Talk:New York City/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20

Hydrography

Can a section be added regarding New York's hydrography ? The section should contain the rivers in New York, and should also mention the proposed New York storm surge barriers. See Against the Deluge: Storm Surge Barriers to Protect New York City. Proposed barriers were:

91.176.7.165 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

yes my name is quay and i would like to edit this page what i have to do becuase i got some information that need to be added if not can you add for me (Quayhands (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC))

Indeed, don't projected future sea-level rises threaten to partially submerge large parts of lower Manhattan in particular in the next century or two unless a pretty extensive levee system is constructed - preferably sooner rather than later? Matt2h (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Giovanni da Verrazzano vs Henry Hudson

While Giovanni da Verrazzano did indeed sail into the Lower New York Bay and land in Brooklyn, he did not pass through the Narrows and did not explore the New York Harbor. He shipped out the next day. It was Robert Juet, first mate of the Half Moon who first documented the 1609 Henry Hudson 1609 voyage. The prominence of the first voyage over the latter is misleading, don't you think?Djflem (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Giovanni da Verrazzano has played absolutely no role in New York history, he stopped here, left and everybody forgot about it. His image in the article should be replaced with Henry Hudson or even Peter Stuyvesant as the most famous early governor. --Hatteras (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oslo a twin/sister city?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo#Twin_towns_.E2.80.94_Sister_cities

New York City is listed as one of Oslos twin/sister cities, but Oslo is not on NYC's list. Not recognized by the SCI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.9.89.133 (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Population Estimate 2009

Hi, You can edit and change from 2008 to 2009 on the top of page and demograpic historical population. It is 8,391,881 in July 1, 2009. Ross Degenstein(talk) --208.107.123.63 (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a lot of work (because there are so many references embedded in the text and tables), but now it's done. I hope this can last at least a little while before we get the preliminary Census returns for 1 April 2010. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

World Class Universities in Intro Section

So far only NYU and Columbia are listed as the "world class universities of New York City" in the introductory section of the article. It seems to me that the other Ph.D. granting institutions within the five boroughs ought to be added. Fordham University and Rockefeller University especially have substantial international recognition as research universities, as does Yeshiva (particularly their medical school). (Mpaver217 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC))

I agree, especially with adding at least Rockefellar to the list. And how or why is Cordozo Law listed as 'world class' (which is false, as it does not rank anywhere near other law schools in NYC, or at least should not listed without listing St. John's Law) and especially without mentioning Yeshiva, since Cordoza is a school of the latter?63.118.154.72 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I deleted Macaulay Honors College and Pace University from the second paragraph of New York City#Education, although there might be a greater case than I, in my relative ignorance, imagine for restoring Pace. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
what exactly is the introductory section? the Education section itself is also introductory. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wildlife

I didn't see a section or article dealing with wildlife in New York City, which seems surprising. NYC has lots of wildlife which exists in a fairly unique setting (Just for (trivial) example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/nyregion/23reptile.html)

Have I missed something? Any suggestions where information about NYC wildlife should go? Thanks! David Hollman (Talk) 12:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Poorest city

This article states that New York City is the poorest city in America. http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0806em.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.75.25 (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That is odviously wrong. New York is one of the richest cities in the world. If New York was the poorest it would have been in the demographics along time ago. Check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP DA Fernandez (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Read the article. It states that NYC is the poorest city comparatively in terms of what standard of living you can achieve based on the wages paid there.--Louiedog (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


"Standards of living" comparisons are always nonsense.

we need GDP (PPP) comparisons. GDP per capita in NY / wages are higher than they would otherwise be due heavily to the fact that land and cost of living is high. there are plenty of other lower GDP cities with lower cost of living that would have a GDP-PPP better than New York's. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

ITOMIC (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC) New York city is definitely not the poorest city in the world the cost of living is high but those in poverty or of working class have many benefits like food stamps,medicaid,subsidized housing and other benefits new york high cost of living only effects the middle class not the rich and poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmgeorge37 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate and Sunshine

As per http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate.php?location=USNY0996, NYC has an average of 2677 hours of sunshine per year. It is incorrect to take weatherbases 58% of total possible sunshine and multiply out because 58% is simply an average of the 12 months. Of course, the 12 months differ significantly in how much sunshine is possible, with most late spring and summer and least in late fall and winter. In NYC, sunniest months as a percent of total possible happen to be summer months. So if you want to change to number of sunshine to something other than 2677, find a better source than weatherbase.Mishnayd (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

you may or may not have a clear idea on how these are calculated. The sinusoidal nature of sunshine hours means that every place in the world, regardless of amplitude, has the same total possible amount of sunshine (~4380 hours). We are not giving monthly figures; we are giving annual values. 2677 hours of sunshine equals 61% of the possible total (~4380 hours), much higher than 58%. I have found another, more possibly government-verified, source by simply digging through old versions of the Phoenix article: it says 59%. The same ASU site gives 58% for DC. Not much difference, and this is likely extracted from government data. Furthermore, The website you gave has bogus data for DC. Only ~1700 hours of sunshine? Almost 1000 hours less than NY, yet such a short distance. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

New York or New York City?

Why does the article start with just New York? For as long as I've been alive it has always been New York City with New York being its nickname. It would be like saying México is the capital of México instead of México City. Correct me if I'm wrong? La Fuzion (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the name of the city is "City of New York", therefore the short name of the city is "New York", just as the short name of the City of Los Angeles is Los Angeles. "New York City" is just a name people have given it to set it apart from the state. Perhaps they do things different in Mexico, but on the other hand, I often hear of Ciudad Juarez referred to solely as Juarez. --Golbez (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Insofar as I know, Mexicans usually refer to their capital as "México, D.F." (pron."day-effay") for Distrito Federal, in analogy with Washington, D.C. [District of Columbia], and to distinguish the city not only from the nation but from the surrounding State of México (which doesn't include Mexico City). Londoners never refer to "London City" for the City of London, the commercial-financial square mile in the heart of the larger city. To my ears, "New York" refers to the city ("New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Paris, London, Rome, Tokyo, Moscow, Mexico City, Rio"), unless it's being compared to other states or is explicitly specified as New York state. Airlines usually refer to a "New York to London" flight, not to a "New York City to London" one. New York City's newspapers, e.g. The New York Times don't add City to their names. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
However, having said all that, there is one of those insoluble Wikipedia problems. In Wikipedia, after an inconclusive Request for Comment, New York refers to the state. (This leads to all kinds of confusion, because someone who sees, e.g., Politics of New York might not expect to see information about state politics rather than municipal politics. I think the titles of most such articles, including New York, should specify whether they refer to the state or the city with New York itself being a disambiguation page.) So, there's a purely technical, formal ambiguity in starting the introductory sentence with New York, which also leads the article for New York (state). The sentence, however, immediately says it's about a city, so the formal conventions don't worry me that much. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My question was not about whether the name is correct or not. What I was getting to is why would the article start with New York instead of its official name which is New York City? If you look at the Mexico City article, it begins "Mexico City (Spanish: Ciudad de México) is the capital and largest city in the country of Mexico. It does not start with "Mexico"... Does that make sense? La Fuzion (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Except its official name is not "New York City", it is "City of New York". --Golbez (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, what is the official name? The official website of New York (city) is NYC.gov. The home page of the site states "Welcome to the official New York City Web site". Also, the official tourism website is NYCgo.com. The title of the home page is "The Official New York City Guide to NYC Attractions, Dining, Hotels and Things to Do" 198.212.237.48 (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Look at the bottom of nyc.gov: "Copyright 2010 The City of New York". They went with the common name for the URL and much of the text, but the copyright notice betrays their official name. --Golbez (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK fair enough so the article should start "The City of New York..." Agreed? La Fuzion (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not! To the extent there is an "official" name, it is New York. That's how it appears in the City Charter and New York state constitution. But more importantly, that is its most common name in most reliable sources. WP uses common names, not official names. This has been discussed before in the archives of this talk page, and the current lede explains it correctly. "New York City", or more properly "New York city", is used more often when the context is not clear, since both the city and state are named identically. Some documents use "City of New York" or "New York City" or "NYC" to make clear they are city and not state documents, but there is nothing expressly making that official. Station1 (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone's upset. No need to get hostile and subject dropped before I get punish. La Fuzion (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, no. Very sorry if it came across that way - not upset and certainly not intended to be hostile at all. Station1 (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Article should start New York, or New York city. "City of New York" really does not sound good. I am still rather surprised the state has the prime "New York" spot. Many people in the world know there is a city called New York. Most do not know there is a state called the same thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
@BritishWatcher. Sorry this is a bit late, but to corroborate your viewpoint... If we begin with "The City of New York..." then we should begin with "The Municipality of Beijing". Less writing to express the same idea is better. In any case, all cities have an official name parameter in their infoboxes. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It should remain New York City. New York has two meanings, (State and City) New York City is just a city in New York. Plus more people live in NY State than NY City. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
New York city is fine, just not "city of New York". As for the state, it may have a bigger population but it does not mean it is more notable. The city is by far the more notable of the two for people outside of America and id probably say for Americans too. Not proposing a move, it just seems odd this is the how its done. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
See: Talk:New_York_City/Archive_12#New_York_City_versus_City_of_New_York --JimWae (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that while "New York" for most people in most contexts means the Five Boroughs (or sometimes just Manhattan), the senses of "New York" for the state and the city are fairly evenly balanced, balanced enough to justify making "New York" into a disambiguation page rather than an article title or a one-target redirect. (Cf. the two meanings of Greater New York and of Greater New York City, which I converted from redirects to New York metropolitan area into disambiguation pages.) I don't want to change the name of New York City, but I do want the present New York to be New York state. (Ditto for Politics of New York, Economy of New York, etc.) Which New York should be specified in either case. As for relative populations, in the first half of the 20th century, most of New York state's people lived within the Five Boroughs, so even that argument for relative notability is constrained by time. See my table at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject New York (state)/Archive 1#Bump up Teddy Roosevelt to top status?. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
There is certainly a case for a disam page. I see this article gets far larger number of page views each day than the New York state article, and we have to take into account some of those who go to the state article are looking for the city. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
A disambiguation page would be ideal for NY State and NY City. But NYC should remain NYC not "City of NY" or plain "NY" or any other alternative. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation

What you have to do now seems to be nearly impossible (and in my opinion not reasonable), convince a clear preponderance of the folks who concentrate their editing on the state article rather than this one. See this archive page (referred to by a little yellow box at the top right of this one): Talk:New York (state)/Archive 3. The last discussion (I think) was two years ago, so it's not premature to raise the question afresh, but what is a fair and appropriate forum is a different question. We could put the question on the Centralized Discussion template, and create a fresh sub-page of Talk:New York City to accommodate what would be a long digressive debate. Although one might note that the last of the New York state discussions, about the disambiguation that some of us here favour, didn't seem to draw too many "votes" on either side, so it doesn't look like a thumping Consensus or Lack of Consensus. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We should float the idea over on the state article talkpage and see if there is much objection. The case for disam or even this having the primary spot is pretty strong. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Before starting a new discussion, every word of Talk:New York (state)/Archive 3 should be read. Others disagree the case is strong. A repeat discussion will almost certainly result in no consensus and waste a great deal of time and effort better spent in editing. I recommend against it. Station1 (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the previous discussions is that there were three possibilities being debated: 1) leave as is, 2) redirect "New York" to the city article, and 3) a disambig page. If we can keep the discussion down to only whether or not a disambig page is appropriate, I think we might get a clearer picture of people's opinions. Personally, I'm in favor of it. --Jleon (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
It is worth a try yes. It was also 2 whole years ago, a lot can change in that time. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

From the Charter of the City of New York (as obtained on Westlaw, August 20, 2010):

§ 1 The city.

