Talk:Harlem

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marcfred1010. Peer reviewers: Marcfred1010.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jam1546.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Louis Sullivan?

If the name of Louis Sullivan appears among the roster of architects, how many others are incorrect too? --Wetman 2 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)

I have read more than once that the Bayard building is the only Sullivan building in NYC. I do not believe there are any Sullivan buildings in Harlem, though i could be shown otherwise. McKim Mead, and White is right though. White did "Strivers' Row." Dinopup 2 July 2005 03:39 (UTC)

That was my error; I must have been smoking crack when I typed Sullivan's name. He never did anything in Harlem. However the rest are all good and I can provide addresses of individual buildings if you want. uucp 5 July 2005

City College/Washington Heights

I am reverting this; City College itself lists its location as Harlem. http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/neighborhood/neighborhood_moreinfo.htm

I think the disagreement stems from two different communities (Harlem and Washington Heights) fighting for "ownership" of the lovely Hamilton Heights neighborhood, where the school is located. However, by the definition in this article and by common usage, CCNY, at 138th and Convent is in West Harlem, not Washington Heights. uucp 5 July 2005

There's no disagreement at all. None whatsoever. Self-confidence is a poor substitute for information. "West Harlem" is ignorant nonsense. The WPA Guide to New York is available in paperback. The AIA Guide to New York City is also a useful guide. I recommend either. --Wetman 6 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

(For a clear assessment of editor uucp, see his new entry Chas lee (sic) and editorial efforts, in more congenial territory, at Porn 'n Chicken. This is not someone to have a disagreement with over facts.)

Where did this nastiness and ad hominem attacks come from? The AIA guide describes City College merely as belonging to "Hamilton Heights," and does not assign it to Washington Heights or Harlem. However, Kenneth Jackson's Encyclopedia of New York City is unambiguous in stating that Washington Heights does not start until 155th Street (which is also the common definition of the neighborhood). Michael Henry Adams's encyclopedic Harlem Lost and Found includes CCNY, as does the New York Landmarks Conservancy in Touring Historic Harlem. Sorry, but I don't have the WPA guide handy. The name suggests, however, that it dates to the 1930s and is perhaps not the best guide to current neighborhood boundaries.

I have now cited four sources, including the school itself, as placing the intersection of 138th Street and Convent Avenue in Harlem, and I will reinsert the reference to CCNY to this page.

As for your complaints about the Chas Lee entry, if you would like to edit it, please do so. However, your insinuation that it is not accurate is petty. I defy you to point out even one error in the entry. uucp 5 July 2005

Work the references into the text and list them as References at the bottom. Kenneth Jackson is certainly worth actually quoting: that will most effectively silence my carping. --Wetman 6 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)

Move to Harlem, New York

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)

• Oppose - Not trying to be too U.S. centric, but is there really another "Harlem" that comes even close to popularity/fame? --Knulclunk (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • See this. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 00:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose This Harlem is a lot more famous than Harlem, Montana and its namesake in the Netherlands. I can't imagine anybody who types "harlem" and gets this page is very confused by that. Uucp (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

ATLAH?

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)

Harlem book fair

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)

Harlem as independent from New York City

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)

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)

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)

See also [1], [2], [3]. I am also looking for a 19th map to reference, which might be interesting. Sswonk (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 [4], 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. [5] [6]. Maps from the mid-19th Century also show New York City as covering Manhattan, including this one from 1868 [7]. 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:

The Out Ward comprised all of the land of Manhattan Island beyond the limits of the city proper, and the city jurisdiction covered almost all of the waters and islands of the rivers and the bay

— John Austin Stevens, The Physical Evolution of New York City in a Hundred Years [8]

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)

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)

air quality

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.

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)

Agreed. --Knulclunk (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Should this really be the second paragraph (or any part) of this entry?

"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)

removal of charter school name and that charters are doing well for students

The naming of a charter (a group of 5 local schools) was deleted and a statement of charters' achievement was deleted.

The statement about most of the charters doing well is in the cited Times article; it was not a generalization from the article.

Adding multiple charters should be more helpful than omitting all of them. This Wikipedia article names a school of higher education and it names a chain of three libraries, and public libraries are meant for self-directed choice-driven education, so adding charters fits.

I'd like to restore the deleted language and let anyone add additional charters, since the article is already discussing local education and it clearly is an important issue locally and historically, given the one-in-five enrollment already.

