Talk:NoMad, Manhattan

Conflict of interest

This article was created by an editor who it is likely has a conflict of interest in relation to this subject, as someone connected to a commercial real estate company which has considerable assests in the NoMad area. I have been over the article and have removed most of what I saw to be overly promotional language, but I encourage other editors to take a look and make changes to it if they see any violations of WP:NPOV. I also urge that the creator of the article be diligent in following WP:COI, and make suggestions for changes in the article here, rather than editing it directly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I attempted to have the article objectively written about the neighborhood to bring together information from a number of reliable media and well-respected published sources, and to provide a similarly formatted, objective entry for this neighborhood as there are for so many other NYC areas appearing on this site. It was not my intention to specifically promote our company’s interests. I look forward to your further edits and thank you for your advice. This is my first Wikipedia entry, and I was unaware of the conflict policies. Richard Falk 14 May 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC).

The problem wasn't so much objectivity, since most of the factual material was referenced, but the tone of the article which was a bit too promotional. If you look at the article as it is now, you'll see that I left in most of the factual stuff and toned down the PR-speak. There were only a few things that, while factually correct, seemed to be given a bit more weight than they should have, and I removed those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add some more images to the article. Can I post them directly to the article or would it be better to post them here first? Richardfalk2 (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In order to add images to the article, you need to upload them first to the Files space, however, they must not be copyrighted or be licensed in a way not harmonious with Wikipedia's policies. The rules are kind of complex, but if you click on the "Upload" link which should be in the left column, you'll be brought to a place where you can try to run that gantlet <g>. Once you've uploaded them, then they can be added to the article -- why don't you post their names here and I'll be glad to try to work them in. (And if I don't someone else will come along who will - I have no special status on Wikipedia, or in regard to this article.)

A word of warning, though, if you upload a picture that's yours, by doing so you are releasing it to Wikipedia (and the rest of the world) under the licensing conditions you choose, so you will not retain sole control of the images any more.

I look forward to seeing what you've got! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Boundaries

I noticed in this entry that NoMad’s southern border is put at 25th Street, and I think it would be more accurate to place it at 23rd Street to reflect the collective perception of what NoMad comprises. While there are varying opinions on the north, east and west boundaries of NoMad, the one boundary that seems established is the southern border of 23rd Street.
• In an article in The New York Times on August 5, 1999, Elaine Louie defined NOMAD as extending from 23rd Street to 34th Street, between Madison and Second Avenue.
• Sanna Feirstein, in her book Naming New York, written in 2001, identifies NOMAD as extending from 23rd to 34th Streets and from Sixth Avenue to Park Avenue.
• In a feature article, “Soho. Nolita. Dumbo. NoMad?” in the April 19, 2010 issue of New York magazine, the area was mapped as running from Broadway to Park Avenue and from 23rd to 34th Streets. Richardfalk2 (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As you know, Manhattan neighborhood boundaries are notoriously hard to determine, since there is no official source which sets them, so we go by a number of things: history, written sources, contemporaneous usage, etc. On the street, NoMad is a brand new designation (find me five random pedestrians in the area who will identify the neighborhood they're in as "NoMad" and I'll giv eyou this fine old bridge I own), so there's no history involved, and real estate concerns -- such as the company you are the Communications Manager for (I assume that's something like an in-house press rep) -- are very influential with journalists, so it's best not to take newspaper accounts as gospel. And even if a journalist isn't influenced by the company line, they look around and see a nice big major street like 23rd and jump to an obvious conclusion, but not necessarily a correct one.

The neighborhood's name is "NoMad", short for "NOrth of Madison Square Park", not "NOrth of Madison Square". By that standard, the neighborhood should be designated to start at 26th Street, the top of the park, but anyone walking the neighborhood above 23rd Street on the west side of the park will experience the clear fact that the tenor of the area changes significantly at 25th Street, just uptown of the Worth Monument. Downtown of it is office buildings and open space, uptown of it is small shops such as shown in the image in the article. Given this, 25th Street seemed to be the best choice.

Considering that an pretty good argument can be made that a nouveau neighborhood designation such as NoMad being pushed by real estate concerns such as yours might not really be justified in having an article in the first place, and the considerable time and effort that went into harmonizing the articles on the Flatiron District, Rose Hill, Madison Square and so on with the boundaries as indicated in this article (as much as that was possible), it's probably best for you not to push this issue too hard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Redux

I am transferring the following discussion here from my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a couple of issues related to the contributions I have recently made to the NoMad page. The reasons for deleting my additions to the article have very little ground, which I will explain below.

