Talk:Harlem

message: Please give consensus on this proposed move:
*I think it would make more sense. Basketball110 what famous people say 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Harlem, New York 

message: Should we add ATLAH, the church in Harlem, to the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.123.234 (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATLAH? 

message: This would be a good article to mention the Harlem Book Fair in. its redlinked in WP at least a few times. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harlem book fair 

message: There seems to be little evidence that Harlem was ever a separate political entity from New York City. The article here references an  article from National Geographic in 1977, which I am not privy to, but this seems at odds with the generally accepted idea that after the 1666 and 1687 English charters were created all of Manhattan island became coterminous with New York City. Certainly after the Dongan charter of 1687, Harlem would have been represented in the city's assembly as part of the "Out Ward." If there are no objections, I am going to correct this. James Grant Wilson (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the citation, it seems likely that something changed in the legal status of Harlem in 1873. I should have that issue of National Geographic at home, and will check their precise language.  Uucp (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Found it -- "in 1873 the Village of Harlem became part of the City of New York--and New York's first suburb." p.185.  Absent some specific evidence to the contrary, I incline to reintroduce language in the article that Harlem was not part of the city until 1873. Uucp (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See also , , . I am also looking for a 19th map to reference, which might be interesting. Sswonk (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just found an unambiguous source that Harlem was a separate village with a separate government until it was annexed in 1873. I'll be making a number of changes to the article when I have a chance. Uucp (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm doubtful that Harlem was ever a legally separate entity from New York City, and fairly certain that the 1873 date is bogus. All of the sources for it given here probably stem from , which doesn't cite a source. The 1873 date lacks any contemporary evidence in the Times. Moreover, the 1811 Commissioners survey covered Manhattan past New York City, and no reports or maps I can find mention a separate Town or Village of Harlem.  . Maps from the mid-19th Century also show New York City as covering Manhattan, including this one from 1868 . A 1907 history states that as of 1730, New York City included all of Manhattan, and strongly implies that that was the case in 1686:
 It seems likely that Harlem had at least a semi-autonomous municipal government at one point, but perhaps only briefly. Fitnr (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this New York Times article, from September of 1852, the author, a native of Harlem, notes that Harlem "is not represented in the same Council where the affairs of the City are so well and so wisely administered."  The author also compares Harlem and the City as if they are two separate entities, though both within New York County, and notes that the thousands of readers of the paper, most of whom are New York City residents, have probably never heard of Harlem.  Though the website requires a subscription, you can view the article for free by clicking the PDF link.   98.221.141.21 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harlem as independent from New York City 

message: I removed the following
:Harlem has one of the highest asthma rates in the United States.  Increased risk of asthma may be brought about by high particulate matter from the diesel emissions of buses and trucks, which levels are higher in Harlem than elsewhere in New York City.http://www.weact.org/pressadvisories/2003_Apr_23.html WE ACT press release, April 23, 2003
following the release of the the New York City Community Air Survey on December 15, 2009. The study shows that fine particle levels in Harlem are lower than Manhattan averages, and far lower than midtown or the upper east side. As the original citation is only to a claim by WE-ACT, a political group with an axe to grind, the new study seems far superior as a source.
Somebody may want to add something about the relatively superior quality of the air of Harlem. As for me, I'm happy just to remove the erroneous claim that the air is worse up there. Uucp (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Knulclunk (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  air quality 

message: "Before you read this article and gather informed descions regarding Harlem's physical culture, please realize that Harlem is not a 'Ghetto' environment. Afterall, the Globe Trotters are there." Relgif (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this really be the second paragraph (or any part) of this entry?  

message: The quote in the article was marked since 2009 as needing a citation. I found one in the book Gangsters of Harlem (2007) and added it. If anyone's interested in doing further research to get closer to a primary source (primary sources are generally not acceptable in Wikipedia but the more authoritative a secondary source the better), here's what I found along the way, and this may be used as a starting point for research.
The book does not cite a source as specifically as academic books do (reliable journalism books, like journalism generally, often don't) and it does not mention Ralph Ellison again, according to its index. However, the End Notes section, for chapter 1 (p. [257]), cites apparently six books and three articles and, judging from their titles, only two books are not primarily about crime and seem likelier to have been authority for the quotation: Ellis, Arthur J., The Mind of Harlem (N.Y.: R&E Assocs., 1968), and Riis, Jacob A., How the Other Half Lives (N.Y.: Sagamore Press, 1957).
: note -- How The Other Half Lives was actually written in 1890. Presumably, Gangsters of Harlem cites a more recent printing, but this book can not be the source of the Ralph Ellison quotation. Uucp (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wherever Negroes live uptown is considered Harlem." quotation research 