Comments?

Thank you.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I read the New York Times article and saw nothing to back the claim that "most of the charters in Harlem appear to be performing well for students." Give us a quotation from the article if you see something I don't. Also, if you want to make a list of charter schools, do it on another page. You will note that the wikipedia pages for other cities do not list all the schools in those cities, it would be as inappropriate as listing every restaurant, every bookstore, every train station, or anything else. The fact that another school is mentioned doesn't prove anything; that one should probably be removed too. Uucp (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the quote: "Charter schools are not always better for children. Across the country many are performing badly. But when run well — as most in Harlem and New York’s other most-challenged communities appear to be — they can make a huge difference in a child’s life." My wording is shorter.

As to creating a Wikipedia article on schools in Harlem, I'm considering it, at least as a stub. The Harlem article is 72 KiB long, so linking to an article makes sense.

Thanks for the critique.

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I support creating a breakaway page; we already have similar ones for movies filmed in Harlem and people from Harlem. This feels similar. Uucp (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Done: Education in Harlem. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"Wherever Negroes live uptown is considered Harlem." quotation research

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)

A Google search yielded an additional clue, that Ralph Ellison said the statement to Joe McCarthy, who I think is probably Sen. Joe McCarthy, after he stated where he lived. This I doubt. The claim is, "Asked in the 1950s by Joe McCarthy where he lived, Ralph Ellison said 150th St. and Riverside Drive. He qualified his answer, though, noting that the area had once been regarded as 'Washington Heights'. But stated that from his experience, 'Wherever Negroes live uptown is considered Harlem.'" (single quotation marks around "Washington Heights" & absence of wording within "But stated " both so in original). This appears at Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/review/R1JZWTU3KCQUUC/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt/182-6086275-9533247#R1JZWTU3KCQUUC, as accessed Sep. 25, 2010) in a book review by the author of a book, but the book does not make the statement (i.e., it was in the review, not in the book) and the review does not cite a source. The book author and reviewer is associated with Harlem but otherwise does not have a strong academic credential for this subject. A serious biography of Ralph Ellison by Arnold Rampersad (cited below) has much content about him in politics but does not list Joe McCarthy in its index, suggesting there was no major contact with the senator.

(The book: Adams, Michael Henry, photographs by Paul Rocheleau, Harlem: Lost and Found: An Architectural and Social History, 1765–1915 (N.Y.: The Monacelli Press, 2002 (ISBN 1-58093-070-0)) (author "studied historic preservation at Columbia University and is an expert on the architecture and history of Harlem, where he lives and works" & author of other works & photographer "architectural photographer" & has other books, per id., dust jkt., rear flap) (coffee-table book) (no entry for Ellison, boundary, boundaries, uptown, Negro, or Negroes in index (pp. 276–279)) (nothing found on point by skimming likelier parts of main text) (errors in book affecting its credibility & therefore author's (although perhaps attributable to photographer if latter also did photo research on work by others): caption "Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, Morningside Park, preliminary plan, 1873; revised plan, Olmsted and Vaux with Jacob Wrey Mould, 1887", id., p. [270], superimposed on lower left corner of modern-appearing photo of what appears to be actual body of water, shore with trees, and buildings, id., pp. [270]–[271] (i.e., not a "plan" & despite caption's position on left plan is not on preceding pp.); caption "William Ström, 37 Hamilton Terrace (now Yuien Chin house), 1899. View east over central Harlem from garden", id., p. [268], superimposed on upper left corner of modern-appearing photo that shows what appear to be mid- and late-20th-century buildings in background, id., pp. [268]–[269] (i.e., not "1899" although photo's main subject may have existed then){{{the caption is correct, The view east over Central Harlem as seen FROM William Strom's 1899 house}}}; see also the Amazon review for other errors and their explanation). The reviewer at Amazon.com was also Michael Henry Adams.)

Since Sen. Joe McCarthy was white and was hunting for Communists and Harlem was a center of communist organizing, I doubt the Senator met Black writer Ralph Ellison at a cocktail party or during book publicity efforts. More likely, if they met, it was if Ralph Ellison testified at a hearing of the Senate Un-American Activities Committee about Communists he might have met. It's likely Ralph would have been advised by a lawyer just to answer the questions and not volunteer more than that, regardless of his feelings about Communism (I don't know what those were). It's not likely his answer about where he lived was just an intersection followed by a wider statement that was legally unnecessary and that, to a white anticommunist conducting a formal hearing, could be taken as a bit provocative. A few years ago, a record of the executive sessions (i.e., secret sessions) of some or all of the hearings was officially published by the Federal government and put online; it includes an index, which does not list Ralph Ellison. I did not search for records of public hearings that were probably published in the 1950s.