The city of New York as now existing shall continue with the boundaries and with the powers, rights and property, and subject to the obligations and liabilities which exist at the time when this charter shall take effect.

Note the lowercase c as in "city." That is not a part of the proper name, but merely a reference to the fact that there is a city called "New York."

Alvin P. Bluthman [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.56.203 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Compelling, though the charter is inconsistent; note the entry of "Suits and service of papers. The department may sue and be sued in and by the proper name of "Department of Health and mental hygiene of the City of New York,"". It's playing a little loose with capitalization throughout. There are three such mentions with a capitalized City within the text. --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I ran the following Westlaw search in the Charter "(te)city of new york" and found this text in 78 sections. You report that it is capitalized in three. Assuming that soem are mistakes, which are the mistakes, the three or the seventy-five?

Alvin P. Bluthman [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.56.203 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What puzzles me is why this discussion is continuing on despite the resolving of the moving issue. I personally despise the appendage of "City" at the end, but we cannot yet break past reasoning. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion revived (October 2010)

See: Talk:New York (state)/Archive 4#Requested move

Sister City - London

Is where it says that one of New York's sister cities is "The City of London" correct, or should it just be London? The reference article simply says London. If it is just supposed to be the City of London then the statement underneath the table of sister cities, that "Like New York City, all except Beijing are the most populous cities of their respective countries" is not correct as the City of London has a population of just 8000 people (in a one square mile area). Christopher White 1982 (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's tedious for others to look up archives of this talk page, but when I did a little hunting outside Wikipedia, the relationship seemed to be both with the City of London and with the Greater London Authority; some publicity at http://www.nyc.gov seemed to tie Mayor Bloomberg with both Ken Livingstone and the then-Lord Mayor of London. See also this mayoral press release concerning Ken Livingstone's successor MAYOR BLOOMBERG ANNOUNCES “INNOVATION EXCHANGE” PROGRAM WITH NEW MAYOR OF LONDON BORIS JOHNSON —— Shakescene (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Would be best to put London rather than City of London. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
London is the primary article, It really makes no sense to link to Greater London in that box, that article is just about an administrative region. The London article covers the City of London and Greater London anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)* That's what I did, oh so long ago in this small but volatile section which seems to be watched intently by passionate nationalists who've shown little other interest in New York City. Today (thanks for the Christopher White's pointer), I've put both Greater London and the City of London (with respective arms) into the city column and England into the region column. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It was less passionate nationalism, more mindless pedantry. Sorry. Christopher White 1982 (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This is in the first paragraph of London"
London's core, the ancient City of London, largely retains its square-mile mediaeval boundaries. Since at least the 19th century, the name London has also referred to the metropolis developed around this core.[8] The bulk of this conurbation forms the London region[9]and the Greater London administrative area"
London is the primary article which covers all of this, its the only place that needs linking to in the sister cities section. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, out of the many discussions of this subject, here's a lengthy one (and I think the most recent one), in which both I and British Watcher participated: Talk:New York City/Archive 11#Sister Cities London. (I'm leaving this active talk for the moment, because I don't want to crash into a third or fourth edit conflict. I don't have the patience.) —— Shakescene (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Of the 10 other articles that say they are sister cities of London, all of them simply say London and all that link to an article simply link to London. This page [1] clearly is talking about London as a whole, and not just the City of London and the area it talks about covers the Greater London area(although it does not mention that term within the text), just links to the authority responsible for the wider area. City of London and Greater London are all covered in the London article. London is what needs to be said. It is silly to point to City of london and an article on an administrative sub division Greater London, rather than the actual article on the actual city. If there is no more debate i will be changing it to simply say London. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Mind boggling

I find it unfathomable that in this article, not even in the introduction, there is no mentioning that New York City has several nicknames used to refer to the city. New York City is known as "the Big Apple", "Gotham City", and the "city that never sleeps". This is common knowledge, and the city is called by these names by most Americans in every day speech, yet there is no mentioning of NYC's nicknames. Surely the city's nicknames warrant mentioning. Yoganate79 (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT upstateNYer 22:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
See the infobox: "Nickname(s):

The Big Apple, Gotham, Center of The Universe, The City That Never Sleeps"

--Louiedog (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Bronx or The Bronx

A Request for Comments about changing Bronx's article name to "The Bronx" (or changing it to something else) has now opened. See Talk:Bronx#Request for Comments on renaming "(The) Bronx" (September 2010). If inspired to comment, please read the extensive earlier discussions above this section. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This request for comments will close fairly soon, so please contribute any thoughts you have while you can. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion has now closed by an uninvolved administrator (User:Thumperward) with the moving of Bronx back to The Bronx. Because of redirects, you don't really need (except in some rather technical cases like conditionals) to change any of your current links from Bronx to The Bronx, but future wikilinks can now be directly to The Bronx. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Related discussion

In case anyone isn't already aware, there's a discussion at Talk:New York regarding how that article (the one on the state) should be named, and whether the city, the state or neither should be regarded as primary topic for "New York". Please contribute at the other talk page if you wish.--Kotniski (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.20.124.29, 9 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In first paragraph. GREAT SHOPPING!!

24.20.124.29 (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done, it's not appropriate at all. DC T•C 05:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture of WTC on 9/11

I find it to be in bad taste that their is a picture of the World Trade Center in flames from 9/11, especially in a section (Geography) where it is irrelevant. I would request that this picture be removed from the article entirely, as there are many more appropriate images of the City. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.179.208 (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's supposed to be in the history section, but there's too many images there so it floats down to the geography one. One or more of those pictures needs to go. DC T•C 06:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I removed one of the images; the 9/11 image represents an historica event that outweighs almost any other in NYC history. upstateNYer 15:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

History - subdivide by era?

Surely the history section would be clearer, and easier to edit, if it were broken up into subsections either by era or by century? Huw Powell (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

alex js —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.130.100 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.5.77.194, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

"Under the Köppen climate classification New York City has a humid subtropical climate (Cfa), and using the 0 °C threshold it is the northernmost major city on the continent with such categorization."

Needs to be changed to say:

"Under the Köppen climate classification New York City has a Humid Continental Climate / Warm Summer Continental or Hemiboreal Climateste (Dfb)."

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Humidcontinentalworld2.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humid_continental_climate#Dfb.2FDwb:_Warm_summer_subtype 

    "Dfb/Dwb/Dsb: Warm summer subtype

Regions with warm summer humid continental climates

The warm summer version of the humid continental climate covers a much larger area than the hot subtype. In North America, the climate zone covers from about 44°N to 50°N latitude mostly east of the 100th meridian. However, it can be found as far north as 54°N, and further west in the Canadian Prairie Provinces and below 40°N in the high Appalachians. In Europe this subtype reaches its most northern latitude at nearly 61°N. Areas featuring this subtype of the continental climate have an average temperature in its warmest month below 22°C. Summer high temperatures in this zone typically average between 21–28 °C (70–82 °F) during the daytime and the average winter temperatures in the coldest month are generally far below the −3 °C (26.6 °F) isotherm.

It includes the following places: Northern, Central and Western New York... ...Albany, New York Rochester, New York Syracuse, New York Buffalo, New York"


99.5.77.194 (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The problem is that this is the article about New York 'City', not about the state of New York. Note that New York City is not listed anywhere on the page you refer to. It is, however, mentioned on the page Humid subtropical climate. Unless you have a reliable source (a site outside Wikipedia) that identifies NYC as Dfb, then I don't think this should change. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

World-Class Universities

Exactly what is meant by "world-class universities" mentioned in the article lead-in. I noticed someone added Fordham to the list (previously comprising Columbia and NYU). Unless we can decide what constitutes a "world-class" university, chances are people will keeping adding names to the list. This matter needs to be resolved.Avman89 (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


I agree, this needs to be changed immediately. I'm sorry, but Fordham University is not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'world class'. To be honest, people in the U.S. outside of the New York area have hardly even heard of it. This needs to be changed ASAP to secure the integrity of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.210.68 (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As I agree with the two of you, I am going to go ahead and change it to "reputable". Whether Fordham deserves to be included alongside Columbia and NYU is another issue. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 01:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

