Talk:National Parks of New York Harbor

Restored Talk page history

National parks or national parks or park sites administered by the National Park Service

I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas#National Parks of New York Harbor to ask for others' input. doncram (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an issue, in my view, in this article's claim by title and content that there are National Parks or national parks in the NYC area; it is my understanding that not one of the U.S.'s 58 offical proper noun National Parks is in the NYC area, and I don't believe that it is good to use lowercase "national parks" as a phrase, either. Note many of the sites administered are National Memorials or house museums that have no park area to speak of.

The claim relies upon a National Park Service website which I view as reflecting an unfortunate editorial decision to use National Park or national park as an informal shortcut phrase, rather than accurately stating something like there are so many "park-like sites administered by the National Park Service in the NYC area". So I believe the claim is sourced, yes, but inaccurate. As I've noted elsewhere, there are many National Park Service websites with incorrect information in them. This one is countered by other National Park Service sources, such as NPS sources cited in List of areas in the United States National Park System.

The article is titled National Parks of New York Harbor. If it is about a National Park Service office of that name, then the name could be technically correct (but I am not sure if the article is notable). If it is about the areas administered by the National Park Service, then proper noun National Parks should not be included in the title, in my view. Also, I don't know if New York Harbor is a proper noun place. A more accurate title to describe the current contents would be "Areas administered by the National Park Service in the New York City area".

Perhaps the thrust of the article is to describe park areas available in the NYC region, and the material should be included in some larger list describing state and local park areas as well? doncram (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about an entity called "National Parks of New York Harbor". It is not our place to second guess, only to report what can be accurately sourced, which this is. Rmhermen (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this discussion here as I said there, here is where it belongs. The entity is called National Parks of New York Harbor, that's the official name of the group operated by the National Park Service (several workers there have emails ending in @nps.gov) so it is not our place to rename the article. We don't call United Nations NGO operating on Manhattan's East Side nor will we be changing the name of this article. That I will vehemently contest because it makes no sense. It's the proper name of a group. As for whether the group is notable, I believe it is as it has been covered in multiple reliable sources. Disagree, take it to AfD. As for whether New York Harbor is a proper noun place, it's the given name. See also New York Harbor. Scores of reliable sources including history texts refer to it as a place with that given name. I don't think you can completely disclaim the article either since that's how NPS, and consequently New York City and the group's conservancy have taken for it. While I strive for accuracy, I don't think past errors in the NPS (which I agree exist) means that this is necessarily invalid. NPS has chosen to use this name, maybe for tourist convenience? We don't know, but I don't think we can say it's wrong because other errors have been made in unrelated sites. TravellingCari 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Also thinking a bit further, I think the wording needs to be tweaked to identify some of these as historic sites, monuments, etc. because I don't think either the NPS or the NRHP registry is consistent whereas wiki article names seem to be. I'm not sure what the best in-text description is, but I suppose it's something to consider. Regardless of the status of the others, I think Gateway National Recreation Area is a National Park, not sure what Governors Island is considered. Will require more digging. TravellingCari 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

None of these are "National Parks". Gateway for instance is a National Recreation Area. The classification is usually in the full title. Governors Island is a National Monument. Rmhermen (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to change that in the article, but I don't think the title needs to be changed as it's the organization's proper name. I would like to know why the NPS refers to them as national parks (separate from the historic sites) TravellingCari 19:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent move

Doncram, as I said above I 1000% disagree with this. It needs to be moved back and done through WP:RM for consensus, which I will do. It's not "bold" when you've been told before no, people disagree for a good reason. The name of the article is the organization's proper name. We don't change that. People are not going to search by some obscure name because you don't think it's accurate to call it what the NPS itself has. To be discussed on WP:RM listing

Where is the talk page history?

Where is the Talk page that was attached to this article, and its history? Discussing the past moves and/or proposed move is undercut if the past discussion is lost. doncram (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Found it. Restored at the bottom. lifebaka++ 15:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

and moved to top. doncram (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I request that "National Parks of New York Harbor" be renamed and moved to "National Parks of New York Harbor branch of the National Park Service". Per previous discussion at the Talk page (although the previous discussion and its history has somehow been lost), with comments by rmherman and myself, there are no official National Parks in the New York City area at all, although there is a National Park service branch of that name, apparently.