However, Ralph Ellison may have spoken with more liberal Senators in the mid or late 1960s and he met President Johnson. "Appearing before a U.S. Senate subcommittee that included Robert Kennedy, Jacob Javits, and Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut, he answered with a studied calm their questions about the current crisis in American cities, where violence, crime, and poverty had become identified overwhelmingly with blacks, especially black youth. . . . . Negroes, he said, 'want to transform Harlem, the Harlems of their country. These places are precious to them. These places are where they have dreamed, where they have lived, where they have loved, where they have worked out life as they could. . . . A slum like Harlem isn't just a place of decay. It is a form of historical and social memory.'" Rampersad, Arnold, Ralph Ellison: A Biography (N.Y.: Vintage Books, 1st Vintage Books ed., 1st ed. [1st printing?], pbk., Jan., 2008, © 2007 (also: N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf, hardcover 2007) (Vintage ISBN 978-0-375-70798-8)), p. 427 (author humanities prof., Eng. dept., Stanford Univ., per front matter pp.) (2d ellipsis or suspension points so in original) ("'want to transform Harlem'" attributed to Harlem's America, in New Leader, vol. 49, Sep. 26, 1966, p. 26, per Ralph Ellison: A Biography, id., p. 610 (Notes)). This suggests that he might have made the statement either in hearings before liberal Senators or in informal conversations. A photograph of him with Pres. Johnson appears on the 7th page of photographs between p. 380 & p. [381], and Pres. Johnson is referenced at least 21 times in the book, according to the index. Maybe he made the statement to the President or to White House or political staff. (Consistently, Prof. Rampersad writes of winter 1948, "[i]f Harlem is nowhere, as the title of . . . [Ralph Ellison's] piece proclaims, then Harlem is everywhere. Ralph's ultimate hope was that Harlem might be seen as the world. Its protocols against chaos having been smashed, the world itself had become a madhouse." Id., p. 219 (possibly attributed to Ralph Ellison to Richard Wright (perhaps a letter), Feb. 1, 1948, per id., p. 590 (Notes)). Also according to Prof. Rampersad, "James Weldon Johnson had recently predicted ["Harlem"] was bound to become 'the greatest Negro city in the world.'" Id., p. 82.)

Another serious biography on the writer had index entries on Joseph McCarthy, but the pages don't indicate that the writer and the senator ever met. Jackson, Lawrence Patrick, Ralph Ellison: Emergence of Genius (Athens, Ga.: Univ. of Georgia Press, pbk. [1st printing? printing of [20]07?] 2007 (ISBN-13 978-0-8203-2993-2 & ISBN-10 0-8203-2993-2) (original: N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, hardcover 2002)) (author assoc. prof. Eng. & African American studies, Emory Univ., per cover IV). This book may have more indicators of where Ralph Ellison may have made the statement; the index entry for Harlem may help.

Other books have been published, including his own. Any of them might have the statement or a variation of it.

Possibly, Ralph Ellison wrote something on this in The City in Crisis (1967 or 1968), perhaps on p. 14. I have not checked much.

One could search Amazon.com for various books and then use the feature that lets us search inside a book for words. I started by searching separately for "Wherever Negroes live" and "uptown is considered Harlem" because I could imagine the quotation being somewhat different, especially if he said it more than one time, and a search has to be exact, so dividing it may give more results. Unfortunately, each book must be searched separately, and there's no assurance that every book can be searched inside, since not all publishers gave Amazon permission. Another search facility is available at Books.Google.com, and possibly books not searchable or available at one will be accessible at the other.

