From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Race and ethnic history of New York City's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know DYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Carabinieri ( talk) 15:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC).

Racial and ethnic history of New York City

(
)

Created/expanded by Futurist110 ( talk). Self nom at 08:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have now reviewed this DYK? nomination-- Template:Did you know nominations/Most Awesomest Thing Ever. Futurist110 ( talk) 09:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Very well referenced, free of copyright violations (as I expected; Futurist110 is a very trustworthy editor), and over 2500 characters as specified in the DYK rules. In this case, the addition of a summary section counts as fivefold expansion. Nicely done. =) Kurtis (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Even beyond the bare URL (FN11), which is not allowed in DYK articles, there appears to be some WP:OR and cherrypicking of stats to get more dramatic numbers. For example, the statement "New York City always had a much greater percentage of immigrants as part of the total population than the rest of the United States did." is not echoed anywhere in FN12, which is sourced for it. (FN12 should point directly to the PDF paper, rather than the general page which has no data on it at all, though I would warn about the size of the PDF.) Further, the actual data does not seem to support the statement either. On the cherrypicking side, there is no adequate reason for giving different time ranges for black and asian population numbers beyond inflating the former's increase. There appears to be WP:SYNTH in the immigration sentences, with no citations given for the "large immigration restrictions" or the subsequent 1965 bill and its purported effect starting with the 1980 census (but not why it didn't affect the next, 1970, census). BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Heh. Well, the statistics in the links provided do seem to back up most of the claims (except for the one specified, regarding New York having a higher percentage of immigrants than other cities; I must have missed that). WP:OR does include "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources", and on review, I can definitely understand why this article's content falls into that category. But perhaps Futurist110 can find some other credible sources that would back up this claim, as a means of demonstrating that the claims made in the article are not unique to Wikipedia. Kurtis (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have now fixed the bare URL. I have also added links to the Immigration Acts of 1924 and 1965. The Wikipedia articles about these immigration acts explain about these acts/laws in more detail. I don't think that it would take a rocket scientist to figure out that if net immigration increases, the total foreign-born population of a country would likewise increase. I made the data for Blacks and Asians synchronous and in regards to the 1970 Census since the 1965 immigration act only took effect in 1968 (a fact which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article for this act), 2 years of greater immigration did not compensate for 8 years of low immigration, and this is why the U.S. foreign-born population was recorded as being lower as a percentage of the total U.S. popualtion in 1970 than in 1960. I also fixed the links that showed NYC's foreign-born population and the U.S.'s foreign-born population in various censuses. Futurist110 ( talk) 00:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner. Thanks for making most of the changes requested. The point about the 1965 immigration act not taking effect until 1968 is well taken, and makes sense. I am puzzled that there has been no action on the statement I specifically mentioned as problematic in my original comment: "New York City always had a much greater percentage of immigrants as part of the total population than the rest of the United States did." remains in the article, and from what I saw in the data, it was not a valid statement: there were various other cities that, on occasion, eclipsed NYC on a percentage basis, even while NYC's total numbers caused it to be listed first. (Kurtis also noticed this.) Since census data should be census data, I'll admit that I haven't checked the new sources, since I can't imagine that the data's different, but if it is feel free to insist that I look again. BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
In regards to that statement, I have now fixed it. What I meant to say was that NYC's immigrant % was always greater than that of the whole United States. Other parts of the U.S. might have had a greater % of immigrants than NYC at certain times, but NYC's immigrant % was always greater than of the whole United States. I think that NYC's immigrant % never went below 18%, while the whole U.S.'s immigrant % never went above 15%. The sources that I have for this should confirm the accuracy of my clarification on this. Futurist110 ( talk) 07:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Would like another reviewer to take a look at this, particularly with regard to whether there are WP:OR issues, and see whether this is ready for approval. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, someone else should really look at this DYK? nomination whenever he or she can. Thank you very much. Futurist110 ( talk) 23:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I have been asked to review this page. I just did a quick read, there are some matters of clarity, grammar, word choice, and possible implied POV. The lead needs to be longer--the lead sentence describes the article itself, not the topic at hand. I'll give a detailed review later tonight. μηδείς ( talk) 15:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Critique
  • Title: the title should be consistent in its use of adjectives: Racial and ethnic history of New York City. Race history of NYC sounds quite odd.
  • Hook: The hook should be positive: "the percentage of whites who are Hispanic in New York City increased from 33% to 92% between 1940 and 2010"
  • Lead: The lead should summarize the topic itself, not what the rest of the article will address. I would have at least one sentence in the lead for each paragraph in the body.
  • Main Image: this is a nice image, but a composite of people rather than buildings would make much more sense. A composite with, for example, the St Patrick's and Caribbean Day Parades would make much more sense.
  • Body: My main concern is the use of "diversity" as if it were necessarily a good thing (that the backward borough of Staten Island lacks), and "minorities" as if the word meant the same thing as non-Europeans. There are also various small other issues. Rather than go point by point I simply editted the text then reverted it. You can look at the reversion and decide whether to reinstate it, or if my changes are helpful.
  • Sources: I assume prior comments have covered this. Once the above issues are addressed I will take a more in-depth look. μηδείς ( talk) 04:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Response to Critique

