Talk:The Bronx/Archive 1

Bronck's first name

Jacob Bronck? Whoever put that there, are you sure?? I always learned his name was Jonas Bronck. -BRG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.98.90 (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2002 (UTC)

Nobody's responded, and I've sen the name given as Joseph in another place. I've changed it to cite all these variants, and also put it into the "Bronx County" article. - BRG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.98.90 (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2002 (UTC)

So who the hell is James Jones? Rojomoke 10:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"worst reputation"

One of the worst reputations for what? DanKeshet

Bronx County and Borough

Bronx County and Bronx are now the same article, because they talk about the same place. WhisperToMe 18:30, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Bronx or the Bronx

I don't agree with replacing "the Bronx" with "The Bronx." Common usage dicates that when talking about the Bronx in the middle of the sentence (like I just did in this sentence), "the" is not capitalized. This is the same as talking about the United States. I'm tempted to revert immediately, but would like some feedback first. --BaronLarf 22:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

My initial reaction was to agree with "The Bronx", but a few google searches changed my mind; I now agree with BaronLarf; it should be "the Bronx". All of the NY Times, the NYC Government, and the US Census bureau seem to use "the Bronx" (except, of course, at the beginning of a sentence). Try searching for "in the bronx" site:www.nyc.gov, for example. --RoySmith 00:45, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course the correct usage is "the Bronx" (lower case "t") if in the middle of a sentence; likewise "the Bronx River", etc. I am changing all of the incorrect "The"s to "the" - don't know why it wasn't done yet. Capitalizing "the" in the middle of a sentence is moronic and is never done. Tvoz 06:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Move

Either have this at The Bronx or Bronx County, New York, not Bronx. --Jiang 11:22, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Bronx Bombers

Hey Bletch, what on God's green earth is "inapropriate" about calling the Yankees the Bronx Bombers? It's a pretty common nickname that makes the point about where they actually play, a point rather relevant to this particular borough. I don't think anyone could really be confused by this, given that the caption is explicitly labelled "Yankee Stadium".--Pharos 04:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I weren't familiar with baseball, that caption would make me think that a team named the Bronx Bombers played in Yankee Stadium. Rhobite 04:35, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Delete "See Also"

What do people think of the "See Also" section. I'm thinking most of the links don't really add much to the Bronx article and we could just delete the whole section. --RoySmith 17:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

South bronx fires

The article claims, "the destruction of nearly half of the buildings in the South Bronx". Does anybody have a reference for this difficult to believe statement?

200th Street?

Can some one clarify what that is all about or why its important? For someone not from NYC, this is a very odd way to start a section. --67.184.239.70 23:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not important, even for someone from NYC. Can it be removed? Jd2718 04:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Poorest County?

"Though the Bronx's crime rate has plummeted in recent years, it was named as the poorest county in the United States in 2005."

This is at the start of the article. I'm almost certain it's untrue. Nach0king 19:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right. According to the United States Census Bureau data for 2003 (MS Excel format), Bronx county is 349th out of 3141 counties in the United States in median household income. Scanning thru the lowest 100, I could not find a single urban county. I doubt that the 2005 figures have been released (2003 is the most recent on census.gov), and even if they had, I can't imagine that it could have changed that dramatically. The statement in the article needs to go. I will remove it. --rogerd 20:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I was pretty sure I'd read somewhere that it was some place in the Dakotas or Oklahoma that was poorest. I guess that was right. Nach0king 10:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The Bronx is not the poorest county, but it is very very poor, especially considering the region it is in. Some reference to the high poverty rate must be included. Would: "By many measures, the Bronx appears to be the poorest urban area in the United States." work? Here are some statistics that might help:

The Bronx is one of five counties in the US where over 30% of households consist of families headed by single women. Three of the five are Indian reservations in South Dakota; the fourth is Holmes County, Mississippi

The Bronx is the only county in the northeast quarter of the US (north of the Ohio River; east of the Great Plains) where more than 40% of children live in families below poverty (43.1% according to ACS 2004).

It is the only county in the same area where more than 30% of the populaton lives below the poverty line.

Congressional District 16 (entirely in The Bronx, covering most of the South Bronx) has the highest poverty rate in the US (40.2%; the next highest rate is 32.4%).

Congressional District 16 also has the highest proportion of children living below poverty (50.1%; the next highest is 42.2%), and the lowest median household income.

The data cited above was by county, and the poorest counties have small populations. There is nothing as poor as large as the Bronx in the United States. I have a secondary source using 2000 cnesus data and 2004 American Community Survey division of the Census Bureau data. I can source back to the raw data, if necy. Jd2718 05:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Bronx is the poorest county over 1 million in population and contains the poorest congressional district in the USA. What should also be mention is the Bronx has significantly higher living cost then all counties rated poorer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.107.86 (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

C'est le Bronx???

"Bronx" has become synonymous with violent or messy areas. For instance, in casual French, "c'est le Bronx" stands for "what a mess." According to whom? Having studied in both France & Quebec I can say that slang french expressions are typically based of regional traditions, not american city boroughs. Have never heard this phrase before. --Katwmn6 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it if you feel it is wrong. I also have not heard of that expression, but then again I don't speak French, and my only excursions outside of the U.S. have been to Niagara Falls, Ontario. --rogerd 22:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

C'est le Bronx is a widely used expression in French when you wanna speak about a very violent city or neighborhood. I've heard and used this expression thousand of times, and I'm a French citizen, born and raised in Paris suburbs.

--Revas 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A citation would be nice for this - I don't doubt what you're saying, but it's not common knowledge to non-French-speaking people, so if someone can post a citation that would be great. Tvoz 05:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Only borough on US mainland?

If Manhattan borders and is contiguos with the Bronx, surely it is part of the mainland too. What am I missing? 81.98.89.195 02:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The borough of Manhattan borders the Bronx but almost all of their border is along the Harlem River. The neighborhood of Marble Hill, however, is on the north (Bronx) side of the river, and receives, for example, fire and postal services from Bronx-based offices for reasons of convenience, but is legally considered part of Manhattan. The reason for this is explained in that article. However, Manhattan Island (the long, skinny island on which one finds lots of skyscrapers, Central Park, etc.) is an island. The borough of Manhattan consists of Manhattan Island, plus a few smaller nearby islands and Marble Hill. Izzycat 16:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Canal

The reason that is, because of what happened after the US Civil War, The US Army Corps of Engineers carved a shortcut canal through the northern tip of Manhattan Island called the Harlem River Shipping Canal and the gooseneck part of the river was filled in and built upon. So now the north end of Manhattan Island was cutoff and fused to the Bronx, but it is still legally in New York County and not in Bronx County, OK?

69.121.69.166 21:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Redlining

The process is well-described --

"Another factor may have been the shift by insurance companies and banks to stop offering financial services to the Bronx and other working-class industrial areas (the "Rustbelt") in favor of the booming suburbs in "the Sunbelt"— a process known as redlining."

-- but the terms' "Rustbelt" and "Sunbelt" are not, afaik, used in the context of Bronx redlining. Is there a source for them? Jd2718 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

By using the census racial categories, the most identifiable aspect of Bronx demography is obscured: the Bronx is the second most Hispanic county on the eastern seaboard, the Bronx is the most Puerto Rican county outside of Puerto Rico itself. There are now 200,000 Dominicans living in the Bronx. The significant West Indian population is not mentioned at all. And the most prominent part of the section belongs to the bulleted list for 11% of the population with European origins. How about dumping the census racial data, and expanding the European origins list to encompass everybody (including Albanians)? Jd2718 05:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Transportation - Railroads

Relatively minor - How many lines service the Bronx? The Hudson line runs along the Harlem and Hudson Rivers. The tracks that run through the center of the Bronx carry trains destined for both the New Haven and the Harlem lines, but in the Bronx they run as one line. Should this be changed to two lines servicing the Bronx? Jd2718 06:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Transportation - Highways

The selection of three main expressways seems too limited. The Henry Hudson Parkway, the Major Deegan, the Bronx River Parkway, the Sheriden Expressway, the Cross Bronx Expressway, The New England Thruway, the Hutchinson River Parkway, and the Bruckner Expressway all run through the Bronx. Should they all go in? Jd2718 06:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably best to cover all bases. — Larry V (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Transportation - Bridges

Should any/some/all bridges be included? The Bronx Whitestone Bridge and the Throgs Neck Bridge connect the Bronx to Queens, and carry high way traffic. The Triborough Bridge connects the Bronx to Queens and Manhattan, and carries highway traffic. There are eight or nine local bridges, carrying local vehicles and pedestrians, two more less prominent highway bridges (Henry Hudson Bridge and the Alexander Hamilton Bridge, and a few railroad bridges (4?). Jd2718 06:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

All bridges should probably be included, yes. — Larry V (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Transportation - Roads - Can we remove the trivia?

Suggested edits:

Delete the 2nd paragraph. (200th street trivia)

Delete the 4th paragraph. (zip code trivia)

Replace the 1st paragraph with

The Bronx street grid is irregular. Much of the west Bronx follows the Manhattan street grid, and some of the streets are numbered. The west Bronx's hilly terrain, however, leaves a much freer street grid than Manhattan's tight gridiron. Because the street numbering carries over from upper Manhattan, the lowest numbered street in the Bronx is East 132 St. The east Bronx is considerably flatter and the street layout tends to be more regular. However only the Wakefield section picks up the numbered street grid.

Current 1st paragraph

Many of the Bronx's streets are numbered, but unlike the street numbering systems in Brooklyn and Queens, the Bronx's system is a continuation of the Manhattan street grid. Because of this, the lowest numbered street in the borough is 132nd Street in the South Bronx, and the highest is 263rd Street in Riverdale. The numbered street grid is far from regular, as some numbers are simply skipped altogether in certain locations; other neighborhoods have no numbered streets at all. The notion that the more "urban" neighborhoods are the ones with numbered streets is a broad generalization; while the more built-up western half of the borough which is closer to Manhattan is where the streets tend to be numbered, the wooded Fieldston section of Riverdale has numbered streets while blighted neighborhoods such as Hunts Point and Soundview do not.