Best wishes. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC) (Corrected a quotation by deleting an extra period: 22:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC))

Atlah photo

To the anonymous IP who has been deleting the photo of the ATLAH church -- it's one of the most visible churches in Harlem, with a media-hungry pastor who is often covered in the press. The sign outside the church is a popular landmark for tourists. It may be funny, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. We've been through multiple rounds of canceling each others' edits. If you want to take this further, let's call in a mediator. Uucp (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE; Undue weight to a picture that includes hate speech. The picture doesn't add anything to an article about the neighborhood. It would be better served in an article about the church pictured. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. You may personally disagree with the view in the sign, but that does not mean the sign is "hate speech", nor does it reduce the significance of the sign as a local landmark and indicator of the breadth of political views in the neighborhood. UNDUE does not seem to apply at all; if we had dozens of paragraphs about how some Harlemites dislike Obama, that would be undue. One photo is merely apt. Uucp (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Acps110 tried several arguments to justify removing this picture, including claiming it was "undue" and that it was "hate speech". He then tried to have the image deleted from Wikimedia commons and threatened to have me "blocked from editing without further notice". The universal consensus at wikimedia commons was that Acps110 was acting in bad faith. I believe this photo is absolutely 100% relevant to the discussion of the Atlah church in this section, and as an illustration of the high visibility of church politics in Harlem, and the wide range of political views in the neighborhood. Though stupid, it is not "hate speech" to question the legitimacy of the President on the basis of his name. Nor is a single picture of this sign "undue" attention to any topic I can imagine. I have therefore restored the picture.

The wikimedia commons discussion can be found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Atlah_Sign.jpg

Please bring any discussion here.Uucp (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Harlem Demographics, 1990-2006

There was a claim in the article that the population of Harlem increased 16% from 1990 to 2006 due to the arrival of "non-hispanic whites" who were richer than the existing Harlem blacks. A footnote was provided to U.S. census data summarized in Gotham Gazette. An anonymous IP declared the passage racist, and edited it to say that middle class blacks were arriving too. The underlying census data does not support this, and in fact has nothing to say about the net worth of the arriving residents at all. The anonymous IP, perhaps trying to hide this fact, deleted the footnote. I have reverted these changes, reducing this sentence to a straightforward summary of the following facts:

1. in 1990 there were 174,956 blacks in Harlem and 36,247 whites (from the Census data).

2. In 2006 there were 151,966 blacks in Harlem and 55,478 whites (also from the Census data).

If anybody wants to edit this, they should find a new source of information. This source provides us with no more information. For what it's worth, the original observation that the newcomers are richer than previous Harlem residents is trivially observed, but we can leave it out of the article until we have a citation. Uucp (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

response

This is anonymous once again... It's like you hipsters have this site on watch at all times as soon as the word blacks moving back into harlem is uttered... That being said, do your research properly... I deleted the gazette link accidentally but the original wording which noone conveniently changed was horribly racist, not even slightly... The fact is that the article blacks are no longer the majority discussed the arrival of upper middle class blacks moving into the area and not wanting to displace the poor blacks living in the area at the same time... Fact is while gentrification has included a major increase in the white population the main force driving the gentrification in the neighborhood is the middle to upper middle class blacks moving in and helping to revitalize the neighborhood...

74.72.180.138 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in this discussion. The census data says that blacks are leaving and whites (and hispanics, and others) are arriving. Until you come up with a good source contradicting this, your allegation that "the main force driving the gentrification in the neighborhood is the middle to upper middle class blacks moving in and helping to revitalize the neighborhood" has no place on Wikipedia. Uucp (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Also this population information is dated. 2010 census data is now available. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

response to 1990-2006

Written within the same article of "blacks no longer a majority"

"There, blacks account for 6 in 10 residents, BUT THOSE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES MAKE UP BARELY HALF OF ALL RESIDENTS. Since 2000, the proportion of whites living there has more than doubled, to more than one in 10 residents — the highest since the 1940s. THE HISPANIC POPULATION, WHICH WAS CONCENTRATED IN EAST HARLEM, IS NOW AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH IN CENTRAL HARLEM, UP 27 PERCENT SINCE 2000."

Again within the same article...

"About 15 percent of Harlem’s black population is foreign-born, mostly from the Caribbean, WITH A """"""""GROWING""""""" NUMBER FROM AFRICA"

Also within the article...

"Some experts say the decline in the black population may be overstated because poorer people are typically undercounted by the census, and Harlem has a disproportionate number of poor people."

"Other analysts point to the outflow of some blacks and the influx of others as positive evidence that barriers to integration have fallen in other neighborhoods and that Harlem has become a more attractive place to live.

