Talk:New York City/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

How many languages?

The intro implies that it is a fact that 800 languages are spoken in New York, but the demographics article repeatedly states 170 languages. I can see (from the relevant link on the NY page) that the discrepancy comes from 170 languages spoken in public schools, while 800 languages is an estimate including speakers of other languages not in public schools, and not registered on a census. But the article only says 'some experts believe' so I think it should not be presented as an established fact.--ImizuCIR (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The 170 figures are significantly outdated and even when obtained only reflected a number of languages specifically volunteered to have been spoken by public school students and not necessarily by other, and more significantly, elderly generational members. If you read the article carefully, one of the main points by the august New York Times article quoted, in fact, exactly stressed the point that a significant proportion of these languages are endangered per survival. The most reliable figures would indeed then be quoted by linguistic experts and therefore the 800 number is reliably cited, relevant, and is accurately phrased in situ. Castncoot (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It does not cite anything. It just tell that expert has some belief. Belief is not a professional research. Additionally it does not actually make any world wide research to confirm that there are no other cities with larger number of spoken language and dialect (as 800 would include dialects), like London or Moscow. As for now it either does not meet WP:VERIFY for number of spoken languages and is WP:OR for most spoken claim. Elk Salmon (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It has been the country's largest city since 1790.[38]

Unfortunately this citation proves only that "It has been the country's largest city after 1790" Bulwersator (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, New York City has been the nation's most populous city since the census began. Two little know facts, however, which aren't in the article: Philadelphia was the nation's most populous city before the first census count began. When the first census count was taken, it happen to be at the same New York City just edged Philly to become larger, therefore Philly doesn't really get credit for having being the nation's largest. Instead articles, like the New York City article, states New York has been the largest since census counts began.

Also, Chicago was on the verge of overtaking New York City as the United States's most populous city. Notice the 1880 census results for both cities, and look at the 1890 census results for both cities. Chicago was quickly gaining on New York City. So during the 1890s, New York, to offset this, annexed what was independent areas like Brooklyn, and a large portion of what is now the Bronx, to vastly increase its population. So by the next census in 1900, New York had given itself a more comfortable lead. Had this not happened, the two cities would probably had been nearly equal in population by the 1900 census, and Chicago would have had more people by the 1910 census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That's inaccurate. The 5 boroughs didn't incorporate in order to edge out Chicago, they did so for the natural reason a common city which had spread over several counties might. Even today Chicago is more contained in Cook Country than NYC was in New York County 120 years ago. Although Chicago experienced very rapid growth in the late 19th century and incorporated its current extent then, NYC experienced similar growth and at no time was Chicago larger than NYC or close to being so as the growth tables for both on their respective articles clearly show. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not an inaccurate statement. Why is it when it comes to New York City, some people believe that if New York isn't ranked higher in something, then it's just not true? Everything doesn't center on New York. At that time Chicago was quickly gaining on New York. Look at the census data for the populations:

1870 Census: NYC 942,000, Chicago 298,000; 1880 Census: NYC 1.2 million, Chicago 500,000; 1890 Census: NYC 1.5 million, Chicago 1 million. After that census, New York City annexed large swarths of land in immediate succession, from 1895-1989. A large area of the Bronx was annexed in 1895; then the boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island were annexed soon afterwards in 1898. Huge swaths of territory, right before the next census two years later. When that census was done in 1900, New York City jumped to 3.4 million people as all the people in the forme independent areas of the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island were counted in the city population, as they had never been before obviously. Chicago made a tremendous stride to 1.7 million people at that same census. So look at the results; New York had averaged growth of approximately 300,000 people per census for the last 30 years. Chicago, however, gained 500,000 people from 1880-1890, and 700,000 people from 1890-1900, without the type of annexations New York did. So as the above statement says, had New York not taken over the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, at their individual rates NYC would have been at about 1.8 million, and Chicago at about 1.7 million for 1900. By 1910, New York and Chicago would have been at about 2.1 million And by 1920, there's a 99% chance Chicago would have surpassed New York in population. So don't think those annexations were just happen-stance. Pretty much the only cities in the country making any noise at that time were New York and Chicago, so don't think New York politicians were not well aware of Chicago's advancement and wanted to keep ahold of that largest city title. If you don't believe that, you don't know politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Winter Climate

On the article it says that winters are cold and damp. The word damp means humid and cloudy. New York City has plenty of winter sunshine and is not nowhere damp at all. More than half of the winter days are sunny. It should say 'Generally cold' because it's not always guaranteed cold. Many days are pretty mild.--74.90.5.246 (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

First, didn't someone bring this up already? Second, here's what Google says, and none of the definitions given say "humid and cloudy"...

Adjective: Slightly wet: "her hair was still damp from the shower".

Noun: Moisture diffused through the air or a solid substance or condensed on a surface, typically with detrimental or unpleasant effects.

Verb: Make (something) slightly wet: "damp a small area with water".

Synonyms: adjective. moist - humid - wet - dank - dabby - soggy; noun. moisture - humidity - dampness - wet - wetness; verb. dampen - moisten - wet

Famartin (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that is should be plain "cold" and get rid of the word 'damp'. I agree it should say 'generally cold' which describes NYC excellent way for the winter. It's certainly not damp the whole winter. --Maydin37622 (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a typo in the climate section, the record high for February is 7F (-14C) which is colder than the average high of 42F (6C). The correct value is around 75F (24C) according to ftp://dossier.ogp.noaa.gov/GCOS/WMO-Normals/RA-IV/US/GROUP2/00305801.TXT (ref #107 from NOAA). Article is locked, so I can't edit it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.34.145.30 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Next time, please use {{editsemiprotected}}. Powers ^T 14:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This was actually fixed several days ago: [1] Powers ^T 15:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a cold, damp, winter city. Stop trying to act like it's not. Yeesh!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

One of the biggest problems with this article is that with how popular New York is it tends to get bloated with NPOV claims. Can't we soften it a bit by not including things that truly, when it comes down to it, do not matter and do not add to the academic quality of the article? For example, I say we get rid of any claim no matter how well sourced that New York is the unofficial capital of anything. Let's start with the lead: the claim right off the bat that New York is "deemed (even by some) to be the cultural capital of the world" sounds so incredibly biased to me and should be omitted. Think about it: is this truly needed? Does it really convey vital information to the reader? When dealing with an iconic and popular city like New York we have to be really careful about NPOV and omit any statements that may even come close to violating it. We also have to be careful about even subtle statements that may be worded to overinflate New York's status, such as information about its high diversity, rich culture, and well-known destinations. Cadiomals (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, particularly in the lead. I would also work on the overcites. Anything with more than two cites screams original research. Where possible attribute the claims. AIRcorn (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If the article said that the city "is" the cultural capital of the world, then it would clearly be a NPOV issue. The statement that it is "widely considered" to be this is simply a fact regardless of whether or not you agree with it. For example, I might not consider Citizen Kane to be the greatest English-language film of all time, but that doesn't change the noteworthy fact that many critics have said it is. Also, the "truly needed" criteria that you propose above is not part of any Wikipedia guideline and seems rather subjective in itself. --Jleon (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Then what do you think is keeping this article from being a featured one, Jleon? What has derailed it since it was last featured? I'm just trying to determine and examine the possible problems that is keeping it from being the best it can be, and NPOV as well as unsourced or badly sourced claims is certainly a possibility. Cadiomals (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jleon - you can't "soften" the facts to please other people, which is what Cadiomals' agenda clearly is. Sometimes the truth is just plain bitter to those who feel this is a competition - its not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.112.82 (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Very humorous argument. But I am believing that JLeon is exactly correct and Cadiomals is exactly wrong. The statement about New York being widely considered the cultural centre is written accurately and referenced perfectly. MazabukaBloke (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but saying "widely considered" and then using lots of citations to support it is the very definition of original research. AIRcorn (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

New York is my favorite city in the entire world. There is no other city in the world with as much diversity, as rich of a culture, as many interesting and varied destinations. I'm not hating on New York or denying its high status at all by disputing these statements, as you guys seem to be implying. I want it to be the best it can be so I'm just examining all the possibilities. Honestly I'm starting to feel like backing out of improving this article at all because no improvements ever seem to be made and there's just constant disagreement. Let's change the topic to something else now: why do you think that this isn't a featured article? Cadiomals (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Sorry, but Jleon (talk) is absolutely on the mark, as he usually is. Your statement, on the other hand, is bizarrely irrational.