The title "National Parks of New York Harbor" seems misleading, as it seems to imply that there are National Parks in the New York area, and that the article will be a list of them. To clarify, I suggest the move to "National Parks of the New York Harbor branch of the National Park Service". Or to any similar name that clarifies the article is about the office or administrative unit of the National Park Service. Even the revised name is a bit odd. There are numerous regional offices of the National Park Service, and there usually are not articles about them. For a few of them their office buildings are architecturally significant and listed on the National Register, so those buildings may have articles. But the notability of any one office or branch of the National Park Service is not clear.

Note: I earlier did boldy move the article in the way proposed, but that move was deemed controversial by editor Travellingcari. Travellingcari listed this at wp:Requested Moves, and it is fine by me to go back to the previous situation and to have a discussion first. However, Travellingcari or another editor moved the article back to the name "National Parks of New York Harbor" in such a way that the previous discussion, involving at least 3 people (Travellingcari, Rmherrman, and myself) is no longer here. Could someone please restore that, at least by cutting and pasting from the deleted page? doncram (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm trying to find the lost history, that was a completely accidental loss. I thnk it happened in the course of the moves. Working on it now. As I said, we're writing an article about the organization. It makes sense for the article to be located under the organization's name and within the article there can and should be information about what the sites, parks, monuments, etc. that fall under the domain of the organization. I don't think we're doing the reader a service by putting an article about the organization under a different title. TravellingCari 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if there is an article about the organization, it makes sense to include a list of the sites, parks, monuments, etc. that fall under it, although they should be identified correctly (with clarification that none of the NYC area parks are National Parks in the official meaning of that term).

I think that a title that identifies that the article is about the organization/regional office by using "branch" or "regional office" or some such phrase serves readers better.

There is an administrative history and a list of regional offices of the National Park Service up to 1988 (not including the NY office, created later) at Records of the National Park Service. This could be used to add a section to the National Park Service article about the regional offices. I am not sure if there is a further need to have separate articles about the NY and other regional offices or not. doncram (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily a branch or regional office, but I don't know that it isn't either. I know very little about the structure of NPS other than what I've read and my dealings with this office. Yes I have worked with them on a project in the past but it was for an organization I worked for, not them - there's no COI here. The impetus for creating the article was when I made a header in List of museums and cultural institutions in New York City and realized it didn't exist. I think it's notable, but like I said I have no issue if you take it to AfD. Whether or not they're national parks, or squids, there is an organization that includes these ten "national parks and 14 historic sites" (using their verbiage for the moment). I see it as similar to Historic House Trust or other similar umbrella organizations. Keep in mind the conservancy also uses the organization's proper legal name so it's not so much that it's the "New York Office of the NPS". Do you want to take it to AfD first to see if it's notable before worrying about the title? Like I said, I'll !vote Keep because I believe it's notable but I have no issue with discussion. TravellingCari 14:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, taking it to AfD is not necessary, as there is documentation in the article that an entity of this name exists. I do note the absence of wikipedia articles about the large regional offices of the National Park Service, and I am unclear about when there should be wikipedia articles about offices and departments within larger organizations. It seems to me that such should be split off of articles about the larger organization in some orderly process, but I accept this entity was deliberately created in 2003 and meets wikipedia notability standards.

Browsing the New York Times articles and the NPS records, it is appearing to me that this is an entity that is part of the Northeast Region office of the NPS. I think calling it a lowercase "branch" would be okay, unless and until there is some evidence it should be called a department or office or something else.

