Talk:Upper East Side

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Park Avenue pic[edit]

The picture of Park Avenue with the view of the MetLife building is in midtown, not the upper east side. The picture was once shown in the Manhattan article under an Upper East Side caption and I removed it. Hypertall (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a list of links at the bottom of this page to the other NYC neighborhoods that have their own pages? --Michael K. Smith 16:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overdone[edit]

"The Upper East Side is famous for being the resident area of Manhattan's high society, exclusive parties and clubs, five-star hotels, high-end shopping, world-class dining and entertainment, and the nationally ranked single-sex private schools."

This paragraph is a bit misleading. While the Upper East Side is the wealthiest neighborhood in the city, there are plenty of other very wealthy areas (parts of the UWS, the West Village, Grammercy, Tribeca), so calling it "the" resident area of local high society seems a bit much. If it is meant to refer to a specific portion of wealthy society, ie. old-money, Gilded Age types, it should be more explicit, although that's probably a gross overgeneralization and shouldn't be included in the article.

As for the other things mentioned in that list:

exlusive parties and clubs--there are exclusive parties all over Manhattan, no doubt, maybe more fundraisers here, but still. And clubs? Unless this is referring to social clubs like the Metropolitan, it's totally wrong.

five-star hotels--I would say Midtown's got more swank hotels than the UES, but what does five-star mean anyway? Five-star according to who?

high-end shopping--Madison Avenue is, after Fifth in Midtown, the ritziest shopping in the city, to be sure. But since the most expensive shopping street isn't even in the UES it's hard to call it "the" place for that.

world-class dining--same situation as with hotels; probably a lot more in Midtown, not to mention the rest of the city...

single-sex private schools--no argument here.

I'm gonna work on fixing these if I get some agreement, or maybe change the sentence to just say that it includes all of those things that were mentioned, rather than being THE place for them. Hope I'm not just picking nits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.45.185 (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upper East Side Zip has changed?[edit]

I was told that the 10021 zip listed for the East End on Upper East Side has changed, according to the USPS, 10075.

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.177.135.190 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this is true for streets above East 61st Street. But there are now 3 zip codes for the area:

"The U.S. Post Service's [sic] (USPS) has decided to subdivide the 10021 zip code, effective July 1, 2007, and create two new zip codes, 10065 and 10075. 10065 will run from East 61st Street through East 68th Street; 10021 will run from East 69th Street through East 76th Street; and 10075 will run from East 77th Street through East 80th Street. The USPS advises that the division is necessary to ensure prompt delivery of mail in an area that has seen a significant population growth and a large amount of new development. As a result of this growth, the USPS has run out of "+four"numbers for the 10021 area and, accordingly, has determined that it must divide the area."

More here: [1]

Seduisant 14:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map needed[edit]

This article could really use a map showing the location of this neighbourhood in relation to the rest of the city.  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Manhattan chamber of commerce and Community board 8 has a map, none of which includes East Harlem which is by a different community board north of 96th street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammin566z (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography[edit]

Jammin566z (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC) The text cited in the reference new york times article is not there, in other the quote is not supported or found in the nytimes article regarding Jammin566z (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Côte d'Ivoirian Mission[edit]

That consulate is closed now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Côte d'Ivoire from this page based on the current list of missions from the United Nations.Transpoman (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.uppereast.com/history. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Popcult culling[edit]

I have removed a number of books and films from the list in the popcult section, because they have little or nothing to do with the Upper East Side. To be included on this list, a book, film or television should should primarily be about this neighborhood, or people who live or work in the neighborhood. A scene or two set in the UES really isn't sufficient, nor is a book or film about someone whose home is there but then spends the entire story elsewhere in the world.

If I've made an error, and removed something that should stay, please let me know here, but I suspect that a fair number of the items I removed were put in the list as a joke, so I'm going to be watching it pretty closely. BMK (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inside joke about how they view religion?[edit]

The churches and synagogues are just thrown together in the same category.

Jackie Kennedy and Generoso Pope lived at 1040 Fifth Avenue[edit]

I don't think that you need a citation to prove that Jackie Kennedy lived at 1040 Fifth Avenue. Just about everybody in the city of New York knew that she lived in that apartment building. You can also verify this information in her Wikipedia article.

If you need verification that Generoso Pope lived at 1040, peruse the book that was written by his grandson Paul David Pope, "The Deeds of My Fathers." Pope resided in that building when he died in 1950.

