Talk:New York City/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Images are looking good - please try to maintain

Hi guys - I think that, as a whole, the images on the article right now are some of the best we have used on the page. I hope you guys try to maintain it to some degree the way it is, at least for a bit. They look good - nice work on the choices! --David Shankbone 19:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Colors in list of skyscrapers

Can someone explain the seemingly random coloring for the skyscraper table? --Golbez (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to, Golbez. It's an (apparently-unsuccessful) attempt to show where values for two different skyscrapers (rank, year, floors, height) are the same, so they're "tied" in that category. (If you press the sort button above a couple of different columns, you can see what I was trying to do.) The original, partly-different, chart had (e.g.) "3=" in the rank column to show a tie, and that method doesn't really work for year, floors, feet or meters. If someone can think of another or a better way of showing this, I'm certainly not emotionally committed to my own expedient. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for coloring at all, especially since it has no reasoning given and doesn't really help those who can't see the colors. I could be dense but I see no reason to have to set apart ties so much; if someone sorts by a certain column and sees two entries that are identical, he doesn't need color to further inform him that the two entries are, in fact, identical. --Golbez (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

New York as a subtropical climate

This really needs a source:

"New York City has a humid subtropical climate according to the Köppen climate classification."

Reading the article for subtropical climate, I dont know if New York fits the description:

"In subtropical climates the winters are relatively warm, but not as hot as the summer season. These climates rarely - if ever - see frost or snow, and plants such as palm, citrus and many broadleaf evergreens flourish, in contrast to the hardier deciduous and coniferous trees which dominate midlatitude climates. As one moves toward the tropical side the slight winter cool season disappears altogether, while at the polar threshold of the subtropics the winters become much cooler.

Rainfall patterns vary widely throughout the subtropics including hot deserts, savannas, monsoon forests, humid forests and the warmer parts of the Mediterranean climate zone. Subtropical regions include the southern third of California (Mediterranean type), the low deserts of the Southwest USA (hot arid type), the Gulf Coast and most of Florida (humid type), the southern Mediterranean and northern Sahara, northern India (monsoon), southeast China (humid), the middle part of South America (varied), much of Australia (varied) and coastal South Africa. Even the far Southwestern fringes of Cornwall in the United Kingdom meet both requirements - 6 °C average in the coldest month and 8 months with the average above 10 °C (specifically the Isles of Scilly). Plymouth in Devon just meets the John F. Griffiths' requirement for a subtropical climate - average 9 C max and 4 °C min in the coldest month. And it is not surprising therefore that there are real palm trees growing in Devon and Cornwall."

Anon134 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. According to Köppen climate classification, New York does have a "Humid subtropical climate" (termed Cfa), which is a bit different from the definition you provided above. New York City is an urban heat island, meaning it stays warmer than the surrounding area. The Koppen climate classification requires that an area's coldest month average above 27 °F (−3 °C). New York City's coldest month (January) averages 32 °F (0 °C). The Koppen climate classification scheme also requires that the average temperature of the hottest month be above 72 °F (22 °C). New York City's hottest month (July) averages 76.5 °F (24.7 °C). Further, mixed with the city's coastal location, New York gets about 50 inches (1,300 mm) of precipitation evenly distributed throughout the year. Source: Cornell University, Climate of New York City As such, the average temperatures and precipitation match the definition of a Koppen humid subtropical climate. I have also included a reference in the article to the World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. That page provides the GIS and raw ASCII data to look up the Koppen climate classification of any point on earth by using coordinate points. If you download the file and find New York City's latitude and longitude of 40 degrees north, 74 degrees west (-74), you'll note that the point is listed as Cfa. Hope this explains it. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 20:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I was looking at subtropical, not humid subtropical...my bad. Well I still think it should be sourced just in case because it is a pretty significant sentence and might be challenged. If you look at that Humid subtropical climate article, it says some experts disagree about whether it is a Cfa or Dfa, which is more reason to source it:

"Major cities typically included in this climate zone include: Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Memphis, Birmingham, New Orleans, Nashville, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, Richmond, Norfolk, Tulsa and Little Rock. Cities on the northern periphery of this zone include: St. Louis, Louisville, Cincinnati, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York City. The climates of Dallas and Oklahoma City display a marked reduction in rainfall that suggests a shading into steppe climates to be found farther west, as in Lubbock, Texas. There is some debate over whether Long Island and New York City fall under this category; depending on source, they could fall either in Cfa or Dfa, though they usually fall under Cfa or humid subtropical due to their proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and the warming Gulf Stream Current."

I think if you put the links in there, that would make all the difference. Anon134 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. The problem with the wikipedia article is that it's almost entirely Original Research. So I'm not sure who these "experts" are as none of it is sourced! I think the citation I added to the article is the best possible we can get. Unfortunately, there is no single third-party reliable source that neatly provides a list of major world cities and their respective climate classifications. The raw data provided in the citation is the best thing we got and it doesn't rely on anybody interpreting the data. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Wikipedia Loves Art museum photo weekend

New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum Last: 01//2008

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.--Pharos (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This page should have a different title.

"New York City" is not the name of the City of Greater New York and shouldn't be referred to in the title as that. Within this article's text, that is fine, but the reference in the URL should be something like "New_York_(city)", but definitely not "New_York_City".

By the way, no one who lives in or near New York says "New York City". The denizens of the New York Metropolitan Area (not New York City Metropolitan Area!) simply say "New York". This is reinforced by all road signs in the metropolitan area which will only say "New York", not "New York City" on them.

Indeed, generally people only use the term "city" when discussing Manhattan. For example, someone from Brooklyn or Queens (part of the City of New York) might say "I had to go into the city today to buy a new camera."

In newscasts though, the term "The City" is used when discussing the New York's city governemt. This is analogous to a newscast in which has a sentence such as "The White House, today, announced that....."

Vincent Ree (talk)

In principle (and as a non-New Yorker), I agree with you. However there was a struggle last summer at Talk:New York where those who think that "New York" should refer to the State of New York won out. I disagree with this improbable and confusing result, but I haven't dug into the archive to study the pro's and con's of the debate. (Although the debate closed with the decision to keep New York as the state article's title, no law forbids anyone from raising the topic anew.) Just as I think that what is now New York should really be New York State, I think that this should remain, for clarity, New York City. But I think that should New York convert to New York State or State of New York, then the redirect for New York should lead (more logically) here rather than there.

For whatever little it may be worth, compare London, Greater London and City of London. In fact, I deleted a column of the New York City#Sister cities table because most of those cities lie within regions or districts of the same name (Tokyo prefecture, Cairo governorate, Beijing region, Santo Domingo province, etc.) that weren't worth repeating. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I live in Manhattan, and I say "New York City" all the time. And if you're upstate, and someone asks you where you're from, and you just say "New York," they get slightly peeved, and I don't blame them, since you're implying that the rest of the state ISN'T "New York." New York is a state. A big state. And as for which one should be called simply "New York" for the purposes of this encyclopedia, the LARGER one, of course. Carlo (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Beware the box you open. This has been discussed to death and the result is something many people have very strong opinions on.--Loodog (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, could the parenthetical part of the first scentence "(most often called New York city)" be edited to "(most often called New York City or New York)," since the vast majority of New Yorkers refer to their city simply as New York? I'm not asking for the title to be changed, merely the first sentence.

Article too long

At 139 kb, this article is far too long. Are a table of Fortune 500 companies, a table of historical populations, a section on accent, a table on the tallest buildings, an index of maps and tables, and a section on crime really necessary for a summary article? I'd like to remind editors of WP:SUMMARY. --Joowwww (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the references contribute to the kb size of the article. The rule is if the readable prose itself is too long. That being said, I think we could do without the table of the tallest buildings.--Loodog (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Loodog. I don't think the article is too long, but the tables of the biggest companies and tallest buildings are not really necessary. The historical populations are standard for pretty much any article, and the section on crime is a summary of its main article. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 22:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A long, general survey of things that might be cut or recast

I'll have much more to say later on, but this isn't really a summary article, as many of the subtopics don't (yet) have their own articles (e.g. Climate of New York City, Cuisine, Sister Cities, etc.) There are two principal issues about article size: one is if the length makes it unreadable; the other is whether the whole thing (with invisible or quickly-skimmed footnotes, images, tables, etc.) is too big to load easily on small computers, small memories or slow dial-up connections. Tables often help readability (if not overall length) because they can be perused at leisure instead of ploughing through long lists and notations in the prose commentary.

