Talk:Bowery

Farm location

Not too sure about the meaning of this para (and see earlier revs).

This early farm was in today's Gramercy neighborhood near where East 15th and East 16th Streets crossed The Bowery. The farm house was located near what today is 1st Avenue and the road built by Peter Stuyvesant.

Looking for references now to write an explanation. Feel free to revert (as always) if I am missing something here. Caltrop 14:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Neighborhood/Street

I think clearer identification of Bowery Street and its relation to the Bowery would be fitting. Even something like, "Bowery Street runs down the middle of the Bowery" (as it is, "Bowery Street" doesn't actually appear anywhere in the current version). I'm reluctant to add a seemingly obvious statement myself without more familiarity with the subject, like whether the name of the street or the disctrict preceded. ENeville 03:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Historically the Bowery has been recognized as the road to Peter Stuyvesant's Farm, as shown in the second map , http://www.forgotten-ny.com/Alleys/stuyvesant/stuy.html.

The name Bowery can also refer to the immediate area surrounding it, much in the same way "Broadway" often refers to the sidestreets that comprise the Theatre District. However, as a six lane throughfare. However, the Bowery tends to be more of boundry that separates and defines other neighborhoods, like the East Village, Noho, Little Italy, or Chinatown, rathar than a neighborhood in itself. Srosenstock 02:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree because there is no "Bowery Street" it is just "Bowery", and if it were anything, it would be "Bowery Avenue" which sounds as ridiculous as saying "Broadway Avenue". This is why "Bowery Street" does not appear anywhere in the current version. Context makes clear whether one is referring to the street or the (very) small neighborhood, such as "I live in / on the Bowery" where the former is the neighborhood and the latter is the street. JesseRafe 03:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also somewhat dubious to refer to the street as "Bowery" without the "the" in front of it. Yes, that's what the street signs say, but for that matter you wouldn't address a letter to "the Bronx, NY 10452," and yet if you said "I'm going to Bronx" people would be mystified as to what you were talking about.Mjj237 01:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but would you care to cite and include a source in the article? Tinlinkin 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also disagree. I live 3 blocks away, and I can tell you for sure that there is no Bowery Street. The street (or avenue, or whatever) is called "Bowery" or "The Bowery." Period.

In Chinatown at least, people call it "Bowery Street" (maybe because of the storeowners' poor English) but I don't think that's the official name. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 23:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

The proposed move makes sense, but the existing Bowery page should become Bowery (disambiguation).--orlady 21:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. -- Y not? 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Suppot - seems the obvious location due to the ambiguity being dervied from the place. Reginmund 22:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly the most notable sense of the term and none of the other items listed at Bowery are commonly known as simply "Bowery". older ≠ wiser 22:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Never assume you know the most notable use of a term. As seen from the existing article titled Bowery, there is a need to distinguish between the various Bowerys. Overwriting a dab page is probably not the best way to address this perceived issue. Alansohn 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  Except that not a single entry on that page is commonly known as simply "Bowery" -- all are properly and commonly known by forms of Bowery + some other term. older ≠ wiser 10:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support All of them, except (possibly) Leigh Bowery, are named for this Bowery . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

An obvious move. I have moved the previous page to the disambiguation page as suggested. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bowery

Two items: Could we reconsider the use of the term reviving (" However, since the 1990s the entire Lower East Side has been reviving.")? The Bowery and the Lower East Side have been vibrant artistic and activist communities all along. If we want to speak of the influx of wealth into the neighborhood, that would be more precise. less subjective. And fyi: Their existed a second African Burial Ground between Chrystie and Bowery near Stanton Street. Emilyn Brown, archivist, has done a great deal of research on it. Carolee Inskeep has an entry for it in her book The Graveyard Shift: A Family Historian's Guide to New York City Cemeteries (Orem, UT: Ancestry Publications, 2000). This African, Protestant Episcopal graveyard--also called Saint Philip's Cemetery--was used between 1795 and 1851. It was located on the west side of Chrystie Street at numbers 195 to 197, between Stanton and Rivington Streets and went two thirds through the block. To quote Inskeep, "When the African Burial Ground closed in 1794, an organization called The African Society asked the City of New York for a new burial ground. They were granted property on Chrystie Street. In 1827, it became the burial ground of Saint Philip's Church, Centre Street. Interments probably came to an end with the 1851 ban on burials below 86th Street in Manhattan. The bodies were removed to Cypress Hills Cemetery in 1863." --Bowerygal 14:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

bowery mural wall

we need a section on the bowery mural wall. it is a tourist attraction in itself and several museum-grade famous artists have painted it over the years. i'll try to get some photos some time soon and maybe get some text up here. it'll be a few weeks. of course anyone else wanna add, go ahead. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"The Bowery"

The question has arisen of whether to refer to the street as "The Bowery" or "Bowery".

