Talk:Koreatown, Manhattan

Merge?
Would it possibly be a good idea to merge Korea Way into this rather short article? -- Visviva 09:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * i definitely think so BBnet3000 (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, me too. It should be merged into Koreatown,_Manhattan. Please then add a redirect from Korea Way to Koreatown,_Manhattan. 81.62.19.1 (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. I posted a "merge" notice on Korea Way and will effectuate the merger when I get a chance, unless someone else gets there before me. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ScottyBerg, that's great. I have added some of text that was in Korea Way, which got lost in the merge. Doing so, I had to rewrite a couple of sentence and reorder some elements, though without adding or removing any content. 81.62.19.1 (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was hoping someone else would pitch in on that, as I got caught up with another article. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Korea Way sign post
Does anyone have a photo of the "Korea Way" street sign post? ( http://www.google.ch/search?q=Korea%20Way%2032nd%20street%20Manhattan%20new%20york&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1711&bih=879 ). And does anyone know whether the name Korea Way is informally or officially? (say, did the mayor's office designed it? or is it just a touristy thing?) Thanks. 85.1.41.185 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually there are several hundred if not thousand streets, corners and such that are given names by the City Council. However, these do not replace the official street names, with a few exceptions, and thus Korea Way could still not be called the "official" name of the street. However, we could note that it was named as such by the City Council. There was recently an article in the Times on a street renaming in the Bronx that discussed this subject. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's clear, they don't replace the regular street name. Thanks for checking out the City Council. I guess "aka" is fine. 85.1.88.11 (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There must be some other way of adding those honorary street names. The community board, maybe? Anyway, thanks for your help in merging the articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! 85.1.88.11 (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.75.30 (talk)

Population
This sentence is confusing. "Manhattan's Koreatown was once focused on fulfilling the needs of the burgeoning Korean-American community in the New York City metropolitan area, an estimated 201,393 individuals, according to the 2009 American Community Survey, and the second largest ethnic Korean population outside of Korea." What does it mean? That figure of 201,393 tries to sound like the population of Manhattan's Koreatown is 201,393, but if you look at the source, it is the aggregate Korean population of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. This is area is many thousand times the area of Koreatown. I believe it should be edited or left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.190.133 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed that sentence. It seems to contribute nothing but to serve New Yorkers' need for superlatives.  (yes, I live in NYC) Paranoid123 (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Broadway
Originally in October of 1995 Local Law No. 85 changed the name of Broadway between 31st and 32nd Streets. (Proceedings of the Council of the City of New York Vol. ii part ii. July 19, 1995 to December 20 1995, pages 2888, 3723-3724) It should be noted that the district actually developed from the Korean wholesalers who moved to B'way to be near the fashion district (selling Korean wigs, accessories, clothes, and other goods) and that the bookstore and restaurants sprung up to support these businesses. I am looking for info on when and why Korea Way was moved to 32nd St. Anyone have that info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.110.49 (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Two Questions
1) Is it constructive, reasonable, or neither to include the qualifier "Midtown" in parentheses after "Manhattan" in the infobox?

2) Is it constructive, reasonable, or neither to include the statement "According to the 2000 Census, a slightly larger area including Koreatown was 46 percent Asian," referenced by in the History or Demography section?