The article really needs to be looked at as a whole before any drastic pruning begins; e.g. should Cuisine be expanded, exported or cut? Is there somewhere to send the exhaustive (and passionately-debated) Climate section so that this article can give a good picture of NYC weather to lay readers who've never heard of Koeppen and can't distinguish one Mediterranean or Sub-tropical climate from another? Why is there no treatment of health care—and how does one write about it without indigestible lists of hospitals that are dead-certain to attract even more entries? By contrast, does Education need more information about achievement, or more evocative descriptions of (say) Columbia University or Bronx HS of Science, rather than its own summary lists that attract endless additions of favorite alma maters? Would tables help these two topics or not? What on earth do we do with Sister Cities (see two heated discussion sections above, #Sister Cities London and #Sister Cities), which ignite nationalistic passions and endless reversions wholly disproportionate to the subject's importance?

As for the tables I've created or worked on:

1. The Fortune 500 (or NYC 25) table is as minimal a version I could reduce from a much bigger one I made for Economy of New York City. I think it's more useful to provide a few examples of finance and entertainment headquarters than limit ourselves to generalities backed by slightly-outdated second-hand references to Economic Development Administration websites. In particular, I wanted to show as simply as possible how concentrated finance, insurance and securities are in New York City, and thus how vulnerable to last year's crash.
2. Although I spent days cleaning up the Skyscrapers table, I didn't create it. Someone else just copied and pasted the "Pinnacle" table from List of tallest buildings in New York City without importing all the references correctly. I, too, have wondered whether it's too big for this article, and exporting it to Architecture of New York City would not be a problem for me. On the other hand, people will come here with an interest in the Twin Towers, Empire State Bldg, Chrysler Bldg and perhaps the old Pan-Am (now MetLife) building. Perhaps we could replace the big table with the List article's Timeline of New York's Tallest Building, starting with the antebellum Trinity Church. Or perhaps I could make a table of today's top five, compared with the top five of 1928 (in my 1929 World Almanac and Book of Facts.

I moved the skyscraper table to Architecture of New York City. Someone added the Freedom Tower, requiring not only an extra line but a note that we couldn't include all the unbuilt projects over 800 feet, which made the table just too big for this article. As I said above, perhaps I or someone else can add a small table or list of the five or six tallest buildings today (and perhaps in 1928). —— Shakescene (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

3.  The tiny list of maps and tables is just an addition for the reader's convenience to the table of contents. It doesn't lengthen the article's prose, or increase its screen length, since it just fills some previously-empty white space. And the code takes up very few kilobytes. If there were fewer than four tables, it wouldn't make much sense, but there are probably just enough now to make it helpful for navigation.

4.  A small group of readers are interested in Sister Cities and do want to compare them. (In this sense, it's one of those semi-specialized topics that cross many place articles, such as Climate, Demographics and Elections, which people jump around to read, compare and edit topically rather than geographically.) I could, I suppose, reduce the table to a prose list, although that wouldn't necessarily increase the readability or aesthetics.

There's more, of course, that can be discussed, but that's enough for now. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)]

Distinction

There MUST be a distinction between New York City as a whole and Manhattan. They're completely different resepectively.

I believe that exists with the article Manhattan. --Golbez (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Very true, although some things interfere. One is that New York City before around 1874 was actually smaller than Manhattan (New York City had not yet merged with New York County), although essentially they were the same. (For the closely-parallel question of how the Bronx, Manhattan, New York City and New York County related to each other between 1874 and 1914, see Talk:Manhattan, Talk:The Bronx and Talk:Borough President.) Another is that a few things, such as Fortune 500 corporate headquarters and notable skyscrapers, don't exist in the outer boroughs, which presents a quandary of where to put them (and how much of them) since they're obviously important to both the borough and the City. See several earlier discussions about showing more pictures of the outer boroughs to balance the essential ones of Times Square, the Empire State Building, Broadway, etc. Baseball stadiums only relate distantly to the boroughs they're in, while artifacts like the Unisphere in Flushing (Queens) and the Lorelei Statue on the Grand Concourse (Bronx) aren't easily recognizable to outsiders. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, but.. what's the problem here? The IP wasn't clear what distinction needed to be made. --Golbez (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

NYC Tourism Website out of date

The official travel/tourism website of New York City is now at http://www.nycgo.com

The site-relaunched in November, 2008.

Charlie Zegers (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Charlie Zegers

Population

If NYC were its own country it would rank as # 94. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.237.225 (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Duke of York becomes King

Did New York go to the next Duke, or remain in royal hands? Who was proprietor after James? Catterick (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that I read up on it, it appears that although New York remained with the Crown, those areas never part of the Dominion of New England, such as Pennsylvania and Delaware, remained with their proprietors. Catterick (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sister cities

I agree with Ranever "the residents don't feel any more connected to the sisters than to any other ones, the sisters are never mentioned in the news, and most New Yorkers don't even know the "relationships" exist". The article is very summarized thus does not seem appropriate to assign such importance. Alakasam (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro ... sounds weird

city of New York repeated twice in the same sentence to refer to the name of the city:

"The (commonly called New York City and formally The ) is ..."

and I think sounds very unprofessional, and we had better change it. --Pgecaj (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Shakescene did it just yesterday but it looks pretty bad. Bold face doesn't necessarily refer to the article title, only to the subject of the article. (For example, we would bold William Jefferson Clinton on Bill Clinton) --Golbez (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Gee, that was fast Golbez, but how about this...

New York, commonly called New York City to distinguish it from the state with the same name, and formally known as The City of New York, is ... --Pgecaj (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Except the state is should be mentioned later in that very same sentence, so I'm not sure we need to explain the disambiguation needs. Whoops, nope, it's not, in fact, the state isn't mentioned anywhere in the intro. I'll fix that shortcoming now. --Golbez (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, though we still have left out the fact that it's formally/officially known as The City of New York. --Pgecaj (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. See city charter. It's called New York, usually in context "the city of New York" or "New York city" to differentiate from state. Station1 (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I made some (minor) changes. I don't know whatcha thinkPgecaj (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Station1 is correct, the official name of the city is New York, same with the state. When writting New York city you are not supposed to capitalize the c in city though its become somewhat commonplace, but newspapers (at least within the state of NY) still do NOT capitalize city or state when referring to New York state or New York city. Nobody goes around writting "Montana State" or "Chicago City" and there are plenty of other states and cities that share names, such as Iowa City, Kansas City, Nebraska City, and Michigan City to name just a few. (and before someone brings up Kansas City has a capital C- the actual legal name of the city IS Kansas City, and still noboday writes Kansas State)148.78.249.31 (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