See similar discussions at Talk:Education in New York City. I'd class Fordham as a nationally-ranked or respected university, but not a world-class one. A parallel might be the University of Sussex (fd. 1961), well-noted with some real accomplishments despite its relative youth but not yet the equivalent of Heidelberg, Oxford or the Sorbonne. (Of course at that level, even NYU might be borderline, no offence intended to NYU.) Other analogues might be the newer campuses of the University of California. And if Fordham is world-class, what about St. John's or Cooper Union? This is just one of those problems that really won't go away, because it's only natural that proud students, parents, alumni and staff of a college or high school (even a middle school; see Staten Island#Education) will see it as noteworthy and want to add it to any existing list on Wikipedia, and any criterion we set is bound to be too arbitrary (U.S. News ranking, enrollment, age, number of published Ph.D. instructors, research output, etc.) —— Shakescene (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It's really relatively simple. Is there a reliable third-party source (not the alumni magazine) that calls a particular university "world class"? If yes, leave it in the article and cite the source in a footnote. If not, take it out. Station1 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
something like ARWU should suffice. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
One of the benefits of editing WP is learning about things that I never knew existed, such as the ARWU. I think that's a fine source and I've updated article accordingly. Station1 (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
All rankings, I think, are inherently shaky; this one leans heavily on the sciences (there's no Nobel Prize for history, geography, linguistics or archaeology) and is liable to the failings noted at Academic Ranking of World Universities#Criticism. At least two medical schools (UC San Francisco and UT Dallas) are listed, as are (for example) North Carolina State, Penn State and UC Irvine, but not the University of Berlin, Simon Fraser, the University of Bologna or Trinity College, Dublin. This doesn't necessarily mean that some other ranking is sounder, just that for our purposes, this doesn't really solve the problem. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment of rankings in general, but don't you agree that one citation is better than none? --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 17:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
In general, I wouldn't disagree with that; we often give one or more partial assessments where there's no Absolute Standard, e.g. in discussing the critical reception of books, plays, films, music and art, or the reputations of historical figures. I was objecting more to using any one such ranking to make choices for the editors or readers. We would, for example, be perfectly justified in making sure that we have sound biographies of every Nobel, Booker and Pulitzer Prize winner, but we shouldn't make those the only criteria for listing 20th-century writers or physicists. Station1's language suggested that he was going to do that with the ARWU, but all I see so far is just a welcome toning down of the troublesome "world-class" label. [N.B., I crossed out University of Berlin in my previous coment because I'd forgotten to scan ARWU for the Free University of Berlin, which is indeed listed.] —— Shakescene (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
In that regard, I agree completely. It shouldn't be the only standard, but a standard. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 22:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 Census numbers released today

See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/nyregion/25census.html ScottyBerg (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of New York

1698 4,937 — 1712 5,840 18.3% 1723 7,248 24.1% 1737 10,664 47.1% 1746 11,717 9.9% 1756 13,046 11.3% 1771 21,863 67.6% 1790 49,401 126.0% 1800 79,216 60.4% 1810 119,734 51.1% 1820 152,056 27.0% 1830 242,278 59.3% 1840 391,114 61.4% 1850 696,115 78.0% 1860 1,174,779 68.8% 1870 1,478,103 25.8% 1880 1,911,698 29.3% 1890 2,507,414 31.2% 1900 3,437,202 37.1% 1910 4,766,883 38.7% 1920 5,620,048 17.9% 1930 6,930,446 23.3% 1940 7,454,995 7.6% 1950 7,891,957 5.9% 1960 7,781,984 −1.4% 1970 7,894,862 1.5% 1980 7,071,639 −10.4% 1990 7,322,564 3.5% 2000 8,008,288 9.4% 2010 8,175,133 2.1%

The information about the population of 2010 is wrong. The right number is somewhere around 8,5 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOE4ce (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the number probably is wrong, as many have pointed out. The fact that the number is disputed needs to be in the article. However, in the chart we have to go with the census. Census data is always wrong. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Demographics 2009-2010

New York's population on July 1, 2009, to be 8,391,881 2000 8,008,288 9.4% 2010 8,175,133 2.1%

The text says that the population in 2009 was 8,391,881 and in 2010 8,175,133. Has the population from 2009-2010 desent, or is the information about the population in 2009 wrong? -I do appologize if my English isn't correct :)- — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOE4ce (talk • contribs) 20:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ellis Island

Should it be mentioned that as many as 4 in 10 Americans have ancestors who came through Ellis Island? That seems like it would be worth mentioning.[2][3][4] PShula (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done That kind of detail belongs to the specific article on Ellis island.--Obsidi♠nSoul 12:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

black and hispanic crime victims

As I was reading through the article, I came across this statement: "95.1% of all murder victims and 95.9% of all shooting victims in New York City are black or Hispanic."

While true, I think it's potentially deceptive unless supplied by the fact that these two groups are also the main crime perpetrators, as the statement implies some sort of bias against them. Moreover, i believe that it's not appropriate to lump the two groups together since they have different rates of both crime and victimhood; instead, i propose to give the rates for each separately.--69.121.51.151 (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Only, and I mean only, if it's well sourced. The potential for a conflict is just too high as people dispute the breakdown for what ever reasons. I say draft it in your sandbox first, and then copy it to this talk page before actually adding it to the article. oknazevad (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I can find sources, but I'm unable to work with inline citations.--69.121.51.151 (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"Though blacks, 24 percent of New York City’s population, committed 68.5 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in the city last year, according to victims and witnesses", taken from http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-04-02hm.html and this from http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/YearEnd2008EnforcementReport.pdf --69.121.51.151 (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The sources look good. Check out WP:Manual of Style (footnotes) for the "how to"s of adding them. oknazevad (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Images

What do people think of replacing the image of Lower Manhattan with a more updated image depicting the rise of the new World Trade Center building? Castncoot (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I took awhile to see this, but I'm assuming you're referring to the intro montage? The problem is that I haven't found any more recent pictures of Lower Manhattan that would work better there. As soon as One World Trade Center is topped-off though, I think the montage will definetly need to include it. Anyway, if you have a better picture in the meantime, please feel to share it. --Jleon (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, any possibility of replacing the bottom two images in the montage with perhaps more "attractive" images? There's a nice nighttime picture of the Brooklyn Bridge with the arches more "face on" and with the nighttime Lower Manhattan skyline in the background in the Brooklyn Bridge article, for example. There's also a nice picture of Koreatown structures in the Koreatown, Manhattan article. Just suggestions, that's all. I think it'll be awhile before the One WTC is topped off. Castncoot (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How can this be?

The New York City metropolitan area is home to the largest Jewish community outside Israel, and the city proper contains the largest Jewish community in the world. A bit of a contradiction here? How can the metropolitan area contain the largest Jewish community outside of Israel, yet the city proper contain the largest Jewish community in the world? Something's not right here. Anoldtreeok (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The city is part of the metro area. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, but saying it is "the largest outside of Israel" means (or implies) the Jewish community in Israel is larger, so how can New York's be the largest in the world? Not to mention, the wording also implies that the city proper has more Jews than the metro area, which just isn't possible, unless you want to argue the city proper isn't part of the metro area, but no one's going to do that. Anoldtreeok (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Quite confusing indeed. the city proper contains the largest Jewish community in the world needs to be clarified. in the world? Am I reading it wrong, or are the words wrong? Yes Michael? •Talk 15:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see your point. Read it too quickly. This needs to be rephrased. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Yep. According to Wikipedia, which as we all know is never wrong, a Metropolitan area is a region consisting of a populous urban core with a high density of employment plus surrounding territory that is socio-economically linked to the urban core by commuting. Something needs to be done here. Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, to be begin with, the source link is dead, and the language seems to conflict with what's in American Jews. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Also contradicts Demographics of New York City. I've removed the second part of the phrase. The source in American Jews is not very good, and is old. I'm sure something better can be found. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Importance of Stonewall Image, Caption, and Tagged Reference

Out of respect for the other editors and for the system, the following is a discussion about the Stonewall image, caption, and tagged reference which were deleted by two separate editors. It would be remiss to speculate upon their agendas, so let's give these editors the benefit of the doubt instead and deal with the subject matter and the technicalities themselves.

First of all, one editor remarked that the subject was irrelevant. This could not be further from the truth. The Stonewall Rebellion was a sentinel moment and a cry heard around the world for the LGBT community. It was additionally an important milestone in the archives of the history of New York City, which is the topic of this article.

More importantly, the second editor remarked that he has concerns about a potential WP:UNDUE issue. The statement of the caption was not something derived from my own opinion but rather a statement referenced directly from an official U.S. government website, namely that of the United States Department of the Interior's National Park Service. This thereby represents de facto the 300 million constituents of the United States and in no way can be misconstrued as a fringe viewpoint.

Clearly there is enough relevance, importance, and value to the image, caption, and certainly the tagged reference that they belong in the article in a prominent fashion, whether in the lede or adjacent to the National Park System section. And from a technical standpoint, this edit meets WP:NPOV criteria acceptably, for the reasons stated above.

If there is any significant disagreement here, this issue will need to be referred to WP:Administrators, given the gravitas involved. Castncoot (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all I really don't appreciate the tone of above posting, which clearly implies that opposition to the insertion of this photo - the issue at hand is insertion, not deletion as suggested above - is likely to demonstrate homophobia.
In my view this is perhaps an important issue/image for the LGBT community, but viewing New York City and its overall history in the round I personally feel that its insertion is WP:UNDUE and its presence would be soapboxing. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I was careful not to state the issue of homophobia - in fact, you are the one who has brought it up. There, in fact, could be other random agendas at play.
Also, why would you interpret insertion of this material to represent soapboxing? For goodness sake, the Stonewall Inn has been designated a National Historic Landmark by the United States federal government. I don't know which country you hail from or if you therefore realize the official and legal significance of this designation. The reason behind the designation is obviously one of historical significance for the United States. Certainly the riots associated with Stonewall in the 1960s carried major historical significance for New York City as well, as police were involved, if you are familiar with New York City's history. Not only that, but the caption was literally a restatement of the content of the referenced article (which I don't know if you read), which again, was derived from an official U.S. government website. Also, the reference was sourced and tagged clearly and appropriately.
Finally, I'm sure you don't have a problem with the actual image itself. The LGBT community plays a highly significant and visible presence in New York City's civic fabric, as it does in certain other cities around the world. The picture also alludes to the Stonewall uprising, a factual historical event.
In circumspect, insertion of the content in question does not carry any bias or promote any political viewpoint. On the contrary, it is actually benign and simply brings attention to an issue with historical and current significance to NYC and the United States, and it therefore deserves its small share of Wikispace in this article. There are other images in the article which carry far less significance. Deleting Stonewall completely as if it never happened or existed, on the other hand, would be remiss.
Castncoot (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
"There, in fact, could be other random agendas at play." No, there is no agenda at play at all.
"The LGBT community plays a highly significant and visible presence in New York City's civic fabric, as it does in certain other cities around the world." No doubt, but there are a vast number of self-identifying minority groups in New York City. A few notable examples include Irish, Hispanic, Italian, Jewish and Black but there are a great deal more. In my view it is undue to single out one minority group in this way. Your comments make it very clear that you believe the picture to be worthy of inclusion because it represents this community.
"I don't know which country you hail from or if you therefore realize the official and legal significance of this designation." The country I come from is completely irrelevant but I am aware that there are 107 other National Historic Landmarks n New York City: List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Good, now I think we're getting somewhere with a productive discussion.
1) First of all, I'm glad to hear that there are no underlying agendas. In fact, my only agenda is completeness and fairness. That should be evident from all of my other edits in this article.
2) You're correct, NYC has a vast number of self-identifying minority groups. And, in fact, many, if not most of these ARE each appropriately referenced to some extent in the Demographics section. The Harlem Renaissance and salsa music, presumably alluding to the significance of certain minority groups, are additionally mentioned in the Culture section, also appropriate. And representative pictures of groups with a critical mass are absolutely appropriate. However, the LGBT community, representing perhaps up to 10% of the city's population, is devoid of any such appropriate representation in the article. Appears to be a double standard here, hmmm?
3) The Stonewall Rebellion actually represented a significant historical EVENT, similar to the Los Angeles riots of 1992, and deserves attention on that basis alone.
4) No, I couldn't care less what country you are from - you appear to have taken that remark out of the original context.
5) The article contains several images which have limited global applicability or significance to the city, while the picture in question actually deserves its share of Wikispace from that standpoint.
Let's see how we can work together constructively on this matter before having to refer it to the administrative level.
Would you be amenable to the picture with the amended caption, "The Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, an officially designated National Historic Landmark" as the site of rioting for gay rights in 1969", and then referenced with the same official U.S. Department of the Interior reference?
Castncoot (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
If this was a book on the City rather than an article then there might be room for a detailed treatment of each minority group, with a photo for each, but in a WP article space is limited. I also take the approach that article contents, and particular image selection, should be decided very much on merits rather than to fulfil quotas or to tick boxes. Taken purely on its own merits I personally don't feel that this building is significant enough to merit a photo. I accept that this is subjective however and am interested to hear what other editors have to say on this. And as a general rule I don't support the inclusion of images in articles to satisfy quotas of any kind, be they of race, sex, age, sexual orientation, religion or any other. I am against the idea of a photo being included to represent the LGBT community in the same way that I would be against the inclusion of a Hispanic person to represent the Hispanic community. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The flaw in your argument above is that the picture represents a historically significant EVENT as much as anything else, an event the magnitude of which has NOT occurred with respect to each of various other minority groups in New York City - I honestly should not have to repeat this again. We'll leave it up to comment for a couple of days and then go from there.
Castncoot (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
That the building is connected to historical events is not disputed, hence why it is a National Historic Landmark. However the same applies to the other 107 National Historic Landmarks in the City. And the City has of course witnessed a great many historical events which are not marked by a National Historic Landmark.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