Thank you so much for reviewing this DYK? nomination of mine, Medeis. I already fixed what you said generally based on your instructions, and here is a different hook for this DYK? nomination:

  • The added images are great.
  • The hook is better, but I would avoid using the word minority as if it means non-anglo-white. If you mean non white, say non-white.
  • The pedestrians crossing Fifth might make a better main image.
  • I moved the sentence on the charts to the section on the charts. What's there is a good start, but I'd start with The ethnic history of NYC has varied widely from its sale to the Dutch by its Native settlers, to its acquisition by Britain and it change to settlemet by Germans and Irish under the American flag, to the immigration boom of the late 19th century and the Harlem Renaissance to the modern multi-cultuaral period.
  • You can't have this article without a good paragraph on Irish immigration and the Harlem Renaissance in text.
  • The move was done by cut and paste--that means the old edit summary was lost--you can ask an admin to fix that. It should be avoided in the future. μηδείς ( talk) 04:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay I have now fixed everything here and I asked Jayron32 to move the old edit summary to the new article. Yeah, I simply don't know how to make articles keep their old edit summaries once I move them--someone will need to help me out with that. Futurist110 ( talk) 01:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
My only real objection at this point is retaining the old hook, which is expressed negatively as a decrease, when it can be expressed as an increase as I suggested above, or in a similar manner. The alt hook is fine.
I have made a few changes in format, for example, the first use of NYC being spelled out in full and the lead broken into separate topics. I assume these change nothing essential, and should be unobjectionable. This article and the demography article overlap a lot in spirit, enough that they could be merged. But both articles are large and coherent enough to keep them separate. Each mentioning the other in the lead prominently would probably make sense, but I don't think that is necessary so far as DYK is concerned.
I don't think there's a problem at this point with OR as suggested there might be above, and which I take as the reason an independent review was sought. Some of the statistical periods vary in the dates they cover. But this is much better attributed to the sources than attributed to cherrypicking by the author. Given the dates are explicitly identified and the sources quoted this very much fulfills the essence of WP:ATTRIBUTE in regard to potential disputes. The sources are all fully formatted. The numbers given match my own intuition closely enough (from having written, for example, senior-level theses on the Harlem Renaissance, and having lived almost my entire adult life in NYC) that I trust the actual data in good faith. That is perhaps the last caveat--if anyone else doubts the specific statistics they should speak up.
Otherwise, as far as I am concerned the article is ready for listing, and I will ask Jayron to mark it confirmed and ready for queuing with my blessing if he has no concerns. (If there's anything immediate, please leave me a message on my talk page.) μηδείς ( talk) 02:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I approve of any changes that you made/make, Medeis. In regards to the data/statistics, all of them come from the U.S. Census Bureau, so it shouldn't be considered original research. Also, here's another alternate hook:
In regards to the word "minorities", I am using the U.S. Census definition of it. I prefer using the word "minorities" for ALT HOOK 1 since otherwise I would need to say "non-Whites and/or Hispanics" instead of "minorities" (some Hispanics are white), which would get really confusing. Therefore ALT HOOK 2 might be the better choice, and it is also positive and clear. Futurist110 ( talk) 03:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Althook2 is fine. The problem with using the US Census definition without defining it as the US Census definition (which is inappropriate for a hook) is that it is both logically false (whites, not non-whites are the minority here) but also that it has a very specifically American (and only parts of America) point of view, not a global one. The 2nd Alt deals with that just fine. μηδείς ( talk) 03:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
In regards to minorities, they are the majority in New York City but a minority in the United States as a whole right now. That said, if ALT HOOK 2 is good with you, then it is likewise good with me and thus you (and Jayron32, if necessary) can approve this article for a DYK? nomination right now. Futurist110 ( talk) 04:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Approving of AH2, I stand behind my recommendation to Jayron. μηδείς ( talk) 04:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Jayron said that he didn't do many DYK? activities recently, and thus he would prefer that someone else combine these two search histories. I'll try to get someone else to do it but I don't think that this issue is very urgent. I think that you yourself can simply confirm this DYK? nomination of mine right now since you were the one who last reviewed it. Futurist110 ( talk) 21:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The opinion above is that this is well sourced, and I think the OR concern has been addressed, this is a handsome article. μηδείς ( talk) 22:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Race_and_ethnic_history_of_New_York_City&oldid=863520117"