City classification

New York is rated "high". The rules state that only capital cities are classified "top". That means Washington DC only in the USA. Wallie (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm an intensely political person who's never lived in or near New York City and I share most outsiders' disdain for New York's self-centredness, but I still think New York is more important than Washington, a one-industry town. There are so many fields (e.g. television and education) where New York has to be among the top 2 or 3, if not indisputably "top", and so many where there's no challenger, that I'd consider it to be of top importance. (And the UN, with all of its diplomatic missions, is in New York, not DC, so New York has some international political importance as well.) But maybe politics, government, diplomacy and defense are that more important in today's world than commerce and culture. The rule about only capital cities being of "top" importance is just plain daft: Ottawa, Canberra, Islamabad, Ankara and Brasilia (for example) are far from being the most important cities in their countries, from either a national or an international viewpoint. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a case of guidelines vs. exceptions. As a general rule, only capitals should be "top", but this is a clear example of an exception.--Loodog (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thirded. NYC presents a largely unique case in terms of cities. Perhaps a distinction along the world cities line? ~ Amory (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the guideline means, or how it got there (maybe just to avoid quarrels), but it makes no sense to me. Sydney & Melbourne, though not Canberra, can compete as to which is top in Australia (which is why Canberra, in-between, got chosen as capital). Similarly with Toronto & Montréal (but not Ottawa) in Canada, Rio de Janeiro & São Paulo (but not Brasilia) in Brazil, Karachi in Pakistan and Istanbul in Turkey. There are too many exceptions to make this a good rule. Many political capitals like London, Lisbon, Rome, Dublin, Mexico City, Moscow and Paris are the "top" cities of their countries, but others are clearly not while yet others can be debated (Edinburgh vs Glasgow, Madrid vs Barcelona, Beijing vs Shanghai, New Delhi vs Bombay vs Calcutta). See the brief comparison I added to liven up New York City#Sister cities. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, its been seconded, thirded, and fourthethed, so I'm going to fifthethethethed the idea that the rule "only capital cities are top" is outdated or at best misguided. Shakescene gives many good examples of most populated cities being different than capitals. NY beats out its closest rival, Los Angeles by 2-1 in population both city-to-city and metro-vs-metro comparisions, NY is larger than LA and Chicago (third largest US city) combined, this just shows how much NY dominates the US landscape, and thats just one statistic- population; that's not including the economic areas in which NY and its suburbs clobber other places in the US both historically and today. Plus there's the problem with the definition of the guideline based on- capital of what?, would the capital of Greenland count as a top city, it could be argued that its a country but not a nation-state (Greenland is a self-governing part of Denmark) or the capital of Tibet, what about tiny nation-states, should there capitals really be declared as TOP over NY, Sydney, Rio, Mumbai, or Hong Kong. Then if that argument doesnt work, how about- the UN kinda makes NY the "capital" of the entire world, therefore meets the definition of being a capital. What happens if (or really WHEN) the world's most populated city is a city that is not a capital city, would we then keep that city as high instead of top? I suggest we move this discussion to the cities wikiproject and get the guidelines changed to something more accurate.148.78.249.31 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted Shakescene's excellent examples on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/Assessment#Priority_Ranking in order to try and get a larger consensus talking about this again. ~ Amory (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Crime cause

Stating that the crack epidemic caused the crime spike is POV. There were a number of factors including unemployment, the municipal budget crisis taking cops off the street, continued discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.15.21 (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Choppy sentences & use of while as a connective.

Recently a revert was made to the first sentence with the comment that "Earlier version was less choppy". This revert again uses the word "while". Two comments: 1> my research indicates that sentences are considered "choppy" when there are too many short simple sentences in succession. Use of appositive phrases is what makes text LESS choppy 2> "while", when not being used in the temporal sense, suggests that some kind of contrast is being set up (a weak "although"). I see no real contrast here except that the descriptions relate to diiferent entities. Here are the 2 alternatives:

New York City, the most populous city in the United States since 1790,[2] is the hub of the New York metropolitan area, one of the most populous urban areas in the world.

and

New York City is the most populous city in the United States,[2] while the New York metropolitan area ranks among the most populous urban areas in the world

The second loses the 1790 content (which is what the [2] ref supports, btw - not NYC presently being the most populous). It also removes "hub", which makes the connection between the 2 entities. While the second is a simpler construction, it is also less dynamic - stating only 2 facts in 28 words (vs 4 facts in 32 words). I earlier changed several sentences in the lede with the comment that it was to avoiding simple sentences with repetitive structure: "X is q. X is r. X is t". The second alternative, with "is" appearing right after the subject name, is a return to modelling a choppy writing style --JimWae (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. There's nothing wrong, in my own personal opinion, about a sequence of normal subject-verb clauses. (This is partly a matter of taste — George Orwell vs Matthew Arnold or Hemingway vs Faulkner — and partly a general approach among Wikipedia editors to present complex information in as simple language as possible, since Wikipedia's widely read by children and non-Anglophones.) New York is the most populous U.S. city at the same time that Greater New York is the among the world's most populous urban areas, so "while" seems smooth to me.

Actually I think that the second part (about metro population) is not so important that it need be in the very first sentence, just as the "since 1790" (although only two words) is a jarring interlude that needn't be in the first sentence either. (And better, more natural, English would be "New York has been the most populous city in the United States since 1790." What's jarring about the first sentence is that although the first phrase has no verb, it implies a different tense [present perfect] from the main clause.) Adding on a second apposition ("one of the most populous urban areas...") at the end just adds to the choppiness. In my opinion, this approach just replaces the monotony of a series of "is" clauses with the discordance of a sequence of long verbless phrases.

Were I to try and write the first couple of paragraphs myself, as I did last summer but starting afresh, I might put geographical location further up, since it answers the "where?" question (and part of the "what?")

There's no simple solution, as I said in an earlier section of this Talk Page; we just have to experiment until we see something that's accurate and readable at the same time that it provides the most salient points in the best order. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

¶ How about a first sentence somewhat on the lines of:

New York City, located on the Atlantic coast of the Northeastern United States, has been the most populous city in the U.S. since 1790.

You'd have some grammatical variety, avoid the inactive, repetitive "is", and put what might be the most important facts first. I'm not suggesting this because I think it's perfect †, but so that we can get closer to finding something upon which we can reach agreement. That agreement, of course, might not include those who come by in six months, but that's Wikipedia.
† (For one thing, I try hard to avoid words like "populous", "coterminous" and even "co-extensive" that may not be readily grasped by every reader.) —— Shakescene (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I can agree about avoiding "coterminous" and "co-extensive" in the lede, but if you go below a vocabulary level that understands "populous" you might as well be writing for Simple Wikipedia. I don't really think the location matters a whole lot, and it definitely does not need to be the first fact mentioned (the location needs to be in the lede, but it does not in itself make NYC notable). I'd go more along the lines of:

New York City, the most populous city in the U.S. since 1790 and the hub of one of the world's major metropolitan areas, is a seaport on the Atlantic coast of the Northeastern United States.

I'm really disliking the idea of opening an article with a subordinate clause four words in. How about... "New York City is the most populous city in the state of New York and the United States." That gives both population (one of the primary causes for its notability) and its location (New York). I think that's a sufficient location identifier. We don't need to tell the reader in the first sentence that it became the largest city in 1790; that's perfectly fine for the history section. Remember that we are allowed to use more than one sentence in the lede. :) Perhaps if you also want the other reason it's notable, it could be expanded to: "New York City is the most populous city in the state of New York and the United States, and is a global center for arts and economics." --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a small quibble: anyone who grew up outside upstate New York learned the location of the city before he or she learned about the state, so mentioning the latter adds nothing to location (as opposed to clarifying the distinction between the state and city), any more than saying that Mexico City is within the State of Mexico, Los Angeles is part of Los Angeles County, Bombay in Maharashtra, Calcutta in West Bengal, Johannesburg in Gauteng province or Rome in Lazio. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Another quibble, but two of those aren't equivalent - Mexico City is in its own federal district, not the state of Mexico; and we would say Los Angeles is the largest city in California (which we do). However, I can pass on mentioning New York state in the first sentence, since New York is the largest in the country, so that it is the largest in the state goes without saying. My main complaint was the structure of the sentence, not the content. Use a single, smooth-flowing sentence, rather than splitting it up like that. --Golbez (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite any styleguide that would support non-use of sentences with appositive clauses?--JimWae (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The official Golbez's Eyes and Brain stylebook, which says it looks and sounds really bad. If you want to state a fact, state it. Especially in the first sentence of an article, it just reads very strangly. Why would you prefer "New York City, which is in the NE United States, is the largest city in the United States" to "New York City is a city in the NE United States and is the largest city in the United States" (Poor examples but the point is made) Can you cite any styleguide that suggest USE for these sentences? --Golbez (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Awkward ordering in introduction