Burrows & Wallace's Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898 is the definitive history of NYC prior to consolidation. Here are three randomly-selection quotes from that book:

• p.259: "Three days later, on the morning of November 25 - long celebrated in the city as Evacuation Day - the last redcoats in New York paraded glumly down the Bowery to the East River wharves, from where they rowed out to the fleet in the harbor."
• p.450: "As one of them would tartly put it: 'Our graceless Knickerbockers danced around the May-Pole in the Bowery, while the Puritan Angl;o-Saxons burned witches at Salem.'"
• p.827: "This was evident from the throngs of thimble riggers and three-cart monte men who worked the streets openly (and particularly thickly around City Hall) and from the gambling joints on Barclay, the Bowery, and Ann Street (between Broadway and Nassau) that were jammed wuth volunteer fireman, shoulder-hitters from Tammany Hall around the corner, and gangsters from the Bowery and the Points."

Kenneth Jackson's The Encyclopedia of New York City is also definitive. Here are three sentences from the article in that work:

• "As the city's exploding population moved northward, the Bowery became broad and elegant, the home of such diverse personages as the philanthropist Peter Coper and the songwriter Stephen Foster"
• "After the Civil War the Bowery ceased to compete with Broadway as a commercial thoroughfare and with Fifth Avenue as an elegant residential address."
• "After 1970 the homeless population of the Bowery sharply declined."

The WPA Guide to New York City is a well-cited reference work, published in 1939:

• p.119: "The Bowery, dividing line between the Jewish Quarter on the east and Little Italy on the west, was once an Indian trail used by aborigines in their expeditions against New Amserdam."
• p.119: "After 1870 came the period of the Bowery's celebrated degeneration."

Innumberable other examples could be provided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

None of the above sources capitalize "the". A colloquial phrase isn't the same as a formal name. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

All your sources are about the neighbourhood, which may or may not be called "the Bowery". However, the street itself is just simply "Bowery". According to the official NYCDOT map, the street is named "Bowery", not "the Bowery". Even the official street signs say "Bowery". Just a clarification. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 23:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please take a closer look at citation #1, p.259 from Gotham: one does not "parade down" a neighborhood, one parades down a street; citation #3, p.827 from Gotham, in which "the Bowery" is included in a list of streets; citation #4, the first from the Encyclopedia: a neighborhood does not become "broad and elegant", a street does; citation #5, in which the Bowery, as a street is compared with other streets (i.e. Broadway and Fifth Avenue); citation #7 from the WPA Guide, a neighborhood can't be a former trail, only a street can.

Street signs are not, unfortunately, definitive. Please look at any street sign on, say Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, and you'll find that they say "5 Av", but the street's name is not "Five Avenue", it's Fifth Avenue. The DOT adopted a style of street signage that eliminates unnecessary items, such ordinals like "th" and "rd", the "e" on the end of "Ave" ("AV" is not the standard abbreviation for "Avenue", "Ave" is), and other bits and pieces that were not needed for people needing to quickly see where they are. Street signs have a specific purpose, and the wording on them serves that purpose, they are not intended to be an indication of the street's full name.

In any event, the policy that's controlling here is WP:COMMONNAME. If you haven't already, a read-through of the discussion on Talk:The Bronx I previously pointed you to is relevant here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Henry Moscow's The Streetbook: An Encyclopedia of Manhattan's Street Names and their Origins is the standard work on the subject:

"...the Bowery became, by the end of the 18th century, New York's most elegant street, lined with the mansions of prosperous residents and with fashionable shops" (p.29, emphasis added) Note that the street is being referred to, not the neighborhood. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The DOT says "Bowery" because it is the official name. All your sources are derivative. As for Fifth Avenue, it says 5 Ave because 5 is their abbreviation of Fifth (you would not want a street sign to say "5th Ave", right? It just looks awkward.)
Anyway, that really isn't relevant to this discussion. I have never seen Bowery's official name prefixed with "the" outside of literature. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 14:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"Literature"? The books I cited are standard reference works, not novels. They are the most reliable sources available. Please don't blow them off as "literature". Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"Literature" is any written work, novel or not. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 15:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So, do you call Broadway "the" Broadway? How about Central Park West? Do you call it "the" Central Park West? Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 14:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No, those streets aren't called that, so I don't call them that. On the other hand, the street in question is called "the Bowery", which is why we should refer to it that way. The situation is precisely the same as "the Bronx", which is why I really wish you would read the extensive discussion that I pointed you to there, instead of roaming around changing "the Bowery" to "Bowery" in numerous articles. That behavior is becoming disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The neighbourhood is called "the Bowery"; on the other hand, I don't think the street is prefixed "the". Similar to "the Bronx", any streets/avenues named after it are not called "the Bronx... Street/Avenue". Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 15:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you've made the neighborhood arguement before, but as the references above show the street is also called that. Please review my response to your comment on this subject above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I would note the subway stop is called simply "Bowery" --Tenebrae (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why there should be no change to that article or to mentions of that subway station elsewhere, but, as shown by the references from extremely reliable sources above, the street is a different matter. Subway stations and street signs are not reliable sources, a standard and definitive history of the city and the standard encyclopedia of the city are, and they clearly refer to it as "the Bowery". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As I already mentioned about your references: "None of the above sources capitalize "the". A colloquial phrase isn't the same as a formal name." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: If the source of the disagreement between us concerns that captalization of the "T" in "The Bowery", then we may not have any dispute at all. I agree that in normal usage in the middle of a sentence, it is best (as in the case of "the Bronx") to not capitalize the "T". My intention would be to only capitalize it at the beginning of a sentence, and if I inadvertently reverted an edit of yours that was simply correcting the capitalization, then that was my error and I apologize. The only contention I am making here, the one that is supported by the citations above, is the the street and the neighborhood should be referred to as "the Bowery" and not as "Bowery" (except when it is used as an adjective), as Epicgenius has been changing it to. WP:COMMONNAME applies here, and any native Manhattanite or long-term resident will tell you that calling the street "Bowery" (pace the street signs) just doesn't sit well in the ear, because it goes against common usage. I have no problem with a lower-case "t" being used except when normal capitalization rules demand otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The street is called "the Bowery" in every reference to it ever, except maybe by people who are unaccustomed to it. It is just like Broadway in that it doesn't have a street/road/avenue suffix. If it did it would be an avenue, not a street anywway (in NYC toponymy parlance there's a directional distinction). Tenebrae - your insistence on capitalization for the "the" is completely unfounded and no doubts stems from a longstanding feud with user Beyond My Ken. Look at The Bronx, The Netherlands or The Ukraine - all instances are only capitalized when beginning a sentence, not as part of the title. Same as "The Met" (either one). "The" is a definite article, not part of the name, but some things don't make sense without a definite article as a property of certain languages. The neighborhood argument is less valid. It's somewhat dubious as a neighborhood as a lot of businesses and residences would classify themselves as LES/Chinatown/Little Italy/East Village/NoHo quicker than "Bowery" - especially if they're not on the Bowery as it might lead to confusion. Either way it would have to be determined after this issue as it's clear one has its origins in another (putative nabe from the street). JesseRafe (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Capitalizing "the" is irrelevant as most style guides suggest that definite articles not be capitalized, even when they're part of a formal name.[1][2] For example, one would say that the Beatles were managed by the late Brian Epstein. Thus examples of "the Bowery" are no less indicative than "The Bowery". Pburka (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm good, then — my issue was seeing "The Bowery" wikilinked like The Netherlands. I can't speak for User:Epicgenius, but from his comment at the 3RR page, my impression was he was less concerned about the "the" than simply overuse of the "the." I guess he'll stop by this page at some point soon and give his view.