@Cadiomals: Why are you so insecure about this not being a "Featured Article"? Who really cares?!!! Some articles which are considered "Featured Articles", in my humble opinion, pander to a recipe book that I would personally not see this article degenerating into. Let me emphasize that I do NOT believe that being a "Featured Article" or a "Good Article" is necessarily a negative label, but I increasingly think that those titles have their place for simpler or very specific subjects. For example, you are a major editor of the World Trade Center article - that would be a great article to take to "Featured" status because the subject is so specific. On the other hand, trying to handcuff this article with the same constraints would be a great injustice to this article. Personally, I think this article is already heading progressively in the correct direction, and I believe such course should be kept. Look at it from a year-and-a-half or so ago and you'll see what I mean.

Castncoot (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Widely considered" is a weasel word. If we take twenty or even a hundred sources that say New York is the cultural capital of the world it does not mean it is widely considered such. In effect we are just cherry picking sources that support our point of view and ignoring those that don't. Doing this is original research as we are adding information not supported by the source. It is much better to choose the best source and say that "Such and such considers New York the cultural capital of the world." AIRcorn (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW Cadiomals I think that this article could reach Good status quite easily and is a worthy goal. I would be willing to help in some way to achieve this. I am from outside of the USA and could possibly help balance some of the systemic bias in this article and provide an outside perspective. AIRcorn (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@Aircorn - Weasel words are unattributed phrases - conversely, six or seven disparate cites are reasonable to support a heavier statement, certainly not 12 or 20. And again, not every article would necessarily benefit from attaining "Good" or "Featured" status.

Castncoot (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch page gives Wikipedias definition of Weasel words, which would be more relevant to this instance. I will try again to explain using the is widely deemed the cultural capital of the world example in this article to illustrate why this is original research. Only two sources work properly in any case. One is linked to the Consulate General of Iceland New York and says "New York is the cultural capital of the world" while the another is to a book titled New York, culture capital of the world, 1940-1965. The other sources are either dead links, down or unreliable (is the Civilisation forum for real). To go from this to the statement of fact that New York is "widely deemed the cultural capital of the world" is original research as we are implying this simply because the author of a book and the consulate general of Iceland think so. Like I said above even if we managed to find a hundred different people who say it is the Cultural Capital of the world it would still be original research as we are deciding this means it is "widely" regarded as such. It is doubly tricky in this case because culture is not something easily measured and open to a lot of different interpretations. AIRcorn (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So at what point would you consider anything to be "widely considered" anything? By your rationale, you should also be picking arguments on the articles to William Shakespeare, Pablo Picasso, and Akiro Kurosawa. The bottom line is that there are only several cities that can credibly claim to be "widely considered" as cultural capitals and New York is one of them by any conceivable measure you could pick. --Jleon (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's just concentrate on this article at the moment. The point is that we should not be deciding ourselves that anything is "widely considered/deemed" anything as that is the original research. We could get away with saying in the lead that "New York has been described as the cultural capital of the world" if somewhere within the article (ideally in the first paragraph of "culture and contemporary life") we have specific examples of people/organisations describing it as the capital of the world. AIRcorn (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not an argument of original research, but rather semantics. Personally, I wouldn't object to it being changed to "widely considered one of the cultural capitals of the world," but I don't think that brings us any closer to it being a "featured" article for whatever that might be worth. --Jleon (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an argument about original research. "Widely considered" involves us making an assumption that because a few sources have said they think it is this way then it can be widely considered that way. "Has been described" followed by the description does not involve any assumptions at all. One is attributable while the other is not. I can't think of a way to describe it better, maybe we should ask for help at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. AIRcorn (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, dead links eliminated. Sources from at least three different continents obviously justify the use of the term "widely" in this context. The statement has firm integrity. I believe it should stand as is. Also, Aircorn, your logic that you live outside the USA and therefore would provide a different perspective actually indicates a bias in and of itself; this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV - i.e., where you live should be absolutely irrelevant in editing, avoiding any nationalistic bias whatsoever.

Castncoot (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#New York City as we appear to be talking in circles. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Put aside NPOV, OR, XYZ, etc. Calling any city a "cultural capital" is hyperbole. It is like saying so and so is the most loved, hated, feared, etc. It is expected that any large population center will be culturaly influential. The New York Metropolitan Area is one of the most populous metropolitan areas in the world and so is of course one of the most culturaly influential. Is it useful to say something in the lead that could be said of any city? Mention things that could be verified as true, not just a common opinion, that define New York. But "cultural capital of the world"? Take it out. It is meaningless. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the first paragraph without things that could be said of any city: New York (New York City or the City of New York) is the most populous city in the United States, the center of the New York Metropolitan Area, one of the most populous metropolitan areas in the world, and the home of the United Nations Headquarters. Let people reading it make up their own minds as to how important it is. Also without contentious statements, we don't need the inline citations.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This would be applying a standard that simply doesn't exist in wikipedia. To imply that articles should not contain any reference to popular opinion about a topic is impossible to support. Also, the notion that a city's cultural output is purely proportional to its population is simply untrue. --Jleon (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I was tired when I typed that, but I don't mean no opinions as a standard for articles, I mean it makes the lead poor reading. I also don't mean a city's cultural output is purely proportional to its population, I mean one expects a large city to have a large cultural output. The point I want to make is a lead with hyperbole, overly detailed and generally verbose lacks impact and this lead lacks impact for those reasons. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

About Castnscoot's comment that we shouldn't worry about getting this article to featured status: That's my motivation for improving articles such as these. I like it when the work and time I contribute to improving an article is recognized by giving it GA or (rarely) FA status. If we're just going to edit an article, with no direction of where we want to go, in my humble opinion I don't see the point. When I contribute to an article my motivation is always to get it to a higher and higher class. If such is not the case here I'll back out of this project. There are other articles that need my help anyway. Cadiomals (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that saying New York is "widely considered to be a cultural capital of the world" might be more acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. I have no problem with softening some of the language. --Jleon (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on the body of the article, people, perhaps starting with the Law and Government section. Some of these claims need to be cited. Any help with citations here would be welcomed. Also glad that the picture of the yet-to-be-completed One World Trade Center picture was removed. In retrospect, it violated both WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL issues.

Castncoot (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Visual of outer borough houses in 'Architecture'

Hello! The editing of the 'Architecture' section of the New York City wiki page is my first revision on a semi-protected page. I'd imagine that the user who omitted the photos of homes in Staten Island and Brooklyn that I had included is a much more experienced wikipedian than I am. However, I would argue that photos of less known areas of the city are largely missing from this article and give an incomplete view of the city as a whole. The character of the city changes greatly from area to area and I think it would good to include these images for informational purposes. Or would you argue that only visuals of more iconic structures and scenes should rule the page? I appreciate any insight on this matter so I know how to carry about in the future. Thank you in advance for your responses!

--Antipastarasta (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• 
  A large home in New Springville, Staten Island
• 
  Row houses in Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn

The Staten Island building is now a clubhouse for a golf course. Station1 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

All those citations in the lead make it quite hard to read. I've noticed this for a while now but didn't bring it up. Is it necessary for information in the lead to be cited when it is repeated in the body of the article, where it can be cited there? Oftentimes I see very few if no citations in leads because the info is cited within the body of the article. If we removed most of them the lead would be easier to read and more easy on the eyes. Cadiomals (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, I believe aesthestics are a secondary and superficial concern, but even notwithstanding that, c'mon, for anybody with a reasonable IQ, it's extremely readable, and I believe that it is indeed aesthetically decent. More importantly, info has to be conveyed and reliably cited. And objectively speaking, you simply can't compare NYC to other city articles, being in a class of its own vis-a-vis complexity. Actually, if you've followed the history of this article, the lede has already been thinned out over the past year, with much info transferred to the body. This is essentially the remaining skeleton of lede info. I agree that it shouldn't be allowed to get any bigger than it is now - it's nearly exactly at its upper limit. Please folks, let's stop perseverating on the lede (it's getting tiring), and let's please get on with citing the body - there's quite a lot of OR which needs to be cited there, and I would appreciate the help.