1) The Haymarket is of extremely important historical value. That area and club had one of the most vibrant nightlife contributions to this city, and was/is significant to showcase the evolution of the neighborhood from once vibrant cultural center, to forgotten district, to now once again nightlife and cultural destination. By saying the property is not a "notable building" is just plain wrong.

2) The Clock Tower has been outlined as NoMad on a number of occasions. There are different boundaries to this neighborhood than the ones you are supplying, and these should be addressed in this Wikipedia entry. Just look at the proof:

1. In an article in The New York Times on August 5, 1999, Elaine Louie defined NoMad as extending from 23rd Street to 34th Street, between Madison and Second Avenue.
2. Sanna Feirstein, in her book Naming New York, written in 2001, identifies NoMad as extending from 23rd to 34th Streets and from Sixth Avenue to Park Avenue.
3. In a feature article, “Soho. Nolita. Dumbo. NoMad?” in the April 19, 2010 issue of New York magazine, the area was mapped as running from Broadway to Park Avenue and from 23rd to 34th Streets.
4. And lastly the NY POST defined NoMad as 6th to Lex, 23rd to 30th.

So this Clock Tower clearly falls within the boundaries of what defines NoMad Fosqu (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The neighborhood is "North of Madison Square Park" and the clock tower most assuredly is not.

References from 10-12 years ago are fairly useless in this case, since the neighborhood essentially did not exist then, and real estate forces were pushing to make it happen so that their holdings would increase in value. In the decade since then, the nascent neighborhood has held on by its fingernails, and still exists more in the mind of realtors and land owners than it does on the ground. It still deserves an article at this time, but if it doesn't become more firmly based in reality, the article will need to be trimmed considerably and labelled as a neighborhood that never really came into full existence. In the meantime, stretching its definition well past the point that makes any sense isn't a good idea.

That being said, can you tell me please if you have any connection to or relationship with any real estate firm or owner of property in the area, specifically one connected to the sale of the Clock Tower or putting the Haymarket area up for sale? If so, you need to read our policy on editing with a conflict of interest. I ask because the last editor to take an interest in the NoMad article to the exclusion of all else turned out to be the "communications director" of a real estate firm heavily involved in the area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no affiliation with real estate or property owners, I am someone who has lived in New York my whole life and am interested in history and the importance of changing neighborhoods in this city. I blog about these topics and was writing about NoMad long before this wiki entry was published. I was just interested in getting involved in this project, by supplying information on the neighborhood, and I found it quite particular that you decided to shoot down those two bits of information that I added.

I don't quite know how you have become the "official" on all things NoMad, but I honestly think your definition of the neighborhood is wrong -- especially considering all of the publications that define it expand to the areas I mentioned previously. The actual definition of NoMad is essentially north of the start of Madison Park (on 23rd Street). To say that all of the information I have supplied is out of date, is not correct either, that NY Mag piece is from 2010! I understand you not wanting to stretch the definition or compromise the neighborhood, but the entire area that makes up NoMad should be counted, it encompasses a larger portion of the city than simply just "above Mad Park." By not showcasing this in this particular article does the neighborhood a disservice.

This is the only reason I am disputing it with you, NoMad's parameters were not made up by you, it was already defined by numerous sources, and in each instance that Clock Tower falls within the boundaries of NoMad. Fosqu (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Real estate interests always want to be connected to a "hot" neighborhood, and it doesn't matter if it appears in an ad, a website or in the real estate section of an otherwise reliable source (real estate reporters are notoriously docile when it comes to reporting exactly what they're told instead of doing any kind of even superficial investigation). I've seen properties that were clearly in Chelsea listed as being in the Meatpacking District, even though they were two avenue blocks away, simply because Meatpacking is the hot neighborhood, and it helps sales. The money to be made is considerable, and it makes it necessary to scruntize sources very closely.

I'm sorry to say that your 10 year old sources are useless for defining a neighborhood that barely exists to begin with. Ask a random person who lives or works in NoMad what neighborhood they're in, and I believe very few would have any idea. (I'd do a survey, but that would be original research, which is not allowed.) Real estate firms with millions invested in making the neighborhood the next hot place have no compunction about using Wikipedia to more firmlu establish it. Take this article: it was commissioned by the communications director of a major real estate company with significant holdings in the area, written by a professional writer, and then uploaded by the p.r. guy as his own work. It was, of course, overly promotional, even when they had specifically tried to be acceptable to our neutral point of view policy -- when you're selling something, it's really next to impossible to be entirely objective and neutral about it. So, of course, the article had to be brought into compliance with our policies, and I happened to be the one interested in doing it, so I did. That doesn't make me an "official" anything -- we have rules about that -- but it does mean that I look out for the article and feel a sense of responsibility for it. But we operate by consensus here. If you think you've got a point, then bring it to the article's talk page and it can be discussed there, along with my rebuttal.

