|WikiProject New York City||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in New York City may be able to help!
Polonia is not a nickname for Greenpoint (where I live), but a word used by Polish Americans and Polish immigrants for the Polish population/culture outside of Poland. Every now and then people say, "Little Warsaw," but mostly it's just called Greenpoint. --Ninly
Changed to "young people." Probably insufficient to convey the original intent, but the bias and inaccuracy of "Hipsters and Artists" was inappropriate and misleading.
This article could use some. Jonas Silk 17:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was important to include that along with 40,000 new residents that are expected to come to Greenpoint, noone is really aware of the enviornmental hazard the oil spilling into the Newtown Creek will have on them.
- You must be joking. Biased and inappropriate - perhaps. Inaccurate and misleading - not a chance.
FACT VS FICTION The oil spill is a twenty year old story, and since Williamsburg, Brooklyn has a much higher cancer rate than Greenpoint according to the NYC Dept. of Health (see health section above for reference), I guess the new residents know exactly why they are moving to Greenpoint. It's funny how that oil spill story popped up again after all these years, just when the neighborhood was rezoned and redevelopment has started. Very Curious.Greenpoint 14:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) .
- Please log in if you are the user you indicate you are, and use four tildes (~) to sign your talk posts. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- According to this article, the spill is even older and larger than that. DarkAudit 00:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Greenpoint has a 10% lower cancer rate as compared to the rest of New York City. Source: Community Health Profile prepared by the NYC Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene. www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/stats/stats.shtml
Now, I don't have anything against Gpskylineview.jpg as a picture in and of itself. However, I do not feel that it is appropriate in this context. Yes, it was taken from the Greenpoint waterfront—but
it doesn't say anything about Greenpoint itself! it says fairly little about Greenpoint itself. This image might be well-suited for the article about Manhattan or Midtown, or perhaps later in this article in other context, but not as the top-level image. In fact, a far more appropriate image would be one of the two located farther down in the article. —Larry V (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
--Paraphelion 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC):I agree. It's reminiscent of something a real estate agent would do - not show the property itself but rather what a small number of residents near the property might have a view of. Didn't the original similar looking photo come from some kind of real estate or greenpoint ad site? There's a whole bunch of articles about Manhattan itself which I'm sure don't include images of the view of Greenpoint.--Paraphelion 00:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The skyline image is associated with the text describing the location of this waterfront neighborhood. It is clear that there are --Paraphelion 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)those who, for some reason or another, want to prevent images of this wonderful neighborhood and its spectacular views of the Manhattan skyline from being seen. First, the image was removed because of false copyright concerns. I am the photograher of the images, so that was untrue. Then, an objection was made because of the text that ran across the photo, so I removed it. Now it's the picture itself. I would like to see all of you objecting to this image put the same attention towards the Williamsburg Brooklyn page which also has a picture from the waterfront facing Manhattan and the Bridge. There is not even a section of their pier in the photo. If that is not going to be removed, then leave the photos of Greenpoints assets alone. The Greenpoint photo is not from a real estate ad. It is on the main page of Greenpoints "Neighborhood Roots" organization website. Greenpoint 21:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- What images of the neighborhood itself have been in dispute? Until someone just rearranged the images, the first picture wasn't even a picture of greenpoint itself. If Greenpoint is so lovely, why not post some nice photographs of it. I've been there, I know it's a nice place and it's not just nice because you can see something else, which seems to be the main attraction for you.--Paraphelion 02:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I didn't realize it was you who put those ridiculous words across the skyline picture. That is pretty funny.--Paraphelion 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The words across the photo were there from a previous use of the photo. What is telling is your lack of comment regarding the Williamsburg, Brooklyn photo. Also, I rearranged the photos to put an end to the endless edits. If you are interested in seeing more photos of this gorgeous neighborhood, you can click on the Greenpoint landmarks link on the bottom of the article page. Greenpoint 22:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- First, I have absolutely nothing against Greenpoint; I love Brooklyn and New York City in general. Therefore, I try to make related articles the best that they can be. Now, the image in question is NOT AN IMAGE OF GREENPOINT—or of anything in it! And if the intent of the skyline image is to describe the location of the neighborhood, it fails spectacularly. All the image really conveys to readers is that Greenpoint is somewhere across the East River from Manhattan. A map or satellite image would serve this purpose much more suitably.
- Second, I had nothing to do with the copyright issue, but there was no doubt that that sprawling text overlay on Gpskyline.jpg was inappropriate for an encyclopedic image.