Replace the 3rd paragraph with

Three major north-south thoroughfares run between Manhattan amd the Bronx: Third Avenue, Park Avenue, and Broadway. Other major north-south roads include the Grand Concourse, Jerome Avenue, Webster Avenue, and White Plains Road. Major east-west streets include Gun Hill Road, Fordham Road, Pelham Parkway, and Tremont Avenue. Many east-west streets are prefixed with either "East" or "West," to indicate on which side of Jerome Avenue they lie.

Current 3rd paragraph

Some north-south thoroughfares continue from Manhattan into the Bronx; examples include Third Avenue—above which the IRT Third Avenue Line once ran (in Manhattan until 1955 and in the Bronx until 1973)—Park Avenue, and Broadway. Other major roads, such as the Grand Concourse and Fordham Road, are located only in the Bronx. Like Manhattan, the streets are designated either "East" or "West," with the divider being Jerome Avenue (the divider in Manhattan is Fifth Avenue).

My writing is far from perfect, but some of this improvement is necessary Jd2718 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the section needs cleanup. I have enacted your suggestions, with minor changes of my own. Thanks a lot! — Larry V (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Education

Each college has its own Wikipedia article, and this article is long. If there are no objections I will collapse the college info to one paragraph, parallel with the high schools. Jd2718 02:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Pics

I removed the picture of a night game at Yankee Stadium because we have the picture of Monument Park in the Stadium, which is referenced in the text and I think makes more sense than the game shot, and the text doesn't support two photos for Yankee stadium: it's just a short mention. Maybe someone can find or take a picture of the Hall of Fame (on the old NYU uptown campus) - that would be a nice addition to that section, supported by the text. Also, the way they were placed didn't really look too good, and ran way down into movies - this way Grandmaster Flash gets his own space as he should, based on the fact that there's appropriately a whole paragraph on hip hop, and the pictures aren't all running together. Tvoz 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And there is also a small shot of the Yankees' field in the bottom template Tvoz 05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish word bronca deriving from the Bronx

I'm afraid that's not quite true. The word is probably older than the Bronx itself User:Malinskchen Malinskchen

"The Bronx" or the "Bronx" : Citation needed? Rename?

Per #The Bronx or the Bronx above, I've placed a citation-needed tag within ¶2 as it doesn't seem clear whether "Bronx" or "The Bronx" is the "official borough name"; visiting some of the external links provided plus the first few Google results suggests to me that if there is an official borough name, it's more likely to be "Bronx".

Results from the US Geological Survey's website [1] and from the US Census Bureau's website [2] (NB ACS: 2003 ACS Narrative Profile for Bronx Borough) seem to suggest the same.

In lieu of any official citation otherwise, therefore, perhaps the article ought to be renamed to "Bronx" or "Bronx County" while ensuring (1) redirects are in place; and (2) references along the lines of the above (or, preferably, something (even) more official) are included. "The Bronx" may then be described as a recognized moniker. Thanks in advance for any clarification, David Kernow (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
PS Many (most? all?) of the articles on neighborhoods etc seem to use "Bronx" rather than "The Bronx" in their names.

Your ps is correct. The people who write neighborhood list articles tend to like official names. But this encyclopedia is not prescriptivist. Local usage says that they are wrong, no matter what the first three google links say. The signs on the highway say "Welcome to the Bronx" and I'll hunt down as many refs as you would like for local usage. Jd2718 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me it is "The Bronx". Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 03:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jd2718 and Pacific CH for your input; I've rephrased the article's opening in an attempt to clarify the situation and include a <ref>; hope it's acceptable. Best wishes, David (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Local usage is absolutely inclusive of the word "the" before "Bronx" (capitalized or not is another matter). No doubt about that. However, I don't think that makes anyone who claims an "offical", "prescriptivist", name for the borough (or the county) as simply "Bronx" as wrong. Further, not to get too "Miracle on 34th Street" on everyone, but the US Postal Service considers the name to be "Bronx, New York". Shoreranger 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• New York City has 5 boroughs (Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island). It also has 5 counties, which correspond one-to-one with the boroughs (New York County, Bronx County, Kings County, Queens County, and Richmond County). Staten Island says in the beginning of the article is article is about the borough in New York City. Bronx says, "Bronx" and "Bronx County, New York" redirect here.. The lack of uniformity makes it hard to figure out what the right answer is. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This article should be renamed for two reasons: 1) The official name of the Borough is "Borough of the Bronx," (as distinguished from "Borough of Brooklyn" "Borough of Manhattan" etc.), as seen here in this pdf planning document from the Bronx Borough President's office. http://bronxboropres.nyc.gov/en/gv/president/strategicpolicy.pdf 2) Even if 1) were otherwise, this debate goes beyond what is the "official" name listed on some dusty ledgers somewhere and into what is understood in common American culture. Everybody knows that the place is and has been called "The Bronx" in common parlance and in literature and pop culture for generations. To eliminate the "The" in the title is to follow the rule book out the window. People who are unfamiliar with New York but see or hear "the Bronx" in innumerable novels, newspaper and magazine articles, TV shows, movies, websites, etc., will be a little confused by the absence of the definite article from the title. The Interloafer 04:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I couldn't be in any stronger agreement that the article should be moved back to "The Bronx". Alansohn 04:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was shocked to the "the" dropped from the title of this entry. Nobody ever says "I'm going up to Bronx." or "I'm from Bronx." You say "I'm going up to the Bronx." and "I'm from the Bronx." We should change it back. futurebird 04:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with above comments. Should be renamed. (and then maybe talk about get neighborhoods in Queens renamed, per local usage, Jamaica, NY, etc) Jd2718 04:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, an informal poll of New Yorkers at livejournal favors "The Bronx" http://community.livejournal.com/newyorkers/3222883.html futurebird 17:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image of the housing project and car

I don't think this is a fair representation of what most of the Bronx looks like. A photograph of some of the houses on grand concourse would make more sense. Large parts of the bronx are fairly well-off suburbs. This photo is more how outsiders see the bronx.... back in 1984. Things are really different. Can we find a better photo?

futurebird 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Most of the Bronx is highly URBAN and housing projects and stripped cars a reality for many neighborhoods. Few areas in the Bronx are suburban and many areas are unfortunately very poor. Public housing is the largest landmark in many sections of the borough so a photograph of a NYCHA development is justified in an article about the Bronx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.107.86 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording on population decrease

Its population has increased since a decline that began after the 1960 census. What does this mean exactly? An increase is going on, that started sometime after a decline from 1960? Piperdown 21:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Move

Didn't we talk about this? Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic Majority?

From the 2005 Census Estimate:

• Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2005 (b) 51.3%

Jd2718 14:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't.

Who says the Yankees Stadium is one of the most famous in the world!? It is a stadium of a simply American game (so just one country holds it in fame) and there is also no source to prove this. Is this called a weasel word or something? May I please remove the bias, or somebody try to show that it is famous? 81.105.100.178 (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC).

Well, apparently you've heard of it somehow. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of it because I just read the article!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.100.178 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 December 2007

The Wembley Stadium article makes a similar claim and similarly without proof. Yet I accept it, because I've heard of it. That would be "original research", I suppose. How would you go about proving that any particular structure, stadium or otherwise, is well-known beyond its neighborhood? How would you prove the Taj Mahal is famous, for example? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Because there are writings and journals about it from around the world? I thought there should be no bias on Wikipedia anyway. I imagine that if government websites promote these as tourist sites or they have a national conservation grant that would make them famous. For example if the Bronx website said; "The Yankees stadium is a very famous one, visited by thousands from all around the world every year", that could be quoted. Likewise with Wembley. 81.105.100.178 (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC).

Folks, there are 269,000 Google hits to "Yankee Stadium" AND "famous" today. That pretty well documents "famous". There are also 40,800 hits now to "Yankee Stadium" and "most famous". However, I haven't done a comparative analysis of Yankee Stadium versus other famous stadiums. May I suggest that "famous" is a pretty solid claim, and that "most famous" probably is so -- but could be removed from the text without much harm done. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind so much. I just think that maybe - only going on what myself and a couple of people I've asked this morning think - this is not a stadium which is considered famous outside america. Of course, I'm not saying you should write "The stadium is not famous<ref>81.105.100.178 and his relatives' opinions on the stadium</ref>" but a couple of sources (This looks good) rather than hits which could be misleading. After all, some of those sites will be just blogs and drivel and something reliable would need picking out. Sorry if it looks like I'm trying to hassle you all :S. 81.105.100.178 (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC).

Is Babe Ruth known to you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No. 81.105.100.178 (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

What drew you to this subject? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to find out a possible translation of "the Bronx" for latin wikipedia and while reading, I came across the claim. 81.105.100.178 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Awesome. What's Latin for "The Bronx"? For that matter, what's Latin for "Yankee"? I'm guessing "Stadium" is "Stadium". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Latin for "Yankee" is apparently "Yankius" from the Yankii Novoeboracenses. The Bronx is just "Bronx" as it stands (latin has no word for "the"). 81.105.100.178 (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

Bellagio has the right idea. Jd2718 (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And I implemented it, Jd2719 in a caption edit, I think on 30December. Happy New Year to all Bronxites: past, present and future. Bellagio99 (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and happy new year to you too (although I doubt I'll be a future Bronxite ;) ). 81.105.100.178 (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

Coincidentally, Bronxite is the mineral that the Yankees starting consuming in 1923, which turned them into champions. Since the turn of the 21st Century, it is apparently becoming scarce. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Google search results or personal opinions aren't reliable sources to determine anything (there are 466,000 results for "George Bush alien," so he must be an alien?). The source mentioned by 81.105.100.178 just contains a claim from the Yankees, which doesn't meet the third-party criteria. I strongly doubt that you'll find a reliable source stating that Yankee Stadium is the most famous stadium in the world. And "famous" is too vague for inclusion--how famous? to whom? in which parts of the world? Either the claim should be left out or a sourced claim that Yankee Stadium is a well-known landmark in NY could be added. MrVibrating (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

These sorts of links seem fairly common. How many would you like? (as far as "most famous" we shouldn't even try.) It does, though, seem silly to source what is well-known. Jd2718 (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't just throw wikipedia rules at you like some but I'd say there's something saying that all substantial claims need citing. And I do consider it rather large a claim. 81.105.100.178 (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC).