The first sentence of an article's lead should be the one which presents facts which give the best possible context for the reader. This is not the case for this article. The fact that New York City is the most populous city in the US is a fun factoid, but it doesn't really provide a whole lot of context. What would be more beneficial to the reader is a description of its location, something which is brought up in the second paragraph. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's fine. I don't think that the location is more important than the population, but just for the record, being located in North-east USA doesn't represent much (a lot of cities are in North-east), but the largest in a country of 300 million, that's something. Anyway, the guidelines DO suggest the intro be kept interesting and motivate the reader to read more, but the guidelines also suggest that the article to correctly and neatly written and Im proud of what we've done so far (not me as much as the others), plus, the intro should really summarize the article, and it does, mentioning geography, population, etc.--71.190.93.24 (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, God! Now the intro is totally messed up. I hate that everyone who reads the article likes to make it their own way. Can you please not edit what's right!! --96.232.49.191 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone apparently wanted to do it their own way. I'd revert it but it's too much. Some the edits are good, but some other edits disrupt the article's flow. I hate it that they edited without consensus. This is a featured article; not an experiment. --Pgecaj (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree: some of the edits are good but some of them aren't. I tried writing the lead last summer to resolve relatively minor quibbles over capitalizing and boldface, but I've just waited to see what happens as others experiment juggling with an awkward set of facts (there are similar difficulties at Manhattan and Staten Island, where you have to explain somewhere that the article covers the island as well as a larger borough of the same name and a county with a different name that shares the borough's boundaries.) Apart from the endless wrangles over (the city of) New York vs New York, New York vs New York City vs (The/the) City of New York, you want to let readers know fairly early the distinction with New York State and New York County, where roughly the City's located and the size and relative importance of her population. All this is hard to do in reasonably readable and graceful English prose. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I propose we go back to the previous version we used some time ago, which was simple, correct, and had a nice flow to it:

"New York City is the most populous city in the United States, while the New York Metropolitan Area ranks among the world's most populous urban areas. [...]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.88.211 (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Media

New York is ... also the largest media market in North America (followed by Los Angeles, Chicago, and Toronto).[92]

92- http://www.tampabay.org/press.asp?rls_id=991&

Sorry, this article cited makes no mention of LA, Chicago or Toronto, nor does it mention "North America" it only talks about the "national" aka US Nielsen markets. This should be reworded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.114.78 (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Native New Yorkers

"36% of its population was born outside the United States."

How many people who live in New York City were born OUTSIDE of new york city. Is there any way to determine that? If so PLEASE include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.80.8 (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's a way of determining this. I'll explain. You would add up the foreign born percentage, to the percentage of out-of-state born residents (which is especially high in Manhattan), and if it's able to be obtained, add anyone who was born in Long Island, Upstate New York, or any part of the state of New York that doesn't include the 5 boroughs.

So, hypothetically, if 36% were foreign born, you'd add that to, let's say 25% of the American-born population, in the 5 boroughs all combined, was born out-of-state.

Out of the 64 percent that is American born (100 - 36), you'd divide that by 25%, which would give you 16%. Than add that to the 36% that's foreign born, and right there, it'd be 52% all-combined out-of-state born. Than, of the remaining hypothetical 48 percent, you'd have to figure at least 5% of it comes from people in the rest of the state, especially closeby populated parts, like Long Island, Westchester, ect. Realistically, less than half of New York City is native to it. Probably only 40-45% at max is. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

Densest City In America?

I know it says that NYC is the densest city in America, but Union City, NJ has a density of 52,977.8 per square mile - roughly twice as dense as New York City. So ... what's to do about that? StupidityxLEAK (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The four most densely-populated counties in the U.S. are New York [borough of Manhattan], Kings [Brooklyn], Bronx and Queens. Richmond County [Staten Island] is the 27th most-densely-populated. But of course that doesn't directly answer the question. I suppose we'd have to say something like the most densely-populated city of over x thousand people. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

New York is certainly the densest city of major size; at a certain point I guess we have to draw a line. A single apartment building, were it a city, would be extremely dense. Most city borders are purely arbitrary, and thus so are the densities. --Golbez (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It already says most densely populated "major" city, and there's also already a footnote (currently #5) mentioning Union City. Station1 (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No evidence or source to support that postwar European immigration significant impacted New York City's postwar economy

Returning World War II veterans and immigrants from Europe created a postwar economic boom and the development of huge housing tracts in eastern Queens.

There's no source or evidence, and probably little out there to support that postwar European immigrants to New York City were significant in numbers. Like anywhere else in America, returning soldiers utilizing the benefits of the GI Bill was prominent, but most European-American's in New York City don't trace roots to postwar immigration. It doesn't even what countries that would be from. The largest postwar immigrant to New York City would have been Puerto Rican's, but other groups, such as West Indians, may have made an impact. There were some Eastern European foreigners who moved too, but this was much more prevalent towards the end and fall of the Soviet Union. So, I'll revise this statement to read as:

Returning World War II veterans help created a postwar economic boom and the development of huge housing tracts in eastern Queens. Tom71.245.112.131 (talk)

The table in the 1995 Encyclopedia of New York City (pp. 584-5) of foreign-born New Yorkers seems to bear out your doubts, although new immigration is what we need to see. European refugees from about 1930 to 1990 were important, but in less-quantifiable ways. New York's cultural and academic worlds would have been very different without them, and probably her business, too. They also affected politics and trade unionism. —— Shakescene (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The level of their impact on the general population is an open interpretation, but I do agree with you, to some degree. I just don't believe it appropriately matches in that paragraph, because it leaves the wrong impression. It gives off a vibe that there was another significant wave of European immigration, which there wasn't. European refugees did make an impact, especially on the arts. So, it'd be appropriate to mention that under the arts, or as is done in the abstract expressionism or New York School articles. Also, similarly to today, in the art and cultural scene, for the European's living in New York, it's mostly in Manhattan. To a lesser degree, they've impacted the politics and unions, but I don't know if that's necessarily true more of New York City than other places in the U.S. Most Europeans who had come since postwar, typically, haven't been union workers, but are usual, as previously mentioned, wealthier and in art or academia. Tom71.245.112.131 (talk)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.112.131 (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Tom71.245.112.131 (talk)

'Big Four'

“ Three of the "Big Four" record labels are also based in the city, as well as in Los Angeles. ”

Which three are meant here? When I look up the pages for Universal, Sony, Warner and EMI (the Big Four), it seems that they all have HQ's - or something like that - in NYC. Thanks, 77.167.224.101 (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't African-American's considered amongst the top 5 ethnicities in the city?

The five largest ethnic groups as of the 2005 census estimates are: Puerto Ricans, Italians, West Indians, Dominicans and Chinese.[136] The Puerto Rican population of New York City is the largest outside of Puerto Rico.[137] Italians emigrated to the city in large numbers in the early twentieth century. The Irish, the sixth largest ethnic group, also have a notable presence; one in 50 New Yorkers of European origin carry a distinctive genetic signature on their Y chromosomes inherited from Niall of the Nine Hostages, an Irish high king of the fifth century A.D.

http://censtats.census.gov/data/NY/1603651000.pdf

According to the 2000 Census, New York City was 27% black, while 11.6% was African-American, 6.9% was West Indian, 7% was Afro-Latino and 1.5% was Sub-Saharan African (mostly immigrants). It's one of the few American cities that they actually counted the Afro-Latino percentage, within the overall black statistic, which probably is worth mentioning. But, in 2000, if it was reported that New York City was 11.6% African-American, which is it's own ethnicity, it would be larger than all Puerto Ricans, Italians, West Indians, Dominicans and Chinese. According to the 2000 Census, Puerto Ricans are 9.9% of NYC and Italians are 8.7%, West Indians are 6.9% and Dominican and Chinese are both about 5%. While it's likely African-American's dropped in percentage since than, I doubt it'd knock them out of the city's top 5 ancestries. Unless they're not be counted as their own ethnicity, I'm not sure why that's not there. Also, although not an ethnicity, the largest ancestral heritage or descent is Jewish, at about 12%, but I understand that could be confusing to include in an ethnicity categorization. Tom71.245.112.131 (talk) Tom71.245.112.131 (talk)Tom71.245.112.131 (talk)

I haven't checked out and compared the details, but those are all good points. The general pattern (good or bad) for demographic sections in Wikipedia is to start reporting white, black, Asian, native (American, Alaskan or Hawaiian), Pacific-islander, other-race, multiple-race and Latino proportions at the start of the section, and then to break down the white/Latino population by ancestry. (Remember that West Indian immigrants may be of any race, not just African.) For a comparison of some slightly-different treatments (causing a disagreement at Talk:The Bronx between User:Emigrant85 and myself), see Demographics of The Bronx, The Bronx#Since 1914, and The Bronx#Ethnicity, language and immigration.