- Third, the subject of the image on the Williamsburg page (LGBWilliamsburgBridge.jpg) is not simply a view of the Manhattan skyline but one of the Williamsburg Bridge, which is a vital road and subway link between said neighborhood and Manhattan. What is the subject of the Greenpoint image? The skyline of Manhattan. This in and of itself is not bad, but what does the skyline of Manhattan really have to do with Greenpoint? Is it really an "asset" of Greenpoint? There are dozens of other New York City neighborhoods that have such views of the Manhattan skyline; this does not set Greenpoint apart in any way, shape, or form. In addition, whether or not the image includes a "pier" is completely irrelevant in deciding the image's relevancy to the article.
- I'm not out to "get" Greenpoint; I'm looking after the welfare of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source. Your apparent lack of NPOV (e.g., use of such words as "gorgeous" and "wonderful") show that perhaps you are more concerned with the reputation of what I must assume is your neighborhood. Simply put, the image is simply not appropriate for this article. It is not specific enough to Greenpoint and doesn't really convey enough about the neighborhood to make it worthy to be used in this article. Again, those other images, which illustrate Greenpoint residences and architectural style, are far more relevant to this article. —Larry V (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Muhahaahaha our nefarious plans to conquor Greenpoint have nearly come to fruition Larry!!!! I have finished setting up the projector which will superimpose hypnotic images over the Manhattan skyline which we will use to pacify the denizens of Greenpoint as they gaze across the river, which we all know they do because it is the only reason to be in Greenpoint!--Paraphelion 03:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The waterfront views of the city from Greenpoint shores are a major asset for this community. It is why the city has rezoned the Greenpoint and Williamsburg waterfronts. There are only a handful of neighborhoods with striking waterfront views in the city and each of these neighborhoods is defined by that asset. The Green Street pier is at the heart of the redevelopment of the waterfront properties. I do not have any problem with the Williamsburg Bridge photo, but if we apply your logic to that page, the photo should be placed on a Williamsburg Bridge Page and could not be used as the main photo because as you've said "other images, which illustrate residences and architectural style, are far more relevant to that article. Greenpoint 23:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've never looked at the article for Williamsburg. It's funny that you accuse me of something when you're the one who plastered large letters advertising Greenpoint's skyline on the photo. That it was from a previous use makes no difference. I just went to look at the Williamsburg article. There are significant differences - one the picture doesn't have an ad-speak plastered all over it, and two, the name of the bridge shares the name of the neighborhood, and three - it's not way at the top. Still, yeah, in my opinion, the ideal thing would be for there to be at least one picture of Williamsburg there. If there were a nearby Greenpoint bridge, I'd think it would be fine to put in this article. I don't mind having a skyline in the article, but you have to admit, you put it on top.
- I happen to like Greenpoint, for more than it's skyline, which I honestly have not seen. The view may be why real estate is higher in Greenpoint - but there is a lot more to a neighborhood than just real estate prices. Plus, as I've said, only a small number of residents get to see that skyline. But I don't have to prove anything to you - notice I have not made a single edit here about this photo. Actually if I recall, the reason this article is on my watchlist is because I changed the wording of what I thought was biased text which put Greenpoint in a poor light. Oh, also I did some editing about the oil spill.--Paraphelion 03:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The image that was being removed today had no letters plastered on the photo. The wrong image with text was originally uploaded and was replaced with a photo with nothing "plastered" on it. It is funny that no one puts up information about the radioactive waste facility in Williamsburg, or how the oil spill is adjacent to East Williamsburg and that the Newtown Creek runs through Long Island City and Williamsburg. Only Greenpoint gets all this attention. And all of this attention happens at a time when this community is being redeveloped. FYI - according the NYC Zoning Law, all waterfront redevelopment has to include public access along the entire waterfront for "everyone", not just a select few. Greenpoint 23:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- What's even funnier is that you at any time could put up that information but haven't. Instead you whine to people who never even looked at the Williamsburg article. You probably don't even like Greenpoint than anything for its view which is why you placed it at the top. Yeah and I bet that law also allow anyone living in greenpoint to move in with someone who has a view of the skyline.