It doesn't say THE most famous, it says "one of the most famous". How would you prove (or veriably demonstrate) that the Taj Mahal is famous, or the pyramids? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The claim also shows up in several of our own articles. See for instance Baseball park#Names. Can I ask the person objecting, do you feel another park is more famous? Or do you doubt the claim? Jd2718 (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know my baseball stadia so I can't make a comparison. I just doubt the claim that it is one of the most famous worldwide since this is a predominantly American sport and nothing is written down on the page to verify this. I wouldn't care if it said "one of America's most famous stadia" or "one of the most famous stadia in baseball". The Taj Mahal and the pyramids are huge cultural achievments and, eventhough I have no source to back me up right now, I can find several and add them to the aforementioned articles if not doing so is contradictory to my argument. 81.105.100.178 (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

I just can't let this conversation end without a couple of points. "a simply American game", is just a ridiculous statement. 25% of the players at the pro level in the USA are foreign born. Japan's own pro league has itself been in existence for over 80 years. It's the national passion of Cuba, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, and various other Middle American states. And to get an intuitive sense of how well it is known, despite baseball only being a celebrated sport in East Asia (also South Korea and Taiwan) and the Americas, take a look at the various different languages in the Language Box in the sidebar at Yankee Stadium. There are pretty comprehensive descriptions of Yankee Stadium in the French- and Arabic-language Wikipedias, among the dozen or so different Wikipedia projects covering the subject. DBaba (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tall buildings

I've removed reference in the Media section to Monefiore being the borough's tallest building. First, this is the wrong section. Second, Montefiore is the building whose top is at the highest elevation. Nearby Tracey Towers is taller. Jd2718 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Bronx → Bronx — This has been moved back and forth now, so a proper debate is warranted. Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear about the usage of when to use definite articles (the) in the name of articles. Only when the word "the" is part of the official name (eg The Hague) should it be used. When in doubt, "the" should be avoided.

Precedents listed on the guideline page include: Middle East, not The Middle East, White House, not The White House, and Netherlands, not The Netherlands. Note all of these examples refer to terms where "the" always precedes them. Thus, the argument that one would never say "I'm going to drive over to Bronx" doesn't hold. You would always say "I'm flying to the Middle East" or "I'm taking a tour of the White House" as well, but those articles drop "the" from the title.

So the only question is to what extent "The Bronx" is official. And I would point to several sources that indicate it is not: this map, where "the" is not even shown, this page where "the" is used but often with a lower case, NOT upper case, and on the official NYC government site, "Bronx" again is listed at the top without "the". So to conclude, although the borough is usually called "the Bronx", it is not unlike any of the examples above where "the" is still omitted from the title. —Bssc81 (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as nom, as per reasons above. Bssc81 (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support per well-written and well-referenced nom. (Well done!) JPG-GR (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Use standard term used to reference to location. Alansohn (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Did you read any of the arguments I listed? If we included "the" in all "standard terms" where it's normally included, we'd have to rename tons of articles (like the ones I listed above, plus move to The Punisher, The Eiffel Tower, The United States, etc. You get the picture. While "the Bronx" is the common name, so are these examples listed, but Wikipedia drops "the" for all of them. Bssc81 (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Follow American usage, and rewrite the guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Ever receive mail from the Bronx? The bottom line reads "Bronx, NY." Oh, by the way, per WP:NCD, too, just like with the Ukraine, the Crimea, and the Sudan. — AjaxSmack 07:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • US Postal Service can (and does) call post offices by any name they choose and has no value as "proof" of a proper name. Half of New Jersey has post office addresses that doesn't match the municipality name or is that of a neighboring municipality, just one example of common practice by the USPS. The value of this mailing address information is probably even lower on the worthlessness scale than exegesis from the text of a visitor's bureau map. Alansohn (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I wasn't speaking of the US Postal Service official usage. I was referring to what residents of the Bronx write on the bottom of their return address on their mail.— AjaxSmack 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • That's the form they are required to use by the US Postal Service. Incidentally, the postal usage is referring to "Bronx County" (which never uses "the"), not the borough of "The Bronx".--Pharos (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain I see good arguments in both directions. But FWIW, as long as AjaxSmack brought it up -- my Ukranian students (recent immigrants) forcefully tell me that no one in "Ukraine" says "The Ukraine" -- I've had to train myself out of the habit. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC) former The Bronxite.
  • Ok, how about something closer to home like The Upper East Side? — AjaxSmack 00:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I reluctantly move from Agnostic to Support, in part to move past this endless discussion and in part to follow WP:MOS. Part of me feels we ought to alternate the two headings each week, with a redirect to the other spelling, but perhaps this isn't serious enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellagio99 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Follow official local usage, which despite a couple of deviations on some city tourism website, is quite clear. Compare The Hague.--Pharos (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So what do you think about The Netherlands, The White House and The Middle East?Bssc81 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The White House and the Middle East are not official geographical entities, so they're not relevant at all. The Netherlands is more analogous, but local usage in Dutch is not to use the definite article.--Pharos (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Of course they are relevant. It's all about usage, and in that context "the Bronx" is no different from "the Middle East". It doesn't matter than the Middle East is not an "official" geographic entity. Notice also that many other articles using "Bronx" in their names, such as Bronx Zoo and Bronx River, despite always referred to as "the Bronx Zoo" and "the Bronx River" do not include "the". Bssc81 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I assert that it does matter when the official local authority makes usage plain. You can cherry-pick a map from some city tourism website, but by far the most important map, the one consulted by millions of New Yorkers everyday, is the official MTA New York City Subway map. "The Bronx" is as plain as day; but the "Bronx Zoo" (quite rightly) has no article; there is indeed a difference.--Pharos (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm not going to get into a debate about "cherry picking" and what source is more "important". I'll just note that the numerous sources I listed also included the NYC government's own name for the place. The subway map, I hate to tell you, is not the be all and end all arbiter. Despite this, I will also once more say that none of this negates the fact that Wikipedia standards suggest it should not be in the title, for reasons listed already. Those reasons likely have led the vast majority of other language Wikipedia sites to leave the word "the" (however it is translated) off their titles: eg: here. In any case, I'm happy to wrap up this debate and let the officials decide at this point. Bssc81 (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose "The Ukraine" "The Hague" "The Argentine" "El Salvador" are proper names not formed from common nouns. They get individual treatment, not according to editors, but according to usage (in English), according to government request (Ukraine), to traditional usage (El Salvador). The usage may also change over time (The Argentine). But editors are not here to make changes in usage. Every river is referred to in English as "The X River" but written up as X river. But few cities and named places carry the "the." It is distinctive, unusual, and reflects, in the face of pressure to make names conform, very strong local pressure to retain the "the." It should stay. Jd2718 (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your references to "The Ukraine", "The Hague" and "El Salvador" as it pertains to Wikipedia or this argument. In any case, The Hague, as a few people have noted, is a special case where "Hague" by itself is never proper, because it comes from the English translation of the Dutch Den Haag, where "Den" is always capitalized. Such is not the case with the Bronx. Bssc81 (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • My argument, simply, is that politics, usage, history, these determine names. Not wikipedia editors and our conventions. The Real World doesn't always conform. Jd2718 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support because as mentioned below you would not capitalize "The" in the middle of a sentence. Songs of ts steiner (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support per very persuasive (and accurate) nom. MovieMadness (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain - my own personal (not grounded in specific policy) beliefs support the move, but to be honest getting the article to GA is more important than the difference between two very similar names. EJF (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I just wanted to add this template above. Now that I see what arguments have been presented against moving the page, I immediately regret starting this poll (for reasons well-documented under WP:POLLS). I hope any administrator who views this page will see the two opposing arguments (as of this post) as seriously flawed.

First, the argument that "Use standard term used to reference to location" - which completely ignored my arguments above that highlight the common use of the word "the" not necessitating inclusion in the article title (see numerous precedents above.)

Second, the argument that we should "Follow American usage, and rewrite the guideline." First of all, "The Bronx" is not unequivocally "American usage". I've pointed out a number of examples where "the" was dropped. And, more importantly, even if it were, that is not a reason to "rewrite the guideline". As noted, there are way too many precedents to have to change from a guideline change to even consider the idea that "American usage" (which this is not in any case) should overrule. I don't know the exact Wikipedia rule that would violate but I'm sure one exists. Bssc81 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Our guidelines are ways to implement our policies. Our naming convention, which is policy, says to do what English does; if it varies, the local dialect of English should be followed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That page also says only to use "the" when it would be capitalized in the middle of the sentence. "I went to The Bronx" is nonstandard, as a Google search will indicate. Bssc81 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#Official names, which is the specific naming convention appropriate for official names. "The Bronx" is heavily used by official sources e.g. [3], [4], [5] (in addition to "the" uncapitalized). By the way, you appear to be unaware that Goggle search does not technically distinguish between upper-case and lower-case letters at all--Pharos (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's ignore for a second that your first two "sources" are the same source, and that the third one is from a book from almost 100 years ago. I have posted my own sources so there's no point in arguing whose sources are more "official". To your other comment, I'm not "unaware that a Goggle (sic) search does not technically distinguish between upper-case and lower-case letters at all". I went through several of those sites and discovered that "the" is used in the lower-case in the vast majority of times (including on this Wikipedia article!) No point in sparring any more, just wanted to point that out. Bssc81 (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, my. Looking above, it appears that the first time I chimed in on this debate was over 3 years ago. Are we still arguing about the same thing? Time to move on, folks. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extent of Yankee Stadium's fame

Editors on the Bronx page spent a lot of time months ago arguing about whether Yankee Stadium is famous or world-famous. The consensus, with documentation, is that it is world-famous. I frankly, don't care, but I'd hate to see editing bogged down in this again. And it will be gone in a year: for a fun trip, take the IRT Jerome Avenue line north from 149th Street. Just past the 161st station, you'll see the existing (world)-famous Yankee Stadium followed by the new one under construction. Cheers. Bellagio99 (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

New External Link for "Photos of the Bronx"

I appreciate BronxCountyGov's provision of this link to some very nice black-and-white pictures of New York City, but I'm genuinely of two minds about its suitability (at least without some kind of warning to the unsuspecting reader). (1) The photos say they are of Manhattan and New York City, so I don't know how many of them, or which ones, pertain specifically to The Bronx. (2) They're accompanied by a pleasant, but rather loud and tinny soundtrack and an enormous amount of advertising for the web-host's, Dr Rothfeld's, dermatology practice. So this seems like a borderline case where I'd be interested in seeing where other editors' and readers' views fall. ¶ Let me add that I have no objection at all to the same editor's other External Link to the Sustainable South Bronx. Even those who may not like the layout, aesthetics or politics of this page can't deny its relevance and usefulness. Shakescene (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead, TOC, and Subheads

I probably went too far in removing subheads, but:

1. as a result of the lead being so short, and the Table of Contents being so long, there is massive white space at the top of the article. This needs to be remedied, probably by expanding the lead to 2-3 paragraphs.