Castncoot (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just saying, why do there have to be so many citations in the lead when you can cite it in the body instead. The lead is a summary and a lot of the information is repeated in the body so you're right the body should be sufficiently cited, and this would eliminate the need for the lead to be cited. Cadiomals (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. Citations should be minimal in the lead, if they're needed at all. Most citations belong in the body. Station1 (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, cookbook mentality, with all due respect. This very issue has actually already been discussed else where on this page (either presently or archived) and in another Wikipedia forum regarding city articles in general. The point is that city articles as a whole are different from say, scientific articles or biographies. In those kinds of articles, that logic may apply. Geographic articles, and in particular city articles, should actually be "top heavy" in citations because they inherently involve statistics, rankings, and often contentious comparisons, which require citation and which the other types of articles, for example, just don't involve. New York City inherently may well indeed be the most extreme case. Biographies, on the other hand, typically involve personal details which are initially presented in the article body and require citation at that point. Scientific articles present scientific detail in the same manner and also require body citation rather than in the lede. You never want to throw the baby out with the bath water. An intelligent Wikipedia has to individualize algorithmic logic and aptly evolve (and I believe is generally doing so) outside of its nascent crib. Castncoot (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that city articles "should actually be 'top heavy' in citations because they inherently involve statistics, rankings, and often contentious comparisons". They do involve statistics, rankings and comparisons, but those should all (or mostly) be cited in the body of the article. The lead should contain little if anything that is not represented in the rest of the article. Station1 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a perfectly worthwhile discussion to have at any time, but the guidance for article leads says they should be fully sourced, and if anyone's interested in a Featured or Good Article push, that guidance needs to be followed, even though I agree that all those footnotes do clutter up the lead. As I remember, in fact, the successful push for Featured Article status a couple of years ago involved citing every single statement of fact, something that editors like User:Alansohn spent laborioous hours and days researching and posting. The reason given for the lede guidance about citations is that often the lead is separated from the body in things like printed versions, mirror versions (other sites' perfectly-legal copying of Wikipedia articles, for this would be a very prime candidate), the Simple English Wikipedia and Wikipedias in other languages. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE refers to quotations (not applicable here) and challengeable material. That NYC is the most populous city in the U.S. or home of UN headquarters is not reasonably challengeable. That it's "widely deemed the cultural capital of the world" needs 5 citations and "functions as the financial capital of the world" needs 7 (!) - so let's find one unimpeachable reliable source that says exactly that, or better yet let's take unnecessary challengeable boosterism out of the lead. Station1 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Station1, you just countered your own argument by referring to that Wikilink, namely WP:LEADCITE! Let me copy-paste as follows:

"Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." No big deal, my friend. Let me just say that 5 or 7 cites are reasonable; in my humble opinion, 12 or 20 would not be. Castncoot (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the "many citations" refers to throughout the whole lead, not all in a row. 7 cites in a row are not reasonable, imo. Station1 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is how information should be presented in the lead.[2] No need for cites and everything is supported in the body of the article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice work there, Aircorn. Although in retrospect, WP:MOS/LEAD#citations indicates that challengeable statements in the lede should have an inline citation, and therefore I've restored one token reference which supports the statement as written. That keeps the books clean, with really no downside. Castncoot (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. There is some good faith disagreement on whether to source the lead and although I personally prefer none, I would not demand their removal from an article I was reviewing. It is the multiple sources which cause the most problems. Seeing as the culture capital edit has stood, something similar could probably be done with the other statements (financial capital etc).

On the cultural capital, there must be better sources out there. The civilization forum in particular is very dodgy and I woud recommend removing that one. There must be a magazine or a better poll that mentions it. AIRcorn (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2012

Please delete this article altogether.

70.91.122.97 (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Why would we do that?--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Internet presence

Statement is a pure original research per WP:OR. Also New York City is not really correct query. Without quotes it also bring results for each word on their own - new, york and city. Google also is not a 100% worldwide player. There are also Bing, Yahoo, Yandex and Baidu among large players on indexing. All of them brings different result. Some does localise results, including Google. Elk Salmon (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"new" brings up over 25 billion hits - who are you trying to fool? Castncoot (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

He's not trying to fool anyone. He's just saying that searching without quotes brings up any combination of the three words, such as "there's a new city hall in York", while searching with quotes finds the three words in order. The ref actually searches for "New York" which includes the state. Any way you do it, it's pretty meaningless. Station1 (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree this is pure original research. It is also incredibly flawed. How is this even known with out showing the results of every other location. I am going to remove it. AIRcorn (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 14 February 2012

In the Central Park attraction list, Onassis (as in Jackie) is misspelled.09:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC) SchwarzeWitwe2 (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Station1 (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 23 February 2012

In the culture and contemporary life section, someone has put in "A forum on one of the Civilization fan sites rated New York the cultural capital of the world, ahead of Los Angeles and Paris." This does not seem to be a credible, impartial, or useful reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.47.156 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It's been removed. NYCRuss ☎ 15:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 24 February 2012

Some short -need for Wikipedia quality- addition to sections(check google easy, if I don't give You a source): 1) Crime and law. New York spend on it police department more money than UN on all international missions. This is probably the city with biggest police department budget and crime rates are still high. Second the law in N. Y. city on the guns is one of the most strict laws in USA, especially they still have illegal federal ban on some home guns like sport semi-auto ak versions. 2) Prohibition - it is connected with up words. The N. Y. was probably one of the most "wet" cities and the most hard laws don't changed it. The N.Y. just don't treat and like laws that protect only gangster - like prohibition or gun laws. 3) The property tax in N. Y. are one of the higher if not the highest in the USA(esp. on the Manhattan). 4) Many of industries/commercials now chooses because of above points Texas not the N.Y. city. 5) The Manhattan people don't have cars because of two things. One is bad urban city planning, that don't allow making a most underground park spaces, because of bad projected subway lines and other underground city infrastructure. Second existing park spaces have, esp. on the Manhattan one of the higher if not the highest prices in the World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an edit request, it's a rant. If you have specific words you want put in - not just telling us to fix something without telling us what to replace it with - then that's fine, but most of us won't be bothered with deciphering this and figuring out what changes should be made. --Golbez (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - April 8, 2012

While looking at the page, I noticed that someone confused sq mi with km2 for the NYC density. If the true density of New York City is 10,429.6 sq mi, then the 27,012.5 figure matches the equivalent km2. Otherwise, whichever number is right, the math is completely off for the conversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIMplMn9 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where in the article this occurred, and you're mistaken about the conversion rate. Square kilometers are roughly 38.6% the size of square miles. --Jleon (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Culture Section

I recently read the culture section and was surprised to find no mention of the former working-class culture that characterized the city for a large part of the 1800s and well through the 20th century. This working-class was comprised predominantly of European immigrants and constituted the largest part of the city's population for many decades. Perhaps, we should treat that in the article's section on culture and how it is slowly being usurped by "hipster", underground, and artistic movements. - User: John M. DiNucci - 22:30, 13/4/12

Perhaps we should. You could start us off by finding some reliable sources that speak to the change you've observed. Powers ^T 15:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE DELETE FALSE INFO ABOUT MOORISH EXPLORER

someone ERRONEOUSLY stated that an explorer "of moorish descent" explored new york city in the 16th century. just to let you know, there was NO SUCH THING as moorish explorers accompanying Spaniards or any other Europeans as navigators to the new world. this is a fact. so can you please delete this stupid error.. thanks. Kiluss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC).