Even the most well-established Manhattan neighborhood is somewhat amorphous in its boundaries, and a brand-new, never-before-existed neighborhood that has not really established its existence is going to be very amorphous, with vast differences listed for its boundaries. (In fact, to counter the handful of sources you cited from newspapers, I can cite as many, or more, from very reliable sources which say that the entire "NoMad" neighborhood is part of the Flatiron District. I don't think that's necessarily the case, but it points out the problem with trying to define neighborhood boundaries.) In that situation, it only makes sense to be as conservative as possible when reporting those (approximate) boundaries -- we are, after all, an encyclopedia, not a promotional medium for those who are pushing the neighborhood. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

After transferring this, I noticed that User:Fosqu cites the same sources for an expanded NoMad neighborhood that were previously used by User:Richardfalk2 above, using the exact same words. Richardfalk2 is the editor I referred to who is the "communications manager" (i.e. p.r. person) for a real estate firm with major holdings in the neighborhood. User:Fosqu denies being connected to the real estate industry, but wants to include in the article a blurb about the site where a long-demolished building of interest once stood being put up for sale, and an article about the "clock tower" (the Metropolitan Life Tower) being sold. I removed the former as non-notable (in Manhattan, many many sites once had potentially notable buildings on them, and we don't twitch every time the land underneath is put on the market) and moved the latter to the article on the tower itself, since the tower is not, by the article's definition, in the neighborhood. My arguments for keeping that definition as conservative as possible are above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting thing: the real estate company that User:Richardfalk2 works for is Kew Management [1],[2], which is also the company which is offering the Haymarket site for sale, [3] the item that User:Fosqu wants to insert in the NoMad article. Fosqu phrased his edit in this way:

News broke in September 2011 that the area formerly occupied by the Haymarket, one of 19th century New York's most notorious dance halls/brothels, went on the market for $42.75 million. Back when this area was called the Tenderloin District in 1911, the asking price for that same lot was at the bargain price of $1,000,000.[4]

Which is a good example of promotional language. Wikipedia, of course, is not a promotional medium.

The other item Fosqu added in the cited edit, the sale of the "Clock Tower", is supported by a citation from the Kew Management blog.[5]. In addition, Fosqu's expanded definition of NoMad's boundaries is also the one that's favored by Kew Management [6]. The reasonable conclusion is that despite his explicit denial, User:Fosqu, like User:Richardfalk2, is an agent of Kew Management, a company with significant holdings in the NoMad area, and a vested interest in expanding its boundaries and pushing it as a neighborhood – or, at the very least a "fan" of the company whose judgment concerning NoMad cannot be trusted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin from these previous accusations. First off I simply used that website as one of my sources because that particular blog is one of many that I follow on a regular basis. I would gladly use another source, and I just used that particular blog entry as one sole reference. To say that I am a fan or have other motives have no basis and are irrelevant to my argument. My problem has to do with the way you handle yourself, and how you refuse to look at credible sources that already exist. If you did research on the subject you would see that there are very few actual articles on "NoMad" as a neighborhood. So there would be an overlap in certain sources, and by this other user Richardfalk2 referencing the same articles as me should not discredit my argument, or make me an "agent" of another management company!

Perhaps my contributions to this Wikipedia entry were not of the most compelling topics going on in the neighborhood, but I did find them both interesting, and thought it would be important to have this referenced in the article. The problem that I am hung up on now is your reasoning for discrediting my contributions. To define the neighborhood as you see it and not acknowledge other credible sources is amazing to me, and that is my biggest gripe. I do not know what has happened in the past with this entry, and I am simply trying to contribute to a neighborhood that has caught my eye for some time. To further my argument on your incorrect boundaries of this neighborhood I would like you to look at an article that can be found in Today's Wall Street Journal. Once again, their definition of the neighborhood goes beyond your limiting parameters of just "North of Madison Park."

I think the reasonable conclusion from all of this is that we have someone who is stuck in their ways, with far too much time on their hands. I won't dispute this further if you are going to continue tie me to some personal vendetta that you have against some other user on here...I have tried to make a contribution, I have tried to supply you with credible information to make you think that maybe your information on this neighborhood could be incorrect. Fosqu (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The inforamtion I've presented speaks for itself. I have nothing further to add at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior

Another editor, who has been inserting demonstrably incorrect grammar, has bad-mouthed me on his talk page and told me not to post there. I'm respecting that. But it is blatantly uncivil and unfair to make personally insulting and demeaning comments — telling me to leave Wikipedia — and then not giving me a chance to reply. It's easy to insult someone when you won't let them reply.