2. Subheads for 1 paragraph subsections? That's just overcategorization, and ToC padding. Jd2718 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with your downgrading of my subhead for "votes for other offices" which has no need to be in the Contents box since no one will search for that on its own (I added Politics to Gov't in the section head instead). And I downgraded "Ethnicity and race" one step because it flows from the rest of "Demographics" rather than being distinct. It's a fine issue, which I should probably sleep on, but for example (1) Someone might easily be searching specifically for the "South Bronx", and "Neighborhoods" as a section really has nothing besides its four sub-sections; similarly (2) they might be searching for the birth of Bronx County and have no interest in Jonas Brounck (or vice-versa). I'll try to think out my own logic better.Shakescene (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's not even logic: it's what looks right or makes the article read better or more easily. Keep shaking it, and a better version eventually falls out. This one needs a lot more work than just formatting, unfortunately. Some sections, such as transportation, are fine. Others are not. Jd2718 (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I just finished a major (but as always, never final) rearrangement of this article, which makes some disproportions starkly evident. For example, the shopping subsection would fit into a Business, Commerce and Economics section, if only one existed. #Mass Transit has no busses. Once all that confusion between the actual cultural life of the Bronx and fictional depictions of the Bronx were separated, the latter seem wildly excessive where the fictional accounts don't reveal some real local characteristics and phenomena, in the fashion of Dos Passos, Dickens, Orwell or Victor Hugo. (Also, once I had a halfway rational arrangement, some of your downgraded subheads made more sense.) Shakescene (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Now the [edit] boxes for two "#The People" subsections (Vital stats & Income) are crowding over the text. I've tried various things like changing the size and position of the maps, or fiddling with the subheads, but I can't shake this. Any ideas? Shakescene (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to look over articles from some other cities, to see what good articles include/exclude. I think you've done just about as much as you could with the material that was already present. I do think that commerce and industry might be an important addition. And while I am partly responsible for creating the lists you mentioned (schools), I agree that they carry little meaning for non-residents, and probably should either go, be replaced by more appropriate description of education in the Bronx, or be replaced with a simple list. Jd2718 (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Catholic high school list could be made more accessible by indicating which ones are run by orders like the Jesuits or the Sisters of Charity of New York, or which ones have been associated with particular sports, ethnic groups, neighborhoods, or missions (e.g. religious vocations). (Once I'd separated them out, I had no problem with the private and public HS lists: they're short enough.) Shakescene (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was "shopping" deleted?

"Shopping" struck me as a useful descriptive paragraph. And also accurate, to the extent I know all parts of the borough. I'm surprised that it was deleted? Bellagio99 (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It was at once grossly incomplete, and failed to convey any meaningful information. Jd2718 (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my comments above about subheadings, I think Shopping Districts would fit nicely into a section about Business (or perhaps tourism), but this article has nothing about business, commerce or economics. Shakescene (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restored "shopping districts" to #Neighborhoods and Commercial Districts, at least for the moment until we can find (or make) a better home. It's also the current home for the Hub image. Shakescene (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many sections seem to be lists or catalogues

I haven't visited New York in five years, and while I've seen The Bronx from many trains, busses and roads passing through it en route to Manhattan, I may never have set foot in New York's Youngest County. So the long lists and catalogues of neighborhoods, schools, roads, expressways, subway routes, etc. just don't have the resonance or informative value for me that they would have for a long-time New Yorker. And, while those lists are safely objective and factual from a NPOV standpoint, avoiding the tricky shoals of explanation, exposition, interpretation and analysis, they can be hard, dull, tedious, boring reading which yields very little to newcomers or outsiders, like biblical genealogies or, indeed, the legendary Manhattan Telephone Directory.

Can some of these be converted to boxes or real lists, or is there something that can be added to these paragraphs? Shakescene (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the Hub image an orphan?

I think the image of the Hub on Third Avenue was used to illustrate the now-deleted Shoppping Section. But it may be useful in another section, if anyone knows where. Otherwise, it probably has no need to stay. Shakescene (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I found a new (if not necessarily permanent home) for this picture in "shopping districts" at the end of The Bronx#Neighborhoods and Commercial Districts. It's hard to fit in comfortably because the shopping district text is currently only 2 sentences long, leaving lots of white space if you don't want the next title to crawl up alongside, and it's hard to judge what's a good size for the thumbnail. (Someone who's familiar with the Hub is probably better suited to judge.) Shakescene (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

too many small edits in main text

Dear Shakescene and JD, While I usually track the Bronx article, you are making so many small edits (especially Shakescene) that it is impossible for me to track them, given a finite amount of time. Would it be possible for you to batch them or to use the sandbox? I value your efforts, but cannot give them third-party thought right now unless you ask me specifically.

I continue to respectfully disagree with Shakescene about deletion of "Shopping" section. Move it and subordinate it, yes, but deletion hides important information for Bronxites. I disagree with Shakescene's justification, that it is boring. Boring is OK in an encyclopedia that is trying to document stuff. The shopping stuff is especially important for the Bronx, given its widespread "wasteland" image. Other articles also point out main shopping and business locations. It would be great if you'd reinsert it where you think best. Otherwise, I am inclined to reinsert myself once this hurricane of editing is over.

Yours in Wiking, Bellagio99 (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the creation of a larger economy of the Bronx section with commerce, industry, labor market, etc, would make sense. One strong point that Shakescene seemed to be making (though he didn't state it directly) is that there was a nostalgia element in the article, making it hard for outsiders to understand. A similar problem, excessive trivia, got mostly edited away a year or two ago. There is a danger in the case of the Bronx, where familiar wiki editors are most likely to have once lived, worked, or studied there, but have since moved away, (that's what the demographics say) for nostalgia and trivia to constantly reappear. Recreating the article in a format similar to other major cities would help guard against this in the future. Jd2718 (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bellagio, I'm not necessarily against the Shopping section in and of itself. (And Shopping wasn't one of the lists that I found boring or hard for an outsider to appreciate.) If it's deficient, as Jd says, then there's room for putting in more shopping districts. It may not require its own section, but the fault is really the lack of a good place to put it (like landmarks, business, traffic or tourism). Perhaps there's some way of working it into the Transportation section that would make both more interesting: e.g. "X subway, bus, bridge or road takes many people on Q days from W to buy fresh Y at Z" or "Before the construction of the Z-way, X street was the traditional thoroughfare connecting A, B and C." Maybe there's a graceful way of working it into the Geography section. (And, by the way, I hadn't thought of nostalgia myself; I was thinking more of New Yorkers' relative familiarity with an institution like the Academy of Mount St. Ursula High School.)

As for your main complaint, I'll try to keep that in mind. Quite frankly, Wikihelp doesn't give very good guidance to newcomers on how to use the Sandbox, so while I've glanced at it, I've never used it. The small edits don't mean much in themselves and aren't worth following step by step; it's the final product that's important. And I have tried to note where I've moved whole sections or sub-sections around. I've deleted almost nothing. Thanks for your comments. Shakescene (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I confess I really don't know about the sandbox enough to recommend it, and at a quick browse didn't give me much WikiHelp. Also would be risky if two folks were editing almost simultaneously. Cheers, Bellagio99 (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that everything being done is both in good faith and open to discussion, which means it is possible for one editor to make lots of edits and for others to review the end product rather than the line by line changes. This type of editing is dynamic and will almost certainly lead to a much improved article. Jd2718 (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was getting dizzy trying to keep up, so I've stopped;-) Bellagio99 (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for causing you vertigo. One problem (that should have been fixed years ago but hasn't been) is that an editor can't see the results of his or her footnote changes without saving the page, causing all kinds of intermediate edits that no one wants to clutter up the history. Similarly, when a picture or format change affects another section than the one you're trying to edit: you don't see the result before saving the whole page.

To summarize the main things I've done recently (and save you stumbling through the underbrush): (1) I restored the "Shopping districts" for the time being, together with the Hub photo, to the end of the renamed #Neighborhoods and Commercial Districts sub-section of #Geography. (2) I salvaged the #Historical Populations table, fixed the broken and missing links, extended it back to 1790, and moved it to #History (19th century). (3) I deleted that Dermatologists' photo link yet again, because those high-quality photos are general Manhattan/New York City ones that don't indicate which are from the Bronx, while the ads and music are overwhelming. (See my Talk section on this subject, which hasn't yet drawn a reply.) Shakescene (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you've done, Shakes, and I agree about WP's failings re refs, notes. Is there a place to leave this suggestion? Bellagio99 (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For comparing a long series of edits, you can click the article tab then the history tab, then push the radio buttons at the beginning and end of the list of edits you want to compare. As for footnotes, you can temporarily add {{reflist}} to the end of the section you are working on. I usually forget to take it out before I Save Page at least once! As for sandbox, you can make your own. Go to your User page. In the address bar where it says "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YOURNAME/" change that to read "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YOURNAME/sandbox2" or whatever name you like. Click enter and then click "Start the User:YOURNAME/sandbox2" page. Copy and paste the full text from the article into your new sandbox page. It's basically a manual process, there is no one-click copy procedure from live pages to sandbox and back, as far as I know. -Colfer2 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Colfer2 for taking the time to provide all these useful editing tips. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That trick with importing a temporary {{Reflist}} seems to work now, although I had trouble with sections that already had footnotes. Thanks. Shakescene (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

History needs expansion and probably its own Main Article

Reading the notes for Prof. Lloyd Ultan's talk to the Bronx River Alliance, let alone the Bronx Borough Historian's own bibliography, it's clear how much is missing here. To do Bronx history justice, something similar to History of Brooklyn is needed, with a summary of maybe half a dozen paragraphs here. Shakescene (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Bronx reflected on screen and in song