By that line of reasoning, then why even have any pictures at all, save for the absolutely most important icons of the City? Likewise then, does the picture of the historic Battery Weed need to be up there mentioned as a part of the National Park System? That picture doesn't even have the human dimension or significance reflective of any critical mass that the Stonewall picture has. Likewise is true with a number of pics in the article. New York is home to all of the world's cuisines, and natively, there's New York cheesecake, New York steak, Long Island iced tea, etc., yet New York-style pizza is singled out in an image. If WP space is supposedly such a precious commodity, then the Stonewall picture should replace the Battery Weed picture. We can circle round and round endlessly with these arguments. The bottom line is that the Stonewall picture adds significant factual value and human dimension to the article which can be captioned in a constructive way to satisfy a consensus. I feel that we should try to work toward that consensus. Castncoot (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC) OK, 3 days have passed since the inception of this civilized discussion, and despite ample time and opportunity, there has been no apparent organized opposition against my proposal - so let's give it another try, being open-minded, with an amended caption which I suspect that MOST reasonable people would find to represent a factually neutral and significant historical assessment. Now the same courtesy should be afforded to the side supporting this proposal - at this advanced point, bad faith reversions without discussion will need to be referred to the administrative level. Castncoot (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

3rd most walkable city in the nation.

New York City, in addition to having a tremendously used mass transit system, has been recognized as the third most walkable city in the nation. CNBC dubbed the city, with this title, in April 2011. [1] Laurenrose3091 (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to nominate an insertion into the history section of this page

The creation of The New York Community Trust -- New York City's community foundation


1920: Frank J. Parsons, vice president of the United States Mortgage and Trust Company, began speaking about starting a community foundation in New York. In his words, “the charitable problems of each generation can better be solved by the best minds of these generations rather than through the medium of the dead hand of the past.”

1924: The New York Community Trust is founded Parsons invited 20 banks to serve as the Trustees’ Committee, 11 of which adopted the Resolution and Declaration of Trust Creating "The New York Community Trust." Alvin W. Krech, president of the Equitable Trust Company, is chairman of the trustees’ committee. An 11-member distribution committee was then appointed with Thomas Williams as chairman. 

   Thomas Williams, chairman.
   Ralph Hayes, director.
   John Giraud Agar, appointed by the president of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.
   Dr. Walter B. James, appointed by the president of the New York Academy of Medicine.
   Clarence H. Kelsey, appointed by president of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York.
   Judge E. Henry Lacombe, appointed by senior judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
   Charles J. Peabody, appointed by president of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences.
   Mrs. August Belmont, appointed by Trustees.
   Homer Folks, appointed by Trustees.
   Ernest Iselin, appointed by Trustees.
   Felix M. Warburg, appointed by Trustees.

(Aw11232 (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC))

There have been dozens of charitable foundations based in and focused on New York City. Nothing here indicates that this one is particularly notable above any other. Is the trust still around? Have they accomplish something notable? What part of the article, specifically, should mention it? What form should the mention take?
Without answers to these questions, any inclusion would be of questionable value, as they would provide no context to the reader. oknazevad (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sister Cities

What's gone wrong with the "sister cities" section? Text says there are ten, list has eleven items. 79.123.57.130 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Information comes from here. At this list Tel Aviv is not mentioned. So where does it come from? --Pilettes (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it. Was a blatant error. AndyJones (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the delinquent. Should be deleted in the Tel Aviv article too. --Pilettes (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is a .pdf about Global Partners of Tel Aviv and here they talk about something similar. But it seems they are no twin cities (compare with the other cities where the twin cities are named explicit. --Pilettes (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone's just re-inserted Tel Aviv without a citation. I'm astonished how over the last three years, this section, which is quite peripheral to its very important subject and which one might suppose to be pretty clear-cut and stable, has attracted some of the greatest conflict and revision. (Look through the archives of this talk page.) Maybe we have to go through the tedious process of putting this up for comment in order to establish a consensus about what constitutes a twin or sister city. Or we could continue this slow, leisurely edit war, one skirmish a week, at least until someone revives the issue of England vs UK or of appropriate flag icons or of dates or of Gauteng vs Transvaal or of which China? [And believe me, I have not the slightest desire to raise any of those here; anyone who does should start a separate subsection.] —— Shakescene (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
There's no real conflict here, just a single editor who refuses to engage in discussion and keeps reinserting Tel Aviv despite it's removal by multiple editors with annexplanation to see the talk page. Any reinsertion at this point can be considered tendentious editing and should be reverted on sight. oknazevad (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

New York as the "Financial Capital of the World"?

I believe the statement that NYC is the financial capital of the world to be incorrect; indeed the sources cited for this statement are commonly editorials based on individual events and opinion. When examined by objective studies measuring multiple indices, it is clear that London is the top global financial centre [2], the world's most economically powerful city [3] and the top worldwide centre of commerce [4], ergo the financial capital of the world. It appears that this title has been taken from New York City for quite some time and I am surprised it has not yet been updated on Wikipedia.

--95.144.14.174 (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be more opinion than fact. Please submit proof that the London Financial center is larger then NYC. The NY Stock exchange trade nearly 3 times of the London exchange. I would really like to hear the point though, Jacob805 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There will no doubt be multiple sources declaring New York or London the financial, economic, etc. "Center of the World." We need to find the most reliable sources when adding this statement. It may be more helpful, and create less conflict, to say "along with London." 08OceanBeachS.D. 18:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
So what you're trying to say is that whenever an analyst says that New York *is* or *remains* the largest financial center in the world, it's just a biased opinion, but whenever someone says that London is the top financial center, then it is an indisputable fact of nature? You're a joke. It's funny how the one source you cite that is actually from this year is (drum roll, please) the UK Government's Professional and Services Group. I wonder whether they have any interest in promoting London as the world's financial capital. And you accuse the sources of being editorials based on opinion and THEN give us a Forbes list as a source? Please, for the love of Mike, you're being utterly ridiculous here.
I contend that for every source that you find saying that London is the world's financial capital, you'll find two or three saying that New York is. But if you're so offended, go get better sources to back up your statements; sources that are (a) unbiased and (b) pass the "editorials based on opinion" test that you so eagerly applied to the sources that said that New York remains the world's capital. The fact of the matter is that by nearly any objective metric, New York has a far bigger and more important city economy than London. But if you can't sleep at night so long as Wikipedia claims that New York IS the one financial capital (which is what those links claim, too), I won't dispute it if it is reverted to "alongside London." As a matter of fact, go ahead and take the title for you and your city, for all that it matters. Let's see what real-world repercussions that title will bring to London. Let's see if it helps London narrow the gap between it and New York City in terms of GDP, GDP Per Capita, average salaries, hedge funds, equity firms, stock market capitalization, stock exchange daily trading value, or so many other things. I doubt so, I mean, the gap between New York and London is, after all, considerably large in many of those measurements, but again, if it makes you happy to be hailed as the "Financial Capital of the World," go ahead and take that moniker right off New York's face. Maybe that will shift the world's eyes from New York to London once and for all... if only a little bit.--128.42.156.59 (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, I saw no mention of objective "indices" in the "objective study" that the UK Gov't Professional and Services Group provided. If you ask me, their metrics are much more opinion-based than anything that has been said in favor of New York. I see many "global," "diverse," "connected," and "transnational" stuff there. The problem with the idea that the more transnational a city is, the more important its economy is that it is a completely biased, therefore invalid, logic. London has at least 7 different countries within a 700-km radius. New York City's only foreign country at that distance is Canada. And make no mistake, I'm not trying to highlight a geographical advantage that London has to justify its alleged edge over New York. I'm saying that since the distinction between countries and country subdivisions is a completely artificial creation, it is absolutely invalid to say that London is the more meritorious city because more of its business comes from overseas or that more currency exchanges are performed there, or that more "transnational" things happen there. What if each US state were officially considered a country? New York City would suddenly skyrocket way past London in terms of "transnationality." And who says that 20 million Europeans and Middle Easterners are more qualified to make the city they do business in the "world's financial capital" than 20 million people from different US states, let alone when the latter work with larger amounts of money? This is exactly why London Heathrow CANNOT be considered the world's largest airport, just because it has the most international passengers going through its gates. Atlanta's Hartsfield Jackson sees a LOT more passengers annually, therefore it is LARGER. A passenger flying from London to Paris is not worth more kudos than one flying from Atlanta to Seattle, just because he's traveling between countries. But leave it to the UK Gov't Prof. and Serv. Group to say that Heathrow is more transnational, therefore it ranks number one, and that more dollars are exchanged for euros there than in ATL, therefore it is more important.--128.42.155.110 (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow, well thanks for that aggressive response right there. I think you misunderstood my motivation for the change of wording: I feel that the sources cited for this statement are weak and that it is not inline with other articles (the London page lists as 'alongside New York City', and as you are aware, the Financial Centres article). I can however see that the objective measurement of what constitutes a 'Financial Capital' to be controversial, with each respective government measuring different attributes to make their city appear superior. But then every city cannot have this accolade, thus continuity throughout Wikipedia should be observed, hence my request that the wording be changed. I was hoping to stimulate civilised discussion on the matter (rather than an attack) as I do not currently have the time to find the best sources, but I guess I should have known better when dealing with anonymous contributors such as your good self.82.26.227.23 (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to go ahead and own up to this little tirade. I spoke under a number because I forgot to log in, not because I felt the condition of anonymity allowed me to be more aggressive. And yes, it was very excessive, and for that I apologize. It's just that I'm a little sick of the double standard some Wikipedia editors and the larger Internet community have seemed to accept and adopt, where any statement that reflects America's dominant or advantaged position at anything has to be filtered through thousands of accusations of "patriotism," "bias," "ignorance" (that's a big one), "ethnocentrism," "nationalism," "imperialism," "being-an-uneducated-American-ism," "redneckism," et cetera (some folks like to throw in words they don't know well but sound fancy, such as "chauvinism" or even "jingoism"), whereas any statement that reflects Europe's progress contrasted to America's deficiencies is hailed as myth-busting, enlightening Divine revelation. This, once again, may seem a little excessive to you, but think about it, your "pro–New York articles are opinion-based and pro-London articles are fact-based" argument seemed to reflect that mindset very well. But you're completely right, I shouldn't have been that aggressive, and I shouldn't have just assumed that you were one of those hypocrites. I did not know your reasons to complain about the wording in this article and don't know them yet. Plus, whatever they were, they don't revolve about such an important issue as to deserve my rant. In my defense, I'll just say that my points (minus the attacks) still stand, and I do think that it is very much justified to call the City of New York the "Financial Capital of the World." Have a great day and sorry for taking so long to get back to you.--AndresTM (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The financial centre page on Wikipedia only shows three lists with London on top of each. I am the first to agree that New York very well MAY be the top dog, but as it is at the least contended, the current phrasing is to strong. Some other wording would be better —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.73.89 (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I believe the current wording is clearly justified and absolutely verifiable. No reason for change at this time.Castncoot (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