Thanks, Castncoot (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Maybe it is reasonable. The order of areas is as follows: Koreatown; Midtown; Manhattan; New York City. 2) It's kind of obvious that Koreatown is an Asian community. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  20:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Epicgenius - regarding 1) I believe it is reasonable as well. I am going to restore it and hope it stays there in peace; regarding 2) I didn't quite understand your take on the actual statement in contention - if you could please clarify, thanks.Castncoot (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't put "United States (Northeast)" in the "country" field, we don't put "New York (Southern)" in the "state" field, and we don't put "Manhattan (Midtown)" in the "borough" field. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But you did, in your Times Square edit in June, and gratuitously so - . Was Midtown Manhattan a separate borough in June? You then left it there for four months while you continued to edit that article. Then on October 2 at 23:57 UTC, you suddenly altered that article in a U-turn in order to make it conform to your present argument here. What boggles my mind is that you have the nerve to wipe out both Epicgenius' and my edits in one fell swoop. We both believe this edit is reasonable in the context of this article, and he's made his own reasonable edit which you took out as well. Castncoot (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC
 * Koreatown, ostensibly, is home to many Koreans. The ratio of Asians to other races is reasonable depending if you include Koreans only, or other Asian races as well. Only if the latter is the case, then the statement should be included in the article. Both ways, it is constructive. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  13:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, will restore it - thanks for your input. Castncoot (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with BMK - including (Midtown) is unnecessary and awkward. What other subborough classifiers do you propose using? Do you propose changing the Harlem article to indicate that it's in Manhattan (Uptown)? Claiming that BMK added (Midtown) to the Times Square article indicates a misreading of the diff. He simply reformatted the (Midtown) that was already there. Pburka (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't recall if I did or did not add "Manhattan (Midtown)" to the infobox of the Times Square article. If I did, I was wrong, and when it was pointed out, I removed it. Beyond My Ken (talk)
 * Does anyone care about whether BMK added "(Midtown)" in his edit in June? This is off topic. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  20:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are my thoughts, after seeing what everyone has had to say here:
 * 1) Whether or not BeyondMyKen added the parenthetical qualifier de novo or not, the point is that he heartily sanctioned the edit in June and therefore, at least for a significant period of time over months, felt that the format including "Midtown" in parentheses as a qualifier was reasonable. That being said, his last message here is also laudable.
 * 2) The statement about the Asian presence is also a judgement call. It is reliably and relevantly cited by The New York Times and is constructive to the reader. Whether or not it has an unintended effect of homogenizing all Asians, or conversely points out that Koreans and other Asians have co-existed in Koreatown, lies in the perception of the beholder (I take the latter view), and it is reasonable either to include or withhold it, although I believe it adds constructive value to include it.
 * 3) This is where I'm going to leave this particular discussion, at this particular time. Castncoot (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed that Castncoot canvassed Epicgenius for his comment here, see this. There is no "judgment call" involved here. "Asians" includes Japanese, Indians, Mongolians, Tartars, Uzbeks, Chinese etc etc etc as well as Koreans.  That a district which includes Koreatown is "46% Asian" says nmothing relevant about an ethnic Korean enclave. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously?! I told you on YOUR Talk page that I wanted to find out what others thought. I asked two other editors as well, who didn't answer. I didn't care what the answer would be. Epicgenius has worked on this article, and I've seen the work of the other two and respect that work. No "canvassing," as you've put it - look at the way the question was phrased. Do you have a problem with that? Go get a life, please. How else would people be counted on to answer a question on an infrequently visited Talk page in a timely manner? As far as the Asian classification, the Census counts the Far East and some of the Indian subcontinent as Asian, not Uzbeks and Tatars. Castncoot (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * the Census counts the Far East and some of the Indian subcontinent as Asian Yes, precisely my point.  The information would be appropriate for an article about "Asians in New York City" or "Asians in Manhattan", but not for " Korea town, Manhattan". Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Re:Canvassing - So you asked Epicgenius, who has 5 edits to the article, but also User:JimWae and User:Oknazevad, who have none at all, but you didn't contact User:ScottyBerg who has 19 edits, and you think that isn't canvassing? No matter how "neutral" the pointer may be, asking only editors whom you expect to agree with you is the very definition of "canvassing". Please don't do it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. If you're going to tell someone what to do (???!!), at least know what you're talking about so you don't come off like a clown. ScottyBerg hasn't edited this article since 2011 - how relevant would he be now? Epicgenius is the most frequent other editor on the most recent revision history page. (By the way, my "contributors" tool hasn't been working for several days, although that's irrelevant here.) Why would I have any expectation that any of the other editors would agree with me? Not. They're simply editors whose work I respect, and I made a snap decision to ask these people; I also informed you, who I definitely did not expect to agree with me. And virtually no one was visiting this Talk page prior to this discussion, so it could have taken eons for this to be answered - somehow user Pburka stumbled onto this Talk page - good for him or her. In fact, for you to even stretch to your remark that others might agree with my edit suggests that you think that my content must have a reasonable basis. And while this article's emphasis is certainly as a Korean enclave, it is also a "Neighborhood of New York City" article, and as such, the statement regarding the Asian presence becomes absolutely relevant. But I'm not wedded to it, nor am I interested in wasting my energy dealing with you any further on this forum at this time. Castncoot (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, you weren't canvassing in the same way that your comment on my talk page wasn't insulting. I get it. ScottyBerg is still an active editor, and would be the logical choice to go to for an opinion, if you weren't actually canvassing, which you obviously were. You are right about one thing, though - that this discussion no longer serves any real purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Koreatown, 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/20130619140250/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36061lk.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36061lk.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224055459/http://www.kamr.org/churches/search_maps?q=newyork,+ny&r=20 to http://www.kamr.org/churches/search_maps?q=newyork%2C+ny&r=20

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"in the direction of Queens"
According to our article "Koreatown...has been expanding further eastward from Fifth Avenue along East 32nd Street, toward Madison Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, in the direction of Queens." Why is Queens mentioned here? If you went far enough east, you would indeed reach Queens (after crossing the East River and part of Brooklyn), so it's not false, but is it relevant? Is there an implied connection to the Korean neighborhood in Flushing? I feel that the reference to Queens will be meaningless to people unfamiliar with New York's geography, and unnecessary to those who are. pburka (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

"Koreatown," listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Koreatown, and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Koreatown in" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Koreatown in and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)