--Paraphelion 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, regardless of whether the skyline view is an asset of the community of not, it is not by any stretch of the imagination a defining aspect of the neighborhood. I should hope that there are more photo-worthy things of interest in Greenpoint than the skyline. And perhaps the Green Street pier is a central aspect of the redevelopment; it is not the subject of the image in dispute. Regardless of what you want the image to show, people see something else. They see Manhattan. At least the Williamsburg photo shows something that is an integral part of the community—its link to Manhattan. Admittedly, there could be better pictures, but they're not here, so go out and take some! I never said that only "other images, which illustrate residences and architectural style, are far more relevant to that article"; that is you taking my words out of context. What I said was that the other two images on the Greenpoint page are more relevant, for those reasons. And what does the negative publicity have to do with this argument? That's right, nothing. This is about the relevancy of the skyline photo, not whether or why Greenpoint receives unwanted negative attention. —Larry V (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that you put the same extraordinary effort of suppressing the Greenpoint Skyline view photo into the Dumbo, Brooklyn Page, since that page only has a skyline picture on the top of the page defining the neighborhood. Otherwise, I think it would be hypocritical. Greenpoint 10:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- For one thing, the image (Fulton FerryDUMBO Pictures014.jpg) on the DUMBO page is substantially occupied by part of the neighborhood itself. While the Greenpoint image puts Manhattan as the subject, Manhattan is clearly in the background in the DUMBO image, while a few streets and that large building on the right are the subject. Admittedly, it is a low-quality image to begin, and there could definitely be better images for that page, but currently that is the only image there; there are no other images to replace it, as there are for the Greenpoint page. If someone uploads a better image, I would be glad to insert it myself. —Larry V (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
how should this be mentioned in the article? it burned down several warehouses around the intersection of Noble and West Strets, in Greenpoint, on may 2 and may 3 user:PolishMan 4:02, May 7, 2006 (EST)
the data on this site for area code 11222 shows that the median household family income, the median family income and per capita income are all well below the national values. Also the family poverty rate is 25% higher than the rest of the country at 12.8% compared to 9.2% nationally. The individual poverty rate is nearly 50% higher than the national average.--Paraphelion 19:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The 11222 area compared to the rest of its county (King's) and it's much hyped neighboring community of Williamsburg, which have 41.4 and 22.4 poverty rates respectively, has one of the lowest poverty rates in New York City. Not putting this information into context is very misleading. (220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
where to put in who Greenpoint is home to
I wrote that the Polish rap/hip hop group Podziemny Legion call Greenpoint home in the "Notable individuals..." paragraph. Should it stay there or be put in the Trivia section? Same question applies to Joell Ortiz. Ogreatwiki 01:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ogreatwiki (talk • contribs) 06:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
I am not sure if that kind of information is appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Moved notable Williamsburg resident to proper page.
- Perhaps the secret editor hasn't visited the place and looked at the tanks, but that wouldn't be a problem, since they are visible from as far as, for example, Pulaski Bridge. I can only conclude that the anonymous vandal is farther away, and unfamiliar with Brooklyn. Jim.henderson (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There are no fuel tanks. This is not only false information, but it would not constitute a landmark or attraction in any regard. The land is owned by the NYC DEP where they have a state of the art water treatment facility. They have confirmed that they have no fuel tanks as suggested in the photo. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- So, at first the secret vandal denied that the tanks are in Greenpoint. Then he denied they exist. Then he pretended that the photo was false. Now he's denying that the tanks are an impressive sight and visible from miles away, perhaps because they are not visible from a foreign country. Is there no end to silly excuses for vandalism? Jim.henderson (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be so late getting back; been busy and only had time for Wiki vandals, link additions, picture uploads, and other quick kinds of edit in the past day or two. Anyway it's splendid to deal with a human being, who is also a Wikiphotographer. Anonymous vandals, in contrast, are much less interesting. I appreciate the work you have been doing here, as well as your earlier creation of East River Park where I was thinking of adding a picture, but yours were both better and already present, so I went on looking for interesting places not already depicted in Wiki photos.
The afternoon I took the tank pictures was a productive one, and some of the other photos can now be seen in the articles Wallabout Bay, J Train, Williamsburg Bridge, Grand Street (Brooklyn), Bushwick, Brooklyn, Local bike shop, Kuskiosko Bridge, Greenpoint Avenue Bridge, Pulaski Bridge, Gantry Plaza State Park, and a few others. One of these days, I ought to reshoot some of those and get some angles I missed due to fleeing the rain, or reshoot under a sunny sky. Howver, of all the pictures from that day, none except this one were deleted by vandals who hadn't been there, under a claim that the pictures were of things that don't exist.