Is there some way that the paragraphs about True Love, Awakenings and Finding Forrester could say more about the Bronx itself? If you look more closely (which I confess I didn't at first) at the opening half-dozen paragraphs of this section, you'll see that they just don't list stars and awards, they try to narrate how perceptions of the borough (reflecting reality) have changed from Marty to Fort Apache, the Bronx and beyond. Shakescene (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me include my own not-so-precious baby "In song" in this request. With the huge length of the article as it is, I might regretfully have to delete my own creation unless someone can quote lines or, even better, narrate the evolution of songs to say something about how creators or listeners viewed the Bronx. Shakescene (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Transferred from my own talk page Shakescene (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Would appreciate some clarification re film section. (Am concerned that the Bronx is all too often presented as a disease.) + I'm new to this realm. NYCfellow 00.20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, NYCfellow. I'll try to answer most of this on Talk:The Bronx, but basically I was wondering if you could weave your examples into the first half-dozen ones (from Marty to Fort Apache or Fuga del Bronx ), so they tell what the films show about the Bronx or about how the Bronx is viewed. This is certainly not personal, because it applies far more strongly to my own addition of Songs about the Bronx, which right now is a list of titles that by themselves say almost nothing about the Borough or how it's been seen over time. [And I've been on Wikipedia only since Spring 2008, starting with and concentrating on New York City mayoralty elections, so I'm no veteran who knows much of the internal processes and customs. Plus I may never have set foot in the Bronx.] Shakescene (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Bronx in literature

(First item moved from Bellagio99 talk page to here, where the two-way dialogue would fit better).

Maybe you're right about the order of stories. I've read The Bonfire, but none of the other three stories, so if you can work this paragraph better, all the more power to you. (I ran across your change in an Edit Conflict while I was doing footnote changes of my own, so couldn't read your rationale in the History tab.) More about what The Underworld and "The Grand Concourse" say about the Bronx would of course be helpful (what did that woman see with her adult daughter after coming back to a Lewis Morris building?) While it shouldn't be controlling, there's value in following order of composition (1980, 1987, 1997, 2007), as in the "On Screen" section, to show how treatments of the Bronx evolve. [Also, note that I edited out the "also's" etc., in my original move of this sentence, so if you move it somewhere else, check that you're not being either choppy or redundant — e.g. two also's in a row — in the new location.] Shakescene (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Shakes, While I greatly respect your effort and results, I think if we can find thematic groupings, it works better than chronological. I read the Corman book (my old neighborhood too, and put it in this article), and while I haven't read the Lewis Morris piece, they both seem to be talking about moving back to the Bronx. Thonx. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I made another try, by putting Appel's "Grand Concourse" at the beginning of the first paragraph, ahead of Corman's Old Neighborhood, so that the latter still connects to Wolfe below. Chronology is lost but maybe the themes hang together better.

(I agree this discussion belongs better here; just with all the edit conflicts, I wanted to ensure you got my message. But you of all people should know that Talk:Bronx is empty while Talk:The Bronx gets here ;-)    ) Shakescene (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible agenda for this article in mid-July 2008

(I'm breaking this into sections, which can be responded to separately.)

and are, by me below. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Creating sub-articles with main article summaries

Possible candidates would be The Bronx#Government and Politics, especially my election returns, and The Bronx#The Bronx reflected in literature, song, film and television, especially my unannotated list of songs. Summarizing them in the main page might be a challenge, however.

In a few days or a week, I need to look at all the stuff I've added and think what could be exported or summarized to make the article shorter and smoother. Shakescene (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer one integrated main article. It reads coherently and comprehensively. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Length has become an issue. This is up to 100k, really too long, and I think there is more to be added. Jd2718 (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparing templates

Having looked at the other borough pages and a few of the suburban ones, I can see better now how and why this article was organized as it was. The Manhattan model is good for some purposes, but not for others: e.g. landmarks make Manhattan, but they don't make the Bronx; most people have heard of Harlem and Greenwich Village, while I'd never met the names of most Bronx neighborhoods before seeing this article; transportation is even more important for the Bronx than for Manhattan (and needs explanation as well as enumeration). A page that impressed me and might bear looking at is Bergen County, New Jersey: a very different approach, and incomplete for our purposes because much of the material is in the constituent towns, but beautifully clear. The borough template is good in parts, but sometimes what was incomplete here is just as incomplete everywhere else: e.g. business and healthcare are missing, Demographics is hard to follow (and sometimes old), and Government is very spotty and formalistic (e.g. catalogues of Congressional Districts and boilerplate paragraphs about the Board of Estimate). Shakescene (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The article has its own coherence now, so while I suggest looking elsewhere to get some guidance, I wouldn't be driven by other structures. The Bronx is the Bronx, thonx. (couldn't resist). Bellagio99 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Health care

There seems to be very little useful treatment of health care as a whole on a regional or metropolitan level anywhere below the extensive national article Healthcare in the United States. When you look at the geographical categories, most of them just seem to be lists of hospitals. Health care, public health, medicine and nursing have to be important topics in the Bronx, so there has to be some mention, but perhaps that has to wait until someone writes an article about Health Care in New York City or the New York metropolitan region. (Same, by the way seems to go for Boston and New England, San Francisco and Northern California.) Shakescene (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Business and Commerce

The Bronx is no longer the center of manufacture, shipping and transport it was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but what does it do now? Shakescene (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Extensive shopping, for one thing, but otherwise I don't know. Does the Borough President's office publish any directories? Bellagio99 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

History before 1914

Very little history is told between about 1700 and the gradual incorporation of the Bronx into New York City in the late 19th century. (Almost all the other history is about the Bronx splitting off Westchester or Bronx towns splitting from larger towns like Yonkers.) Shakescene (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we buck for promotion?

Is there some point we should consider asking for a reassessment of this B-class article? Is it yet A-class, or can it be made so? How much editing, referencing and sourcing would we need to make it a possible candidate for Good Article (see the discussion at Talk:Manhattan for all the enormous work that User:Alansohn put into finding sources to qualify it for Good or Featured Status.) Shakescene (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about A-class. But to be blunt, Shakes, the "we" probably means "you". For some years, a few users have been slowly developing the article (I did some of the literature and film stuff), but in an evolutionary mode. Then you came along and really shook up the scene;-). It's a matter of personal preference and time: I don't really care about promotion

to A-class -- much less the huge work, politics and heartache with going to good article, and I certainly don't have the time for it. So if you want to do the work, sure; if you don't, my guess is that the universe will keep unfolding as it should.Bellagio99 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And let me thank you once again for the huge good work you have done.

Bellagio99 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The history sections remain uneven and weak, and the neighborhood sections look largely ORish. While the article is (imo) much improved recently, there is a long way to go yet. Jd2718 (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

¶ Hey, we just got promoted !! (from C to B) —— Shakescene (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Should Wave Hill stay in Culture or move to Parks?

I'm thinking of cutting the last paragraph of The Bronx#Cultural Life and Institutions to leave just the Hall of Fame for Great Americans and Yankee Stadium. I worked the Maritime Industry Museum into the SUNY Maritime College paragraph of The Bronx#Education directly above Culture, so I'll probably just delete that sentence. Maybe Wave Hill fits better, after possible slight rewriting, with The Bronx#Parks and Open Space, or maybe it should stay where it is. Since I never heard of Wave Hill before working this article, I just don't know if it's more important as a park or as a cultural site. What do those who know the Bronx think? Shakescene (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest cutting the last sentence, and changed "famed" in the Wave Hill section to "known" -- or cutting altogether, especially if Wave Hill doesn't have its own article. When I lived in the Bronx, I scarcely heard of it (but that was 40 years ago), and as a continuing daily reader of the national edition of NYTimes, I don't recall it being mentioned. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wave Hill, the Bronx Zoo, NYBG, etc all host cultural events, but present primarily as parks. If there is a major cultural event that one of them hosts... but I don't think there is. Assign to parks and discuss the cultural aspects in the individual articles? Jd2718 (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wave_Hill_(New_York) does have its own Wikipedia article that tells the history and describes it mainly as a botanical garden, with only the slightest allusion to cultural events. If this article is still current and accurate, confirming others' impressions, then I should move it to Parks.

(By the way, Jd, the Belmont Stakes — named not for a place but for Leonard Jerome's partner the Democratic Party financier August Belmont, Sr. who put up the purse — started at the Jerome Park Racetrack in 1867 and ran there til the track closed in 1890. I think it returned there once soon afterwards when, as you said, the new home was unavailable.)

Shakescene (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I am curious how the land became the group of schools and the reservoir. Were they sold to the City with some covenant? But that's not for this article. Jerome, btw, is Winston Churchill's grandfather (more trivia). Jd2718 (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Subheadings

Please see WP:MOS:

"The first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of each word of a proper noun are capitalized; all other letters are in lower case (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects)."

The following words in subheadings are not consistent with this:

• Name
• Physical Features
• Open Space
• Commercial Districts
• Politics
• People
• Housing
• Household Income
• Language and Immigration
• Press and Broadcasting

Please restore my corrections. I shouldn't have to do this again. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 20:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I see from the edit summaries a cryptic message from Shakescene about the last paragraph of WP:MOS. This paragraph reads:

It is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so; for example, it is unacceptable to change from American to British spelling unless the article concerns a British topic. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

This has nothing to do with national style. This is about Wikipedia style, which is to use lower case in subheadings and articles titles, other than for proper nouns. I find in editing UK article, subheadings are just as likely to be incorrectly capitalized as in U.S. articles. And by incorrectly, I mean incorrect according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Other manuals recommend capitalizing significant words in subheadings, but the manual that applies to Wikipedia does not. Ground Zero | t 20:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at these articles: Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and New York City. They follow the Wikipedia style, and do not capitalize non-initial non-proper nouns in the subheadings. The Staten Island article used a mix, so I have adjusted to make it consistent, and to bring it in line with the Wikipedia style. Ground Zero | t 20:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The cryptic message came from an edit conflict. I didn't include that MoS paragraph in what I finally wrote (now apparently lost) because it looked to me like it was indeed discussing national differences. Instead I included the beginning of the opening box: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article." Shakescene (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember everything I wrote (now lost) but the gist was that consistency with other Wikipeidia articles is desirable↑ but not my only criterion; the MoS is guidance and not law; the choices were usually made for what seem like logical reasons to me, e.g. if Government and Politics (or Origins and Name) are equally important, or if the preceding adjective is less important than the noun it modifies (Red shoes), or if it's helpful in showing the internal hierarchy of a section. And only a bot could think that "Lyndon Baines Johnson|Johnson" is better than "LBJ|Johnson" when they show the same thing and lead to the same link. †(But see the discussion above under "Possible Agenda" of "Comparison with other templates") Shakescene (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of Wikipedia articles have subheadings that cover two topics, but follow the standard capitalization of the style guide. You have an interesting idea about "equal importance", but the Wikipedia community has not chosen to reflect that idea in the Style Guide that it has developed. Is there a reason why this particular article should be different from the rest of the encyclopedia? It looks very strange to have the vast majority of articles follow the Wikipedia Style Guide, and to have this one follow your style.