Redirect New York City to New York? (New York to New York (U.S. state))?

I understand this was discussed just a couple of weeks ago, but considering the city is officially known as the City of New York (with New York City used only to differentiate it from New York State), wouldn't it be right to redirect New York City to simply New York? I understand when people search for New York, it tends to be the city they're looking for, not always the state. After all, if we're using New York City to discuss the city, wouldn't it be right to title the article currently titled "New York" as "New York State", as people also use that term to differentiate it from the city? New York City (Officially: City of New York), New York State (Officially: State of New York) Artystyk386 (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want the pages moved, you'll have to post a requested move. Georgia guy (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Dozens of editors agree with you and dozens of others (I think a bit fewer) disagree. There are several long-drawn-out and inconclusive discussions and Requested Moves in the archived pages of Talk:New York. Since the state rather than the city is often (though much less often) what's being sought by someone entering "New York", I feel that "New York" should be a disambiguation page and topic pages like "Politics of New York" should distinguish themselves clearly as either "Politics of New York City" or "Politics of New York state". But a proposal to do something similar failed for lack of consensus. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I recall, those discussions always got sidetracked by people advocating a total redirect to the city article. If we were to focus only on the choice between a disambiguation page and the status quo, I think we would be able to arrive at a consensus. --Jleon (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the city's official web presence and portal, www.nyc.gov, it says "Welcome to the official New York City Web site" towards the top of the home page. So to say that the city is called "New York," even though it is commonly referred to as such by most people, is factually incorrect. The Mayor's web page, tourist web site, and the government we pages all clearly refer to the city as New York City and not as New York. Yoganate79 (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

To follow up with my last comment, I would like to state that if a page move ever came up for a vote, I would support to move the article New York to a disambiguation article and not a re-direct to New York City. New York means two places, both the state and the city and neither should be given preferential treatment, regardless if most people think of New York as the city. Yoganate79 (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Continued discusssion

I am very late to this discussion but I came to start a new discussion and realized that there is already one.

New York City is the wrong name. Likewise, we don't have an article called "Great Satan USA", but rather "United States".

The correct title of this article should be either "City of New York" or "New York (city)". both are correct and I would support it. Auchansa (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Being a correct title is not enough of a reason to change the title of the article. Wikipedia articles should, per policy and guidelines, use the most common name, not always the official name. An argument could be made that simply "New York" is the most common name, but that title is already being used for the state of New York. There doesn't seem to be any real perceived problem anyway, so if it not broken, why fix it?JOJ ^Hutton 16:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, the common name is "New York". So it should be "New York (city)". I would also agree with a title "City of New York" but "New York (city)" is preferred and correct. If you put New York City, NY 10021 on mail, the post office will just think you are stupid. Auchansa (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Leave it the way it is, please. Castncoot (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 May 2012

References item #269 has a dead link. I found the active link, it is at http://www.americanheritage.com/content/worst-case-scenario

184.152.32.211 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for finding that!oknazevad (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Article full of bloated, biased, unverified claims - more 'hyping' NYC than it is factually presenting it.

Notice how many times this blatantly biased article presents the city in the following way, by saying 'most .. in the world' frequently, citing news sources and no official documentation to back up their claims? Compare this city article to others, and you see a notable difference in the tone of writing here - it is one of major hype, and perhaps desperation to include as many 'most .. in the world' claims as possible - whereas others aren't as intensely hyped and bragging false 'world' claims.

1. 'widely deemed the cultural capital of the world' - wrong. This is subjective. Many other cities can claim as being a cultural capital that rivals and beats New York City - London, Los Angeles, Singapore

2. 'As many as 800 languages are spoken in New York, making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world' - wrong. This is a speculation made in a newspaper article. Official government statistics say this city still speaks just over 150 languages (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/pop_facts.shtml). Why use a newspaper article over a government publication in presenting this on this site? I also suggest you also employ some common sense in considering the validity of this bloated claim.

3. 'New York has the largest internet presence of any location in the world; registering 7.1 billion search results as of December 2011' - no. New York City presents about 3 billion search results on Google (unrestricted). New York 7 billion. However this article is on the city only, not the state, and therefore it should be modified to present this (albeit useless) fact. New York is bound to have more than New York City, as it is a state and would empass more things with other cities and towns in it. Focus on the city. The sentence quoted manipulates the reader into thinking this is in regard to the city when in fact, strictly speaking, it's not.

4. 'The Crossroads of the World' - another arrogant 'world' claim. It is merely an intersection. Why hype it into something more? This article is supposed to be factual.

5. 'New York City's financial district, anchored by Wall Street in Lower Manhattan, functions as the financial capital of the world' - no. New York City ties with London as the financial capital of the world. Your sources are also questionable - one is a poll (52), another an opinionated and rather insulting news article from the views of one journalist (55). If you do your research, you will see London has more finance flowing in it than NYC, primarily due to its central location and ability to deal with both the west and east. NYC has no such ability.

6. 'Manhattan's real estate market is among the most prized and expensive in the world' - I don't think so. Look here: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-expensive-real-estate-in-the-world-2011-10.

7. 'Manhattan's Chinatown incorporates the highest concentration of Chinese people in the Western Hemisphere' - Wrong again. San Francisco lays to this claim.

8. 'Numerous colleges and universities are located in New York, including Columbia University, New York University, and Rockefeller University, which are ranked among the top 100 in the world' - the first two yes, the latter no. See: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011?page=1. Again, unfair overhyping is evident here.

I do not regard this article anymore as factual. To fill it with outrageous, bloated claims (especially how many 'most .. in the world' remarks there are) and to not moderate and take action on it is propaganda and unfair in that other people will believe the numerous false claims made about this city.

As a frequent Wiki reader, I am left very disapppointed here at the arrogance and unfair claims this city makes for itself in its overhyping.

Sort it out, please. Keep it factual. Thank you, D. Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whisperer1982 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

D. Ryan, thank you for the specificity of your criticism. The wonderful thing about wikis is that if you don't like something you can change it! If it's a particularly controversial change that some editors might be attached to, you should discuss it first here on the talk page, but for most changes, just go ahead and fix it, including an explanatory note in the edit summary. We strive for a neutral wikipedia and your criticism can be instrumental in helping maintain that neutrality.--Louiedog (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your frustration is discernible; however, it is also misplaced. This article is likely one of the most thoroughly cited articles in all of Wikipedia (I surmise you may have a problem with that statement as well - I don't know how to cite that), and the reason behind this is merely the subject of the article itself, which justifiably lends itself to the complexity and superlatives embodied in the article. It would be childish (and counterproductive), but very easy, to rebut your statements point by point. Better simply to state that the rules of Wikipedia need to be followed, and that conversely, omission of significant data would NOT do justice to a critical article and would not be indicated. Castncoot (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This article went through an excruciating process of citation and verification a couple of years ago in order to qualify for its status as a Featured Article. However, like all Wikipedia articles, it's subject to change, hopefully for the better, as many users, readers and editors go over it word by word and line by line. ¶ I also tend to agree with some criticisms about some of the superlatives of non-objective subjects. They'd actually be stronger if they were better focussed. For example, no one can argue with the enormous variety, depth, sophistication, importance and influence of New York's cultural centers, but no one can argue with those of such cities as London, Paris and Los Angeles either. Few performers have been driven to suicide because they had to choose the West End over Broadway, or vice-versa. Only when the present financial crisis has largely passed will we really be able to tell whether the world's current "financial capital" (as if such a thing existed) is Wall Street, London or some other place. But that doesn't mean there should be no mention of New York City's importance in culture, finance, commerce, education, information and diplomacy. Whisperer1982 is certainly free (I'd say welcome) to correct and refine those superlatives that he or she finds misplaced. Those corrections will be challenged by others, and perhaps discussed here; but that's how we get to the best answer. Editors should be driven to find better and more recent sources for their claims or counterclaims. With any luck, we'll all learn something in the process. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Eloquently stated, although I'm not sure saying anything that Whisperer1982 shouldn't have already known. Truth be told, given his or her position, I would develop the articles featuring the other cities of his or her interest in a constructive manner rather than targeting a tightly sourced article for whatever reason. Castncoot (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There is some truth to what Whisperer1982 is stating; the article does come off quite biased. -Also see the sections above called "Kind of Misleading".- There is a tone in this article of the "most of this", or the "best of that" that's never seems to quit. Forgive me, but it's as if the article is trying to say, if you don't live in New York City, especially Manhattan, then you do not deserve to live. Now there's no doubt that the United States is the sole super power of the world, but the line has to be drawn at over-implying that New York is the best city in the country. It is the most populous, but that doesn't make it the best. Los Angeles can do a lot of bragging too, and so can San Francisco. And as far as the minorities go in the country, I would say Chicago did much more to further their cause than New York City. Like him or not (which isn't my point here), but didn't the nation's first black President, black First Lady, and black First Children come from Chicago, not New York City. And didn't the first black female US Senator (Carol Mosley Braun) come from Chicago, not New York. And hasn't Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan always historically been more popular than Al Sharpton? Sharpton has finally managed to turn it on a little more in the later years. Of course, there are those who can't stand them and those who love them, but that's not my point. My point is they came from another city that did much more for them than New York City. And if Hillary Clinton ever becomes president, the first female president would now have been born and raised in Chicago.