Posted to ANI for help since I tried restoring. TravellingCari 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please see WP:Official names, an unofficial summary of the policies and guidelines on the subject. By and large, we don't use them when there is a short, clear, unambiguous, and widely-used alternative. If I were choosing from scratch, I might prefer National Parks on New York Harbor as idiom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the issue here is that there isn't a widely used alternative, and also not an unambiguous one. Any mentions of the organization seem to use the current one. I'm not sure, however, how you'd search for the existence of some other name. TravellingCari 15:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    • • I had to read that carefully and follow the Official Names link to interpret Septentrionalis's statement, but I think that Septentrionalis meant "official names" for "them". The official name of this entity is ambiguous, both because it would seem to be a list of National Parks and also because it could perhaps be confused with "National Parks of New York Harbor Conservancy", a nonprofit, separate entity. I prefer "National Parks of New York Harbor branch of the National Park Service" (or any variation like "department of the National Park Service") which is unambiguous. doncram (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The current name is best. The article is about the office of the NPS. It's the common name as well as the official name of the office. (A hypothetical article that was just a list could be "national parks of New York harbor", but anyone reading the first few words should realize what this article is about anyway.) "Branch" usually has a specific meaning in gov't bureaucracy as a low-level org, often below a division, so that is almost certainly incorrect anyway. Station1 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is no mention of "branch" anywhere, and "office" is used in the 2003 New York Times article, so the best alternative to the current name would seem to be "National Parks of New Harbor office of the National Park Service". I agree that Station1's edits clarify greatly, and that the intro now is pretty acceptable. My suggested alternative name is unambiguous, but unwieldy for a wikipedia title. I still want to ensure that it is absolutely clear in the article, that, notwithstanding the name of the office, there are no National Parks in the New York City area. Would a compromise, to retain the current name, but to add a specific note to that effect (that, despite the name of the entity, there are no National Parks under its purview), meet with others' approval? doncram (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks Station for your edits since I think that's a lot clearer. I wrote it in one go and really hadn't clarified it at all. I also need to expand it some but that's neither here nor there. Re: "National Parks of New Harbor office of the National Park Service" I think that's just far too unwieldly. I think it's accurate yes, but see my comments below re: reader-friendliness. I think your idea of keeping the name but addressing the fact that these are historic sites, etc. is a good one. It's interesting that if you look at the first few results of this search, NPS goes out of its way to say there are ten National Parks and it's curious given the issues you've raised. I could see saying something along the lines of "While the NPS identifies 10 National Parks and 14 historic sites, there are no national parks (cited) and those sites that fall within the domain of the NPNYH are all historic sites, etc" Thoughts on that? TravellingCari 02:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both of you. The NPS didn't pick the best possible name so clarification is needed in the article. I think NPS just refers to anything they run as a national park - kind of makes sense from their POV because of their name. Since you liked my last edits - thanks :) - I'll take another stab at it. Feel free to change however you think best. Station1 (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops missed this. To some extent, it makes sense. They know that to their target audience, the general public, park is easier term to remember. Are we settled now it's going to stay at this title but have the text reworked as its evolving now? TravellingCari 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and all 3 of us seem to be agreeing now. I will go to Requested Moves, with which i am not very familiar, and seek to retract the requested move. I do think, if i have not already made this clear, that putting the requested move to the Requested Move page was a helpful step by TravellingCari. I will try to learn about the Requested Move service in order to use its service in future situations, perhaps, rather than making a "bold" move like i did earlier with this article. This Wikipedia thing is quite elaborate, it sure takes a while to learn the ropes. doncram (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Donc. I'm not sure when/where I learned about Requested Moves, but it was a similar situation where both parties had good reasons for a particular name for an article. Like third opinion, it's a great way to get outside input with information that might not have been considered. I knew going in that people adding input could well have seen it the way you did but between notifying people there who have an interest in these discussion and those in the related projects, it helps form consensus. Input is always good and I'm very glad to have had your and Station's help to improve this article, which is what I think we all want. TravellingCari 02:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Marketing spin in National Parks of New York Harbor name

As discussed above, the name, National Parks of New York Harbor, appears to me to be inaccurate and misleading for the office of the National Park Service and for use as an article title in wikipedia. The 2003 New York Times article cited provides some clues as to what has happened. It describes how the office was formed as part of a marketing effort, in conjunction with private funding (presumably since provided via the National Parks of New York Harbor Conservancy, a 501c3 nonprofit set up afterwards). The purpose of the office was to do joint marketing and promotion of the New York City area sites administered by the National Park Service. It was a private, marketing-informed and marketing-oriented initiative.