New montage image

Since a number of people have complained about the montage's Lower Manhattan picture as being bland or unflattering, I decided to make three proposed alternative images and I'm posting them here to get people's opinions. So what does everyone think? I'm willing to try other ideas, but it would be best if you post the actual picture(s) that you want included. --Jleon (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

1
2
3

As I answered on my own Talk page, you've done a good job with these - I think #3 is best, followed by #2. If we don't hear vehement oppostion over the next day or two, perhaps we should go ahead and substitute the current image with #3. Castncoot (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I also favor montage number three. 08OceanBeachS.D. 04:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. 3 is my favorite too. I guess if nobody voices an objection, we can switch it over . --Jleon (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I think 3 is my favorite. Altho the top skyline image is pretty bad. Can a forth option be made with a better top image ? UrbanNerd (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but what image would you suggest? --Jleon (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what UrbanNerd (talk) is missing is the Empire State Building in the Midtown skyline. In other words, a prominent skyscraper towering over and distinguishable from the rest. Even the Chrysler Building is difficult to discern until looking closely. Perhaps though, Jleon (talk), you could go ahead and replace the current montage with picture #3 (with a caption such as "Brooklyn Bridge and Lower Manhattan"), and then subsequently explore the possibility of finding another Midtown image. Castncoot (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Even an image of Lower Manhattan would suffice, such as this image - File:Lower Manhattan from Staten Island Ferry Corrected Jan 2006.jpg. 08OceanBeachS.D. 19:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is a very nice image of Lower Manhattan. However, the Brooklyn Bridge is shown but with arches not visualized. Somehow, I still prefer Choice #3 above because of the nighttime view. If there is no significant objection by anybody to replacing the current montage with Choice #3, then I feel we could make this replacement. Castncoot (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I made the change. A few things to keep in mind though: One WTC will be topping off by the end of this year, so we may want to change the Lower Manhattan picture again relatively soon (this one also doesn't show the Beekman tower). Also, I think the best picture of Midtown would be a profile of the skyline from across one of the rivers, but I haven't yet found one that is really good. If anyone does, please post it here or on my talk page. Thanks. --Jleon (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The new montage looks good, and your suggestion sounds good. Since the East River is narrower than the Hudson River, the Midtown skyline views from Queens tend to be much more impressive than from New Jersey - just a suggestion. Castncoot (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ak80girl, 15 July 2011

In the introductory paragraph, the population of the metro NYC area is stated as 18.6 million. The reference link on the bottom of the page, to the US Census Bureau, states the population of the ENTIRE STATE of New York as 18.6 million. The population of the city itself is 8,391,881 according to [5] This page also lists the 18.6 million figure as relating to the entire state, not just the city.

Ak80girl (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, to explain to you, the New York City Metropolitan Area can be defined either as a Metropolitan Statistical Area of approximately 19 million people or as a Combined Statistical Area containing approximately 22 million. In both cases, these entities include population elements from adjacent areas in neighboring states, most significantly New Jersey, and therefore bear no direct relationship to the population figure quoted for the State of New York itself. Hope that answers your question. Castncoot (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jthomerson, 31 July 2011

I believe that the first two sentences of the paragraph talking about the city's land mass are redundant in their wording. They currently state (emphasis mine):

The city's land area is estimated at 304.8 square miles (789 km2).[23][24] Its total area is 468.9 square miles (1,214 km2). 164.1 square miles (425 km2) of this are water and 304.8 square miles (789 km2) is land.

I think they might be better worded as a single sentence such as:

The city's total area is estimated at 468.9 square miles (1,214 km2), with 164.1 square miles (425 km2) of this as water and 304.8 square miles (789 km2) as land[23][24].

Of course, the "[23][24]" will need to be the appropriate reference sources (taken from the original first sentence). Jthomerson (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New York which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 14:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Parks in New York City

I believe that one of the major parks in New York City was left out of this article. The park is Forest Park in Queens.

This park has Park Lane South in Richmond Hill as one of its boundaries. It also has a co-op complex within it, consisting of 4 six-story buildings and a guardhouse. The complex is Hampton Court, formerly known as Kent Manor. It is one of the few areas where people are actually living within a park.

I know of this because I live at Hampton Court.

Another famous, but not quite so large park, is Gramercy Park in Manhattan.

Sincerely 207.237.27.98 (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Ms. Billie M. Spaight

Climate of New York City

Hello,

I read the climate saying that winters are cold and damp. Damp means cloudy. NYC has definetely not cloudy winters since more than half of the winter days brings sunshine. If NYC had more than 80% of winter days cloudy, then it might have been considered cloudy. Winters are also not always cold, because same days could be mild and reach 50s and 60s, so it should say usually cold.

Sunshine amount should say 2500 hours (according to the chart), and not between 2400 - 2800 hours or whatever it says on the article. --New 2012 York (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that the use of "damp" in terms of a NYC winter isn't necessarily the best way to describe it, your definition of "damp" is not correct. The terms "damp" and "cloudy" are not at all related. "Damp" simply means that something is moist, or slightly wet. You can make an argument that NYC winters tend to be a bit on the moist or slightly wet side, at least compared to areas further inland like Chicago or Detroit. Winter precipitation is much greater along the coast than inland (while in summer higher amounts are distributed much further west away from the coast). Famartin (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Damp, or "slightly wet" is true in every season in NYC, and not only in winter. There are some wet weather year-round, like most other U.S. cities. It should be changed and exclude the word damp.. --New 2012 York (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cut the crap!! New York is COLD in the winter! Anyplace were there is consistent snow on the ground, hats and gloves and scarfs must be worn throughout winter, ice skating outside, and blizzards have been known to shut down the city is termed a cold winter. Who cares if on a rare day the temperature goes to the 50s and 60s. HELLO, that happens in Chicago too during the winter. New York's winter is not like, say Atlanta's, which is kinda cold but not overly cold. And guess what, I'm gonna tell it like it is. From what I've noticed, New York may have an average of 5-10 degrees warmer winter days than Chicago (some days, however, New York could be colder). But what does that matter? Chicago is 26 degrees on a particular day and New York is 32 on the same day. Cold is cold. That doesn't make New York warm just because its WARMER than Chicago on that day. Also New York gets less sunshine than Chicago during the winter (New York has more cloudy days) and more precipitation (rain and snow) than Chicago. So that's the trade off. Anyone who doesn't like being cold in the winter would never say "lets move to New York City". Stop trying to act like New York defies everything logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


I've never heard someone say, "honey, let's move somewhere that has warm winters like Phoenix, Miami, Los Angeles, or New York City". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Kind of misleading

This article says a lot of thing like the city has the most number of this type of people, or the most number of this type of thing, or the fewest cars owned, etc. But that's misleading. New York City has 8 million people so obviously it should have a higher flat number of things. But on a per capita basis it doesn't lead the nation in everything, and that's what this article is trying to do. For instance, let's make something up. If New York City has 30 museums, this article is written in the vain of... "New York" has the most amount of museums". But lets say a different American city has 14 museums, but a population of 3 million people. Then on a per capita basis New York City does not have the most. But this article leaves things out like that. I love New York, and although it has the highest sheer number of many things (which should be expected because it has 8 million people) it doesn't lead everything on a per capita basis and I think that should be pointed out sometimes. -Also, New Yorkers don't own the least amount of cars because they are so green and care about the environment. Its because its so expensive to live there, such as housing, that car are unaffordable to most people; not to mention the fact that there would be nowhere to park. If house costs and rent were slashed in half, you would see a whole lot more car owners in New York City, so lets not try to imply they are more greener than people in other cities. That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I don’t see how anybody is going to mistake total numbers with per capita ones. Secondly, there are good reasons why per capita numbers are not commonly used for many things (every instance would be claimed by a small town with two of whatever it is). As far as cars are concerned: the article is only indicating that the lifestyle of the average New Yorker has a comparatively low impact on the environment, but it makes no suggestion at all that those people are consciously trying to be “green.” --Jleon (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