And Whispere1982 makes some serious points that shouldn't be overlooked. There are only eight points there so it's not that hard to verify, especially the ones that may blatantly be wrong, or just opinion. Such as:

Number 2 -The above poster states that government data shows there are approximately 150 languages spoken in NYC, while a newspaper article states 800 languages are spoken, so Wiki just chooses to go with the newspaper article? If 800 is right then it should be in the article, if 150 is right then that should be in the article. Those two numbers are nowhere near each other. It's acceptable to use newspaper info when there is no other info, but why would it be chosen over government data? If 150 is the correct number, but no one is verifying this from other sources or changing the article if necessary, then the poster is right; this is just an article of biased information and hype.

Number 3 -Largest internet presence on any location with 7.1 billion search results. Is New York (state) being counted in some of those results? Because both the city and state have the same name, it is likely. But to credit all the searches under New York (city) would be like giving Los Angeles all the credit for anyone who searches the words Los Angeles or California on the internet. But of course this would never happen because they have separate names. In the case of New York (city or state) how do you know which location to give the credit to since they share the same name? It a person typed "New York City" or "New York State" then it is known. If only "New York" were typed, why is Wiki assuming that is a search for the city each time? This is really a useless statistic that can be removed from the article, indeed giving the fact it is hard to determine which location (city or state) that people were searching.

Number 5 -There are many reports (quite a number of reports) that state London is over New York City, or equivalent to it, in the financial sector. Now there are also reports that state New York City is the leading center. The Wiki article on London states that London is the world's largest financial center, alongside New York. Why then does the Wiki New York City article not say New York City is the world's largest financial center, alongside London? Instead it states that New York is one of "three command center" globally for commerce, with London and Tokyo being the other two. Stating it this way doesn't give any inclination that London may be over or equal to New York in this sector. -Basically in the London article, London shares the title with New York; but in the New York article, you don't know what's what with the cities involved -which is the way it was meant to be written.

Number 6 -Manhattan real estate is the most "prized" and "expensive" in the world. According to the link the poster provided, there are many cities with more expensive real estate. And this one is pretty easy: The word "prize" in this case is just an opinion; the word "expensive" perhaps can be presented as fact. An example: I were forced to move against my wishes to New York City due to a job transfer. Once there, I paid $700 thousand for an apartment. I would not consider it a "prize" as I did not want to move there, although I would consider it "expensive". That goes with the hype of this article; that everyone WANTS to or SHOULD want to live in New York. -At the very least the sentence should read "Manhattan's real estate is among the most expensive in the world". But drop the word "prized"; a prize to whom?

These comments are not meant to attack any person. But the article does have a certain biased, pro-New York tone throughout it that one would not expect from an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.226.14.5 (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see the point. Apart from the "most this" and "most that", just take: "New York's subway is also notable because nearly all the system remains open 24 hours a day, in contrast to the overnight shutdown common to systems in most cities, including London, Paris, Montreal, Washington, Madrid and Tokyo." The fact is that most of the subway runs 24/7. Mentioning a number of large cities by name that don't have this comes very close to bragging. The next sentence states: "The city's complex and extensive transportation system also includes...." The wording "complex and extensive" is redundant, the text before that already stated how complex and extensive the system is... Joost 99 (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As Loodog pointed out, there is nothing stopping Wisperer1982 from making edits to the article. Also, many of his/her counterpoints are unsourced or simply misplaced. For instance, the article is not calling Times Square the "Crossroads of the World" by simply reporting that it has often been called that. Also, even if the real estate source is correct, being 11th in the world still makes it accurate to say that it is "among" the most expensive. Lastly, the claim that SF's Chinatown is more highly concetrated than NY's is clearly wrong. --Jleon (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article cannot be edited because there are no edit tabs, it is locked. Also, the "iconic New York City subway system?" Iconic?...really? -And no mention of or going into detail about the severe financial situation of New York City in the 1970s, when it was going bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the federal government?

Here is an insight to New York in the 1970s:

Dirty, dangerous, and destitute. This was New York City in the 1970s. The 1960s were not yet over, and war still raged in Viet Nam, fueling resentment against the government. Nixon and the Watergate scandal created even more resentment, cynicism, and skepticism. Economically, stagnation coupled with inflation created a sense of malaise. The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 delivered another blow to the U.S. economy, and brought the misery of long lines to buy gasoline. Conditions in Harlem and Bed-Stuy were horrendous, with abandoned buildings and widespread poverty. The Bronx routinely saw buildings ablaze. The subways were covered everywhere with ugly graffiti and they were unreliable. It seemed as if the entire infrastructure was in decay. Political corruption, sloppy accounting, and the cost of the war were killing the city. Times Square was seedy and sleazy. Pimps, hookers, and drug dealers owned the area. Crime was rampant, and the police were virtually powerless to stop it. Random killings by the "Son of Sam" made New Yorkers even more fearful. The parks were in decay, with and litter and bare lawns, and it was home to muggers and rapists. When the city of New York had to beg the federal government for a financial bail-out, the President said no. The New York Daily News headline said it all: "Ford to City - Drop Dead."

Large sections of the city such the South Bronx, Lower East Side, Bedford-Stuyvesant, and Harlem looked like European cities which had been bombed during World War II. Sometimes entire blocks or several blocks would contain crumbling buildings, abandoned by their owners because the tenants could not pay rent. Conditions in these areas gave rise to street gangs and crime that spread city-wide. People tore the boards of the windows or smashed the concrete blocks in doorways to gain access to these abandoned buildings, which were then used by gangs, drug addicts, and children playing. Eventually, some people moved into these buildings as squatters, and efforts were made to rehabilitate or replace substandard housing. The lack of jobs and housing put enormous stress on the city's public assistance programs including housing, education, and healthcare. Many corporations left New York as conditions deteriorated, since new communications technology made it possible to do business anywhere. Most television production fled to Los Angeles and its vicinity.

New York City lost nearly a whopping 1 million people within a ten year span, from the 1970 census to the 1980s census. The exact figure was slighty under 900,000. Eventually New York City was bailed out by the federal government, but continued to have its seedy reputation throughout the 1980s, until conditions began to see a turn-around in the mid 1990s.