This is speculation, but I surmise the name choice was deliberate on the part of private marketing-oriented donors driving the initiative, to exploit the brand name for the term "National Parks". They probably even ran market research studies, or had access to prior studies, quantifying exactly how positively regarded the term "National Park" is, in the United States, deriving from the nation's positive experience with the nation's 58 genuine national parks. If your goal is to promote New York area parks, and you have the opportunity to exploit a great brand name like that, why not? Despite the fact that there are no National Parks present, of the kind that built the brand. In a private firm, there would be strong forces to counter such use, as the mis-use of a prestige brand name like that tends to run down the value of the brand. An MBA Marketing 101-type case is how McDonald's retains rights to shut down franchisees, if their stores fail to keep up to cleanliness and other standards, in favor of exploiting the brand but delivering less than expected quality to consumers. However, this is a public sector situation with a nonprofit twist, a political situation; I imagine there were government actors who were out-gunned by private, marketing-oriented power players.

Another speculation alternative, is that the name reflected wishful thinking on the part of original donors. They may well have wanted existing properties to be upgraded to National Park status. They may well have sought the acquisition of additional parklands. Corroborating the latter, the 2003 NYT article reports on the first commissioner explicitly downplaying any possibility that new parklands would be acquired or opened, explicitly describing that is what many parties wanted.

This is entirely speculation, but I bet that the use of the National Parks name in this way was disputed within the National Parks Service. I can imagine veteran administrators there being appalled.

And that leads us to the present. There does exist, indeed, a National Park Service website or two reflecting the marketing spin, for purposes of promoting the parks in the NYC area. Still counter to general usage of the term "National Parks" commonly, and counter to practices and documents within the National Park Service, itself. Now what? Do we seize upon the minority view, in favor of NYC park promoters, to co-opt the term "National Park" for application there? I do understand that a wikipedian, working on articles about New York City area cultural institutions and parks, etc., would find the office name attractive, and would find it attractive to use the term National Parks or lower case national parks, rather than hewing to the more restricted use of that term elsewhere in the nation. I would prefer not to do that, though, and I believe it is appropriate for wikipedia to carry one editorial perspective, which I believe is the main perspective within the National Park Service, that National Parks are the 58 designated National Parks, none of which are in the NYC area.

I hope you find my comments entertaining, if not hugely insightful. :) doncram (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I do think your comments are "entertaining", useful and thought-provoking. I don't entirely disagree with you, but I don't think this is all that uncommon. I think any firm whether public or private goes through some searches to see what sticks. My issue is and always has been for the reader. The reader has heard about this office somehow --- whether as a NYC resident or through travel guides (see here, Moon uses it apparently) or however. They're not going to search on some odd title that may be the politically correct term. Someone above said the precedent appears to be the commonly used term. Within the article is a good place to discuss the issue of no national parks, etc. but I don't think the title is the place. I haven't found evidence that any other term is widely used. Personally, I don't care if we call it "Mongoose!" :) Like I said above, I didn't write this article out of any pressing desire to cover the org but rather when I made it a header and realized it didn't exist. Re, This is entirely speculation, but I bet that the use of the National Parks name in this way was disputed within the National Parks Service. I can imagine veteran administrators there being appalled. I bet if it's true (and not saying it isn't, just using if since I haven't seen (or admittedly looked for -- real life has been sucking up time lately) it's written somewhere and if so, it should be mentioned and cited. Off to answer your other comment above. TravellingCari 02:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing some merit in my comments. I do concede that, although I had never heard of this name, despite my involvement with wp:NRHP and wp:Protected Areas, and despite my having lived in the NYC area for a couple significant chunks of time, that current readers in the NYC area may have heard of this entity. I don't know about your suggestion that if there was a dispute within the NPS, it would be public and available for us to see. My expectations are more along the lines that there was dispute, but it was kept internal to the NPS, in accordance with the probably generally altruist nature of good types who work at NPS and who usually do not wish to show dirty laundry. This is, of course, projection upon speculation, without foundation other than my own life experiences which may be pretty far removed. Cheers, doncram (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of park and other sites