My reason for changing the LBJ and JFK links is that I keep an eye out for articles where writers use those acronyms in sentences and assume that all readers will know what they mean. Standard style and indeed Wikipedia style is to spell out acronyms on first use to help the reader. I realize that isn't important in piped links like these ones, and bypass the redirects for my own convenience, but I didn't see why they would be changed back to redirect. Regards, Ground Zero | t 02:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because I was in Berkeley in the 1960's, I was weaned away from loving uniformity for its own sake when I see no specific reason for a custom. However, that's really fairly moot now, because I've accepted most of your changes after realizing what the reason must be for a rather cramped and limiting rule. It's the uncharacteristic blindness of Wikipedia's otherwise-formidable search engines, which unlike everyone else's (and unlike the BASIC programs I wrote 25 years ago for a layman's community college class on a 128k Radio Shack computer), can't recognize the Upper Case and lower-case of the same letter as the same letter. This means that you have to ask Wikipedia for very specific code and links, with only the first letter and proper names capitalized. So, although I think that in the abstract it's a bad style, I've adopted it with only a couple of hard-to-resolve exceptions ("The Press" and "The People", where idiomatic English of any dialect keeps the article since they'd mean rather different things without it.)

(I certainly didn't like undoing anyone else's laborious work, undertaken without pay in order to improve the article, but perhaps you can understand my reaction to undoing my own considered work with what looked like a rigid brandishing of the Manual of Style for its own sake. If the Manual only explained this point better, as it does with other points, or even better if the Search and Sorting functions of Wikipedia's computers didn't force this in the first place allowing you to search for New York City mayoralty elections just as easily as for the equally-logical New York City Mayoralty elections) Best wishes for Bastille Day. Shakescene (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have different perspective on this from you. I see the merit in consistency in style in an encyclopedia for the sake of improving its overall appearance and ease of use for the reader. I think that allowing too much latitude veers too far in the direction of allowing editors to think that they WP:OWN the articles, which of course they do not. I do not not see ambiguity in these parts of the manual, and of course, you are always welcome to recommend changes to the manual on its talk pages. I disagree with your conclusions about "The Press" and "The People", which I think are unnecessary aggrandizing of those terms, but will accept them in the spirit of compromise that you have shown. Liberté, fraternité et égalité to you. Ground Zero | t 08:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of "the"

The article was inconsistent in its capitalization of the "the" in "the Bronx". Sometimes, in the middle of a sentence one would find "The Bronx" and other times "the Bronx". I expect there are strong opinions on both sides. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style says:

"Proper names of institutions (for example, the University of Sydney, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, George Brown College) are proper nouns and require capitalization. Where a title starts with the, it typically starts with lowercase t when the title occurs in the middle of a sentence: a degree from the University of Sydney."

This is disputed apparently, but until there is a consensus to change it, this is probably a sensible approach to a standard for the article. If the Manual changes, then capitalizing "the" would make sense. Ground Zero | t 20:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Look over the earlier discussions of this topic. The consensus was (like your own view), not to capitalize "The" in "the Bronx" in the middle of a sentence without good reason unless the capitalized "The Bronx" was in the middle of a quotation. Apart from the Bronx itself, the only exception that comes immediately to my mind is in the names of newspapers and periodicals, like The Economist and The New York Times. Shakescene (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Young Lords

Someone added these sentences (and an External link which I removed) over the weekend, after redlining in The Bronx#Since 1914

Redlining kept the poor out of designated areas of the city and became the contentious factor that originated the Puerto Rican activists known as Young Lords.The Young Lords protested urban renewal and arson for profit with sit ins and marches and coalesced with similiar groups fighting for neighborhood empowerment,like the Black Panthers.

I added back the Young Lords link as a footnote to this, and cleaned up a little of the language, but what about the accuracy and neutrality? I don't want to be a censor, but the Young Lords and Black Panthers, like the Industrial Workers of the World 100 years ago, are heroes to some and terrorists or hustlers to others. Wikipedia isn't here to pass judgment on either view (or any other), but what is relatively undisputed historical fact, and can it be backed by a less-partisan source? (And how much relates specifically to the Bronx and not the Young Lords' birthplace of Chicago?) Also, if we mention the Young Lords, do we need, while we're pressed for space, to mention other groups that others might consider as important like Sustainable South Bronx, the NAACP, churches or property-owners' associations? Shakescene (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just use a "such as the Young Lords" formulation. You don't want to say that they were the only thing happening, but you do want to mention. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

One or two spaces after a period

I am a one space guy, like this. But the edits have been going to two spaces, like this. I think it doesn't look as good and disconnects sentences visually. It would be great if the two-spacer (Shakes?) edited back to one-space. Is there a search-replace function for this?Bellagio99 (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell what things look like on your browser or screen, but when I look at the screen (not the composing/editing page), I can see no difference in the spacing between your first three sentences above. Most systems squeeze multiple blank spaces into a single space unless you enter a series of "hard spaces" by writing "nbsp;" several times. I think the problem might be with footnotes; I've found no good way to handle those because they either cramp and congest or space out too much. (If you want a search/replace function, copy the editing page text — not what's on the screen — onto Wordpad or the Mac equivalent, and re-paste the edited result onto the edit page.) Shakescene (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS has this advice:

Spaces after the end of a sentence

There are no guidelines on whether to use one space or two (French spacing) after the end of a sentence, but the issue is not important, because the difference is visible only in edit boxes; i.e., it is ignored by browsers when displaying the article.

Ground Zero | t 11:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I was looking at the edit box when I made my suggestion, and didn't realize that the browser display was smarter than me. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can existing lists of Bronx High Schools and NYC colleges allow us to make the Education section smoother?

When glancing over the (far-too-little-noticed) Lists of New York City topics, I ran across List of high schools in New York City#Bronx and List of colleges and universities in New York City (not broken down by borough). Is there some way of using them to make The Bronx#Education more explanatory and less of series of unannotated lists? And for that matter, are there any amendments, links or improvements you can add to those school lists (I added a couple of wikilinks and added SAR Academy). Shakescene (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

List is badly incomplete. Jd2718 (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dates Bronx territory was annexed to New York City before 1898

I checked this (because of the ambiguity) in the Encyclopedia of New York City, and from what I can tell from its articles on "consolidation" (by David C. Hammack) and "Bronx" (co-authored by Gary D. Hermalyn and Lloyd Ultan, the Bronx Borough Historian), the non-binding referendum on consolidating the city was in 1894, while the legislature "in 1895 passed another bill annexing to the city the area east of the Bronx River, parts of the towns of Pelham and Eastchester, the village of Wakefield, and the town of Westchester, which because of its central location was included despite its negative vote in 1894." I have no strong feelings on this point; I just want to get it right, and would be glad to see other sources. Shakescene (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I added a source from the New York Times that shows 1894, but I have seen the 1895 date floating around. This does deserve additional research. Alansohn (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• To provide a countersource, The Green Book - Chronology of Important New York City Dates from the New York City website lists "1895 Part of Pelham and Wakefield annexed to City." Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to confuse things further, this 1895 article from The New-York Times talks of the "1873" annexation (which I think must be the date of a referendum and/or legislative act): http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C0CE1DC1039E033A2575AC0A9609C94649ED7CF

THE EXTENDED CITY.

June 9, 1895, Wednesday

Page 4, 546 words

Few people realize that the act of the last Legislature, which was so quietly passed, annexing a portion of Westchester County to the city makes its area nearly three times what it was twenty-five years ago. The area of Manhattan Island is about 14,000 acres. More than 12,000 were added by the annexation of 1873, but the new annexed district is larger than either of these areas, being about 15,000 acres.

Shakescene (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cory Gunz

I'm not a big fan of rap and hip-hop to begin with, so I have no knowledge or judgement to share. But Cory Gunz was a successful candidate for deletion as a separate Wikipedia article. That doesn't necessarily mean he's equally a candidate for deletion from a list of "newer hip hop artists" on this article's The Bronx#Cultural life and institutions. (He was just deleted tonight.) It might very well be true, but not necessarily, since very far from every name in a Wikipedia article links to another Wikipedia article of its own. And he might still be relevant to the Bronx or be saying something significant about the Bronx without being "notable" in national (or regional or world) music. What do others who know something think? Shakescene (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I was the one who added Cory Gunz (Swizz Beatz & Drag-On too) because before that it just had Fat Joe, Big Pun and Terror Squad. See Fat Joe is very far from being a "new " artist along with his group terror squad and Big Pun is deceased and Cory Gunz isn't a big name but he is a new artist from the Bronx and also the son of Peter Gunz of the rap duo Lord Tariq & Peter Gunz. I don't mind him not being there but if its new rap artist Cory Gunz is a good candidate if it's more recent artists or something like that it Big Pun and Fat Joe are good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Sire (talk • contribs) 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Parks to add?