Anthony22 (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In all honestly, "Just about everybody in the city of New York knew" a certain fact is really not how Wikipedia works. Claims need to be verified by a reliable-source citation, as in standard footnoting, and it's the responsibility of the editor making an addition to cite his or her edits. I gather you're new to Wikipedia, so I understand that you might not have been aware of this core policy. I'm sure you'll be able to find a cite if you give it a shot. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Jackie Kennedy article does indeed include a statement about her living there. But more importantly, there is a specifically cited ref to support it (the New York Times obit). Wikipedia articles are best when they are self-supported rather than having to click through to subarticles to meet the verifiability policy (whereas "everyone knows it" badly fails to meet the reliable sources guideline). So you could copy the ref from her article to support the statement in the article about the building or about the area of the city if you wish to include those statements there. DMacks (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikipedia? I've been contributing to Wikipedia for about 10 years now and have made thousands of edits to articles. In the past, I have been criticized for not verifying edits with reliable sources. I have even been threatened to be blocked from editing because I wasn't adding verification to my edits. If a statement is true and already known by the vast majority of the population, I don't understand why said statement needs to be sourced. I can understand deleting edits that are hearsay, conjecture, or speculation, but I don't think that an obvious fact needs to be sourced.

In reference to Jackie Kennedy's place of residence, I have an interesting story about 1040 Fifth Avenue. In the summer of 1975, which was about four months after the death of Aristotle Onassis, I was stopped at a red light in front of her apartment building. Lo and behold, Jackie comes out of Central Park and walks right in front of my car to get to her apartment building. It was the first and only time that I had seen the former First Lady in person. She was striking to look at. I can certainly understand why Ron Galella hounded her day and night.

Anthony22 (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for thinking you were a newcomer. I was basing it on the redlink and on the general feeling from you that, as you put it, "If a statement is true and already known by the vast majority of the population" that it is useable. I'm honestly surprised at that, since one of the very first things WP:VERIFY says is, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." This particular case is troubling since I'm a lifelong New Yorker, and I don't really keep famous people's addresses in my head; I doubt anyone among the dozens of working media professionals I know could say "1040 Fifth Avenue" off the top of their head. Moreover, I doubt most people in Kansas, Oregon or Arizona could do so — to say nothing of people in Kenya, Bulgaria or Argentina, as per WP:WORLDVIEW.
The most curious thing is: With all the time you've spent here, you surely could have provided a citation. I could be wrong, but this seems like arguing for the sake of arguing. In any event, I hope you do add a citation for the address, and in fact, I hope other editors cite that section more thoroughly as well. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notables list[edit]

Is there some reason we have descriptions for some of the bluelinked people but not for others? And is there a reason to use WP:PEACOCK terms like "award-winning"? Unless there's some valid reason that I'm not seeing for this inconsistency and tone issue, I'd like to suggest just having the bluelinked names. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the opposite: all names (and there should only be blue-linked names) should have vital years and a brief description (without "award-winning" & such). While at it, there should only be linked entries in the "schools" sections. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Education concurs on only listing notable schools (some might be "notable" by default--high school and college--even if no bluelink/article yet). DMacks (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Upper boundary[edit]

The source for 110 is www.ny.com. Which seems far from a reliable source. Everything else, including the Geo section of this post mentions 96th st. at the northern boundary of Upper East Side. Also the original New York magazine citation is much more credible than www.ny.com. But here are two much less bias sites to use:

From NYC.com http://maps.nyc.gov/census/

From google maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Upper+East+Side,+New+York,+NY

Nextest (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)nextest[reply]

Even less biased is Jackson, Kenneth T., ed. (2010). The Encyclopedia of New York City (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11465-2., a definitive source which gives 96th Street. BMK (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Upper East Side. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Upper East Side. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

listgaps[edit]