I'm not listing his name, but in my general defense I don't believe we should use casual, conversational WP:TONE that slides into bad grammar. I don't understand why an editor would push for bad grammar except that he feels he owns an article. I don't know why else anyone would defend bad grammar.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Original-research synthesis

This footnote is uncited original-research synthesis. As well, the vast bulk of it is non-specific to this article. Most neighborhoods, certainly in the U.S., don't have specific borders mandated by local government, yet we don't put an OR disclaimer at every neighborhood article for every city.

Neighborhoods in New York City do not have official status, and their boundaries are not specifically set by the city. (There are a number of Community Boards, whose boundaries are officially set, but these are fairly large and generally contain a number of neighborhoods and the neighborhood map issued by the Department of City Planning only shows the largest ones, and the neighborhood map issued by the Department of City Planning only shows the largest ones.) Because of this, the definition of where neighborhoods begin and end is subject to a variety of forces, including the efforts of real estate concerns to promote certain areas, the use of neighborhood names in media news reports, and the everyday usage of people. The eastern boundary of NoMad, an up-and-coming negihborhood, and the western boundary of Rose Hill, a revived name for the neighborhood north and east of Madison Square Park, is thus uncertain, and propnents of both may make claim to the assests that lie in the borderlands between them.

As well, there are at least three misspellings, and calling something "up-and-coming" is both vaguely defined POV and a WP:DATED vio. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Boundaries (2015)

Another editor changed the boundaries as given by The New York Times when boundaries given, without explanation or byline, by Google Maps. Google Maps has enough errors in it, as anyone who has used it knows, that any claim it makes to the unofficial, traditionally derived boundaries of a New York City neighborhood cannot be taken as gospel — specifically when it contradicts a highly reliable source like the Times, which write about City neighborhoods constantly. Nevertheless, in the spirit of compromise, I have left both claims of boundaries in, since choosing one of the other is POV. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The Times artincle is from 1999.That's 15 years ago. Neighborhood boundaries are not set by the city, they are determined by common usage. The Google map reflects common usage, the Times cite no longer does so. BMK (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Your "compromise" was no compromise, because it was obviously inaccurate and ultimately confusing to the reader, to whom we should provide the most accurate information available to us. The Google map cite is accurate, the Times is no longer (the article dates from a time when "NoMad" was just being defined as a neighborhood, and it did not conform to the expectations of the writer, or those of the real estate people who started the movement. BMK (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You should also read the discussion above. BMK (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You cannot unilaterally declare The New York Times invalid. Google Maps is not an expert source on NoMad's boundaries, and if that's the best that one can find, and no journalistic source contradicts the Times, then Google Maps is highly suspect and possibly WP:FRINGE. The only reasonable thing is to include both and let the reader decide.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've replaced the outdated 1999 NY Times cite with a more current 2013 NY Times cite. The only difference from the vboundaries I had listed are 29th St to the north (I had 30th) and Madison to the east (I had Lexington). Given the amorphous quality of NYC neighjborhood boundaries, this is accurate. BMK (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It is only your opinion that Google Maps is accurate. The fact that no journalistic source agrees with it is remarkably suspect. You are edit-warring because you feel you own this and other New York City articles, according to your own words:

I fully understand that no one "owns" an article on Wikipedia, but the reality is that when someone works hard on an article, puts in a lot of effort, shapes it, researches it, smooths it, whatever, then certainly there develops a feeling of protectiveness about it. I've compared it to the feeling a parent has for their children, in a weaker form, of course. I don't own my kids, any more than I can own a Wikipedia article, but I'm protective of them, and want the best for them, and have to be convinced that someone else wants the best for them too before I allow them to do it. [emphasis added]

Throwing out a highly reliable journalistic site for a questionable one is not good research. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, I replaced an older, outdated NYTimes article with a more recent updated one with more accurate. This is well within policy. Please spout your fucking screeds somewhere else, I am entirely sick of your intransigence and lack of flexibility. BMK (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Google Maps is not a valid source, certainly not compared to The New York Times. The fact you can find no journalistic source to back up that claim makes it questionable and unreliable. Google Maps certainly isn't gospel. You are uncivil, using vulgar language to attack another editor rather than attempting to collaborate and compromise, and you admit you claim ownership of articles and that you decide whether to "allow" edits. I guess we need admin intervention. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That is all I was asking for: a valid, reliable, journalistic citation. I hope you will note that it does not coincide with Google Maps' claim of the boundaries. Contentious editing or not, more accurate boundaries have now wound up in the article, which is certainly all I ever wanted.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

{headpalm} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 02:44, 19 January 2015

I'm not sure why the need for sarcasm. The citation you found yourself contradicts the claims of Google Maps. I should think you'd be happy that, working together, as contentious as it was, incorrect information didn't get into the article.

