Talk:History of New York City (1898–1945)

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Map

Anyone got a map or two to add? ;-)dd

Banned picture

I am failing to understand the reason for repeatedly deleting this picture. Does it depict an immoral act? Does it depict a celebration? Either or both may be true, but if so, neither status would be relevant to this article. Perhaps the Wikiarticle about the picture ought to deal with such questions. Or is there a reason, currently unrevealed, that's relevant to this article? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it celebrates a crime which is a highly misleading characterization of how people reacted to VJ day. Basically it is primary source -- Wki warns they have to be used very carefully if at all.Rjensen (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of these points escapes me. What evidence is being offered that the action depicted was criminal? Ought the article that discusses the picture in detail be enlarged with such information? What evidence or argument is being offered that a depiction of an action, criminal or not, is necessarily a celebration of that action? As for depicting an atypical reaction, again how would that be relevant? Many published pictures, even in Wikipedia, show extraordinary people, places and events. Finally as for "primary", does Wki warn that all images are "primary sources" or that this one special in that regard? Jim.henderson (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the picture is used to characterize a widespread mood-- but is given without a RS to explain what it means. That's a violation of Wikipedia guidelines about primary sources. It also is a BLP violation -- the people involved may well be alive. It's a highly charged picture emotionally but the exact emotion is not explained -- to the 2013 sensibility it's sexual assault. Rjensen (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness; still more words than relevance. From accusations of drunken criminality it has not yet risen to a higher level of substantiation. Presumably the substance is somewhere in the back but first the honored lame have to march past. Very well, yes, most pictures in Wikipedia and elsewhere are presented without a testimonial that sets an official or authoritative meaning. We are free to assign a meaning to the shape of a nose or a shadow or the style of a cap or position of a hand. Does this mean most pictures must be banished?

Yes, times change and the savage ways of Ottoman Egypt or WWII Manhattan are not ours. O tempora O mores!; the imposition of ahistoric, anachronistic sensibilities upon strange cultures is not among the duties of Wikipedia.

Yes, as seen in the article about the two pictures of the same event, many people stepped forward to identify themseves as the persons depicted. They were more widely discussed than believed. Life Magazine, remember, was as ubiquitous as network television is today, and it would be odd indeed for someone to miss the original hoopla but see the picture nearly 70 years later in one of the Wikipedia articles that carry it.

Yes, I know two old men who were sailors at that moment, in different parts of the Pacific. I know a very smart old woman who was working in a hospital then, in San Francisco. No use getting our knickers in a twist over ancient hypothetical reactions. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should Titanic information be placed in this article?

I have added information about the RMS Titanic in this article, but some disagree to its relevancy here (sources are cited). I'm asking for a vote whether to keep this information or discard it.

Support- Due to the fact that the ship was en-route to the city, the survivors were brought to the city, and the aid that came from the city. Its a well known event in history. It also had a big impact in the shipping industry, and since NYC's biggest industry was/is shipping, I believe the subject relevant here.Zyon788 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is piggybacking on a very well known event because of the movie--the event did not happen in NYC. Basically NYC provided shelter & emergency clothes for hundreds of people for a few days. The text says zero about the shipping industry or the impact of the disaster. The proper place is in the Titanic article, not here. Rjensen(talk) 22:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded and added more information to further link New York City with this event. There have been hundreds of movies, books, etc. which all mention New York City in them. Heres a website dedicated to all the sites in New York city that are linked with this event. http://www.scoutingny.com/the-titanic-guide-to-new-york-city-from-scouting-ny-part-1/ Should i go on?

Oppose. Agree that NYC is a port to which people shipwrecked in the North Atlantic would most likely be brought (other than Boston). The Titanic is one of the most publicized recently, but there have been hundreds, if not thousands of others. The problem is, the sinking did not occur in NYC. So the events are "derivative" and non-WP:TOPIC. Do all people who have been "saved" over the years, and have been brought to NYC, need documentation here? I think this is undesirable. The care shown these people is (fortunately) mundane (WP:MILL), and therefore not noteworthy. Student7 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok gotcha the information needs no me more based how it affected the city and not of the disaster itself. I will reword it, please let me know what you think.Zyon788 (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Material reads:"~~On the night of April 14–15, 1912, the ocean liner RMS Titanic was en route in the North Atlantic to New York when it struck an iceberg and sank, killing 1,500 of the 2,200 people.~~ On April 18 the RMS Carpathia...." The disaster already has an article, which can be mentioned. We need a reason for the Carpathia to be there. I would rm the material scratched out above. And link the disaster article someplace. Readers who are interested may link there. The article is supposed to be about NYC. Incidentally, I don't really disagree with rm it entirely since has little to do with NYC.

The material presupposes that so little happens in NYC, that we have to "grab for straws" to "captivate" readers. I don't believe that is true. May well be true of a railway accident occurring in some little rural town someplace. Biggest thing that ever happened there! BUT it really did happen there not halfway across the ocean! Student7 (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your excluding the fact that part of the aftermath occurred in NYC. Your looking at the sinking itself which is not my aim. My aim is to add the role the city played in this event. I didnt add this info to, say for example, Boston because that city had nothing to do with the event. You call it "grabbing for straws" but I call it adding historical facts where they should be. It just seems to me your biased to the subject and might be sick and tired of hearing about Titanic.Zyon788 (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but only as a minor mention. By the way, this is not a vote, it is a !vote, which is the exact opposite. Epic Genius (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Moses directing Port Authority

A quick Google search fails to find anyone but Wikipedia claiming that Robert Moses was at some time director of PoNYA. It isn't mentioned in our biography of him. For the thirty years when Moses was at his peak, the similarly aggressive Austin Tobin was PA director, and the two occasionally had policy differences. Does anyone offer evidence for the contrary? Jim.henderson (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Port of New York (original name)

There is a reference to the creation of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1921, but the agency that was created was called the Port of New York Authority. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Port_Authority_of_New_York_and_New_Jersey. Similarly, there are references to the Port of New York and New Jersey, but the context seems to be during the period the port was called the Port of New York. I think acknowledgement of the current name would be fine, but the historical name should be in there too. I can trace some of the edits to mid-Feb 2015. Danchall (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:NYC year nav

Template:NYC year nav has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- M2545 (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]