This all of course would be written in encyclopediac terms, but this article touches on nothing like this. And again, nothing can be edited because it is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that you, Allan? If not, the preceding post really ought to be given attribution, since it's copypasted from here. Fair is fair, after all. --Seduisant (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah it is copypasted from somewhere else; I thought that was implied by the way it was written. That's why I said it should be changed into encyclopediac terms. Otherwise I would have wrote it in encyclopediac terms to begin with. But the point is New York City is not this remarkable piece of land on earth that the article tries to make it out to be, and it certainly wasn't in the 1970s. This artice doesn't even go into detail of that severely difficult time for the city. At least a paragraph is warranted, especially since the city lost close to 900,000 people in only a ten year time span. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

While I somewhat agree with you on some counts, I think that your opinion is every bit as biased as you claim the article to be, only, of course, the other way. While some of your complaints are valid, others go too far and show that you're just going out of your way to discredit any superlative that is used to describe New York City.

1. Yes, it is subjective, but that's why it says "widely deemed"—and why there are references showing that New York City is, indeed, widely deemed to be the cultural capital of the world. The article does not claim that NYC is the cultural capital. If you find other articles saying that London or Los Angeles is the cultural capital of the world, you can include that information in those cities' articles, saying, like it is said here, that those cities are "deemed" the cultural capital of the world by some commentators. I am against changing this phrasing, because it is not incorrect and it's got proper references.

2. I agree that the phrasing should be changed. The NY Times article says, and I quote, "While there is no precise count, some experts believe New York is home to as many as 800 languages." It acknowledges that the 2000 census yielded a different number for the most linguistically diverse borough. This article could be changed to say something along the lines of, "It is estimated that as many as 800 languages are spoken in the city, making it the most linguistically diverse in the world." This claim would be consistent with the reference.

3. Nothing to say here. I agree. While it is likely that most of these results are city-, not state-related, this is purely speculation.

4. It may be arrogant, but it is a nickname that has existed for years. Again, the article is not claiming that Times Square is the Crossroads of the World. It is saying that Times Square has been iconified as "the Crossroads of the World" (enclosed in quotes, which makes a huge difference), which is a fact and it is consistent with the references. I am against changing or removing this bit.

5. By many metrics, ranging from daily trading volume to total market capitalization to hedge funds to many more, NYC remains a far bigger financial center than London. This is something, however, that could be discussed in depth, along with the editors of the London article, but I think this topic deserves a debate entirely dedicated to it. This is not it.

6. "is among the most prized and expensive" is not the same as "is the most prized and expensive." You haven't disproved anything with that link. If anything, you're supporting the claim. To be 12th among the many real-estate markets in the world is to be among the most prized and expensive of them. I am completely against changing or rephrasing this bit.

7. It is a dubious claim, but your matter-of-fact tone isn't any better, because it is also dubious that San Francisco's Chinatown is larger. The 2010 census assigns 45,000 people to the N.Y. Chinatown and 100,000 to the S.F. Chinatown. However, other estimates have placed N.Y. Chinatown's population at above 150,000. I haven't seen a comparable or superior estimate of the population of S.F.'s Chinatown. I agree that the phrasing should be changed, though, to include the concept of "estimate."

8. Again, it's very hard to get through what you write, what with your arrogance and delusions of authority. You speak as if you were some sort of judge appointed by God himself to determine which references are good and which aren't. The article provides a perfectly valid reference that indeed places those three universities among the world's top 50. Your source is no better than the source the article provides, which features a ranking that wasn't even compiled by New Yorkers or even Americans. In fact, having been very familiar with university rankings for years, I can safely tell you that the ARWU ranking is more widely used and studied than the QS ranking. The phrasing of the article does not communicate the idea that these three universities are among the world's 50 best. It merely says that they have been ranked among the world's 50 best. That is a perfectly valid claim and it is appropriately referenced. I disagree with changing or removing this.

All in all, I could have felt more inclined to agree with you on some of your points, had you not gone on an all-out, highly biased, and even resentful rant against the article and the city. Most of the statements you claim are arrogant or overhyping (what does that mean, anyway? I mean, is there any context in which the word "hype" can be free of subjectivity?) are indeed verifiable and referenced. A couple of them could be reworded and one of them can be discussed at length. But you don't need to deprive the article of its every superlative. A lot of articles of European places (and even other American places) feature even more subjective claims, such as "best quality of life," and few people want to dispute them. --AndresTM (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

AndresTM, I think you are just as arrogant as the blatant, biased article written on this city. I stand by my guns insofar as my points made on languages (NYC really only has about 200), universities (only two are in the world's top 50 or so, not three), and being the financial centre (which it's clearly not - NYC and the US as a whole is in decline, business booms in the east, and of course the aforementioned London has business dealings with both east and west). You, like this article, seem to think that New York has the best of everything, and like the article, thinks it's ok to hype it up by having as many 'biggest...in the world'/'most...in the world' claims (bloating claims) as possible, and selling this propaganda off as fact. I've seen the effect it's having. I've noticed a few of these skewed 'facts' in magazines and it's concerning that people are starting to believe in the lies about this city. The article makes the place seem bigger than it is, when in fact it is not. Stop presenting this place as some kind of Disneyland which everyone must go to.

As for this: 'A lot of articles of European places (and even other American places) feature even more subjective claims, such as best quality of life' - oh please, show me ANY other city article that has similar overhyping that *constantly* overrates it by saying 'it has the biggest this in the world', 'it has the most that in the world'. I'm sorry, but there isn't any. If there was, I'm sure users would edit and change it so that it appears that NYC is 'higher', so to speak. The constantly hyping can even be seem not just in this article, but anything relating to New York city (in other articles). You don't see this for any other city, so why for this one?

Finally, I do not appreciate your personal attacks by calling me names and calling me a 'judge appointed by God'. Seriously, get over yourself. Just because I don't believe the lies and constant, annoying, bragging this article makes doesn't make me 'arrogant'. On the contrary, I'm just merely pointing out the pomposity of this article and how I think it should be toned down, greatly, so it can be moderate and balanced, and not so blatently biased and thinking it's the darn centre of the universe when it is not. YOU sir, are the arrogant one. Despite the skewed points, you prefer to keep it as it is. You can argue your cause until you're blue in the face, you can call me 'arrogant' all you want just because I don't believe in your 'high and mighty' article; essentially, it will NOT change my view. To reiterate what a user said earlier:

"There is some truth to what Whisperer1982 is stating; the article does come off quite biased. -Also see the sections above called "Kind of Misleading".- There is a tone in this article of the "most of this", or the "best of that" that's never seems to quit. Forgive me, but it's as if the article is trying to say, if you don't live in New York City, especially Manhattan, then you do not deserve to live. Now there's no doubt that the United States is the sole super power of the world, but the line has to be drawn at over-implying that New York is the best city in the country. It is the most populous, but that doesn't make it the best".

From all the articles I've read on this site, this one still is the most biased/shamefully written. I urge for a review and to have it rewritten to present a more balanced and factual view (to whoever's able to unlock and have the ability to do it), and not overzealous in tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whisperer1982 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It takes an arrogant zealot to know one, doesn't it, Whisperer? If you don't want to be called arrogant, then don't pretend that just because you dislike a source, then it is completely invalid. We could stay here all day long, every day for a year denouncing each other for being arrogant and biased, but I'm sorry to tell you, I won't bite. I'm not playing your infantile games. I presented to you a thorough rebuttal, point for point, sometimes even conceding that you were right (thanks for acknowledging and appreciating the gesture, by the way). Yes, I did say that your "rant" seemed to stem from some sort of resentment. Yes, I did say that you seemed to be as biased as you think the article is. And yes, I did call you arrogant said you had delusions of authority, but your latest reply seems to validate and even justify those things I said. Again, if a respected and accredited source says THREE N.Y. universities are in the world's top 50, there is no reason to give way to your whims and erase that sentence just because you want to give more credibility to the one that says it's only two. You could have made a case as to why one source is better than the other, but no, you just assume that by demanding that the source be changed, we immediately need to do so, because your wish is everyone's command. And that's just one of the many examples of why your attitude does not help one bit. One piece of advice: if you can't stand being called "arrogant," don't go around using the word "overhyped" to qualify things, as if you had the sole authority to determine what's being "overhyped," as opposed to "justifiably hyped."