So let me get this straight: We're all working things thorough by talking them out rather than reverting and leaving impatient edit summaries? Geez — imagine that! -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Will wonders never cease? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Will I go to the Bowery? Probably! Will I go down Bowery? Also probably! Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 13:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, one goes down the Bowery - see the first citation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That just doesn't sound right – to "go down the Bowery". Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 00:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

On the verge of asking you to do original research, are you a local? "Go down Bowery" makes little sense, if you're referring to taking a stroll. In the context of giving directions though, it would be normal, but much is ellided in such circumstances "take fifth, then turn on Lafayette" or "It's on Bowery". Maybe you have a different dialect when it comes to preferring saying "down Bowery" vs "down the Bowery"? For instance, folks from Philadelphia and South Jersey say they are going "down shore" and never "down to the shore". JesseRafe (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a local. I grew up in Queens. I was born in Lower Manhattan.
Anyway, it makes total sense to say "I am going to drive down Bowery". It is not grammatically incorrect for me to say that, is it? Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 23:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken has provided a number of examples of reliable sources referring to the street as "the Bowery". My experience is that the definite article is sometimes used in casual speech and sometimes omitted. Do you have counterexamples in reliable sources? Pburka (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Epicgenius, that's the thing. "I am going to drive down Bowery" only makes sense if you were to say that just before "and then make a left". It doesn't make sense in the sense of driving if one were "going for a drive", i.e. a leisurely pleasure cruise, in which sense "I am going to drive down the Bowery" would be the only way it wouldn't sound jarring. And it's not grammar, it's semantics/pragmatics. So it's grammatically correct to say it either way. Same as it's grammatically correct to say, "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". Again, think of it like the Bronx. Bronx can be used as an adjective without the article "You know what they say about Bronx bodegas" but not as a noun, "You know how bodegas are in the Bronx". JesseRafe (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the phrase "You know how bodegas are in the Bronx" can also be applied to [the] Bowery, so in context it would be "You know how bodegas are on Bowery"/"You know how bodegas are on the Bowery." The latter sounds incorrect to me for some reason. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 12:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Noted, that's where I and most of the other editors disagree with you then. Clearly I brought up the Bronx as an example of a toponym being treated the same as the Bowery. Most NYers will say "You know how bodegas are on the Bowery/in the Bronx" without thinking, and saying it without the article will sound odd. JesseRafe (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I only use the article if its intended usage is as a neighbourhood, like "There are several bodegas in the Bowery". As a street, it would be (to me) "There are bodegas on Bowery". Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 19:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And what you are being told, by multiple people, is that is not correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

But then again, the usage of "the" as in "the Bowery" is completely an opinion. Just saying. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 19:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not an opinion - please see the reliable sources above, which consensus here agree are correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no consensus. And anyway, those sources are not up to date.Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 17:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You are the only editor here in favor of using "Bowery" as opposed to "The Bowery." That's a consensus. Please do not change the article again to conform to your personal preferences against the consensus of other editors, and please read and understand WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S:

Burrows, Edwin G. and Wallace, Mike (1999). Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-195-11634-8.

Jackson, Kenneth T., ed. (2010). The Encyclopedia of New York City (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11465-2.

These are not out of date, they are quite recent and definitive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Epicgenius, consensus doesn't mean we have to convince you to change the way you refer to the street when you speak, but of all the editors who have chimed in here on the page, all but you have advocated for the "the" in the article. You don't have to be convinced that it's right, but accept that more people than you think it's right. It's a supermajority, it doesn't have to be unanimous. JesseRafe (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I have already admitted that it is right (at least partially), but I am simply advocating against the overuse of the "the" in "Bowery". Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 18:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

And, as I mentioned above, there are grammatical ways to fix overuse, but it cannot be by the simple mechanical replacement of "The Bowery" with "Bowery". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, it's also referred to as "Bowery Street" at least by the Chinese community. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 19:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you have made that claim, and it may well be true, but you have yet to provide a citation from a WP:reliable source to support the contention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

