Talk:Hudson Heights, Manhattan

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

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

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

Text and/or other creative content from this version of United Palace was copied or moved into Hudson Heights, Manhattan with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Hudson whites

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

Tonal concerns

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

--> Responses below from Stevew316

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--> Fine. Stevew316 (talk)

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

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

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

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

There's also too many unsourced statements to count.

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

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

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

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

References and tonal concerns

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

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

Marketing concerns

I was born and raised in Washington Heights, up on 187th st (edit: first on F. Wash, later on Pinehurst, not at all Ft. George), and left in late '90s. I never heard anyone who lived there ever call the place anything other than Washington Heights. Truth is, "Hudson Heights" is a marketing term that has no real currency among the residents. Is disgraceful that it gets a Wikipeidea entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Britt (talk • contribs) 06:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whose name is it??

What do you do when no one in a neighborhood call an area by the name a group of realtors and publicists have selected for it? There doesn't seem to be any such place as "Hudson Heights" except for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfhenshaw (talk • contribs) 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the new link under "Hudson Heights: Late 20th and Early 21st Centuries." It's to an article written by the neighborhood organizers who were present at the creation of "Hudson Heights," and they point out that real estate brokers didn't start using it until after their group was formed. (You can also find it here [1] Stevew316 (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pfhenshaw is quite correct in pointing out that the name is a concoction that is NOT used by locals, except in real estate listings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrlord (talk • contribs) 19:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually bith Pfhenshaw and you are entirely wrong. I happen to live in the neighborhood, and the name is used throughout. Now, the people in the rest of Washington Heights -- of which Hudson Heights is a sub-neighborhood, being too small to be its own full-fledged neighborhood -- may not use it much, but that's an entirely different issue. Anyone who has any sensitivity at all to the "look and feel" of a neighborhood will tell you that Hudson Heights feels distinctly different from Washington Heights in general, and its physical separation (up on a bluff) contributes to that. Anyone who says different doesn't know their Flatiron from their Flatlands. BMK (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name in the neighborhood

Whose name is it? Please read the article through. You'll see that local businesses include it in their names, the local newspaper (The Manhattan Times) uses it in references to the area, as do sources from The New York Times to national magazines. And you'll find out that the name came about not from real estate agents or publicists but by a local group of neighborhood activists in the early 1990s. Granted, not everyone who lives here calls it Hudson Heights, but does everyone in Turtle Bay call it that, or do they just say East Midtown? And if some residents of the Upper West Side don't know they live in a neighborhood called Lincoln Square, does that mean it doesn't exist? Stevew316 (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Stevew316. The fact is the name is used by many (not all) to describe a specific subsection of Washington Heights, and no matter what one feels about this, the article's existence is entirely appropriate, especially since it is the most commonly used name associated with this sub-section, even if a non-majority of Washington Heights residents and outsiders use it (which there is no data to support, either way). I will add that the debate regarding usage of the name Hudson Heights by residents, outsiders and the real estate industry is quite interesting. I happen to be pretty neutral on the subject. I think that it's important, however, to draw attention to those critical of the name. I think there is enough data out there to warrant a section devoted to the controversy surrounding the name. It would also address the fact that the quote from the Columbia professor and the mention of those not using the name are out of place in their respective sections. Wikipediting (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Forest Hills"

I deleted the reference in the intro claiming that the neighborhood was first known as Forest Hills. The suggestion had no supporting documentation, and would seem invalid since the earliest settlers were the Chquaesgeck Indians, who spoke no English. The first European settlers spoke Dutch and called it Lange Bergh. (See the History section.) Also, there's already New York City neighborhood known as Forest Hills in Queens. Stevew316 (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully some of this helps those who are curious, though for now I have no plans to add any of this into the article:

As far as I have read there is no known aboriginal name for the area in and around where Fort Washington stood, up through Fort Tryon Park. "Forest Hill" (not "Hills") was a name that survived through the early 20th century, though by then other names had been used to describe the area (it should also be noted that Forest Hill may have been used to describe the area that is now occupied by present day Fort Tryon Park specifically, I am unclear if it included areas much further South... some or all of the "forest" may have been cut down during the Revolution, though during the 1800s there are real estate accounts of "wooded lots" - see the link at the end to read more). These names include Fort Tryon Hill (which refers to the northern part of Fort Washington, which was renamed Fort Tryon, Tryon being New York's British Governor at the time, after the British won the Battle of Fort Washington), Washington Heights and Mount Washington (which was coined during the revolution prior to British control of the area).

The earliest known name for the area is not "Forest Hill," as Stevew316 pointed out. Lange Bergh (Long Hill) is the earliest known name for this area, so if one were to pick a name to describe the earliest one known, this would be it. While there are other sources of this information, I've found one that is on the web, that is really a fun read, written in 1917. It also includes a detailed description of The Battle of Fort Washington. SOURCE: Documents of the Assembly of the State of New York Wikipediting (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curly quote usage

I performed this edit to fix a problem where the blockquote did not render as obviously, but this edit reverted it with the summary "curly quotes are not for use in article text - see documentation". But according to Template:Pull quote/doc, it says something entirely different, that the template should only be used to repeat already quoted text. Should it still be used to clarify the quote, though? I appreciate Beyond My Ken's recent edits to alleviate this, but I don't know if the blockquote HTML element works as effectively. Epicgenius (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Template:Pullquote:

{{Pull quote}} is a template meant for pull quotes, the visually distinctive repetition of text that is already present in the same article. In most cases, this is not appropriate for use in encyclopedia articles.(emphasis added)

So the answer is, no, you should not use it, and yes, my edit summary properly encapsulated the template's documentation. You may want to read it again. BMK (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said "not for use in article text". You meant something slightly different, namely that it should not be for use unless it repeats already standing quotes. Anyway, I get the point, and I appreciate your opinion. Epicgenius (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hudson Heights, Manhattan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213001047/http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battles/bat_fwas.asp to http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battles/bat_fwas.asp
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nycswim.org/Event/Event.aspx?Event_ID=1809

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Hudson Heights, Manhattan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hudson Heights, Manhattan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218074145/http://earlycollege.cuny.edu/pdf/ECIOnePagerCCAAfinal.pdf to http://earlycollege.cuny.edu/pdf/ECIOnePagerCCAAfinal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]