Something that surprised me slightly when researching the Bronx's demographic breakdown is that individual African birthplaces just don't rank very high, compared to those of Latin America and the Caribbean. But this may be different for other boroughs or for the City as a whole.

The problem with reporting Jewish populations is that, since the early 20th century, the Census Bureau has refrained from asking questions about religion which can naturally be seen by some respondents as governmental intrusion on a fundamental liberty. As (again) one can see from the references in The Bronx, one has to rely on unofficial self-reporting by Jewish institutions. Academic sociologists, demographers and historians use Russian immigration in the relevant decades as a rough indicator (sometimes together with sampling surnames), but this can only be a very approximate guide. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We also must take into account that African-Americans do not comprise their own ethnicity. For example, American-born Kenyan whose parents were born outside of the US are just as much African-American as the decedents of slaves brought to America generations ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.53.182 (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in the sense that it's an American citizen, they are as American as anyone. However, African-American is it's own ethnicity. What makes an ethnicity an ethnicity isn't necessarily a common place of ancestry. That would be dignified as race or genetics. African-American's have a common kinship, that includes the history of segregation, slavery, that mostly traces to southern roots in this country, which is why many are Baptist and some of the African-American population speaks with an ethnic dialect. The descendant of a recent Kenyan immigrant wouldn't have kinship to slavery, segregation or the common experience of African-American's. According to the U.S. Census, African-American's are considered their own ethnicity, so I don't see how they couldn't be. If anything, a group such as Puerto Ricans or Dominicans would have much less integrity being considered an ethnicity, in relating genetics to it, since they're very diverse islands. In Puerto Rico, being Spanish, African or mulatto would be an ethnicity, while being Puerto Rican would be the culture. Tom71.245.112.131 (talk)

NYC is not UNIQUE for 24-hour transit system

Both the Chicago Red and Blue lines of the L run 24 hours. That makes NYC's mass transit system not "unique" for the availability of 24-hour mass transit. My change reflecting this was reverted without reason. Please discuss.--Loodog (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't approve of the new sentence either. "New York is notable among American cities, along with Chicago, for its high use and 24-hour availability of mass transit, and for the overall density and diversity of its population. "

Chicago doesn't have anywhere near the transit ridership of NYC, and now it looks like density and diversity are being applied to Chicago as well. How about "New York is unique among American cities for its high use and 24-hour availability[footnote mentioning Chicago] of mass transit, and for the overall density and diversity of its population."--Loodog (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad we reaching an agreement. --Pgecaj (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

With a little time and thought, you could probably fish around your own vocabulary, or if necessary a thesaurus, to find a word that expresses the intended sense better than "unique" ("remarkable"?) —— Shakescene (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

For example something like (I'm not working here, just throwing stuff off the top of my head and imperfect memory): "Among the characteristics that so strongly distinguish [or mark off] New York from other U.S. cities are..." —— Shakescene (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We used the word notable. Pgecaj (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The current sentence sounds as if 100% of the mass transit system is open 24 hours a day. This is obviously not true. Many New York City Bus routes don't operate 24/7. However, the New York City Subway system does run 24 hours a day, save for a portion of the BMT Nassau Street Line (the only exception I know currently), as well as PATH, Staten Island Ferry and Staten Island Railway. The 24-hour availability of mass transit is applicable to most of the city within a walking distance of such routes, but not to major portions of Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island. A safer sentence, perhaps, should suggest that (most of) the subway, etc. runs 24/7. I am not suggesting a particular phrasing; but I hope I can shed some light here. Tinlinkin (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A valid point. How about "New York is notable among American cities for its high use of mass transit, much of which runs 24 hours..."?--Loodog (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I can second that. Tinlinkin (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sections

What if each section of this article was split into a subpage of New York City and transcluded onto New York City, to reduce page size? mynameinc (t|c|p) 19:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Crime statistics incorrect

The Crime section currently states that in 2007 NYC recorded 801 murders. In fact, in 2007, NYC recorded only 496 murders (see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City). The 801 statistic was for New York State as a whole, not NYC.

Thanks, Greg

Greggyd224 (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I have reverted the edit. I am also thinking of removing the unsourced claim... anybody know where we can adequately source it? Thanks, epicAdam^(talk) 13:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that that's what the editor was trying to fix. With the "citation needed" tag and no source for citywide homicide statistics, he probably found the statistic for the state, cited that, and said the city figure was fewer than the 801 for the whole state. Granted, somewhat confusing and doesn't really fit the context. Anyway, a source for a city figure of 494 is at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/nyregion/01murder.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=murder+in+2007&oref=slogin . Station1 (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Police and sheriff's departments (usually the relevant entity) do submit Uniform Crime Reports regularly to the FBI, so it shouldn't be that hard to find a usable and accessible source for the NYPD. When I was reporting on Berkeley, California in the early 1970's, I could get recent Part I statistics (homicide, burglary, etc.) from the Berkeley Police Department. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

— Bingo!, via an indirect route from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, I found the FBI's page of Uniform Crime Statistics for every department in New York state, including New York City's. See:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_08_ny.html

For the comparable rates in 2006 (and earlier years) see

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_08_ny.html (etc.)

which shows 100 fewer murders and non-negligent homicides in the Big Apple in 2007 than in 2006.

To compare New York's rates with those of other large city departments in 2006, see Table 298 of the 2009 Statistical Abstract at:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html

—— Shakescene (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbers in the Boroughs map

I've numbered the boroughs, using the notes in the image file as a guide. This is essential for those of us who are color blind and thus unable to reliably match the color key to the boroughs. --TS 10:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Do you think you could change the order and numbering to match the order in the "Five Boroughs at a Glance" table (1. Manhattan, 2. the Bronx, 3. Brooklyn, 4. Queens and 5. Staten Island)? I created the table, but it's been converted by someone else into a template which is harder to edit, while I'm partial to my current order because it matches that at New York City mayoral elections and because it puts the outer boroughs in alphabetical order after (and in very rough order of proximity to) Manhattan. If there's some reason you prefer your current order, I am of course prepared to consider adjusting my table's order (and colors) to match. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the order, really, as I'm unaware of any local (ie: New York City) significance ordering might have. It makes sense to use the same ordering throughout the article, of course, but beyond that I have nothing to say. --TS 05:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Education question

The section on education claims that NY has the "only official" Italian-language school in the U.S. What does "official" mean here? (The school has a red link, no actual info.) Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

I must again register my dislike for the first sentence; an article should not start out in such a fashion, "X has been Y". No, it IS the largest city. It looks very unprofessional to me to start an article with a sentence that looks like it belongs in the middle of a paragraph. I will edit it later but wanted to open this up to opinions for now. --Golbez (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree: I don't get it. And it's certainly not unprofessional. "Has been" always presumes now (that's why the tense is called present perfect), unless qualified. Every article doesn't have to mimic the prose of every other article in the futile search for "encyclopedic tone". —— Shakescene (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps when articles "mimic the prose" of every other article, there's a reason for it. --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "is" to "has been since 1789" but I think it's a completely insane thing to have an edit war over. Carlo (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ZIP CODES

The ZIP CODES in this article are for Manhattan only. If ZIP CODES are to be listed, then all New York City ZIP CODES should be included. I also urge that they be divided by borough.