At any given time there are probably 200,000 human beings in the city who also refer to "Hyuu-ston" Street. I've met people from Brooklyn who've said "Brooklyn County". It goes on. As much as I'm a descriptivist and not a prescriptivist when it comes to language/word usage, it does not preclude things from being wrong. If I went on the Mack Trucks page and changed everything to lorry "because the British community calls it that" I'd be wrong to do so. Despite its assumed veracity, there'd need to be a source. That said, even if there were a source for the fact that the so-called Chinese community (are you implying that you speak for every single Chinese person in New York with this term?) it'd not be worth changing the entire article. As a footnote or a sentence within the space it'd be mere trivia. JesseRafe (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not implying that, I'm saying that there are many Chinese who say that, as well as a few non-Chinese. Even so, they could be wrong in their usage, and so can I. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 00:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't based on opinions and innuendo. Please provide reliable sources to support your claim that some ethnic communities predominantly omit the definite article. Pburka (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It isn't an opinion, it can be called either way, like "Fenway" and "the Fenway". Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 02:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Until you provide references demonstrating that, it is, in fact, just an opinion. Wikipedia is not based on what you know to be true, but on what can be supported with references to reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The intra-wiki page on the use of definite articles proves otherwise. Either way is correct, otherwise this Wikipedia article would already be "the Bowery". The street signs, as well as the official NYCDOT map, say "Bowery". If the DOT map and the street signs said "the Bowery", and were it to be grammatically correct, then I would be convinced. But "the" is not a definite part of Bowery's name, like the "the" in "the Bronx" or "the Netherlands" is. The same thing applies to "Grand Concourse"/"the Grand Concourse". Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 13:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what I'm supposed to be looking at on the Article (grammar) page. As discussed above, street signs and maps are frequently abbreviated. The MTA, for example, often labels the neighborhood north of Manhattan as "Bronx" on their web page and maps[3]. This doesn't mean that its common and correct name, as used in reliable sources, doesn't include the definite article. Pburka (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is no proof that "the Bowery" is the official name of [the] Bowery. It may just be how the majority of people choose to say it. Remember, the majority is not always right. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 19:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel like we're talking at cross-purposes here. User:Beyond My Ken has provided a variety of reliable sources which refer to the street as "The Bowery". You've provided zero reliable sources that the street is referred to as "Bowery". Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If you continue to insist that the definite article is not required in prose, please provide examples in reliable sources demonstrating that that usage is acceptable. Pburka (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Epicgenius, please read this entire Talk Page discussion again. Including your own arguments. Really, I hope when I make my fourth tilde and click save that it's the last I have to see or do with this issue on my watchlist. The consensus is beyond dispute, the references of usage from BMK are beyond dispute, the fact that those references are for the street and not the neighborhood is beyond dispute, the fact that usage of the Bowery mirrors usage of the Bronx is beyond dispute, the fact that you can say it without the article but in those circumstances it is adjectival and not nominal is beyond dispute, the fact that the article does not have to be capitalized mid-sentence to still be an intrinsic part of the proper noun is beyond dispute, and whether the fact that some Chinese people may call it "Bowery Street" is not worthy of dispute -- and yet you dispute. This really is enough. You keep saying the same thing and multiple editors keep coming up with different lines of reasoning and evidence to dispel you, and yet you repeat. Can this be dropped? Please? JesseRafe (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Want reliable sources? This is reliable enough. Note that it says "the Bronx" but not "the Bowery"! Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 12:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to respond again. REREAD this entire Talk Page section and stop making the same tired arguments that have already been dispelled. Who decided that this abbreviated DOT map was authority? BMK already said that, for instance, signage reading "5 Av" does NOT make it the official name. Signs are abbreviated. If you're saying that "Fifth Avenue" -> "5 Av" is an abbreviation and "W 4 St" --> West Fourth Street is an an abbreviation, but "The Bowery" -> "Bowery" is not, then you are wantonly cherry-picking. This is my last ever response to you and any further meddling in the article mainspace will warrant an ANI for disruptive editing.

• Epic, you already said on my talk page that either is fine. I think you have sufficiently made your point and might be pushing it just a bit far here. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

The recent discussion has demonstrated consensus that the common name is the Bowery. I propose that we move the page. Any objections? Pburka (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No objections but when that happened with the Bronx it got boatloads of attention (mostly from those who had never been there) and took years, if I recall correctly, with a lot of back-and-forthery. I won't have energy for much more than a move vote. JesseRafe (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The consensus above is clear, and I support the move. (And, yes, the Bronx took several RMs). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Although the Bowery indisputably takes the article when used as a noun in running text in reliable sources, titles and headlines are fundamentally different. They generally do not take an article, just as street signs and labels on maps do not. That's why we have "White House" even though no one would write "the President lives in White House". See also Netherlands, Strand, or even Federal Bureau of Investigation, all of which take the article in running text. The exceptions are mostly titles of literary or artistic works. And, yes, the Bronx should really be at Bronx in my opinion. Incidentally, I've restored the very beginning of the article to its original wording, because it's not "commonly referred to as" the Bowery, it is the Bowery. 69.95.62.234 (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a reasonable argument. As long as the lead says "The Bowery" I'm comfortable leaving the article name unchanged. Consider this a withdrawal of the proposed move. Pburka (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, both with the IP poster's reasoning and Pburka's satisfaction as "The" in the lede is enough for me. Ideally this page would have originally been at The Bowery but the hassle that would come with moving it may not be worth the effort. I'm always loathe into going into wikipedia-based rather than content-based potential hullabaloos as that draws the attention of people who have no idea about the subject matter and just want to impose their wiki-will - as seen in basically the entire talk page of Cooper Square, non-local yet nonetheless sudden mavens will try to impose names and labels that just aren't there. JesseRafe (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not to object, but "the Bowery" and "Bowery" can be used interchangeably, the article "the" is optional. Also, either is correct, but to save hassle, I'd prefer keeping it as is.
Additionally, I agree with 69.95.62.234. No one would say "I'm going to Fenway (parkway)" but yet it is wrong to say 1000 the Fenway, Boston, MA (as an example address.) Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 15:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Map