We both want the same thing — to make these articles the best and most accurate they can be. You've rebuffed and even mocked my attempts to reach out to you and work more collaboratively. But I think it's still possible for us to do so. Call me an optimist, but you're a good editor despite the high emotionalism, and I think together we could check-and-balance each other's work to make the articles the best they can be — as we did, albeit in a roundabout way — just now.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You need clear your mind and re-read this discussion, matching your response to what I had just said previously. Perhaps you'll understand my reaction. BMK (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. We were both editing this page and the article page fast and furiously, and I simply missed that you had found a newer New York Times cite. I apologize for missing that. My larger point remains: Working together, as badly as we did it, we avoided the inaccurate Google Maps information from getting in. That's a good thing, Beyond My Ken. I can't be upset, even if you cursed at me, since I know you do good research and want the most accurate information, just the same as I. I'm not giving up on having good, fruitful, maybe someday even friendly collaborations with you. It sure would make things more pleasant and get the same results!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I accept your apology, and thank you for offering it.

Actually, the 1999 Times boundaries were much more inaccurate than the Google maps boundaries. In terms of serving our readers by providing the most accurate information we can, the Google maps info was preferable to the 1999 Times. (That's aside from the issue of whether or not Google maps is a reliable source - I happen to think it is, you obviously do not, but we're not going to settle that here.) BMK (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad we talked this out, and I thank you for the calm two-way communication. I would say, in fairness, that it's only in hindsight, thanks to your great addition of a recent RS cite, that we can look at the 1999 Times cite and the Google Maps cite as both incorrect. Until that new, third cite, there was no way of knowing ... and so I would say the best way of serving our readers was to include both and let the reader decide. (You saw I never removed your Google Maps link, but simply include it as one of two conflicting RS cites). In the end, our spurring each other and pushing to find something better in the end is what truly served the readers. And I know you believe me when I say I'm grateful and glad the two of us worked it out, no matter the path it took to get there. You are an editor of good faith and intent, as am I — and unfortunately we're sometimes also both editors of high emotion!   : )    Regardless, I'm grateful that someone as dedicated as you is here. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your compliments.

Regarding the other issue, there was another way of knowing which was more accurate: personal knowledge. We aren't allowed to include personal knowledge in articles -- that would obviously be OR -- but there's absolutely no reason that our own experiences and the information we have picked up as we move through life cannot guide us in our editing.

In this case, until about a year ago I was a resident of the area in question for over 30 years (not NoMad, per se, but very close by), and I lived through the rise of that name for a neighborhood that really didn't have an identity, and (at least to the thinking of real estate brokers) needed one. That personal knowledge couldn't go into the article, but it meant that I knew that the 1999 boundaries were wrong, were in fact not what was being referred to as "NoMad" by people on the ground. Since sometimes reality on the ground moves faster than reliable sources can document it, there was a paucity of sources, which is why I went to Google maps, whose neighborhood boundaries were much, much closer to what I knew was the reality. (I'd still argue, incidentally, that the eastern boundary is Lex and not Madison, but it's going to take some time for that to be firmed up, and for RS's to report it.)

The problem of neighborhood boundaries in New York City is always going to be with us, since the city rarely officially defines neighborhoods, and when they do it's usually in connection with some project or redevelopment which may not include the full extent of the actual neighborhood. Until then, we have the Times, the Encyclopedia of NYC, the AIA Guide, dnaInfo, Curbed and a few other sources which, hopefully, will get us sort of to the right conclusion (or close to it). What would be great is if someone would do a survey, asking people what neighborhood they consider themselves to live in, and then map the results. Since NYC neighborhoods are basically determined by usage, that would be very helpful, and wouldn't leave us dependent on reporters who (even when they work for the Times) sometimes get things wrong. BMK (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Self-published author's citation

There's a citation to an article about Nikola Tesla written by a fantasy / erotica author who studies military history as a hobby, Christopher Eger, but has never had an independent publisher publish his work, from everything I can see; he's self-published, and posted this Tesla article on a website where anyone can post whatever they like. I've archived it just in case, but it seems pretty clear that this WP:SPS citation doesn't pass muster under WP:RS. As well, he's only writing about historical matters covered in books and articles by professional historians and academics, so I believe this should be replaceable in any case. I'll try to get to it, and in the meantime, if anyone want to beat me to it, please do! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)