message: Seeing the percentages within the recent history section I realized that I used the wrong source within the wiki article that include the statistics that I mentioned... apologies for that. 
That being said, if we are a neighborhood that bottomed out in population in 1990 and shot up since then through to the year 2006... Is it necessary then to discuss the increase of whites in combination with the decrease in blacks? What purpose does that serve to the point being brought out? Wouldn't it make better sense to use the article you included as well as the one that is already on this wiki page to show that the growth of the white population, hispanic population and the growing presence of the middle class black population all contributed to the increase in the overall population over the years? The way it is currently written contradicts itself a great deal given the fact that if the majority of the population decreased by over 10 percentage points and the overwhelming minority population (being the whites in this case) grew by only five percentage points, then there is no way that the overall population could have increased... 
24.193.29.210 (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The older versions made references to race which I retained in bringing the passage more closely into harmony with the source. Your point on race is well taken. The racial shift is definitely important, and am open to discussion as to whether it is overemphasized in the article. Two other points: the source is old, not reflecting the 2010 census, and refers to Central Harlem and "Greater Harlem," while this article is simply on "Harlem." ScottyBerg (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The first article is anecdotal and doesn't help much, but the second one has a lot of good hard data and needs to be incorporated in the article. Unfortunately it does not reflect the 2010 census either. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: response 2

message: <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/nyregion/thecity/17harl.html>, <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/nyregion/06harlem.html>
the two articles that confirm the latest revision that supports response 2. As mentioned within the view history, if someone can please add the citations where the new information is correctly, it would be greatly appreciated.
24.193.29.210 (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for weighing in on this. The article definitely needs upgrading, especially new sources reflecting the 2010 census. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: response 3

message: I have not been able to find any article that summarizes the racial or other changes in Harlem revealed by the 2010 census. The raw data is freely available from the Census Bureau but their web interface is designed for queries about one census block at a time. Harlem, unfortunately, comprises many census blocks, and collating the data will be time consuming. There are probably third party software tools that can simplify this task but I don't have access to any of them.
If some other editor does have access to such tools, here's a handy list of the census blocks in Harlem:
197.02
216
186
174.02
172.02
180
178
201.02
218
190
184
182
188
207.02
220
200
198
196
194
192
209.01
209.02
222
202
219
213.01
217.01
213.02
217.02
224
226
208
206
204
223.02
223.01
228
212
210
225
221.01
221.02
230
214
229
227.01
227.02
232
233
231.01
231.02
234
236
237
235.01
235.02
The article would greatly benefit from a table of the wealth and racial breakdowns of these blocks in 1990, 2000, and 2010. Uucp (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and there surely must be articles on Harlem deriving from the 2010 census. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You would think so, but I haven't found anything useful. I put the task of aggregating the data from these census block on guru.com to see if I could hire somebody to do it cheaply, but the offers came in too high.Uucp (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We also have to remember the policies discouraging original research. I'd hate for you to go to all that trouble and see someone take it out. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way data from the US Census will fail the original research test. Uucp (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're quite sure about that, then perhaps we need to start introducing 2010 census data into this article. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 census data 

message: I figure the suggestions in Wikipedia:Splitting apply here, and the History section, being about half the text, should become its own article.  Of course it should be summarized here as per WP:Summary style.  Jim.henderson (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long history 

message: pickles are nasty..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.173.206 (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  picles 

message: Introduction jumps from dutch settlers in the 17th century to african american migration in 1905, thus fails to mention the jewish and italian communities that created todays Harlem in the 19th century.
History section fails to mention anything about demographics between 1868 and the great migration of african americans in the early 20th century. It merely states:
"The Jewish and Italian demographic decreased, while the black and Puerto Rican population increased in this time", without mentioning which time is being referred to.
Clearly the immigrants which constructed and influenced this neighbourhood for over half a century need to be mentioned in the history section. After all, without the contribution of these immigrants, Harlem wouldn't be what it is today.
Without previous development combined with a huge african american migration in the early 20th century, Harlem would most probably be nothing but a vast housing project.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.104.172.90 (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading / poor quality article 

message: Fix the map it's inaccurate 2600:4040:AA61:E400:B38F:25E6:6E38:3064 (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map of Harlem isn't accurate