Not that there's something wrong with editing articles about distant countries. I did that once with a Wikipedia article about a mountain in southwestern Germany which I failed to see when I was in that neighborhood fifteen years ago. I also edited an article about the economy of Manchukuo even though that state died before I was born and the closest I've ever been is Nikko, Japan. It's just that, had someone inserted a photo of a large dock on the Amur River or a German radio tower, I wouldn't have been so bold as to vandalize the article on grounds of the item not being a landmark because I cannot see it from high ground in Sunset Park, Brooklyn or Riverdale, Bronx. Despite advances in telepresence, some things, including geographical photography, work better when you are reasonably close.
Part of the reason for my pictures was the hope to add an important section to History of New York City transportation which as it stands is almost entirely about passenger transport. I want a section to address the growth and change of the fuel supply system, a story that cannot be properly told without the Gowanus Canal and Newtown Creek, and in the latter case Greenpoint is crucial. Greenpoint isn't very important in metropolitan passenger transport, but a century ago the solid, liquid and gaseous fuel industry outgrew Gowanus Canal, and most of it moved to Greenpoint, including BUG's new producer gas facility. Afer midcentury that kind of gas also declined in favor of natural gas and Greenpoint, already head of the local distribution network, became a terminus of the 26 inch high-pressure Transco and Buckeye Pipelines that came across from Staten Island and up Second and Fourth Avenues and, more recently, of a minor branch of the Iroquois Pipeline.
In midcentury it was still important to store gas in gaseous form, so gasometers were used and sometimes called, imprecisely, "tanks". Late in the century the storage capabilities of the aforementioned high pressure lines sufficed, so the gasholders were demolished. Near the end of the century American natural gas supplies no longer looked to be sufficient to demand, and technological improvements diminished the cost of handling liquid natural gas, so preparations were made to import LNG. This required, among other things, tanks. Gasometers wouldn't be so useful; what would serve better would be genuine tanks which, shortly after the turn of the century, were built on the left bank of Newtown Creek.
You can look at my pictures to see what a common kind of large LNG tank looks like. The overall shape is similar to that taken by a round balloon filled with water, and mininizes both losses to heat and stress on the skin. Unlike with an oil tank a floating internal roof is impractical, so the sides can curve in this complex and attractive manner. It differs from the water balloon in that the top is rather conical to provide for evaporation, though it is less pronouncedly conical than that of Hershey's Kisses which the overall shape otherwise resembles.
It is interesting that our anonymous vandal's confidential source denies that these are fuel tanks. I wonder whether an alternative fluid will be offered. Chlorine for water sterilization? Imagine the horror if tens of thousands of tons of poison gas heavier than air were released in an accident, but of course that's one of the reasons liquid chlorine is not stored in tanks; it is stored in pressure vessels. Water? Why would anyone pay to pump tens of thousands of tons of water into such expensive tanks? They are both too large to be economical, and too small to make much difference to Brooklyn's continuous exchange of fresh water for sewage. Oil? Oil tanks are already plentiful near Newtown Creek, and for good reasons they don't look like these.
As it happens, when I visit the site on a humid day no plume of condensation surrounds the tops of the tanks, which suggests that the tanks are not yet filled. The exteriors having been finished about a year ago, presumably the interior work will be finished soon and the tanks will begin accepting cargo this year or next. I hope the shipments arrive in daytime; the unloading will make interesting photographs but I lack the skill for night work.
Of course, what is obvious to someone who knows a little about storage tanks (and my knowledge is nearly as little as anyone's) may not fit Wikipedia's standards for factual encyclopedic content, so it is appropriate that the term "fuel" has been omitted from the caption. Perhaps this year or next, the word can be restored.
As for the more immediate future, I have an appointment at Noon Sunday on Jay Street. After taking some pictures of Flatbush Avenue and Downtown Brooklyn, I could go straight from there to the Greenpoint Avenue tanks for further photography. The day ought to be sunny, and the shadows will certainly make the tanks look different from my existing photos. Perhaps other photographers, or even anonymous vandals from distant lands, would like to make an appointment to join me. Oh, and definitely I ought to get a snap of St Anthony of Padua's on Manhattan Avenue. In December, I was totally new to photography (and had an inferior camera) and none of my shots were acceptably good looking. Very strange that nobody has put a picture of it in the article yet. Next Sunday, March 16 would be a better time to meet New York wikiphotographers at the Wikimedia meeting at Columbia University, but I must work that day. Jim.henderson (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)