into the designated computer and directory from where they are to be viewed from. Duplicating any other way would constitute copying from a copy, a violation of PD duplication laws as defined by Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., 191 F.2d 99 (2nd Cir. 1951). 
 
2. It is illegal to make copies from PD photos which have been altered, modified, or in this case, incorporated into copyrighted & published works. The law considers such images as those found in the book "Manhattan Chintown: Postcard History" unique as a 
result of incorporation, and thus protected under US and international copyright laws.US Government Copyright Office Website
MBaxter1 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. One is an indisputably PD file from 1896, and the other is from the Bain collection at the Library of Congress. Another is an ancient postcard published before 1923. These are not Wikipedia images. They are on Wikipedia Commons. If you have a problem with them, take it up there. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For your info, PDimages can only be copied from an original source/copy. Your download was taken from a copy of a copy, clearly a violation. As for the commons photos... sorry, my mistake. They are still in violation of copyriht laws and should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBaxter1 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you understand my point about Commons? If memory serves me right, you've been told that in the past on at least one occasion concerning other images you've disputed. Removing valid Commons images here and posting lengthy pseudo-legal arguments is disruptive. If your claim is valid, Commons will delete them. Since it has been pointed out to you multiple times that you've gone to the wrong place to dispute the PD status of images that reside elsewhere, I am doubting the good faith of your complaints. You've also been told to sign your posts, and you disregard that too. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Mbaxter, anything released before 1923 is in public domain. Not everything in public domain howver is without duspute. My sister's publishing company learned this the hard way when they were sued and now only copy from legit sources. Rememeber you can copy anything in the public domain for your own use as long as its from the source. For example a photo presumably pd in a book that's simply a gallery of pictures is ok to copy. Covers any subject based on the photos and vice versa may not be ok as the author can lay claim to copywrite. NEVER copy from someone else's copy. This may be in violation of public domain fair use acts. The problem is that most people don't know and assume anything in public domain can be duplicated and passsed around like the flu. Likewise owners of copywrite materials containing pd works aren't aware of the law or don't care so there are no problems. It's only when they aware and bring up copywrite issues that problems appear and end up in court. I'm no expert on the subject so your best bet is to seek the advice of someone who is well versed in such matters. Try www.copyright.gov as they may have the answers which you seek. LetsGoRockies! (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed illegal PD images. 

message: The section relating to immigration from Fujian province doesn't connect that to the Fouzhou people.  Stating that Fujian province is in the Fouzhou region should do the trick. ~Eric F. 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuzhou 