I grew up happily playing in St. James Park, north of Fordham Road, in between the Grand Concourse and Jerome Avenue (without abutting any of these streets). Its small, but it would be great if it could be added. P.S. As a teen, I hung out most in Alexander's, but I guess that could never be an official park -- just a shopping and dating playground;-) YMMV. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course, it's entirely up to you (just as anyone else is free to disagree). My mileage would vary since I don't have a specific, definite memory of ever having set foot in (as opposed to passing through) the Bronx, so just as with Wave Hill, I'm in no position to judge. The park doesn't seem too small (over 11 acres and a city block), so it could fit in the chart, and if you want to write a sentence (and/or a separate stub article for Category:Parks in the Bronx) about where it is and what's interesting about it, I'm not going to rush in and object. You can pick up some background information here: http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/StJamesPark . (Since it was bought in 1897, it just missed being in that 1896 NY Times map of the Annexed District.)

There will no doubt come a point when there are too many parks for one section of an overloaded general article, and then people will have to debate the relative merits of Henry Hudson Park and Wave Hill, and whether it's worth starting a sub-article on Bronx Parks, but perhaps we can wait a bit to see how this tree grows in the Bronx before deciding where to prune or transplant it. :-) Shakescene (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Geographical coordinates

At present the geographical coordinates of the Bronx are given in at least four different places (very top, very bottom, Information Box, and the end of The Bronx#Location and physical features), although never specifying precisely where (Bronx County Courthouse? Bronx Borough Hall? geographical center? center of population? historical centre?)

There were probably good reasons at the time for each of these entries (such as ready comparison with other geographical articles), but I'm not sure that they're all necessary now. What might be helpful to those not using Google Maps, TIGER or other GPS-based mapping is some comparison (e.g. to Montauk Point, L.I., the southernmost tip of Staten Island, or out-of-state points that share the borough's latitude or longitude). What do others know or think? Shakescene (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

African-born population

The source cited in the paragraph about Ghana is an article by Oscar Johnson, "Chilly Coexistence", included in a Columbia University journalism class's anthology. I'm not sure if the article was originally written as course-work for the class (which focussed on local beat reporting in New York City), or was included for the students' instruction from some other source, such as The Columbia Daily Spectator.

Anyway, it includes these four paragraphs (used as general background for the interviews in the rest of his story):

In the last decade there has been ample opportunity for cultural barriers to arise among black people in the Bronx. More than 1,600 Ghanaians now immigrate annually to the city - a 380 percent increase since the early 1990s - according to the city Department of City Planning report released last year.

Immigration and Naturalization Service data shows that in 1996, about two-thirds of those Ghanaians visiting the United States (6,269), and nearly three-quarters of those naturalized (3,084), arrived in the city. Many have clustered in communities in Morris Heights, Highbridge and Tremont, making Ghana the No. 3 place of origin for immigrants to the Bronx, according to the report.

Meanwhile, city and community district data for the new millennium show that the borough’s native-born black population - largely consisting of those traditionally called "black" and "African American"- is leaving the South Bronx.

In the last decade, many have migrated north to Coop City. Some have left the Bronx altogether. Now, a full two thirds of the borough’s "black" population is foreign-born.

What's been difficult is reconciling these data (if correctly read by Oscar Johnson) with what I can find from my own reading of U.S. Census data. For example, there just don't seem to be enough Bronx immigrants from all of West Africa to make Ghana the "third-largest source". And, while perhaps African-born people are more prevalent in the South Bronx, I just don't see the numbers to make them such a large proportion of the Black or Negro population as compared to native-born Afro-Americans.

On the other hand, perhaps we can restore [Ghanaians have clustered] "in communities" [along the Grand Concourse], since that is supported by the article and not yet contradicted by anything I've seen. However, "in communities" may be ambiguous between communities started by Ghanaians and existing communities which they joined.

This isn't necessarily to challenge the accuracy of Oscar Johnson's article, but just to understand what was in the City Planning report and INS data that he used in 2000 and to reconcile it with other data that are easier for me to retrieve and check in 2008. Shakescene (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I did the recent pruning of the Ghanaian description. While Ghana (and its people) are among my most favorite country, as has just been stated, the third-largest assertion seems non-credible. That makes the entire article not credible to me. I basically don't trust student term papers, having read/marked too many. So please doublecheck all claims. YMMV. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In 2000 a claim that Ghana was the leading source of African immigration to the Bronx would have been credible. (I think that was the year I learned hello, goodbye, and the numbers up to 10 in Twi). Now, careful about how author has ambivalently chosen his words. Does this mean, of the immigrants who arrived in that year, the 3rd greatest number was from Ghana? Or, of the foreign-born population in the Bronx, was the 3rd greatest number from Ghana?

In any event, writing in 2000, looking at older data, mediated by DCP which has been an agenda-driven agency, I would recommend not using this source or data. Jd2718 (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maritime Industry Museum & SUNY Maritime College

Oops. Still wrong. I was using the college relocation date to Ft Schuyler, not the museum's launch year. Thank you for catching this. NYCfellow 8/21/08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCfellow (talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, fellow. If you did want to add anything about the college's founding, I added SUNY Maritime to The Bronx#Education with a reference to its museum and the mirror U.S. Merchant Marine Academy with its own museum in Kings Point, Long Island. (Like your item about Wave Hill, I didn't simply delete your earlier Maritime Museum entry; I just moved it where I thought it might fit better.)

By the way, Maritime Industry Museum is just a stub right now. Since you're interested and probably far closer to Fort Schuyler, maybe you'd be interested in fleshing out the entry a bit (or whatever it is one does with a stub). Shakescene (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC) [moved from my UserTalk page]

Bronx cheer

Moved from my talk page, as Shakes suggested:

I didn't know what to do with this myself when someone else put it in The Bronx article. I did add Bronx cheer to the disambiguation page for Bronx, but I think that's probably not enough for every casual reader who might be wondering what a Bronx cheer is. On the other hand, it's not really (despite the prejudices of other boroughs) a cultural reflection of the Bronx (certainly not as portrayed on screen, in literature or in song), and it doesn't fit in any other section. So where in the world do we put it? Could a bare reference to Bronx cheer be made an addendum to the disambiguation notice at the top?

[Now that I've (ahem) got your attention, feel free to move this to Talk:The Bronx ] Shakescene (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is probably now moot, since I went ahead (Be Bold!), deleted the separate Bronx cheer (sub)section and added

See also: Bronx Cheer and Bronx Bombers

below the redirect/disambiguation flag. Purists and meddling busybodies will complain that this is redundant with "For other uses see Bronx (disambiguation)", but while the result is less elegant than I'd like, I think it's the easiest way of directing readers where they (not we) want to go. Shakescene (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My (Bell's) take: It's hard to know what to do with it. It certainly didn't belong as a major section. I thought it intriguing enough to keep it, as a subsection of Culture. (My guess it probably arose out of Yankee games ages ago). It probably also could live in Regional American Dialects (New York City).

What do others think? I'm not reinserting it now.

Bellagio99 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I hate to break this to you, B99, but blowing a raspberry probably long predates the Bronx's very existence; in fact it must predate the English language and ancient Greek comedy. It's called blowing a raspberry in England with never a thought for (or even knowledge of) the Bronx, and having grown up in London myself, I long had the vague notion that a Bronx cheer was simply "Boooo!!!!!!" So what's needed is how it's become associated with this particular borough. Shakescene (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Try this. Usage seems tied to Yankees fans... which is a bit surprising as the Giants' and Dodgers' fans, from what I've heard, had much more of a blue collar reputation.

Bronx speech or manners worth a small subsection?

Everyone's heard of Brooklynese, but would the Bronx's past or present accent, idiom and mannerisms be distinct enough (and notable enough, e.g. by indicating underlying folkways, attitudes & values) to merit a small subsection under Cultural life & institutions (perhaps renamed)? The Bronx cheer could be one sentence under that.

(And, of course, someone else would have to start a Bronxspeak section, since I'm not from New York and I'm not a dialectician like Henry Higgins who could locate a Londoner's accent within six streets.) Shakescene (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Shakes: Your premise is wrong. The New York dialect article cogently argues that Brooklynese and Bronx-ese (which I speak) are the same (good thing I married a Brooklyn girl -- we can understand each other most of the time). According to scholar William Labov (cited in the article), they're joined in a common "New York accent". Just that Brooklyn got better publicity. Da' Bums!

Bellagio99 (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So in the clip of Bronx Borough Historian Lloyd Ultan which one can find on YouTube, he's talking Standard New York, just like any good Brooklynite or (shudder) Manhattanite ?? ;-) But then reasoning from your sounder premise, should one talk of a Brooklyn cheer or a New York cheer? Shakescene (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Shakes, Ultan is probably talking NY'ese (altho I haven't listened to the clip.) I'd also guess that many immigrants to Manhattan (or the trendy sections of Brooklyn) don't speak with a NY accent. Read the New York dialect article for further clarification. "Bronx cheer" is a colloquialism, probably derived from rabid Yankee fans; Yankee Stadium is not in Brooklyn or Manhattan. Over and out. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(The Bronx is up, the Battery's down, and Brooklyn doesn't rate a mention...) Jd2718 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

¿J. Lo?

Some well-meaning editor added this to the Reference section, below the footnotes

Jenny from the bronx, jennifer lopez

I presume this belongs somewhere in the Songs about the Bronx or Cultural Life & Institutions section, but where and how? (Is it a song, an album, a video, a movie, a TV show or a book?) Since we certainly want to encourage more contributors who are young, live in the Bronx today and/or follow current Latino and popular culture, I (who fit none of these descriptions) don't want to discourage such efforts. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Data conflict?

As of 2008 Nov 06 the article indicates that the Jewish population decreased substantially since 1937... yet a couple of paragraphs later that there was an influx of Jewish newcomers in the 1960s.... so were there increases until the 1960s, and then a radical drop after that??? or was the immigration substantial in 1960.... need for clarification? Uranian Institute (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Uranian Institute

Perhaps this is colloquial English that needs to be fixed if it's not easily understood by others. One sentence says the Irish population started decreasing in the 1930's. The next sentence says that the Germans (in the 1940's), Italians (in the 1950's) and Jews (in the 1960's) "followed suit", an idiom from card games* implying that these populations followed the Irish immigrant population in decreasing (or in leaving the Bronx). If you can think of better or clearer language, feel free to change it.

* In whist, bridge and similar card games, one player bids or shows a card from a particular suit, such as Hearts [♥], and the others play cards from the same suit if possible. This is called "following suit". "Following suit" as a metaphor or idiom is used, for example, to describe several people ordering salad in a restaurant after another person in their party has first ordered salad. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

after 1914?