New York's sister cities

As mentioned in List of Israeli twin towns and sister cities and in Tel Aviv New York is a sister city of Tel Aviv which is not mentioned in the New York article. Please edit the article and add Tel Aviv to the Sister Cities table. 79.176.39.22 (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see the archived discussion here: Talk:New York City/Archive 13#Sister Cities —— Shakescene (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Lower Manhattan at night panoramic.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lower Manhattan at night panoramic.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Surprised

Skimming over the article, I am very surprised that there is not a photo of the airplanes being slammed into the twin towers of World Trade Center or a photo of Ground Zero. This was a very important period of New York City's history and it just seems odd that besides a brief mentioning of this terrible tragedy, there isn't a photo to highlight just how important 9/11 was. Yoganate79 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed: the events of 9/11 heavily influenced New York ever since they occurred. In my opinion a photo like this should be added (I would add it myself if I was autoconfirmed). Level Crossing (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 175 hits the south tower of the World Trade Center

Done, picture added. Level Crossing (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 121.13.138.76, 30 September 2011

I think there are mistakes on the size of New York City. Overall New York City sizes is around 800 km2 including, the Manhattan, Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/AtiyaDixon.shtml Zuijiadeai (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't see the problem. The article says "a land area of just 305 square miles (790 km2)". Is 790 not "around 800"? Powers T 17:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

To Do List

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with the TO DO list suggested by another editor. I believe you can't have such a cookie-cutter recipe for all different types of articles. City and state articles, for example, represent a totally different animal from scientific or biographic articles and need to have a (relatively) longer, stronger, more detailed, and more well-cited lead section. Also, more illustration is absolutely justified in these articles without being mislabeled as galleries. This crucial distinction needs to be recognized and the algorithms for different kinds of Wikipedia articles created in great detail before one editor decides to revamp a longstandingly constructed and consensused article. Castncoot (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I was the editor who made the to-do list. I was using the recent peer review as a source for the list. OIFA (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

City's Annual Budget and management?

I came here looking for information on NY City's budget and annual expenses, but found nothing. Since NYC is a City-State type munipiciality it would be helpful if some one could add the information to the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilowattradio (talk • contribs) 04:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of the information might be found at Government of New York City. It's difficult to fit everything in this article, but it might be a good idea to add a sentence or two on finances. Station1 (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Lowest temperature ever recorded in New York City

This article says that the lowest temperature ever recorded in New York City was -15 degrees Fahrenheit. However, in the article Year Without a Summer, there is a sourced mention of temperatures in New York dropping to -26 degrees Farenheit. Which article is correct? Trektosaturday (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The lowest temperature ever recorded at the official climate station in Central Park was -15 degrees. Data from Central Park goes back to 1869. Since the Year without a Summer was long before the government kept official weather and climate records, I don't know if it is considered official. Famartin (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clearing that up! Trektosaturday (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Montage change

User Bleff added a new montage to the article's intro. Since changes like this have always been discussed here first, I just thought I should open this up for an informal vote between the previous and current images. So which do people prefer? Personally, I have a slight preference for the previous one, but I'm not exactly impartial since I had created the image myself. --Jleon (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Previous
Current
I prefer the first one, if only because it seems neater if that makes sense. I also think picture choice is better in the first. Anoldtreeok (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit that I overall prefer the second (current) one, especially the lead skyline picture of Midtown - VERY impressive picture. However, the Brooklyn Bridge picture doesn't show the arches well face-on, which tends to be slightly irksome to me. Castncoot (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The more time passes, the more the current montage grows on me. However, it is very important to keep in mind that the montage, unlike the rest of the article, is entirely preference-based and has no "right" answer. And since New York, being so diverse and multi-dimensional, has so many facets, "moods", and places to showcase, I suspect that the montage itself will (and probably should) change every few months anyway. So Jleon (talk) (and anybody else), we'll keep you continuously on your toes! Castncoot (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I certainly have no problem with it being changed periodically. The current image is very nice, though I think it could have used a little bit more work in terms of its composition and the cropping of the pictures. Maybe we can wait and see if anyone else feels strongly about it. --Jleon (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the first montage's layout but the second montage has much better photos (except the Brooklyn Bridge and the U.N.). My main concern with both montages is that they are predominately Manhattan-based. Powers T 13:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Both have their own strengths. I think the Unisphere picture on the new one is much better, as well as the Statue of Liberty one. The new Midtown Manhattan picture is perhaps lacking in resolution, and the UN Headquarters one is not as imposing as the previous one. The nighttime shot of the Brooklyn Bridge on the previous one was likewise much more impressive and added darker tones to a very daylight-oriented montage. In my opinion we should keep the current one, for the sake of variety, but improvements are always more than welcome, and Midtown Manhattan could definitely use some pixels up there. Good job on both, though.--AndresTM (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article?

Is anyone else interested in getting this to good article status or maybe even featured article status again? Since it is one of the most viewed articles on Wikipedia (an average of 20k views a day), it should be the best it can be. If someone could help by pin-pointing all the problems that keep this article from at least a good article status I could get to work right away trying to fix it. But I don't know where to start. Also, how do you get an article re-reviewed for GA status? Cadiomals (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, one way would be not to remove longstanding salient historical images such as of the Stonewall Rebellion and not to selectively remove images of certain baseball teams and bridges without any apparent discriminate logic, while leaving cheese pizza intact. Images have therefore been restored. Castncoot (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If you actually look at the message above regarding just that, I provide a full rationale of why I selected these images for removal, and there have already been users who agree with me but are unsure of which images can be removed. You make it seem as though I'm trying to sabotage this article when my contributions are in complete good faith. Besides, your reply to this message does not even address what I'm talking about, its just sounds like a bitter attack on my person. Maybe your reply would been more relevant one message up. Cadiomals (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Certainly no attack on the person, I don't even know or care who you are - but certainly a deep questioning of the logic and judgement used in the specific edits involved. I'm also not quite sure what people think of the Ellis Island monument picture replacing the previous picture of the Statue of Liberty with the former Twin Towers in the background - personally, I preferred the other picture. And you may have gone just a bit overboard in the de-linking of the lede. Castncoot (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
"a deep questioning of the logic and judgement used"
Is it really that hard to see why I removed some images? There were getting to be too many. The text was becoming cramped and the article was beginning to look sloppy and disorganized. We can't expect to add every image of something we think is important, we have to select only the most significant images. New York style pizza is a cuisine that is unique to that city, and it is the only picture in that section. Allow me to simply copy and paste my reply to the message above to this one for my rationale on everything else:
I honestly don't care which images are chosen to stay or go as long as in the end no more images are added. The reason I chose the GW bridge to stay was because it is the busiest bridge in the world, so it may be more significant. The reason I removed Citi field as opposed to Yankee stadium was because I didn't want two similar images of baseball fields to take up room next to each other, and the Yankees are simply more famous than the Mets. I also removed the US open picture because we already had a picture of a sports field (Yankee stadium) and I didn't want two similar pictures, so I chose to keep the marathon pic for more variety. I just don't want pictures taking up so much room and squishing the text, it's an eyesore. And we can't include everything. In terms of the Brooklyn Bridge, I honestly don't care for it to be added in the transportation section. In my 20 years of having lived in New York I have only went on the Brooklyn Bridge a few times. The BB is more of a tourist icon than anything else. To me the GW bridge being the busiest bridge in the world is far more significant transportation-wise. Cadiomals (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The Stonewall image is not "longstanding", it was forced in despite consensus just last May by replacing a previous image of Battery Weed. It needs to go. So should the pizza. I have it on good authority that people in other cities already know what pizza looks like. Station1 (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree with you about the pizza, Station1 (talk) - the pizza should go. However, nearly three-quarters of a year qualifies as longstanding by Wikipedia time standards, and furthermore, the Stonewall image was maintained for good only after thorough vetting in the Talk section - check out the archives - and needs to stay. Stonewall represents a chronicle and a milestone in the City's history to the same extent as any other event, with the only more powerful exception being 9/11, of course. Castncoot (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, it's been removed by at least 3 separate editors and added by no one but you (4 times). No one supported it on the talk page except you. As important as Stonewall was to the gay rights movement - and it was important - to say that in the entire history of the entire city of New York this was second only to 9/11 is frankly ridiculous. It's not even an image of the riot, it's just a building. There is no consensus for this image in this article. Station1 (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Au contraire, check out the Talk archives for this article and you'll see the history of how it evolved and finally arrived at its present (modified) state by consensus after lack of opposition to a modified statement over an ample trial period. No one stated that this event and only this event was uniquely second to 9/11, only that none of the other featured images in the article (barring 9/11) represent events necessarily any MORE significant and far-reaching than Stonewall. Finally, the building is the Stonewall Inn, and the captioned reference cannot allude more clearly to the Stonewall Rebellion.Castncoot (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, what am I missing? I'm looking at Archive 13 and see a conversation between you and one other editor who strongly disagrees with you. You've been reverted 3 times so far. And if you think the 1664 British annexation of New Amsterdam, the Battle of Long Island, or the erection of midtown skyscapers in the 20th century are not of greater consequence to the overall history and development of New York (the topic of the article) than Stonewall, I don't think you'll find consensus for that either. Station1 (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, what you appear to be missing is the fact that the caption was changed to eliminate the other editor's objection on the discussion page, which obtained his apparent subsequent agreement, generating no subsequent opposition from him(her) or anyone else for a relatively generous period of time before then being restored into the article in its modified form. The caption is absolutely neutral, relevant, factually accurate, and well-cited. And yes, Stonewall has been far more consequential and relevant not only to present-day NYC but also to today's world than say, the Battle of Long Island, the addition of whose image has been much more recent, to say the least.Castncoot (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is about New York City. Stonewall is less relevant to the history of the City than the Battle of Long Island.NYCRuss ☎ 14:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess that's more a matter of opinion than the fact that they indeed are both relevant and significant to the history of the City itself. At least the Stonewall image has a valid citation. Fortunately, I think we're good now with the steps that have been taken to relieve the perceived image space crunch - that's the bigger "picture" here, pun fully intended. Castncoot (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The Stonewall image is still creating formatting issues. The history section has one picture too many, and that seems to me top be the least significant one. I believe that it should be removed. NYCRuss ☎ 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I see it's been moved to an irrelevant section, but it still needs to come out of the article. Few if any historians would agree that the Stonewall riots were more important than the Battle of Long Island (I could explain why but it would involve a long digression), and just because someone doesn't get in the last word on a talk page doesn't mean they've changed their opinion from disagree to agree. The Battle of Long Island pic at least shows part of the battle, whereas the Stonewall pic just shows the building years later, but the Battle pic can come out too as far as I'm concerned, because it also doesn't convey any unique info that isn't present in the text (btw, Stonewall does deserve a sentence in the text; there's no problem with the caption itself). Station1 (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep the Stonewall image in the history section. It shouldnt have been even moved out of the history section because its a very important part of the city's history itself. In no small part it is responsible for gay marriage being approved in New York City and New York State. So it has actually affected official city and state law, which affects everybody. It is appropriaetly and neutrally captioned and the building is an official historical landmark. So there simply is no POV issue here. I believe it should go back to the history section. 74.88.160.244 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I added a picture of a cluster of restaurants in Brooklyn Heights where the picture of pizza was. I believe that this makes the article better representative of the city as a whole, and that is relevant to where it is placed. NYCRuss ☎ 14:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It's better than pizza (well, better than a picture of pizza), but it really is kind of a generic street scene, used for illustration rather than to show something unique about NY. It could really be almost anywhere and I don't think we absolutely must have a photo there. Station1 (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I am glad I was able to trigger discussion and action regarding one of the numerous problems this article has. Now the article as a whole just seems cleaner and more organized with a few less significant images removed. However, I still don't think two very similar looking (and fairly large) images of bridges should be pictured next to each other. The transportation section is another section that has one too many images. Even the important subway pic tossed to the left throws the section off balance. I don't care which one you pick, I think one bridge should be tossed out. If you choose to keep the Verrazano I wouldn't care. Cadiomals (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I also think the picture shouldn't be so tall. Here are a few suggestions for alternative images that aren't so tall.
If we add one of these we can make enough room to move the subway pic to the right so the section is balanced. If these aren't satisfactory, you can always look for more at Wikimedia Commons. Cadiomals (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE ON IMAGE CHANGE: I don't think including Fort Wadsworth in the picture makes any sense at all and is irrelevant to the transportation section. I still think you should choose one of the images above. Cadiomals (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, I personally prefer the third one.Castncoot (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's see if I can reply (edit conflicts.) I changed it to one of the others. I just found this one that I like:
Toughts? NYCRuss ☎ 17:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I just replaced the image with this last one in the article, although the nighttime one still appeals to me the most, especially as there is no other nighttime bridge image in the article. What do others think? Castncoot (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The current one is too far away, the reader will be unable to clearly see the bridge. Close-ups that allow the reader to see distinguishing features are always the best, and I agree that the nighttime should be added (its pretty) Cadiomals (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, done. Castncoot (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The night time scene looks good. NYCRuss ☎ 21:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2012