“It’s a mistake to see this only as a story of racial change,” said Scott M. Stringer, the Manhattan borough president. “What’s interesting is that many African-Americans are living in Harlem by choice, not necessity.”

Andrew A. Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College, said, “Harlem has become as it was in the early 1930s — a predominantly black neighborhood, but with other groups living there as well.”

Again, these quotes were simply to point out that while the white population has been the largest percentage group coming in due to the previous low numbers within the area... a large number of hispanics as well as a number of middle class blacks coming from different parts of Africa and the Caribbean have made Harlem home in recent years and they are now contributing to its new integrated culture and environment that is far more livable now than in previous years...

Also, while I have shown that within the source in question that the revisions were proven correct, a simple google search of "Blacks contributing to the gentrification in Harlem" will provide a link to articles further proving the accuracy of the statement that middle class Blacks along with whites and hispanics are contributing to the gentrification we are seeing in Harlem... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/nyregion//17harl.html

[[Special:Contributions/24.193.29.210|24.193.29.

response 2

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)

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)

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)

response 3

<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)

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)

2010 census data

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)

Agree, and there surely must be articles on Harlem deriving from the 2010 census. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

There is no way data from the US Census will fail the original research test. Uucp (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

A center of black life?

The article includes this heading, but really only discusses religious life. I'd like to add some material on life in the 1920s, such as fraternal orders, organizations like the Urban League, sports, and street life -- parades, street speakers etc. I think some of it should go in the History section, and other parts under this heading. As the article says, there is a tendency to romanticize the 1920s, but there was a lot going on in the neighborhood that needs to be mentioned. I'm new to this, so I wanted to put my plans out there before I did any edits. Stephensyd (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The 1920s get relatively little space in this article because the Harlem Renaissance has its own article, which this article links to. It would not be appropriate to duplicate the Harlem Renaissance article in this one. Uucp (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. There is a lot more to the 1920s than the Harlem Renaissance. I checked that article, and it makes no mention of any of the topics that I mentioned as missing from this article. Stephensyd (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Then by all means add them. With footnotes, please. That's our primary defense again the hordes of silly, racist edits that this article attracts. Uucp (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the substance of your edits, but why did you put them in the "history" area, rather than the "center of black life" section below, which already has a lot of material much like this? Uucp (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That was my original intention, but I felt that the separate section on just the Harlem Renaissance and Prohibition provided too narrow a view of the 1920s. But the original Renaissance and Prohibition section did not really fit this area, as the "history" area really only discusses population and housing - perhaps we could give it that title rather than "history"? And then the whole section on the 1920s can move to "the center of black life". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephensyd (talk • contribs) 00:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephensyd, your additions are valuable and I appreciate them. The article needs to be better organized, a process that I started a few weeks ago and will continue, but your material will survive the process. Uucp (talk)

OK, but the 'history' section does not include sufficient breadth of content to justify that label, and there is too much history in the other sections that a reader interested in the history might miss when there is a section with that label. What is your plan for the organization of the site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephensyd (talk • contribs) 22:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "history" section is a bit narrowly drawn, and that renaming it may not be a bad idea. The new text added is a welcome addition and I think its current location is pretty good as is. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm.... on further consideration, I think that it may be best to put the "center of black life" section into the History section in its chronologically correct place, and add other subsections to the History section. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

To what section of the chronology do you intend on moving the portions that don't seem tied to any particular decade (for example: Black Harlem has always been religious, here is a list of the popular churches . . . ) Uucp (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I took a stab at reorganizing, moving the "center of black life" subsection to History, and moving some other stuff around. Let me know what you think. Feel free to revert if you don't think this is a good move. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Breaking out the 1920s is not a bad idea, but (1) the period from 1865 - 1920 should no longer be titled "Renaissance," as that is clearly a reference to the 1920s, and (2) there is a fair amount of discussion of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, with references also to more recent periods, in the "1920s" section. Uucp (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've moved around some paragraphs to keep it more chronological. Also I think the images need a bit of redeployment. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Long history

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)

Untitled

A small change here: I grew up in Harlem, lived there from 1943 until 1966. The Apollo was a heavenly place for my best friend and me, to see the great performers of our teen (and adult) years. So here is the change: The caption below the photo of the Apollo says that the "Hotel Theresa is visible in the background". Sorry, but not so! The Hotel Theresa faced what was then called 7th Avenue (now named Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Boulevard). The Apollo was around the corner, across the street, near the middle of the block on 125th Street (now called Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. Pardon my pickiness, but the Apollo holds a special place in my memory - a magical, musical escape from the grey streets, air of misery and cold nights of the 5-storey walk-up home of my childhood. I just want it in its proper place on the info highway. Thanks for your attention. Rosalie - a.k.a. SpanishHarlemRose SpanishHarlemRose (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Misleading / poor quality article