per WP:LISTGAP, we should try to fix the lists which are being broken apart using {{col-break}}. I attempted to fix this but was reverted with no explanation. Frietjes (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted as the columns you made were too far apart, making them visually difficult for the reader. LISTGAP is extremely overrated, in factm primarily a solution in search of a problem. Screen readers are the real problem, not markup. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, we've been thru this before and several people (@Izno, Graham87, Redrose64, and Jonesey95:) have said the same thing. LISTGAP is important to those with screen readers and it is not overrated to them. Markup, not screen readers is the problem. Screen readers are doing exactly what the markup tells it. Try not to use fix-width columns, such as {{col-begin}} or {{reflist|2}}. They may look fine on your computer, but those using mobile phones or tables would say otherwise. Bgwhite (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thanks Bgwhite. I wouldn't have gone around for almost the last nine years fixing LISTGAP problems if I thought they were overrated. Graham87 03:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, if you think that there is a LISTGAP-related problem in one or more screen-reading software programs, I urge you to file a bug against it. In the meantime, LISTGAP problems will continue to be fixed by Graham87 (check out this feature on him in the latest Signpost) and other editors who know that accessibility is critical to creating a modern encyclopedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of too far apart can be fixed by editing the provided starting template, regardless of listgap. --Izno (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Use the |colwidth= parameter with {{colbegin}}. Generally, adjust its value so that it is wide enough to accommodate the longest list entry without wrapping; but this may not be possible for very long entries like Andrew Carnegie Mansion and those others that have extra text.
Some of the images are on the large side; in general, there is no need for a forced image size - it's normally best to use the default image size, see MOS:IMAGES#Size and WP:IMGSIZE. If the size parameter is removed from these images - or altered to a plain |upright - more space will be available for the columns. Connected with that, three of the overlarge images depict museums - yet are placed at the bottom of Upper East Side#Politics; this itself is an accessibility issue, since the images relate to the section Upper East Side#Museums, but are not inside that section. See WP:ACCIM item 5, and MOS:IMAGELOCATION#Vertical placement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@Izno, Jonesey95, Graham87, Bgwhite, Beyond My Ken, Frietjes, and Redrose64: You may find something useful in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Listgap: a proposal. It is not directly related to lists in tables, but is about listgaps in lists anywhere. --Thnidu (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"New York" vs. "New York State"[edit]

@Beyond My Ken: Yes, I see that my edit didn't have the effect I wanted. Thank you for reverting it.

What was bothering me was

  • Show map of Manhattan
  • Show map of New York City
  • Show map of New York
  • Show map of the US
  • Show all

To me at least, the default interpretation of "New York" is not the state but the city, which is far better known worldwide. Even though the city is explicitly named right above the supposedly implicit naming of the state, I was trying to make it explicit, but I didn't do it right. In fact, I can't figure out either how to do it, or what, if anything, my edit actually did. Do you know either answer?

--Thnidu (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that the default interpretation of "New York" is the city, and that disambiguation to "New York State" is therefore often necessary, but when "New York" follows "New York City", I think it is abundantly clear what "New York" is referring to, as the city has already been presented as a option beforehand.
Aside: Back in the late 60s or early 70s, Norman Mailer ran for mayor of New York City, with Jimmy Breslin as his running mate. Part of their platform was that New York City should become a separate state -- indeed the local PBS station had a public affairs program around that time called "The 51st State". Of course, it never happened, but given politics in the state, where the legislature is dominated by upstate elements, I often wish it had. I was musing the other day about what New York City would be called if it was its own state. "Gotham" is the obvious choice, but that has now been permanently taken over by Batman and Co. Finally, I decided that if we can have a North Dakota and a South Dakota, a North Carolina and a South Carolina, and a Virginia and a West Virginia, all differentiated by a single word, we could have the states of New York and New York City at the same time. All fantasy, of course, the state would never let us secede -- they wouldn't even let Staten Island secede from the city (and I was all in favor of giving it to New Jersey, especially now that we don't need their landfill for our garbage). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The official name of the state term used on the state's official website is New York State, not simply New York.[2] Labeling it as such would avoid the awkward and potentially ambiguous "Show map of New York City/Show map of New York". Even if most readers can be trusted to figure out the intended meaning of New York from the context, an extra disambiguating term certainly wouldn't hurt anything. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC) (updated 23:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Actually, the official name of the state is the "State of New York", so your suggestion is moot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified my wording. The point is that the map legend should be clear to readers. New York State makes the city/state distinction clear. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, it could say "New York State", but since an earlier choice was "New York City", why would it be necessary? Certainly there aren't going to be two choices of NYC maps, right? So the "New York" which follows "New York City" must be the state. In any case, the question should not be addressed here, but on the talk page for the infobox template, or wherever that listing is generated, which is not locally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Upper East Side. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Upper East Side. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" Traditionally, the Upper East Side has been dominated by wealthy White Anglo-Saxon Protestant families"[edit]

When? 100 years ago? This is clearly not the case anymore, so why include this statement in the modern demographics section? It should be in the history section, if anything.Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right here and now. There's a reason it's called the "Silk Stocking District". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Education / Colleges: Use current rather than archived?[edit]

Why are archived (wayback machine) locations used rather than the actual current locations?

Example: The New York School of Interior Design references <https://web.archive.org/web/20160523045328/http://www.nysid.edu/student-life/facilities> rather than <https://www.nysid.edu/facilities>?

Gprobins (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people[edit]

I think this section should be split to List of people from the Upper East Side. The section is already pretty long (it makes up 218 of the 327 references) and has more than 83,000 of this page's 156,000 characters of wikicode. epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now split this after three months with no objections. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Upper_East_Side&oldid=1205851099"