Epicgenius would like to add a contemporary map to the article and Beyond My Ken appears to oppose it. Given that this article is about both the street and the neighborhood, I think that having a map isn't a bad idea. However the map which was added isn't very good. The scale is too small, it portrays most of Manhattan, and the lines are too heavy, obscuring the neighborhood itself. If a better map can be provided, I wouldn't object to its addition. Ideally, the map should indicate both the street and the neighborhood. Pburka (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Pburka - I'd have no objection to a better map. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please add a map. Not everyone is very familiar with New York City, so listing streets and parks is not very helpful. I would like to learn more about the different areas, neighborhoods, parks, and streets, but I can't learn without good maps of the areas.

Note

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we re-add the note "<ref>Both usages are correct, as the article "the" is optional. In local parlance, phrases like "take Bowery for two blocks" and "take ''the'' Bowery for two blocks" are used interchangeably, but "the Bowery" is the more favored usage.</ref>"? It seems germane, and besides, this is based off the Riverway note. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 15:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that's original research (WP:SYNTH). We could say something about mixed use, but only if you provide some examples in reliable sources where "the" is omitted in prose. Please don't use maps, since, as discussed above, they're abbreviated to save space. Pburka (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not SYNTH. It's plain old WP:OR based on personal observations. Pburka (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Same thing with Fenway (parkway), Jamaicaway, Arborway, Dorchesterway and any other street that sounds like a common noun when spoken. "Bowery" fits into that category too. It's simply a language note. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 15:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Find a citation from a reliable source to support it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little flummoxed how "Dorchesterway" could sound in any way like a common noun...JesseRafe (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If I added a note to the Broadway article claiming that it's sometimes called "the Broadway" it would be promptly and properly removed. It's not true, and, more importantly, it's not verifiable. The same standard must apply to this article. If you can prove that it's commonly called Bowery by citing reliable sources, you can add the note. Pburka (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, I can argue that if you can prove that it's called "the Bowery" because of grammar, then I am convinced. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 12:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a Master's degree in Linguistics and no clue what you could possibly mean by "because of grammar". Enlighten us so that maybe this conversation can end? JesseRafe (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am comfortable with saying "Meet me at the McDonald's on Bowery". To me, it is grammatically correct. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 15:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note 2

Some addresses on the Bowery in Chinatown say that they are located "Bowery Street"—for example, the storefront on 90 Bowery says "90 Bowery St." Should I note that the Bowery is sometimes erroneously called "Bowery Street"? Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 15:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source saying that it's sometimes erroneously called "Bowery Street", or is this your own (original) observation? Pburka (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

@EG: Just leave it alone, please We're not in the habit of noting every mistake people make in addresses unless it's somehow significant, and to show significance you need an RS which discusses (or at least notes) the significance.

Are you getting how this works yet? Your personal observations are unusable original research period, full stop, end of sentence. Your observations can be used to prompt you to do research on the subject, but in and of themselves they cannot be used on Wikipedia. Please do not ask this question again in any other circumstance, because the answer will be the same - if the only thing you've got is that you saw it or you heard it, or someone told you, you cannot use it on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Neighborhoods