Anyway. I'm more than willing to engage in respectful, courteous, and intelligent debate. I'm not putting all the blame for our failure so far to do so on you, but I'm certainly not taking it all. As I said before, I made the first step by taking some of my time to address every one of your concerns. You rendered my efforts useless by vilifying me and solely focusing on what I said about *you,* utterly failing to produce a thoughtful response to anything I said about *your points.* I would love to leave all this childish bickering behind and really collaborate with you to make this article better. Contrary to what you claim, I do not believe that New York has the best of everything in the world. But I am well aware that, being the big city it's been for centuries, it is bound to have bragging rights to a number of superlatives. If someone says that India is one of the most populated countries in the world, they are not being blatantly biased and arrogant. If someone says that Paris is one of the world's most visited cities, they are not "overhyping" Paris. Those are facts, and attempting to delete them from our encyclopedias would be pointless and counterproductive. Likewise, there is no reason to be offended because someone says that New York has *one of the most* expensive real-estate markets in the world.

There's your olive branch. Will we talk about the article or about how arrogant we are? Your decision. If you choose the former, you will soon see another reply from me. If you choose the latter, sorry, I'm not wasting any more of my time.

Best wishes,—AndresTM (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to say something about superlatives: facts are stubborn little things. One thing is to say things like "the best" or "the greatest" and a completely different one is to say "the largest" or "the most ethnically diverse": the former are opinions, the latter are facts. I believe that most people here are complaining about facts because they think they are opinions. To say that New York has the largest this or the largest number of that is not to emit an opinion; it is to state a fact. Now, one may make a case as to whether the article focuses too much on listing New York City's superlatives, but it's also true that the biggest city in the world's remaining superpower is bound to have, by nature of things, a number of feats and records that it can boast. It almost stands to reason that such a city would have a really big economy, a highly sought-after real-estate market, lots of people from everywhere, top universities, and a very big financial scene. As long as there are references backing these things up, I see no reason to be upset just because the article lists them. Also, understand that if an article says, "X is considered by many to be the best/most important Y in the world," it is NOT taking a position, so there is no reason to say that it is biased. It is merely stating the fact that some commentators have called X the best or most important Y. It is not agreeing with them, and as long as there are references providing evidence that some commentators have indeed called X the best or most important Y, this should be no problem.

I explained above why I agree with some of Whisperer's points and disagree with others. And no, it's not a matter of being biased for New York. I have never stepped on that city before. I am a Chicago person. Likewise, if I were to review London's article, I would agree that there is sufficient evidence to say that some have called it the world's cultural capital (which does not contradict in any way whatsoever the fact that others have called New York City the world's cultural capital), but I would disagree with the unfounded claim that London is the world's most-visited city. The references used to support that claim merely state that London has the most international visitors and do not say anything about overall visitors. See? It is perfectly fine to see strengths and weaknesses in one city's article and strengths and weaknesses in a different city's article.

Thanks for your time.—AndresTM (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Can a editor please edit the sentence that refers to New York city as the 'financial capital of the world'? - The sources given for this statement are completely biased and inaccurate - e.g. one is a poll, and one is a biased journalist writing for NYC. The sentence should be changed to: "New York City is the financial capital of the world, alongside London" - as many sources suggest NYC is equal or even below London in the financial sector. I do agree that the people who have written this article probably live in the city, and they think it is the best place on earth and try to 'hype' it up using wikipedia. The information given is very misleading to people who have no real knowledge of the city. The article for 'London' on wikipedia is very neutral, and is not biased and does not hype London up at all, unlike this NYC one - This should be changed, as London is above NYC in most criteria according to official, non biased sources such as Forbes. It is clear that the authors of this article are trying to make out NYC is the world capital, over London, and the bitter insecurity of the people who wrote this can be inferred by the tone of language - "...In the world", World cultural capital" - despite many reliable sources suggest London and Los Angeles tie as the world cultural capital. "800 languages" is a false claim when official sources suggest 150. New York is not the best city in the world, this article is clearly trying to put that across. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpage96 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I already refuted many of your claims, and it would be nice if you signaled to me that it wasn't a waste of time on my part by actually addressing them instead of taking this conversation back to square one. First of all, this "appeal to bias" thing is simply not going to work out. When one takes a side, one is immediately rendered unable to accuse the other side of bias. You have evidently taken a side by claiming that New York is "below" London, so let's not kid each other here and base all our argument on the idea that others are more biased. Second, I don't see any objective, irrefutable evidence that the London article is any more "neutral" than this one. It claims that it was the world's most visited city in the world and conveniently forgets to clarify, as its sources do, that it is the most visited city by international visitors, which is not the only kind of visitors there is. As for the rest of your complaint, I'll refer you to my two replies above.--AndresTM (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Overall, I agree with the bulk of what Whisperer1982 is getting at, especially the third and fourth points - though I see nothing wrong with mentioning the post-secondary institutions, that's very common for any city article. Agreed that London needs to acknowledged more equally, as New York is on the London article. They equally vie for the title of global economic capital. Now there's no doubt that New York is a leading global city in nearly every sector, and this should be highlighted, but it's possible to mention these things without the ad nauseam. There's been some attempts at changing this, but overall, it's still overkill. Aurora30 (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't live in New York, and I believe this is probably the best written and best cited megacity article on Wikipedia. NYC is the alpha and omega of cities on the planet, and Wikipedia is all about factual verifiability rather than pandering to geopolitical correctness. Deal with it. Castncoot (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sister cities

I took out the table of flags as it added no encyclopedic information and nowadays the consensus is not to display flags like that in this context. However, I also noticed that the text refers to New York's historic ten historic sister cities and then goes on to list eleven. So, which is wrong? --John (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sister cities, arguably the least important of all the sections, comes up for some kind of discussion at least two or three times a year, usually because of some nationalist or anti-nationalist issue that has nothing to do with the Big Apple. Look through the archives of this talk page. Most recently, someone was quite intent on adding Tel Aviv to the list of sister cities without adequate support, and was reverted by another editor citing a more reliable official source. But I think what happened is that the number didn't get dropped back to ten from eleven. Anyone can go back through the edit history or talk page history to check the exact details; I'll probably do so when I have time. In fact, I've been thinking of hiving off all Sister Cities discussions onto a separate sub-page as I did for Talk:The Bronx/Name. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, here's the original discussion, or one of them: Talk:New York City/Archive 13#Sister Cities —— Shakescene (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it. --John (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Tel Aviv was added again as sister city. I deleted it. Can there be a better protection of this detail that always get changed? It is probably always the same person who is adding Tel Aviv as a sister city. --Pilettes (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm... at the risk of jumping in with very little knowledge, I'm wondering why this is not support for the assertion that New York City and Tel Aviv have a sister city relationship. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And another one. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

To my mind, NYC has ten historic sister cities (which are displayed in the article). Moreover NYC has 79 global partners, in which Tel Aviv is one of the 79. So if you add Tel Aviv as a sister city, you should also add the 78 other cities, right? Perhaps this will make it clearer? --Pilettes (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OK... as I said above, I am jumping in here with little knowledge and so I am very open to being educated. You are drawing a distinction between "ten historic sister cities" and "global partner cities". What does it mean to be a "historic sister city"? Is this defined somewhere? Based on the links that I provided, it would seem that quite a few people fail to draw this distinction. I think we will not be able to resolve this controversy unless we make clear that we are discussing "historic sister cities" and define that term. As long as we say only "sister cities", people with a different definition will want to insert one of the other cities such as Tel Aviv. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong passions either way, but like everyone else I just want to get this right. Here's the Internet Archive copy of a link that Pilettes used in that previous discussion, ( Talk:New York City/Archive 13#Sister Cities ) -- NYC.gov Sister Cities. It's not 100% beyond the realm of possibility that New York has added an 11th sister city since May 2011, although this apparently would break some one sister city per juridical nation limit (given as a reason why, for example, Glasgow, Cardiff or Belfast, as well as London, can't be New York City's sisters, even though they're in distinct countries of the United Kingdom). —— Shakescene (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

making a new indent because, while it relates to tel-aviv, my quibble doesn't fall in with the discussion above. the article currently states "And unlike New York, all but Johannesburg also serve as de facto or de jure national political capitals." while it is possible that some international cities officially designate tel-aviv (in lieu of yerushalaim) as the capital, in israel, only jerusalem is recognised as the capital. knesset, supreme court, and president are all located in jerusalem. perhaps the reason that the article states "...all but Johannesburg..." is related to the above issue regarding a later addition of tel-aviv to the list, but if tel-aviv is to be on the list, the statement should be amended to reflect that tel-aviv, like Johannesburg, is NOT considered the "de facto" or "de jure" capital of israel by the state of israel. thanks! 70.114.192.98 (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

