Talk:East Harlem

message: 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)
thread_title: Nelson Antonio Denis

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Boundary

message: I'd love to see a picture of 116th Street here instead.  It may be more representational. --Knulclunk 04:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Knulclunk 12:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Pictures

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Land Use

message: 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)
replies: text: Good idea. Done. --Knulclunk (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bodega

message: *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)
thread_title:  Unused refs 

message:  
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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed rename?

message: 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)
thread_title: Puffery and other article issues

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Education

message: Consistency of nomenclature..."East Harlem" Xela Zeugirdor (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
replies: text: * 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title: Question about categories

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/applicants/scoping-documents.page#east-harlem Sokvetchy (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rezoning  

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removal of entry from "Notable person" section

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Intro section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  East Harlem - Part of Harlem or Not? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current Italian American Population of East Harlem