message: This article from DNAInfo states that in 2010 Chinatown & Little Italy, between Houston & Worth and Lafayette and the Bowery, were added to the National Register of Historic Places.It also says both are on the NYS Register of Historic Places. I know there's an info box for at least the NRHP, but I don't know how to go about adding it. Does anyone wish it? For reference, see articles such as East Village, Manhattan.
caz | speak 23:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Register of Historic Places & NYS Register of Historic Places 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chinatown, Manhattan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130524225941/http://www.indypressny.org:80/nycma/voices/397/news/news to http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/397/news/news/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why are there Chinese characters on this article?  It's a neighborhood in New York City.  Magnolia677 (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese characters 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chinatown, Manhattan. 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/20121029075400/http://geographyplanning.buffalostate.edu/MSG%202002/13_McGlinn.pdf to http://geographyplanning.buffalostate.edu/MSG%202002/13_McGlinn.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029075400/http://geographyplanning.buffalostate.edu/MSG%202002/13_McGlinn.pdf to http://geographyplanning.buffalostate.edu/MSG%202002/13_McGlinn.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029075400/http://geographyplanning.buffalostate.edu/MSG%202002/13_McGlinn.pdf to http://geographyplanning.buffalostate.edu/MSG%202002/13_McGlinn.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029075400/http://geographyplanning.buffalostate.edu/MSG%202002/13_McGlinn.pdf to http://geographyplanning.buffalostate.edu/MSG%202002/13_McGlinn.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Chinatown, Manhattan. 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/20101101135519/http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2010/07/204071/chinatown-question to http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2010/07/204071/chinatown-question
*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/20131109010909/http://www.apaforprogress.org/chinese-american-population-harlem-nyc-surges to http://www.apaforprogress.org/chinese-american-population-harlem-nyc-surges
*Added  tag to http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/270/news/news_2/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817043558/http://www.ny1.com/content/special_reports/making_census_of_it/140908/making-census-of-it--as-brooklyn-s-chinese-american-population-grows--some-call-for-more-services to http://www.ny1.com/content/special_reports/making_census_of_it/140908/making-census-of-it--as-brooklyn-s-chinese-american-population-grows--some-call-for-more-services
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120819234103/http://www.ny1.com/content/special_reports/making_census_of_it/143332/making-census-of-it--chinatown-no-longer-home-to-nyc-s-largest-chinese-population to http://www.ny1.com/content/special_reports/making_census_of_it/143332/making-census-of-it--chinatown-no-longer-home-to-nyc-s-largest-chinese-population
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308024910/http://www.ps124.org/site_res_view_template.aspx?id=ea9776b6-61a6-44c3-9cbc-0ba7acc93df9 to http://www.ps124.org/site_res_view_template.aspx?id=ea9776b6-61a6-44c3-9cbc-0ba7acc93df9
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'd like to to "promote" the "Further reading" subsection to a full section per MOS:APPENDIX.  Any comments? —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Bumping and requesting comment from the recent editors of the article.  Castncoot, Epicgenius, MB, Shellwood, Gilliam, and Heroeswithmetaphors what say you? —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, but only if the "Notes" subheader is removed. Or else that subheader will be the only content in "References". epicgenius (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   That's (perfectly) fine by me.  Anyone else? —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine by me as well. Castncoot (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done.  Tahnk you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoting "Further reading" to a full section per the MOS? 

message: How valid is that argument that Flushing, and Elmhurst catered to middle class Chinese immigrants? Ever since I could remember, the Manhattan Chinatown has always had more expensive rent than Queens, so what made the Queens Chinatowns more middle class? Seemed more to me like if you couldn't afford Manhattan, you'd set up shop in Queens. If anything, the shop owners, and renters would need more money to rent in Manhattan, whether you're talking about commercial, or residential rentals. Chinatown is also nearby to Tribeca, and that's one of the most expensive neighborhoods in New York. Soho is also nearby. Whereas Flushing, and Elmhurst is kind of surrounded by more ghetto areas, and heck, you can make the argument that Flushing, and Elmhurst are ghetto themselves. When I'm thinking of middle class, I'm thinking Alexandria VA, not Elmhurst Queens. Elmhurst is kind of a place where new immigrants go to be with other immigrants (which kind of is a definition of ghetto}. It's hardly somewhere you go once you've made it . I mean if the Taiwanese were so "middle class", why not just set up shop in Times Square, or NOMAD?Dfa89yasd89fyasd89y (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flushing middle class 

message: Cantonese is frequently brought up as something that divides the Fuzhou, TW, and Cantonese immigrants, but actually most Cantonese that I've met can speak and understand Mandarin, even with very heavy accents, and Fuzhou people also can understand Mandarin, so the people who wrote these articles talking about Cantonese this and that seem to be writing it discounting the fact that almost everyone, whether Cantonese, or FZ can understand Mandarin, and there isn't really as big of a divide as this article makes it seem. Really, when a Cantonese person meets a Fujian person, they just speak Mandarin, just like if a Fuzhou person meets a Shanghai, or Guizhou person. Even Hongers, who are often the outcast, can understand Mandarin. The reason why Mandarin was introduced as a national language in the 1900s was specifically so people from different provinces could communicate with each other. Dfa89yasd89fyasd89y (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cantonese 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Chinatow and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10#Chinatow until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 11:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chinatow" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]