The article notes that "The Bronx underwent rapid growth after World War I." However, if you look at the table of census figures in this section, it looks like the borough's real population boom was in the 1890s and 1900s. The growth in the '10s and '20s was still substantial, but not as rapid as the twenty years that came before. --Jfruh (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Although sometimes caution is warranted because of having to impute previously-absent boundary lines backwards to previous Censuses and because of decade-to-decade differences in gathering Census data, the decades where the population more than doubled were the 1850's, 1890's and 1900's. This doesn't mean that population didn't also grow fast during and after World War I, it just reflects the hollowness of this article's history before 1914, which jumps from Kingsbridge (in the 1690's) to the details of consolidation (starting about 1860) without saying anything else. I finessed this in the general introductory paragraphs by saying that the Bronx's once-rural population exploded between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries (from about eight thousand to a million and a half). But we sure need to fill in something substantial for the period between 1700 and 1930. I've been tempted to write a note to the Bronx Borough Historian, Prof. Lloyd Ultan, asking him if any of his students would like to flesh out the skeleton. But of course anyone else is free to try, especially someone who's read any of Prof. Ultan's nine books about Bronx history (including a 4-volume sequence covering the whole history from the Delawares to now). —— Shakescene (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Be careful when you talk about growth to distinguish between percent growth and absolute growth. To take an absurd example, a population growth from 25,000 to 50,000 is a growth of 100%, but absolutely lower than a subsequent growth from 100,000 to 150,000. Pedantically yours, Bellagio99 (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing ethnic percentages

Emigrant85 recently did a wholesale change of ethnic percentages, based on the 2000 census. I'm concerned, because census data doesn't change. I would appreciate it if Emigrant85 would discuss the basis for these changes. Bellagio99 (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In the process, he, no doubt unintentionally, removed the Census reference I (or perhaps a predecessor) used. But needless to say, if the numbers change, the reliable source behind them vanishes, and no new supporting reference appears, I get a bit nervous. It may be that Emigrant (without using any edit summaries) is using some later estimates, but he or she should give the later date and not leave them attributed to the 2000 Census. When someone has the time, he or she should go back and check the "old" numbers (last checked about 2 months ago) against the new ones and the Census. And though I hate to say this, someone should check the other boroughs too, either the numbers directly or at least their edit histories. And (I hate to say even more, the sub-articles on "Demographics of..." I'm off to hear Gilbert & Sullivan's "Patience", so it's not me this afternoon. Have a good weekend and (U.S.) Thanksgiving. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I see: although user:Emigrant85 would have done far, far better (in terms of utility and simple etiquette) to tell us what he or she was doing in edit summaries or here, I don't think any numbers have changed, just the way they're presented.

However, I deliberately arranged them the earlier way both for simplicity's and clarity's sake and to reflect what I think is now the most important proportion in this particular borough: Hispanic (of all races) to non-Hispanic Black to non-Hispanic White. Emigrant85, who also added Race to the front of the subsection heading thinks Race is the most important distinction, but Black vs White vs Some Other Race is highly artificial, for several reasons. The most important is because in the real world in which Hispanics responded to the confusing 2000 U.S. Census questions, a very large number think of their race as neither White, Black, Asian, Native American or Polynesian, but Latino or Hispanic, which the Census didn't offer as a racial choice. So, since none of the other choices seemed to fit, they classified themselves as "Some Other Race". "Some Other Race" (intended as a residuum for very small unincluded races) in fact is overwhelmingly composed of Hispanics. The result of using race as the primary distinction in Bronx statistics is the highly uninformative (in fact misleading) one that Hispanics are split up about 25% Some Other Race, 15% White and 5% Black, and the overall ranks change to 1. Black, 2. White, 3. Some Other Race.

I'm going to restore my original arrangement (with the original notice that they're simplifying the dozens of Census classifications) and the original source footnote. Of course Emigrant85 is free to state the case for his or her rearrangement here. I think that Emigrant's arrangement is still available at Demographics of The Bronx, so I'm not trying to eradicate all record of the unworkable Census classifications (driven largely by conflicting pressures from politicians). —— Shakescene (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all I would like to say is that I always use census data and their websites, so you guys never have to worry whether my edits are legit or not, because they always are. I always do my research and check each website's neutrality with the way they interpret data before using it for any edit. In almost all of my edits I give explanations and references.

What I tried to do in this case is show the standard racial and ethnic distribution of The Bronx, the way it is shown in all the other demographics sections across all counties and cities on wikipedia. For example, demographics of The Bronx has this same type of racial and ethnic distribution format. Here are some examples from other articles that I haven’t edited: Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, Miami. As you guys can see my edit was totally legit. By the way I'm a guy.

Emigrant85 (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Once I saw what Emigrant had done, I acknowledged it was just a different arrangement, so no one's questioning Emigrant's integrity. (One reason for our doubts was that an earlier editor had played around with these numbers and other boroughs' numbers to show a greater proportion of Albanians than the Census data showed. Another was that there was no explanation of what Emigrant was trying to do, either here or in an edit summary — something, by the way, that we all fail to fill out at one time or another.)

But though Emigrant's motive is not ideological but purely for consistency with other articles, the question it raises presents us with a HUGE problem, whose resolution needs some collaborative thinking.

The figures are not deliberately misleading, but the effect is highly misleading as regards the Bronx, for the reasons I explained at length above. If they're misleading in other cities (and they would be just as misleading, if not more so, for Los Angeles, San Francisco, San José, San Antonio, Denver, Chicago or Miami), someone has to plod through and correct the misimpressions there, too, not keep them here. (However the old arrangement is still available for inter-city comparisons at Demographics of The Bronx.) Bad presentation of information elsewhere is not a good reason to keep it here.

So the question is what's the best way of reconciling two good purposes? Do we make a table with columns for Hispanics, non-Hispanics and total? Do we refer people to the Demographics page? Do we try to fix all the innumerable pages for areas with significant Hispanic populations? Is there some cleaner, easier approach that satisfies both needs?

• And to see that the Census Bureau itself acknowledges, and has long acknowledged, a problem, see some of the discussion at their site, especially the Census Briefs for Hispanic & Latino Population, and for Some Other Race. [That's why the Census goes to great pains in many tables to disaggregate non-Hispanic whites from other groups, and in other tables to show black or Native American Hispanics.] It was difficult when I took the 1980 Census which basically forced Hispanics to class themselves as "predominantly" white, black, Asian, Native American/Alaskan or Hawaiian/Islander (you couldn't then give more than one race), and it was difficult in later censuses that tried to ask the question differently, because some Hispanics classify themselves with one or more of those races, and many others consider Hispanic, Chicano or Latino to be a race by itself, not an ethnic group within some other race. Only 1% out of the 23-24% "Some Other Race" in the Bronx were not Latinos.

Other thoughts not only welcome, but much needed. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Newyankeestadium.jpg

The image File:Newyankeestadium.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sedgwick Avenue

Isn't Sedgwick Avenue more of a side street than a through street? Bellagio99 (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

split article(s)

I would suggest doing a History of The Bronx and The Bronx in popular culture. This article is very long.--Levineps (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The length of the article has been discussed before: see above. One of the things that make it long in my opinion is the long list of neighborhoods whose names say very little (without a fair-use map) to non-New Yorkers such as myself (and if you read the NY Times article about neighborhoods, not that much to hundreds of thousands of relative newcomers to the borough). I did try to give the list some coherence by sorting them into Community Boards. An effort has already been made to trim the lists of school names in Education to what is illustrative (rather than exhaustive), and to add some substance about participation and achievement. History of the Bronx, unfortunately (also see above) is not yet ready to be set adrift and summarized, because what's here so far is 17th & 18th century origins jump-cutting abruptly into the details of the Bronx's absorption into the City of New York (before and after 1897), followed by some ethnic changes and the post-1970 decline. Nothing inherently wrong with any of it, but it's not sufficient by itself for a stand-alone history. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Northeast Bronx

Northeast Bronx ???????

The north east is way bigger than the northwest, yet there is a subsection for it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.230.164 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Jordan L. Mott

I don't have a specific reference to support the reference (from someone else) that Bellagio99 deleted, but there are some interesting pointers in The Encyclopedia of New York City and in the New York Times obituary of his son, who moved the J.L. Mott Iron Works from the Bronx to Trenton, N.J. in 1895. The elder Mott had built the first all-iron storefront, according the Encyclopedia's article on cast-iron architecture (pp. 166-7 in the 1995 edition), as well as founding Mott Haven for his workers, while his son served as President of the New York City Board of Aldermen (by then covering the West Bronx as well as Manhattan) in 1879. The HTML reference for the abstract of Jordan Mott, Jr's NY Times obituary (Tuesday, July 27, 1915, page 9) is:

• JORDAN L. MOTT DIES IN 86TH YEAR; Iron Works Head and a Notable Figure in City's Life Succumbs in Old Homestead.

and the free PDF of the full obituary is here.

Part of it reads: "His father was Jordan L. Mott, the first of the name, and who founded the iron works that grew into the present company. He was an inventor, and made the first stove for burning anthracite coal. Mott Haven, on the Harlem River, received its name from the iron works he established there, and he was largely instrumental in building the town of Morrisania....In 1866 he [the son] took entire charge of the business and has continued until his death. Ten years ago he removed the works from Mott Haven to Trenton, N.J." —— Shakescene (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Another couple of references from McNamara's Old Bronx by John McNamara (Bronx Historical Society, 1989) via Google Books (limited previews):

• The Name of Jordan L. Mott Stamped on Iron, Worldwide

• Second Gouverneur Morris was Heir of Sire's Manor, Bluntness which relates an amusing anecdote about the naming of Mott Haven.

—— Shakescene (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Shakescene. I was really surprised that my footnote on Jordan L. Mott was deleted, since I found loads of on-line information about him and his ironworks in the Bronx. For example, here's a biography of him: J. L. Bishop, E. T. Freedley, and E. Young, A History of American Manufatures from 1608 to 1860..., vol. II (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Edward Young & Co., 1868), pages 576-578. Available on-line at: http://books.google.com/books?id=mugJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA576&vq=mott&dq=Mott+ironworks&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html . Cwkmail (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)