Alvin P. Bluthman abluthman@gny.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.56.203 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Could be deleted, though. Don't think it adds anything. Station1 (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

New York- birthplace of punk?

Birthplace of Punk? Surely claiming in the opening few parahraphs, that New York is the birth place of Punk is incorrect? It is generally, if not universally acknowledged, that London is the origin of this movement. Wikipedia article on Punk also supports this claim.

(New York is the birthplace of many cultural movements, including the Harlem Renaissance in literature and visual art, abstract expressionism (also known as the New York School) in painting, and hip hop,[14] punk,[15] salsa, disco and Tin Pan Alley in music. It is the home of Broadway theater.)

Should this paragraph be amended?

92.11.167.149 (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)tf

Why are The Ramones not mentioned? The Ramones lived in Forest Hills in Queens and the band originated in Forest Hills. Same for Simon and Garfunkel, they lived in Kew Gardens in Queens and attended Forest Hills High School (the Ramones attended Forest Hills High School as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilytaz (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Top 25 Fortune 500 Companies section needs updating

Today is the first time I've read through the page and I noticed that the Top 25 companies in New York still includes a bunch of financial firms that have collapsed in the last 12 months....is there 2008 data that can be used to update the listing?

Pilot 2023 (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are and I've already started collecting and formatting the data, but haven't got around to deciding and posting a final form. One consideration is exactly what you mentioned: what exactly were the effects of the financial crash on all those financial firms in Manhattan? One surprising answer is that AIG was still in the top 30 (but not the top 25) in March 2009 when Fortune composed this year's list. My difficulty is deciding how much of that to include without overloading the table with too many footnotes and too much information (relative to the balance, format and already huge size of the entire article). To see where I am now, see User:Shakescene/sandbox5. For example, should I lengthen the list to 30? Do I add a column to compare years? Would this bloat the table and thus destroy the deliberate spareness and simplicity of my design for this page (as compared to the more complete one at Economy of New York City? Your views, and those of any other readers or editors are of course welcome and useful. And, of course, you also have the right, as does any editor, to update the list on his or her own if you wish. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on your working copy I don't think it would be that bad to expand the list to 30 and have the ranking comparison between 2008 and 2007. Considering the precipitous fall of some companies, I think having both years would add value to the list - not everyone may have the interest to read through the whole economy article. As for the effects of the crash I imagine they have been well-documented in other articles; if there are data sources for specific effects on the city, go for it. -- Pilot 2023 (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

After playing with a couple of alternatives, such as including Global 500 ranks (see User:Shakescene/sandbox5, I decided to use the simplest update format for the top 25 companies without comparisons to the Global 500 or to previous years. I still have to decide how much information to put into an updated table at Economy of New York City. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Relative importance of Central Park

After recent additions, Central Park (Manhattan) now has more treatment in New York City#Parks than all the other parks in Manhattan and the other four boroughs combined. Obviously many readers of this page want to know about Central Park, just as they might want to know about the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, Yankee Stadium or 9/11.

But what's the proper balance? Should the Central Park material be trimmed (and/or sent to one or more of the other relevant pages, such as Manhattan) to match the severe (almost peremptory or dismissive) austerity exercised for other parks and boroughs in this section? Or can we loosen up and expand the other material a little bit? (It's very easy, for example, to flesh out the treatment of the Bronx's many parks; see The Bronx#Parks and open space.) How would either choice affect the overall balance of what everyone admits is a pretty long article (although justifiably so)?

Let me add that the new material, considered by itself, is interesting and informative. So it's not like the constant addition of someone's favorite school or college to the New York City#Education section. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

NEW YORK CITY IS DIRTY

I believe we should make a whole new section titled "NEW YORK CITY IS DIRTY"

Mainly because it is the truth and more people need to know it! The rats are bigger than the bums that inhabit these dirty side walks. It is quite pathetic that Wikipedia hasn't had this section yet. I mean really you can walk right out of the building in New York and your fucking eyebrows burn off due to that dirty ass shit. Really we should also have a part at the end warning people to never go there because of all the pollution that is pouring out of that shithole. I beg for more people to read this and vote yes for this section to be put up so more people will know of the main flaw of New York City. We all know Wikipedia loves to tell the truth and why hold this one back?—Preceding unsigned comment added by SUPERDUPER DOUCHE (talk • contribs)

Superduper Douche, please sign your posts with 4 tildas like so --~~~~. As for your comment that NYC is dirty, it is, but personal experience is not a substitute for objective sources. If you can find a good sampling of news articles, books, or other published sources that say what you'd like to say, there might be some merit for its inclusion.--Louiedog (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Historic New York

I would like to argue that the section of historic New York be updated, especially in relation to the findings of the New Netherlands Project and the published papers by Russel Shorto, Charles Gehring and others.

"New York City grew in importance as a trading port while under British rule"
This is not correct. Under the Dutch, New Amsterdam had already gained status as the most valuable port on the atlantic coast. This was partly due to an unique system of 'burgherschap', whereby (prospective) citizens, for a fee, could buy into the city as one can with shares of a company. This resulted in a city whereby, if the city prospered, everybody prospered.
This move was preceded by the lifting the monopoly on trading by the original owners of the colony, the West Indische Compagnie, and both moves resulted in a free port and city that allowed anybody that was willing to work hard to make a decent living.
People from all over the world flocked to this city abound with opportunities, and cared for it.
When the Dutch did hand the colony over, it was because it's citizens refused to fight for a company, the West Indische Compagnie, that had never done anything for them.
The handover was not done, however, until the british promised to safeguard all those liberties that the citizens had aquired. And neither did the state delegates sign the declaration of independence until it included the Bill of Rights, that once again, allowed the city of New York to give its citizens the freedom that had made the city as prosperous as it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.20.106 (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence did not involve the Bill of Rights. Did you mean the Constitution? And do you have a source for any of this? --Golbez (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleting part of quote

In the 1960s, New York suffered from economic problems, rising crime rates and racial tension, which reached a peak in the 1970s. In the 1980s, resurgence in the financial industrThere is no citation to saying racial tensions in New York City rose.

Crime statistics and recessions are evidence of crime and the economy. There is no source for the insinuation of racial tension though. So I'll be deleting that. Hate mongering media, Hollywood (ex. The Bronx is Burning and Al Sharpton tactics didn't mean an entire city became brainwashed. I'll also be deleting the quote that says racial tensions died in the early-1990's since it'd become obsolete after deleting this quote. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC).

Settled to Founded

This is an editing request. Can you change the date name in the table from sttled to founded? I don't know how. HELP!! Michaeljacksonfreak22 (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Size of Lower Manhattan

Sorry, but I have read some other sources stating that Lower Manhattan dropped to 4th place in amount of office space after 9/11 (behind downtown Washington) and will only regain the 3rd place title after 1 WTC (Freedom Tower) is constructed. So shall we alter that one sentence for now?Mathpianist93 (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sister Cities' importance

Why Sister Cities have the same level of importance that history or geography.? Alakasam (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably because they don't seem to fit well into any other section. Sister Cities is a common standard feature in Wikipedia's city articles. —— Shakescene (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be misleading to say that all of them are the largest cities in their respective country except for Beijing because that might not include the entire metropolitan area. For example, the Tel Aviv metro area is 3 times the size of the Jerusalem metro area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.211.120 (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good point. However, the sister city relationship is usually between New York City and an equivalent municipality or authority abroad, rather than between the New York Metropolitan Area and a demographic equivalent. In general, the equivalent body is the central city, rather than a surrounding region that often bears the same name (which is why I deleted that column from this table, e.g. Madrid and Comunidad de Madrid). The exception seems to be London, where the NYC page on sister cities seems to refer equally to the historic square-mile City of London, headed by the ceremonial Lord Mayor of London, and to the Greater London Authority, whose mayors have been Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson. I'll see if there's a concise way of making the population comparison clearer. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, on sister cities. Istanbul is not the capital of Turkey, even though it is in many senses its cultural and financial center.205.248.102.83 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Great catch!! (which I've just fixed). Thanks. How did I miss that when I first wrote that sentence? —— Shakescene (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you did miss it. Someone must have added it later. Istanbul and Santiago are not listed at the ref, so I removed them. Station1 (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

¶ It's hard to track down; I think it's one of those teenage-status (or Facebook) type things where some cities seem more eager to twin themselves to New York City than New York (nose held haughtily aloft) is to twin herself with them. The Istanbul#Sister cities section gives two Turkish links that list no fewer than 49 cities twinned to the Queen of the Bosphorus (which considering that for over a millennium, Byzantium and Constantinople, or the Second Rome, probably had a better claim than any other city to be world's de facto capital, isn't as unfair as it might look). Santiago de los Caballeros#Sister cities gives only four (Havana, New York, San Juan and Santiago de Compostela), but without any sources at all.