Please change the picture caption New Amsterdam in 1664, the year Britain took control and renamed it "New York" to New Amsterdam in 1664, the year England took control and renamed it "New York". This is because Britain only came into existence in 1707 by the Act of Union. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_formation_of_the_United_Kingdom

86.31.209.20 (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Cadiomals (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Not much point in switching it back now, but Britain certainly existed before 1707, just not as a unified political entity. Wales and England were unified in the sixteenth century, so just saying "England" isn't entirely correct either. Powers T 22:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Except that the political unit WAS called "The Kingdom of England". Wales, sadly, had no part in the name, so it is proper to refer to it, short-form, as "England". "Great Britain" existed, but not as a country. That came later, with the Kingdom of Great Britain. --Golbez (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's not make a big deal of this and get technical, guys. In common language "Britain" and "England" are the same, so there's no point in even discussing it, especially for a small caption.Cadiomals (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Except there's a definite difference. For example, no one should say the United States declared independence from either England or the United Kingdom, it was the Kingdom of Great Britain at the time. Just because people incorrectly use England as a name for the entire country (and Holland for another country, etc.) doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow suit. --Golbez (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2012


79.141.2.154 (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No request made--Jac16888 Talk 12:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of images to reduce clutter

Cadiomals removed several images to reduce clutter. I believe that some of the images should be restored. In particular the pictures of Citi Field, the U.S. Open, and the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. I believe that these are iconic, and provide better balance to the article. NYCRuss ☎ 12:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cadiomals' edit. We can't show everything in one article and those images are hardly iconic. There are still too many images. They take a long time to load on slow connections and crowd small screens. Some are "pretty" but don't really add much info to the article. In any case that edit was a great start. Station1 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
If we are to reduce the pictures, I believe that Verrazano-Narrows Bridge is a better choice for the article than the George Wshington Bridge. It's more representative of the city in a number of ways: It connects two parts of the city, and the history of that bridge is closer to the heart of 20th century NYC history as a work of Robert Moses. I believe that the US Open would be a better choice than either baseball stadium. It is an event that is covered internationally, and that is associated with the city. NYCRuss ☎ 19:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
If we must have a bridge, I'd pick the Brooklyn Bridge, but everyone has their favorite. I'm not as concerned about switching one image for another as about not increasing the total number. Station1 (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The reason why I believe that is a good idea to find consensus about which pictures are displayed is to achieve stability for the article. That could be important if an effort is made to get this back to featured status. As far as the Brooklyn Bridge goes, how about this picture?
NYCRuss ☎ 19:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, 3 bridges for the price of one image - that does save space! Station1 (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
And the formatting with that picture looks better with the two adjent ones than either the GW Bridge or the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge do. NYCRuss ☎ 14:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I honestly don't care which images are chosen to stay or go as long as in the end no more images are added. The reason I chose the GW bridge to stay was because it is the busiest bridge in the world, so it may be more significant. The reason I removed Citi field as opposed to Yankee stadium was because I didn't want two similar images of baseball fields to take up room next to each other, and the Yankees are simply more famous than the Mets. I also removed the US open picture because we already had a picture of a sports field (Yankee stadium) and I didn't want two similar pictures, so I chose to keep the marathon pic for more variety. I just don't want pictures taking up so much room and squishing the text, it's an eyesore. And we can't include everything. Cadiomals (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
In terms of the Brooklyn Bridge, I honestly don't care for it to be added in the transportation section. In my 20 years of having lived in New York I have only went on the Brooklyn Bridge a few times. The BB is more of a tourist icon than anything else. To me the GW bridge being the busiest bridge in the world is far more significant transportation-wise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadiomals (talk • contribs) 19:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
As this article does not have a single picture of anything Staten Island related, why don't we go with the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge? Also, as I mentioned earlier, it is was a Robert Moses project, and that makes it symbolic of perhaps the most influential part of 20th Century New York history. NYCRuss ☎ 14:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If we are going to reduce pictures, how about eliminating the four Cityscape pictures? The existing pictures already present a Manhattan-centric view of the city, and these make it even more so. NYCRuss ☎ 14:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to reduce pictures per se, I want to reduce clutter and sloppiness, and often that means actually reducing pictures, although another solution would be shrinking them and then rearranging their positions. I think the Cityscape panoramas, although Manhattan-centric, are a fine gallery that should be kept, and they are neatly organized and aligned so they dont create any clutter or sloppiness whatsoever.Cadiomals (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with NYCRuss. These pictures are huge and 4 skylines of Manhattan are overkill. Images over 300px should be used sparingly if at all. I'd get rid of 3 if not all 4, maybe keep the third if we need to have one. Station1 (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
How about just one panorama-mode skyline picture? Castncoot (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I still think those four pictures beautifully illustrate Manhattan, but maybe they are too big. Keep in mind that New York is a huge city that doesn't just have one little skyline, and also looks very different between day and night, so I don't think one panoramic daytime picture would be as visually informative. Maybe we can compromise and shrink the images by about half so they are in a two-by-two arrangement? Cadiomals (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding pictures to make this less Manhattan-centric, without adding clutter

There are too few pictures relating to the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. There is also a consensus that there is clutter in the article. Excluding the montage, this is how it is:

  • For the Bronx, we have a picture of Fordham University and of Yankee Stadium.
  • The one picture of Brooklyn is of restaurants in Brooklyn Heights.
  • Queens is represented by the U.S. Open and JFK's Terminal 5.
  • Staten Island has the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.

One obvious way to change this would be to add a picture of brownstones in Brooklyn. The problem with that is that all such pictures on Wikipedia are not very good. Here are some pictures (in addition to the one of three bridges posted above) that we might want to consider:

Fort Wadsworth in Staten Island
Sailors' Snug Harbor in Staten Island
Brooklyn Borough Hall
The Queens County Courthouse
Bronx Zoo

So, how do we make the choice of pictures more representative of the city as a whole, while providing the best encyclopedic value, and without adding clutter? NYCRuss ☎ 14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that this article is too Manhattan-centric and should focus more on the other boroughs which each have their own identities and cultures, even one as boring as Staten Island. So I support your idea. I think to do this we can get rid of the least important information pertaining to Manhattan so we can make more room for the other four boroughs. Cadiomals (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's up to us to decide on what's "fair". At lot of what is notable about NY in reliable sources happens to be Manhattan related. If we shouldn't have the Stonewall Inn because of POV and and undue weight and illustration, that goes even more so for the Queens County Courthouse, which isn't extraordinarily notable as a building or for an event there in the context of an article about NYC as a whole (it might be good for the Queens article, just like the Stonewall Inn might be good for the Greenwich Village and LGBT history in the United States articles). The Borough Hall pic is great for Brooklyn but doesn't reach the level of citywide importance necessary for this citywide article. The Bronx Zoo is of citywide importance but the pic is just of a sign. Station1 (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I completely understand your point of view. We should only put the most notable points of interest and most of them happen to be in Manhattan. But we should also double-check to make sure all the most notable points of interest in the other four boroughs are thoroughly covered too (Bronx Zoo, Citi field, Yankee Stadium, etc.) I think they already are. I don't think the readers would really care for the Queens Country Courthouse either. Cadiomals (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I posted the Queens County Courthouse just to throw ideas out there. I should have clarified that if that were included, it would be by the Crime section which had no picture when I posted this, but now has a picture of a taxi. NYCRuss ☎ 15:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured cities

I think if we ever want New York City to have a good or featured article, we should probably try modeling it after city articles that do have GA or FA status, which include (just from me looking around) but aren't limited to: Houston, Seattle, Detroit, London, etc. I suggest we try checking out those articles to figure out what puts them at GA or FA status and model this one after them. it may be a good idea. Cadiomals (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What does New York City article not have, or missing, and the difference, between the other cities you mentioned? --Maydin37622 (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This was once a Featured Article. It took a huge, enormous effort to raise it to Featured status, including an incredible amount of detail work by User:Alansohn. So, in one sense, the model already exists in earlier versions of this article (accessible through the editing history), at least as much as in articles about other cities. ¶ The reasons the reviewers gave for taking away that status are given in the beige/buff banners at the top of this talk page. One of them is that standards were changed after this article had reached Featured status, so it wasn't something this article's editors had done, rather what had happened in the meantime to WP:Featured Article Criteria. Some of the objections, such as a misunderstanding of accessibility requirements for the use of color in tables, seem a bit misguided or trivial to me. And I've never been keen on excessive insistence on Manual of Style compliance; spend a month on an MoS talk page, and you can see how arbitrary and petty the Manual can sometimes get; criteria which aren't as invitingly handy to use as MoS, such as neutral point of view or reliable sources, are far more important. One comment (there were less than a handful of reviewers) about reliance on the popular press seemed a bit off-point for a subject as dynamic as The City That Never Sleeps; at least some of the supporting material inevitably has to come from current media if this is to be more than a historical/touristic guidebook.