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)

harlem

Harlem est une ville voisine au nord de New York l écrivain James Baldwin y est née Cette ville est réputée pour ces crime ses viols et sa non sécurité (à l'époque) maintenant la ville à beaucoup évoluer et à subis une forte gentrification elle est maintenant une ville indépendante et est un emblem des états Unis

Removal of lead paragraph

I reverted the removal of this paragraph in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, I'd say that it well summarizes several of the sections in the following paragraphs, as it's about the community board representation, police precincts, and zip codes, all of which are vital information. This info is also in several other NYC neighborhood articles. epicgenius (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Aakkbbrr and Alansohn: Pinging you to the discussion so you are aware. It doesn't quite fit into political representation as this has info about the zip codes and police precincts, though the info about community boards may fit. I have yet to see a compelling reason why that info should not be in the lead, either. epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned on my talk page that at the very least, the community district should be included in the lead, such as like this. The community district is mentioned in several sections such as the police, education, and health sections, so it gives necessary context. On the other hand, the ZIP codes and police precincts may be too obscure to casual visitors, but they are also mentioned in the body. It's not like they are inappropriate for the lead, but not the most important thing. epicgenius (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Epicgenius, unlike Aakkbbrr, I agree that the information in question belongs in the article, and as you cite, it belongs in the infobox. I'm not sure that the lead is the best place per WP:LEAD, but I'm not sure where else to put these details. Alansohn (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Alansohn, I agree that zip codes belong in the infobox. I don't think police precincts would fit as well over there, however - but none of the NYC neighborhood articles use that yet, so that could be something we can try. epicgenius (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarise the most important aspects of the topic. What I removed was nowhere near that. There is no place in the world where its postcodes are crucial to an understanding of the topic. The idea is absurd. Here is a little thought experiment to try: if you were to carry out a survey and ask people to name three important facts about Harlem, how many people do you think you would need to ask before someone replied with a set of five postcodes?

I appreciated Alansohn's effort to find a compromise. But everything I removed from the lead could already be found elsewhere in the article. The postcodes were in the infobox, District 10 was mentioned in both Geography and Demographics, and police districts were mentioned in Police and crime. I can't imagine any significant number of people considering them among the most important aspects of the topic either.

Finally I think that when an editor reverts to their own preferred version, designating it "Last good version" in an edit summary is very arrogant and seems deliberately provocative. Aakkbbrr (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, well let's clear up some misconceptions. The lead is for mentioning topics that are important to the article. Not for mentioning fun facts everyone knows about Harlem. I doubt most people will be able to recite the history of Harlem by heart, yet we have a paragraph devoted to this in the lead of every neighborhood article, because that is important to the article. Likewise, the inclusion of administrative functions like community boards, ZIP codes, and police precincts summarizes some of the sections within the article.

I get that zip codes may not be as important, and likewise with police precincts, but they were included since these are important administrative functions, distinguishing Harlem from, say, east Harlem. However, removing the community district is unacceptable. There are large portions of text in this article that are dependent on mentioning that Harlem is covered by CD 10. It's not constructive in any way to remove the CD.

By the way, when I mentioned "last good version", you were edit-warring on this page without leaving a comment on this discussion, which I had opened after reverting you the first time. It has nothing to do with my personal preference. On that note, let's discuss your edit summary. Summaries like "don't be silly" are rarely ever helpful and show a dismissiveness toward the dispute. I'd rather you discuss on the talk page than assume that what I did was in bad faith. epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Alansohn: I noticed that Aakkbbrr was blocked recently by Berean Hunter with the summary "BKFIP". This likely refers to WP:BKFIP, the "best known for IP" who is known for abusive comments like the above and is community banned from Wikipedia. I think we could continue to have a good faith discussion about this, but for now, think we should revert the lead to the edition before that whole dispute above. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The map of Harlem isn't accurate

Fix the map it's inaccurate 2600:4040:AA61:E400:B38F:25E6:6E38:3064 (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)