¶ Unfortunately, Sister Cities International, whose recognition is used as New York City#Sister cities' authority for enumerating those ten cities, is overhauling its web site, making it very hard to verify at the moment. If someone feels inclined to check the 83 press releases and announcements that an internal search of the site returns for "New York" (EXACT PHRASE), more power to him or her.

¶ Which leaves New York City's own Sister Cities page, which I haven't consulted in a while. NYC.gov is hardly perfect and is often out of date, so while it's a good source for positive citation of the cities it does list (e.g. City of London vs Greater London), I wouldn't rely on it 100% as a negative authority that ipso facto proves the non-sisterhood of a city not mentioned at the site today. Any ideas? —— Shakescene (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bloomberg's third term

This article does not reflect the fact that Bloomberg ran for and won a third term as NYC mayor. Suggested changes:

In the fall of 2008, Bloomberg successfully campaigned for an amendment to New York City's term limits law, in order to allow him to run for a third term in 2009. Bloomberg was the Republican and Independence Party's nominee and won the election on November 3, 2009.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Rosen (talk • contribs) 04:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the election information, although updating and simplifying the footnote will have to wait for the Board of Elections to post their 2009 general election numbers to their web site (http://www.nycvote.gov ). —— Shakescene (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I think the population of the city for 2000 should be put in the infobox (not just a 2008 estimate). (I cannot edit the box correctly myself.) The 2000 population should be put in the first paragraph of the article, replacing the 2007 estimate. hello (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a tricky point, which has crossed my mind (and I think others'). What makes it tricky is that when populations are changing rapidly (as has often happened to New York and her individual boroughs), a different distortion is introduced by sticking to the 2000 numbers. While the 2000 census is used for apportioning legislative districts and Presidential Electors, the later estimates are often used for international comparisons, economic analysis, social statistics and distributing government revenues (both state and Federal). This will be moot by the end of next year, when the first returns from the April 2010 census will be known. Both the 2000 numbers and the 2008 estimates are already included in the Historical Population table. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Estimated population in lede

See also: Talk:Houston § Population in lead

I would appreciate input from others on whether using an unrounded figure (8,363,710) for the population based on a 2008 estimate (some such estimates are actually revised after the fact) or a rounded, more memorable figure (exceeds 8.3 million) is more appropriate for the lede of the article. The specific unrounded figure still appears in the infobox. A relatively new editor is changed rounded figures to figures suggesting a false degree of precision in several city articles (without any edit summaries) --JimWae (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A rounded figure in the lead flows better, in my opinion. --BaronLarf 21:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: A discussion related to this issue has been started at WT:USCITY#Population estimates. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All due respect JimWae and BaronLarf I have posted the latest official estimate population in the opening paragragh in the article you are talking about. I posted my reasons in the discussion page that Barek alluded to. New York City also had the highest population gain (53,498) than any other city and I am currently gathering information to try to include this accomplishment in this same paragraph as well. I believe the actual numbers will lead into this statement. I will post here what I intend to post in the NYC site tomorrow (12/31) and it will stay here 24 hours before I post it. If anyone is opposed to this you can absolutely post your reasons here or in the WT:USCITY#Population estimates and I will discuss them before I post. Thank you Mattscards (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD and WP:lede. You have not made your case. --JimWae (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)--JimWae (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Why is the Jewish population of NYC compared to that of Tel Aviv (in the "Demographics" section of the page)? Jerusalem is in fact the most populous city is Israel, as well as the city with the largest number of Jews in Israel, and NYC has a geater Jewish population than Jerusalem so why is this camparison not made?

This comparison is not made because there is no source for this information. If you can provide a source, I'd be willing to make the adjustment. Intelligentsium 02:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Washington/Baltimore is not a metropolitan area. Baltimore/Washington is a combined statistical area consisting of two separate entities: the Baltimore/Towson metropolitan area and the Washington Metropolitan area (see here for relevant discussion. Baltimore is a historic east coast city (Locust Point was second only to Ellis Island as a destination for early immigrants coming to the United States) with a separate identity from Washington DC and its own major league baseball team. Baltimore does not recognize two baseball teams and neither does Washington DC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.125.207 (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Washington/Baltimore are actually part of the same metro area. Although each are large cities, they lie so close physically that they are part of the same metro area. There are lots of people who live in Baltimore or the immediate suburbs but travel to Washington to work or play, and vice versa. Their close proximity makes them part of the same metro area, just like Dallas/Fort Worth, Seattle/ Tacoma, Miami/Fort Lauderdale, or San Francisco/San Jose. Even a combined statistical area is still a metro area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone please add reference http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate.php?location=USNY0996 to Climate section - I don't know how. --Mishnayd (talk) 19:30, 12 March 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 {{editsemiprotected}}(Quayhands (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)) this should be added On Earth Day 2007, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg released PlaNYC, a comprehensive sustainability plan for the City’s future ,the plan calls for reducing its citywide carbon emissions by 30% as well create 265,000 more housing units and bring in 1.1 million more people by 2030, bringing the city's population to 9.1 million people.

New York City versus City of New York

The intro paragraph makes a statement 'Though the city's actual name is just New York' which is false. The 'actual' (read: official) name is 'The City of New York.' Someone make the change please.65.215.94.13 (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, made the change- forgot to log in so couldn't edit!Tatumstevens2 (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been debated, with corresponding shifts back and forth in the introductory sentence and Information box, several times, so it's worth looking at earlier threads and the Talk page archives. Matters are complicated by the fact that New York, Economy of New York, Politics of New York, etc. all refer to the state as a whole, where I would far prefer those articles to be use "New York State" to save time and confusion for uninitiated ordinary readers. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I am updating the Boroughs with a good link to the Census Bureau instead of a newspaper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards (talk • contribs) 22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• The charter says "city of New York" (uncapitalized "c"). Perhaps the article should simply state that the city is also called the "City of New York" and New York City, and that the "official, legal" name is contested (or undocumented). The present sentence "Though the city's formal name is The City of New York,[2] it is often referred to as New York City, to differentiate it from the state of New York (also referred to as New York State), of which it is a part" is nonsensical. Cannot anyone find out what names the city has officially registered, and with whom? The city's website can be used as source for usage of the name, even for the name being customary, even for the name being used for registering copyright material - but not for the name being the "official" name of the city itself --JimWae (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the issue with WIkipedia. No one/everyone is always right and without any cause or reason. I've lived here all my life and can tell you the official name is The City of New York, regardless of what any editor here says. I also see that any reference to the statement made above Though the city's actual name is just New York which was also found in the article, was removed from the article, evidently so some editor could remove any chance of anyone questioning his/her ability to override anyone else's changes. Thats the Wikipedia way to do things- just make up the rules as you go and point someone to some 'talk: page.'207.38.156.111 (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The city's 2004 charter disagrees with you. You may note that that document uses all three names: "New York City", "City of New York", and "city of New York" (meaning just "New York" is the name, with "city of" a descriptor). However, the first can be explained as meaning the "City Charter for New York". The second can be explained as capitalizing the first word in a phrase; that is, "City" is capitalized because it comes at the beginning of the line, not because it's part of the official name. When the time comes to officially name the city, on page 6, it says: "§ 1. The city. The city of New York as now existing shall continue...."
Really, it's no different from the state. The state's official name is just "New York", not "The State of New York" or "New York State". Powers ^T 16:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's not entirely true. If you look deeper in the charter, there are examples of "City of New York" capital-C within a sentence. Not as many as the lower-case, but there are some (perhaps typos, perhaps the remnant of earlier versions of the document?). It's also worth noting that the cover of the charter uses both "New York City" (which, although the most common name, is not being advanced as the official name) and "City of New York". The city's website - nyc.gov - only compounds the confusion, using "NYC" almost everywhere except the copyright information, which is "Copyright 2010 The City of New York". In light of these contradictions, I think it's best that we refrain from declaring any name is the "official" one. The article's name is "New York City", it seems proper that "New York" should lead the opening para, but the other two should be referred to in the opening paragraph. SixFourThree (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree

editprotected request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please unlink bridges - it's a dab page. Thanks. 92.2.114.202 (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

New Montage

Earlier montage for comparison.

As you can see, I've updated the montage with some new photographs that I think make it a bit more vivid and attractive. I came to feel that the original skyline picture was a little too dark, and the Times Square picture was perhaps providing too much free advertising for the corporations with signage there. Hope everyone likes it... --Jleon (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking

My mistake about "town" versus "city" aside, could someone please explain why my edits are getting blindly reverted? There are far too many common words and phrases linked in the lede. I'll go through and explain each change if I have to, but I should think it obvious that linking to pages like ethnic, skyline, and railway station is just silly. And our Crossroads of the World article has nothing to do with Times Square. Powers ^T 16:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The intro has become a complete mess in recent months. Not only are there way too many links, but the whole thing is about twice as long as it should be. We also don't need to use that section to list a dozen nicknames and include a half paragraph on the amount of air traffic to the city. I'm going to start cutting material from it and delinking a bit too. --Jleon (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck; when I did that I got reverted. Powers ^T 20:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I support both further delinking and shortening of the lede. Seven paragraphs is too much, even for NYC. The 7th paragraph is already giving details supporting earlier paragraphs - such details do not belong in the lede --JimWae (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Typing error

The legend to the map of the parks contains a typing error (missing space and missing bold type). --Pilettes (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

typos in the television section

I noticed some typos at the WNET part of the television section. Andyshedd (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Jleon's New Montage

Jleon - What - NY without Times Square? - A montage of New York sans Times Square leaves a huge void - can you find a montage of Times Square that is advertising-neutral? May be difficult, given the very nature of Times Square. But I think that at least a token image of Times Square belongs there - even a smaller one.

As far as the image you've chosen for the skyline, it's frankly disappointing. I actually liked the fomer one better because it at LEAST shows New York City to be a city of skyscrapers, not short, dumpy buildings. Your new montage doesn't even show the Chrysler Building. If you can find a better skyscraper montage, that would be good. Remember, "Gotham" DOES have a shadowy connotation, so the skyscraper image doesn't really need to be bright and sunny. Also, I don't think the Empire State Building needs its own separate image in the montage - it appears tacky that way and actually looks better as an integral part of the whole skyline.

Also, the previous image of the Brooklyn Bridge shows up close the beautiful ornate architecture of the bridge, while the new one doesn't.

It's OK, it's just your first try - so I'm sure you can do a great deal better!

Thmc1 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Thmc1

Thanks for the feedback. First of all, the image does show the Chrysler Building if you look closely, while the original image barely showed it at all. Also, I don't know how you got the impression they are "short and dumpy" buildings, since that picture shows all of the tallest buildings in Midtown. Maybe you're right about the original skyline photo being good because it is a little mysterious, but that is not necessarily how everyone sees the city. Let's see if a consensus forms on which image is better. I will gladly switch back to the original if that is what people want. --Jleon (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Jleon, I think your montage looks good, the pictures are high quality and look well together. I just have two concerns: first perhaps with the exception of the Brooklyn bridge all of the pictures are in manhattan, this is an article on the entire city so include some pictures from the outerboroughs like Yankee stadium , Citi Field or downtown Brooklyn. Second the montage itself is too large, something closer to the 250-275 range would fit better. Astuishin ^(talk) 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I also have a slight preference for the old montage, although Astuishin makes a good point that scenes from the other boroughs are very much in order (and the old montage was just as bad in that respect). Powers ^T 12:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I agree that photos of the other boroughs would be nice, there really is a scarcity of quality pictures of easily recognizable landmarks from outside Manhattan. I once had an image of the Unisphere in the original montage, and several people expressed confusion over what it was. Furthermore, adding low quality images of Grand Army Plaza or Coney Island simply to have Brooklyn represented, for instance, doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose, and I think the overall aesthetics of the image should be the top priority. Also, I'm against having photos of any sports stadium in the image, because every city has them and they are mostly unremarkable. If you look at similar images for other cities (i.e. Chicago, London, etc.), you'll see that the focus is almost always on easily identifiable landmarks that are primarly in the city's center. --Jleon (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So I tried to follow people's advice and made the image much less Manhattan-centric (even Staten Island is represented with the Ferry), and Times Square adds a little energy. I'm still not 100% happy with it, but I think it should do for now. --Jleon (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Manhattanhenge

I really think that the Manhattanhenge effect should get a mention somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.238.22 (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's far too unimportant relative to the many things of major importance in NYC. You can't mention everything. Carlo (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to JLeon's Latest Montage from 3/31/10

Excellent, JLeon - a great improvement over both previous montages.

Reasons: 1) NYC is as far as possible from the ordinary city and DESERVES a montage that exudes grandeur and excellence - your latest montage does this well.

2) Statue of Liberty smack dab in the center - I love it, given that it is perhaps the grandest icon of NYC as well as of the USA as a whole.

3) Times Square is exhibited beautifully - you can actually feel the energy radiating from the picture, and it simultaneously avoids displaying visibly specific products.

4) The Brooklyn Bridge is displayed in its ornate glory, and as a bonus, even the Manhattan Bridge is visible in the background.

5) The skyscraper image has apparently been magnified such that the Chrysler Building is well visualized, and Midtown Manhattan can be appreciated for the cluster of skyscrapers that it is.

6) The Unisphere is an apt symbol of the cosmopolitanism of the city as a whole and in particular of the borough of Queens, where it resides.

7) When the new WTC tower ascends to an appreciable height in construction, perhaps you could consider a new picture of Lower Manhattan.

8) True, the Empire State Building is missed, but being located on 34th Street, it tends to be somewhat isolated from the other Midtown skyscrapers located further north anyway - I'm sure that was a dilemma for you.

Nice job!

Thmc1 (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Thmc1

I agree, its very good! Astuishin ^(talk) 10:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad people like it. I definetly plan to update the Lower Manhattan picture once 1 WTC gets to a good height. --Jleon (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section Length

Given the unique level of complexity of the topic and city at hand, my assessment is that the current length of the lede is just right - I would agree with user "TenPoundHammer" that any LONGER would be too long. I haven't seen editors rush to trim the lede from its present state in a significant way recently - in fact, editors have actually added on a little more recently. I think people realize that by paring this lede significantly, uniquely important and pertinent lede-level facts would be cut - remember, you don't want to "throw the baby out with the bath water." If anything, the IntroLength advisory tag posted by TenPoundHammer is adding a few extraneous lines to the lede and should be deleted.

Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The introduction is too long. Globalistum (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Distributed accordingly.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The images are too big

Many images are too large in my opinion. The whole article compared to other city articles looks like a billboard. The image compilation at the beginning of the article is also too big. All in all it doesnt look like a serious article.Globalistum (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with user "Globalistum". Apparently user "Astuishin" likes the images as well. Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)