To put in the effort to bring this back up to Featured Article status, I think you'd need the active collaboration of a dozen editors, and at least the passive assent of a dozen more past or present editors whose own work might undergo massive changes. (I'm not suggesting WP:Ownership or the immutability of what already exists, just that gaining consensus and avoiding ugly edit wars or heated talk page debates would make the overall task much easier, less stressful and more pleasant.) It's a good idea, as you're doing right now, to see how much enthusiasm or reluctance exists among current editors; some of them may very well think that other tasks which don't lead directly to Featured Article status are more urgent (e.g. updating or revising statistics or images, or filling in gaps on topics like labor or health care). But don't let all this discourage your interest; it's certainly worth exploring what would be involved in regaining a status this article surely deserves, and learning from open-minded discussion what priorities each of us has (or might be persuaded to adopt). —— Shakescene (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Very eloquently stated. Although I'm not certain that the subject of this article necessarily lends itself to being quaintly and neatly packaged to fit into somebody's gift box or recipe book like other, less complex cities. At the end of the day, current, pertinent, and reliable information has to be conveyed to the reader, and in my humble opinion, that has to take the highest priority versus becoming an article that may be politically or artistically popular.

Castncoot (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

New York New York re-direct

Any clear consensus on where New York, New York should re-direct?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times in the past. In fact there was at least one proposal to move the article to New York, New York. Confusion sometimes arises because the Postal Service uses the address "New York, NY" for Manhattan only, due to historical and logistical reasons. For all other purposes, since 1898 "New York, New York" refers to New York City, the same as any other "City, State". Station1 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
How frequently do you hear the term "New York, New York" in situations that do not belong in one of 2 special categories:
  1. Writing street/postal addresses
  2. Singing Theme from New York, New York
To say that the "for all other purposes, since 1898 "New York, New York" refers to New York City" is simply not true. There is one formal use since 1898, the one used by the postal service, which refers to Manhattan (or New York County) only. All other uses are colloquial and may refer to Manhattan or to the entire city. I grew up in Brooklyn where I was taught that New York, New York refers to Manhattan. Is what I was taught correct, or is it simply one way of interpreting this? NYCRuss ☎ 15:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Georgia guy (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"New York, New York, it's a helluva town, the Bronx is up but the Battery's down". Station1 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
How about generalizing category #2 into singing any song that has "New York, New York" in its lyrics?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
OK. But I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. I guess for background of others we should say someone redirected New York, New York to Manhattan earlier today and I reverted it (I think and hope in line with consensus). Are you saying you prefer it redirect to Manhattan? Station1 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no real opinion; anyone suggest re-directing it to New York, New York (disambiguation). Georgia guy (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
There was a proposal to that effect in 2006 at Talk:New York, New York (disambiguation). I think most people searching for "New York, New York" probably want this article. Station1 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
And why would they type New York, New York even though they know New York City is a more likely title?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
They wouldn't. Only someone who didn't know New York City was a more likely title would. Station1 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
And why would they think New York, New York is a more likely title?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter. The question is, If someone searches for "New York, New York" what are they most likely searching for? Station1 (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This question implies that there are plenty of Wikipedians who do so. Are there?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you may be inferring where I am not implying. They are no doubt relatively few. Station1 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
...but not few enough for... Georgia guy (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's obvious that someone searching for New York, New York is looking for the city. That title should be a disambiguation page (specifically, New York, New York (disambiguation)). Powers T 02:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Can it at least be nominated for GA?

If this article is still far from FA status, I think its at least GA status or pretty darn close. However, I want a couple of people to weigh in before I nominate it. If no one does I'll go on and nominate it anyway, and if it fails we'll go back to fix whatever problems are listed, which I don't think will be a lot for GA criteria. Cadiomals (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to my natural intuition, I've been told that it's even harder and more laborious to become a WP:Good Article than a Featured Article. I haven't studied this in any depth, but if this were true, I'd suspect it's because in one sense a Good Article isn't time-bound while a Featured Article gets on a timetable to appear on Wikipedia's front or home page. Again, I don't want to discourage anyone from doing some of the things that also lead to GA or FA status, because they're things most of us would like to see anyway: tighter, more recent references, for example, correcting factual errors, or smoothing out apparent biases. And I'm not saying that seeking Good or Featured status is bad, just that we should talk about it with open eyes and ears, balancing that with other possible priorities. ¶ I think it's a good idea to poll others' interest here; if half a dozen or a dozen volunteers share the same interest, and if the Good or Featured Article Criteria (such as MoS compliance) don't force us to distort what are currently-satisfactory solutions, then it might well be worth the effort. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The reason I say we should pursue GA status is because I thought the criteria was a lot less strict. I've never heard anyone but you claim that GA status was harder to attain than FA status. I thought GA's were decent, and FA's were great, so I don't see how it could be harder. This was a former FA so I don't know how far off track it has gotten. I do think we should have a poll and ask other editors if they think this article is ready for a GAN. If not, we can outline the issues that remain so they can be fixed. I and I'm sure a couple of other editors are willing to smooth out any flaws that bar it from GA. Then, if we get a sufficient # of editors agreeing we can nominate it. My idea is that if we can at least get it to GA, that will be an indication that we're on the right track. Then all we have to do from there to get it back up to FA is perfect the prose and provide even more comprehensive, accurate, and objective information. I fully realize that its easier said than done, but it's not impossible. We have to assess how far off track this has gotten since it was a form FA. Cadiomals (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I just glanced very hurriedly over the WP:Good article criteria, (and also at an early thread of Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 1) and if they're correct, they support what you (Cadiomals) said, and not what I'd read somewhere else. If that's so, then the rest of what you wrote makes a great deal of sense. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
No one's really replied, so I'll just look over the entire article myself, use my judgment to smooth out any little flaws I might run into, and then nominate it for GA. Like I said, if it fails, at least we'll get a definite outline on what to improve and we can always re-nominate it. Cadiomals (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
It's best to give people a couple of days to get back to Wikipedia from their real lives before you make a determination that "no one's really replied". I believe that GA status is a "copout", and that either FA status should be strived for in the long run, or just let this be its own informative independent article - analagous to a good indie film standing out amongst the standard studio fare. Castncoot (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
My idea is that if this article gets GA, then we'll know we're at least on the right track for it to eventually get FA. Make sense? Cadiomals (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I am seeing this article for the first time, and I think it is excellent! Very educating. So many Afrikaners in South Africa think New York is the centre of the world, even though London is so much closer geographically. I am thinking you should not be adding many more pictures, however. Is there not an expression in America about not fixing what is not cracked, or something like that? MazabukaBloke (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Placement of 9/11 picture

I moved it to reduce white space. Before. After. NYCRuss ☎ 16:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I just have to say, i put the clear template there because I actually prefer the white space to that little line of text that is then forced under the picture. To me that's a bit more bothersome than that little bit of white space.Cadiomals (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
In my sole experience of promoting an article to featured status, a list almost two years ago, extra white space generated by the placement of images was something that I had to mitigate. I also believe that in an article of this size, anything that can reduce the size, or perceived size, is probably a good thing. If there is a consensus to revert the placement of that image to increase the white space, I'll certainly support the community decision. NYCRuss ☎ 18:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
It's totally fine, I don't make a big deal of these things. Cadiomals (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of picture of Mayor Bloomberg

I removed the picture of Mayor Bloomberg (before—after) because:

  1. I don't believe that it adds sufficient encyclopedic value to this article to outweigh the formatting issues that were created.
  2. The placement of this image caused clutter which had other images moved so that they were out of context with the sections in which they were relocated. The picture of City Hall was moved from the main law and government section to the city planning section. The picture of a hybrid taxi was moved from the city planning section to the crime section. NYCRuss ☎ 17:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Kind of misleading II

I have another note about something that is kind of misleading, but in the sidebar, where it says "Metro" population, as ~18 million, this also includes Newark. Is it common knowledge that Newark is included in the metro of New York? Because when I read it, I read that new york's metropolitan area is 18 million, and I think, New York city. Not nyc and newark.

Could just be Common knowledge, though... Noah

This says "Kind of misleading II". Where is the original "Kind of misleading"? Let me guess; someone said something about New York City that was not leaning toward the fact that that person will be willing to sell their first born for the city, or was not some type of praise about the city...so of course that had to be deleted. I know you guys, it's New York = positive messages, or don't write anything at all. Uggh! So sickening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not misleading at all, my friend Noah - these are all Census figures, to preclude anyone from making things up - to answer your question, yes, it is fairly common knowledge that according to the Census, the New York Metropolitan Statistical Area contains about 19 million people, and yes, that it does include Newark, as defined by the Census. Then there is an even more comprehensive entity known as the New York Combined Statistical Area, which further includes parts of Connecticut as well as New York State's Hudson Valley and contains over 22 million people.

Cheers! Castncoot (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The population of the city itself is ~8 million. The population of the city plus the surrounding metropolitan area is ~18 million. This includes Newark, Jersey City, Long Island, Westchester County, etc. --Golbez (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Most Walkable Cities." CNBC (2011): n. pag. Web. 11 May 2011. <http://www.cnbc.com/id/42668491/Most_Walkable_Cities>.
  2. ^ "The Global Financial Centres 9" (PDF). Z/Yen. Retrieved 13 April 2011.
  3. ^ "World's Most Economically Powerful Cities". Forbes.com. Retrieved 13 April 2011.
  4. ^ "Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index 2008" (PDF). Mastercard.
  5. ^ http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/popcur.shtml
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_City/Archive_13&oldid=1143787803"