Talk:Hudson Heights, Manhattan: Difference between revisions

New York City C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What do you do when no one in a neighborhood call an area by the name a group of realtors and publicists have selected for it? There doesn't seem to be any such place as "Hudson Heights" except for that.

I removed the following unsourced material which seems POV: "Hudson Heights is located in Washington Heights. It is bordered by presently largely latino neighborhoods of the working poor. Older Irish and Slavic working class residents, having lived in the neighborhood long before real estate appreciation, greeted this new name for this largely white, upper middle class enclave, with a variation: hudson whites."--agr 22:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might have made a great magazine article, but some of it is just not appropriate for Wikipedia. Examples:

--> Responses below from Stevew316

• "It's all downhill from here" in the opening photo cutline. That sums the article up pretty well.

--> That, my friend, is a fact: when you're on the highest point of the island, you can't go in any other direction.

Excuse me, you're writing for an encylopedia, not a neighborhood magazine. And in any event it's a lame cliché. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--> It's easy to change -- I'll do so for you. Stevew316 (talk)

• "There is no record indicating if Fort Tryon, the name before Frankfurt-on-the-Hudson, was considered. Even if it had, it may have been voted down to avoid confusion with the park and historical site of the same name." Unsourced speculation.

--> It says as much: "there is no record ..." If you don't like it, delete it.

My concern is the "even if it had ..." part. Without a source, you avoid opening sentences that way. It's original research. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--> It's legitimate to show that one has done research but is unable to find facts to support it. Please delete it if you don't like it. Stevew316 (talk)

• "In the 1980s African-Americans started moving in, followed shortly by pretty much everyone else." Not encyclopedic prose by a long shot.

--> New York City is a melting pot. We have pretty much every ethnic group in the neighborhood. Please suggest your alternative.

Something less colloquial then "Pretty much everyone else", perhaps?

--> Fine. Stevew316 (talk)

• "Given the current fashion of making acronymns from neighborhood names, had Hudson Heights not been adopted, the area may have become known as FrOTH. It's not so far-fetched -- Down Under the Manhattan Bridge Overpass is referred to as Dumbo" Commentary ... highly inappropriate.

--> You're joking, right? Are you unfamiliar with Dumbo? Or New Yorkers' love for neighborhood acronyms?

Yes, I am, and speculation doesn't belong in our articles. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--> What's speculating about New Yorkers' common use of acronyms for neighborhoods? Stevew316 (talk)

There's also too many unsourced statements to count.

--> This statement has no source, detail, or reference.

You completely did not get this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--> Actually, I did. The thing is, you are picking on this article for some reason when there are so many thousands on WP that have virtually no sourcing or none. I mean, do you want me to source that Hudson Heights in is Washington Heights? That Washington Heights is on Manhattan? That Manhattan is a borough in the city of New York? Yes, please be specific. Stevew316 (talk)

Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The person who noted the tonal concerns has already changed the two he mentioned that he disliked. All requested references, except for some "notable residents," have been added. As for the uncited residents, I have no objection to your deleting them -- I think some people add any name of anyone famous who's ever taken the subway through the neighborhood. Kissinger doesn't live in Hudson Heights, and if he did as a kid, someone should provide a fact. Stevew316 (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now. Good work. Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was born and raised in Washington Heights, up on 187th st, and left in late '90s. I never anyone who lived there ever call the place anything other than Washington Heights. Truth is, "Hudson Heights" is a marketing term that has no real currency among the residents. Is disgraceful that it gets a Wikipeidea entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Britt (talk • contribs) 06:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. (emphasis in original)

I agree that "Hudson Heights" is a marketing term, but it is used in newspapers such as The New York Times. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Britt doesn't say where on 187th he was born and raised. It's possible the reason that he never heard anyone refer to his neighborhood as "Hudson Heights" is that he lived in Fort George instead. There's more of 187th Street in that neighborhood of Washington Heights than there is in Hudson Heights.

As for denigrating a neighborhood's name, I'm not sure what people mean by "marketing term." What was "New Amsterdam" besides an attempt to persuade the Dutch to settle here? And what was "New York" other than a sop to the Duke of York? In the 20th century, "Dumbo" was invented for the opposite reason: to keep people from moving into their Brooklyn neighborhood (on the grounds that no one would want to live in a place called "Dumbo"), which is marketing too. "Clinton" instead of "Hell's Kitchen"? Same thing.

We can't freeze New York the way it was when we grew up, or when we first moved here. The city is all about change. "TriBeCa" is an older name than Hudson Heights, but not by much in the annals of New York history, yet no one complains about it.

If you don't think people in the neighborhood use it, you haven't read the entire article. In addition to the neighborhood paper (Manhattan Times, which refers to the area below 179th as "Lower WaHi"), and a local residents' group (Hudson Heights Owners' Coalition, which started using it in 1993), there are a few business that have picked up on it: Hudson Heights Little Miracles Family Day Care, and the Hudson Heights Duo (a Celtic music pair).

Think of it this way. Washington Heights is the largest neighborhood in Manhattan, both in geography and in population. It's much larger than the various Villages -- Greenwich VIllage, East Village, Center Village -- not to mention Midtown. Why wouldn't you want to specify that your favorite deli on 44th is in Turtle Bay rather than the Theater District? It only makes sense to give neighborhoods names, even if they're within a larger neighborhood. Cases in point: Sugar Hill in Harlem. Yorkville on the Upper East Side. What about a place with three names? Alphabet City is in the East Village, which is part of the Lower East Side. Would anyone suggest that it's improper to let it have three names? Some people seem to think it's not fair for a distinct neighborhood in Upper Manhattan to have the same prerogative as a distinctive neighborhood on the rest of the island, but no one's ever offered an explanation.

Hudson Heights has had one since the 17th century. Like the neighborhood, the name has changed over the centuries. Washington Heights, after all, wasn't the first name for it. And it probably won't be the last. If you don't like the name, that's fine. But if you don't think neighborhoods deserve their own names, pick on them all: the oddly capitalized, the acronyms, the dual- (and triple-) named, and the Duke of York. After all, if it weren't for the folks who moved in, the island would still be called Manhatta (and Hudson Heights would still go by the name the locals used -- remember the Chquaesgeck?).Stevew316 (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]