The lead sentence is now "National Parks of New York Harbor is the name of an office of the National Park Service that coordinates administration of ten NPS sites that include 23 unique destinations located in the New York City area, including northern New Jersey." I think that needs to be revised, and/or the article needs to be revised. I am really not sure if there are 23 destinations within 10 sites, or whether there are 10 park sites and also (or a total of) 23 destinations. Certainly several of the sites are townhouses and cannot by any means be considered park sites or parts of park sites. And, there are 17 sites listed in the article. There needs to be lists of 10 and 13 or 23 sites. doncram (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts, but I don't know the answer either. Again going back to the NPS in this case because it's the only complete list(s) (because it's not consistent itself, shocker there) I find the following:

Monuments Memorials and Historic Sites

• African Burial Ground National Monument
• Castle Clinton National Monument (TCari note: this is in Battery Park, which I believe is a NYC park, further complicating things)
• Federal Hall National Memorial
• Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site
• General Grant National Memorial (in a park for sure, not sure if it's riverside)
• Hamilton Grange National Memorial
• St. Paul’s Church National Historic Site
• Lower East Side Tenement Museum (TCari note: labeled by NPS as "an affiliated site", which isn't definited. It's a museum. Im not certain whether the tenement house they use for tours is on the NRHP but it is landmarked. In either case, it's not anything close to a park)

other

• Governors Island National Monument (TCari according to NPS This, "became part of the National Park Service in 2003." I have no idea what that means. It's an island in NY Harbor.
• Gateway National Recreation Area
• The Statue of Liberty National Monument
• Ellis Island

So that appears to be where the "14" number comes from. That's all from here. [This subpage] adds the following:

• Brooklyn and Queens
• Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge
• Jacob Riis Park/Fort Tilden
• Floyd Bennett Field
• Canarsie Pier

• Staten Island
• Fort Wadsworth
• Miller Field
• Great Kills Park

New Jersey

• Sandy Hook
• Fort Hancock on Sandy Hook

in addition to those above for a total of 23 except for the fact that I think some of them are part of Gateway. I'm not sure what Great Kills Park is or Canarsie Pier since neither appear to have a wiki article and I haven't had the chance to do more research. The main issue here appears to be the org not consistent on what falls under its domain, mixed domain *Castle Clinton in Battery Park, etc). Im not sure where to get a definitive list. I wonder if possibly the NPS visitor center at Federal Hall has something in writing that could be cited. I'm still in NYC and willing to take a field trip when I have some time early in Sept. Other ideas? TravellingCari 02:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

All National Monuments, National Historic Sites, National Memorials, and other historically-oriented NPS-administered sites are all listed on the NRHP, but purely natural reserves and parks and other natural protected areas administered by the NPS are not listed on the NRHP. On the NRHP and otherwise, I can find the following, which seem to correspond to your list (including several new NRHP stub articles that i just created, other redlinks yet perhaps to resolve):

1. African Burial Ground National Monument, NRHP
2. Castle Clinton National Monument, NRHP
3. Federal Hall National Memorial, NRHP
4. Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site, NRHP
5. General Grant National Memorial, NRHP
6. Hamilton Grange National Memorial, NRHP
7. Saint Paul's Church National Historic Site, NRHP
8. Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site, NRHP
9. Governors Island National Monument, NRHP
10. Gateway National Recreation Area, NOT on the nrhp
11. Statue of Liberty National Monument, NRHP including Liberty Island and Ellis Island
12. Ellis Island, not a separate nrhp
13. Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, NOT on the nrhp
14. Jacob Riis Park Historic District, NRHP
15. Fort Tilden Historic District, NRHP
16. Floyd Bennett Field Historic District, NRHP
17. Canarsie Pier, NOT on the nrhp
18. Fort Wadsworth, NOT on the nrhp
19. Miller Field (Staten Island, New York), NRHP
20. Great Kills Park, NOT on the nrhp
21. Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District, NRHP
22. Sandy Hook Light, NRHP

doncram (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is also Sandy Hook Archeological Site, an NRHP, but I would hope the office is not counting this as a destination if it, like most archeological sites on the NRHP, is one that cannot be visited. doncram (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)