But very few countries, including such close allies of Israel as the United States, recognize Jerusalem as the de jure capital of Israel. When I wrote that paragraph (before the now-reverted addition of Tel Aviv), I consciously tried to avoid this particular controversy (whether Jerusalem is a de jure or only a de facto capital) as well as I could without taking sides and, in fact, without mentioning any cities besides New York and Johannesburg. Two related controversies I avoided entirely, but which are quite open to some future reader's intervention, are whether Jerusalem is also the de jure (if not de facto) capital of Palestine, and whether Palestine is a country. ¶ In fact, to avoid precisely that kind of controversy (plus such earlier ones as whether London is the capital of England as well as of the UK, and about the relative statuses of the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China), I'm removing the pretty but unnecessary flags, since almost all the cities are already recognizable. I also removed the recent, confusing addition of Tel Aviv, which is against the consensus above, and which would require adding six or seven dozen more "global partner cities". (Now that I understand his concern better, I agree with the poster above that Tel Aviv isn't a de facto capital except for housing some diplomatic missions accredited to Israel.) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Humid Subtropical Climate?

Since NYC has a subtropical climate, like much of the Deep South, shouldn't winteres be listed as being "mild" and not "cold"? And shouldn't it be clarified whether New York is subtropical wet and dry (savanna-like), like Tampa or with four seasons like Atlanta (even though most of us know the answer is the latter, included for accuracy's sake)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.196.65 (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

New York does not have a climate like much of the Deep South. Maybe deep south Canada, like Toronto? Auchansa (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe like Vancouver, but otherwise, no. Places such as Toronto have winters where the snow doesn't melt entirely during the winter, while in subtropical pliaces like New York City and Raleigh, heavy snow may happen but it will be gone just as soon as it fell.

These are all relative assessments - "cold", "mild", etc. The only objectively verifiable and reliable statement to make is that according to the Koppen classification system, NYC has a humid subtropical climate. Castncoot (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Without even looking at the "source" for this, I wonder if you have ever been to New York. It's cold in the winter like everywhere around it. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 06:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been to New York City and even dated a girl that lived there. Winters are mild compared to the mountains of western Pennsylvania which fall under a true continental climate zone. In Altoona it could be 0 degrees and in NYC it could be 25. NYC would seem cold to someone from a place further in the subtropical zone such as Tuscaloosa, however.

People should look up the definition of "humid subtropical climate" in Koppen's classification system. NYC barely makes Koppen's classification for this, at its northern fringe. That's why it's "sub"tropical rather than tropical. Don't forget that 70-degree days CAN occur in January in NYC. Castncoot (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

70 degree days in January "can" occur even in continental climate cities such as Toronto. I think 70 degree January days are, although not common, something to be expected every winter in NYC.

Well we can look at the definition and do some WP:OR or look at the maps[3] on wikipedia where NYC would be far into Dfa. Anyway, WP:RS works. Right now it looks uncited in every article that mentions this classification. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 20:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. Will change it to humid continental and source it. Castncoot (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"70 degree January days are, although not common, something to be expected every winter in NYC". Not when the record is 72 °F. Also, NYC records 17 days that stay below freezing. Not to mention that NYC is firmly in USDA Hardiness Zone 7, meaning single digits are to be expected in most winters. So quit pretending NYC is mild in the winter. GotR ^Talk 07:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Zone 7 is semi-tropical, it's like Virginia Beach or Cape May. Getting down into the single digits in winter is no big deal unless it's the average low, then that would fall under "impressive cold". Recording snowfall is also no big deal. A "cold" winter is one where the ponds freeze over enough that you can play ice hockey on them, one where snow is present more often than not from December through March (at least), one where you can record average temperatures for the day around zero (for example, a high of 12 and a low of -12), and one where days in the 40s are considered unusually warm. I'll admit that maybe 70 degree days being common was a bit much, maybe 65 is a better number. But bear in mind that I said "mild", not "warm". Warm winters would be like Orlando, New Orleans, or Mobile, mild winters would be like Washington DC, Roanoke, Philly, or Baltimore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.42.30 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just read the edit, and as bizarre as it may sound, under Koppen’s climate classification, NYC has a humid subtropical climate, here’s why…

First, you may want to take a closer look at the map we’re citing. Though it is difficult to see, notice the greenish blob that appears in geographical western Long Island. That basically covers all of NYC, as Brooklyn and Queens are in NYC. The greenish blob denotes a Cfa (humid subtropical), NOT a Dfa (humid continental) climate. Secondly, according to the weather data, NYC’s coldest monthly average (January) is actually above freezing (which is 0 C or 32 F). The freezing mark is generally the North American climatologists cut-off point for what’s considered humid subtropical. If there is a monthly average temp that falls below this mark, that climate is not humid subtropical by these standards. In the rest of the world, this cut-off point is a few degrees lower (-3 C, or about 26.6 F). Also the warmest monthly average must exceed 72 F (22 C), which NYC easily does. As bizarre as it may seem, by both American and “the rest of the world’s” standards, NYC climate is indeed humid subtropical, under Koppen’s classification.

Then shouldn't the winter description be changed to "mild" instead of "cold"? Subtropical climates, such as New York City, Atlanta, and Mobile, are characterized by generally mild stretches of weather where it occasionally snows, but the snow quickly melts away. Essentially, it snows in the subtropics (except places like Tampa which may even be tropical) but it's a novelty. Granted, snow may linger longer in NYC than in Mobile, but it will also linger in a cold continental place such as International Falls longer than in a place like Altoona.

I guess the description is subjective. For example, many people in New York state outside of the NYC metro area would consider NYC winters “mild”. Many people in the South would consider NYC winters cold. 170.3.8.253 (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed a few times before. If you’re curious, you may want to check the talk archive pages.G. Capo (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your analysis of the map, weather data, or the standards (of anyone) for the climatic classification is WP:OR especially since it is not a clear conclusion. That "Brooklyn and Queens" "basically cover of NYC" is flatly incorrect. Please provide a citation from a WP:RS that says NYC is properly labeled as falling in Cfa not Dfa. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 03:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

[4] "Köppen uses as the C - D boundary the isotherm of 26.6°F. (-3°C.) for the coldest month. Thus, for example, Köppen places New Haven and Cleveland in the same climatic region as New Orleans and Tampa despite obvious contrasts in January mean temperatures, soil groups, and natural vegetation between these northern and southern zones. Trewartha redefined the boundary between C and D climates as the isotherm of 32°F. (0°C.) of the coldest month; he thus pushed the C - D boundary in the United States southward to a line extending roughly from St. Louis to New York City."

Oops, I forgot to sign this. Powers ^T 19:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

So wouldn't the conclusion be that New York City does indeed have a mild climate with no extremes in seasonal variation? Not one that can support royal palm trees or wear flip flops year round, but one where you see green grass in January more often than you see a white snowy ground?

Not quite. Like most places with a humid subtropical climate, NYC can get quite hot in the summer. NYC see high temperatures of at least 90 F on average 18-25 times per year. Your description of winters in NYC is pretty much spot on. G. Capo (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Decennial census numbers

Looks like someone edited out the Decennial 2010 census numbers and replaced them with estimates. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline estimates "should supplement – not replace – the most recent available data from the decennial census." I'll leave this to a New Yorker to go back and find the old numbers. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)