The neighborhoods navbox was incomplete, so I added some links, though someone should correct these if possible. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please clarify which links you added, and which ones are incorrect? Pburka (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Civic Center, SoHo, NoHo, Alphabet City, Little Fuzhou, Little Italy, and Two Bridges. I think these are accurate, but Beyond My Ken reverted them with the summary "neighborhoods not correct", so I'm wondering what the more accurate setup is. Epicgenius (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the surrounding neighborhoods. This dispute seems easily resolved. If the changes are correct simply add a reference to a reliable source supporting your changes. Pburka (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem is, some neighborhoods overlap and others are in more than one direction in regards to the Bowery (e.g. ABC CIty is both east and northeast, depending on the section). Epicgenius (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a problem unless you're engaging in original research. On Wikipedia, a fact is only true if it is supported by reliable sources. If a reliable source says that the Bowery borders SoHo, then it does. Otherwise it does not. Pburka (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

None of the other neighborhoods are supported by reliable sources. The closest I have to an accurate map is this. (About.com is an accurate source but does not mention the Bowery as a neighborhood, but rather as a street. And here, not the best drawing.) Epicgenius (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bowery is a rather unusual neighborhood. It is primarily defined by one street, and doesn't have particularly well defined borders. Your research suggests that the best thing to do might be to remove the surrounding neighborhoods from the infobox until reliable sources can be found. Pburka (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Primarily, yes; however, unsourced navigation boxes are actually the norm, as navigation boxes do not come with a pre-programmed reference parameter. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:OSE. Infoboxes are not exempt from our citation policies. And I have no idea what you mean by a pre-programmed reference parameter - in my experience reference tags work as expected in infoboxes. If you can't provide references for the surrounding neighborhoods, they should be removed. Pburka (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I;ve removed the box, which was not only inaccurate, it was fairly useless as well. BMK (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, but I am far from being a new editor. Anyway, what I am talking about is the lack of existence of a parameter called |references =, for the references in the infobox. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'm confused about where the two marginally different pronunciations in the lede are coming from, but also the importance of that slight distinction here on Wikipedia. The citation provided by JesseRafe is Dictionary.com, where I see only two pronunciation options given: /ˈbaʊ.ə.ri/ and /ˈbaʊ.ri/. The dictionary also gives the comment "1695-1705; bower+ -y," which seems to show more about etymology than syllabification. Where on Dictionary.com does it make the difference between a definite New York pronunciation versus a (presumably) more "generic" English pronunciation? I certainly am not finding that information and wondering whether it's of any real importance here. Wolfdog (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Assuming no one disagrees and Jesse has no response, I'm planning to simplify the WP pronunciation. I can even provide both of Dictionary.com's pronunciation options in one with this: /ˈbaʊəri/. Wolfdog (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. I see now that dictionary.com's phrasing can be ambiguous, whereas I thought it was clear that the only pronunciation that was relevant was that of the meaning where it is related to the Dutch word "farm" as that is the clear referent and origin of the term in New York. JesseRafe (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bowery. 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/20120403141100/http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/top_stories/149619/bowery-lands-spot-on-state-historic-registry to http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/top_stories/149619/bowery-lands-spot-on-state-historic-registry
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boweryballroom.com/history.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bowery. 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/20110710164200/http://eastvillagevisitorscenter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=87 to http://eastvillagevisitorscenter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=87

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bowery. 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/20131102134429/http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-10-30/nyc-life/all-sold-out-at-cbgb/ to http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-10-30/nyc-life/all-sold-out-at-cbgb/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bowery. 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/20100210113154/http://gothamist.com/2007/08/14/new_venue_alert.php to http://gothamist.com/2007/08/14/new_venue_alert.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Lorenzo da Ponte

The Lorenzo da Ponte article says he ran a grocery store in Pennsylvania, and a bookstore in NYC. It also does not mention his business being in the Bowery. Please reconcile the two articles. —howcheng {chat} 06:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

John Wick film reference ?

In the films John Wick 2 and 3, Laurence Fishburne plays a character called "Bowery King". If this is the same "Bowery", would someone ( more competent than me at such things ) like to add it as a reference ? Thanks GeoffAvogadro (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You would need a citation from a reliable source which says that the nickname specifically refers to the street in NYC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Bouwerij vs. Bouwerie and Middle Dutch

Which spelling was used at the time in New Amsterdam, "Bouwerie" or "Bouwerij"? It seems the former might be slightly more archaic according to wikt:bouwerij, or maybe it's just another form of anglicization.--Pharos (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking further into wikt:-ij#Dutch and wikt:-ie#Dutch, it does look like the general evolution in Dutch was from "bouwerie" → "bouwerij" (possibly, → "boererij") → "boerderij".--Pharos (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)