Talk:New York City

To Do List

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

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

Kind of misleading II

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

Could just be Common knowledge, though... Noah

Montage change

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

Previous

Current

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

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

The more time passes, the more the current montage grows on me. However, it is very important to keep in mind that the montage, unlike the rest of the article, is entirely preference-based and has no "right" answer. And since New York, being so diverse and multi-dimensional, has so many facets, "moods", and places to showcase, I suspect that the montage itself will (and probably should) change every few months anyway. So Jleon (talk) (and anybody else), we'll keep you continuously on your toes! Castncoot (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem with it being changed periodically. The current image is very nice, though I think it could have used a little bit more work in terms of its composition and the cropping of the pictures. Maybe we can wait and see if anyone else feels strongly about it. --Jleon (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

City's Annual Budget and management?

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

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

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)

Lowest temperature ever recorded in New York City

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

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

Ah, thanks for clearing that up! Trektosaturday (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Removal of images to reduce clutter

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

I agree with Cadiomals' edit. We can't show everything in one article and those images are hardly iconic. There are still too many images. They take a long time to load on slow connections and crowd small screens. Some are "pretty" but don't really add much info to the article. In any case that edit was a great start. Station1 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If we are to reduce the pictures, I believe that Verrazano-Narrows Bridge is a better choice for the article than the George Wshington Bridge. It's more representative of the city in a number of ways: It connects two parts of the city, and the history of that bridge is closer to the heart of 20th century NYC history as a work of Robert Moses. I believe that the US Open would be a better choice than either baseball stadium. It is an event that is covered internationally, and that is associated with the city. NYCRuss ☎ 19:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If we must have a bridge, I'd pick the Brooklyn Bridge, but everyone has their favorite. I'm not as concerned about switching one image for another as about not increasing the total number. Station1 (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I believe that is a good idea to find consensus about which pictures are displayed is to achieve stability for the article. That could be important if an effort is made to get this back to featured status. As far as the Brooklyn Bridge goes, how about this picture?

NYCRuss ☎ 19:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, 3 bridges for the price of one image - that does save space! Station1 (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And the formatting with that picture looks better with the two adjent ones than either the GW Bridge or the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge do. NYCRuss ☎ 14:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't care which images are chosen to stay or go as long as in the end no more images are added. The reason I chose the GW bridge to stay was because it is the busiest bridge in the world, so it may be more significant. The reason I removed Citi field as opposed to Yankee stadium was because I didn't want two similar images of baseball fields to take up room next to each other, and the Yankees are simply more famous than the Mets. I also removed the US open picture because we already had a picture of a sports field (Yankee stadium) and I didn't want two similar pictures, so I chose to keep the marathon pic for more variety. I just don't want pictures taking up so much room and squishing the text, it's an eyesore. And we can't include everything. Cadiomals (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In terms of the Brooklyn Bridge, I honestly don't care for it to be added in the transportation section. In my 20 years of having lived in New York I have only went on the Brooklyn Bridge a few times. The BB is more of a tourist icon than anything else. To me the GW bridge being the busiest bridge in the world is far more significant transportation-wise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadiomals (talk • contribs) 19:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As this article does not have a single picture of anything Staten Island related, why don't we go with the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge? Also, as I mentioned earlier, it is was a Robert Moses project, and that makes it symbolic of perhaps the most influential part of 20th Century New York history. NYCRuss ☎ 14:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to reduce pictures, how about eliminating the four Cityscape pictures? The existing pictures already present a Manhattan-centric view of the city, and these make it even more so. NYCRuss ☎ 14:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to reduce pictures per se, I want to reduce clutter and sloppiness, and often that means actually reducing pictures, although another solution would be shrinking them and then rearranging their positions. I think the Cityscape panoramas, although Manhattan-centric, are a fine gallery that should be kept, and they are neatly organized and aligned so they dont create any clutter or sloppiness whatsoever.Cadiomals (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with NYCRuss. These pictures are huge and 4 skylines of Manhattan are overkill. Images over 300px should be used sparingly if at all. I'd get rid of 3 if not all 4, maybe keep the third if we need to have one. Station1 (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How about just one panorama-mode skyline picture? Castncoot (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think those four pictures beautifully illustrate Manhattan, but maybe they are too big. Keep in mind that New York is a huge city that doesn't just have one little skyline, and also looks very different between day and night, so I don't think one panoramic daytime picture would be as visually informative. Maybe we can compromise and shrink the images by about half so they are in a two-by-two arrangement? Cadiomals (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Fort Wadsworth in Staten Island

Sailors' Snug Harbor in Staten Island

Brooklyn Borough Hall

The Queens County Courthouse

Bronx Zoo

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

I do agree that this article is too Manhattan-centric and should focus more on the other boroughs which each have their own identities and cultures, even one as boring as Staten Island. So I support your idea. I think to do this we can get rid of the least important information pertaining to Manhattan so we can make more room for the other four boroughs. Cadiomals (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's up to us to decide on what's "fair". At lot of what is notable about NY in reliable sources happens to be Manhattan related. If we shouldn't have the Stonewall Inn because of POV and and undue weight and illustration, that goes even more so for the Queens County Courthouse, which isn't extraordinarily notable as a building or for an event there in the context of an article about NYC as a whole (it might be good for the Queens article, just like the Stonewall Inn might be good for the Greenwich Village and LGBT history in the United States articles). The Borough Hall pic is great for Brooklyn but doesn't reach the level of citywide importance necessary for this citywide article. The Bronx Zoo is of citywide importance but the pic is just of a sign. Station1 (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand your point of view. We should only put the most notable points of interest and most of them happen to be in Manhattan. But we should also double-check to make sure all the most notable points of interest in the other four boroughs are thoroughly covered too (Bronx Zoo, Citi field, Yankee Stadium, etc.) I think they already are. I don't think the readers would really care for the Queens Country Courthouse either. Cadiomals (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I posted the Queens County Courthouse just to throw ideas out there. I should have clarified that if that were included, it would be by the Crime section which had no picture when I posted this, but now has a picture of a taxi. NYCRuss ☎ 15:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured article?

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

Well, one way would be not to remove longstanding salient historical images such as of the Stonewall Rebellion and not to selectively remove images of certain baseball teams and bridges without any apparent discriminate logic, while leaving cheese pizza intact. Images have therefore been restored. Castncoot (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you actually look at the message above regarding just that, I provide a full rationale of why I selected these images for removal, and there have already been users who agree with me but are unsure of which images can be removed. You make it seem as though I'm trying to sabotage this article when my contributions are in complete good faith. Besides, your reply to this message does not even address what I'm talking about, its just sounds like a bitter attack on my person. Maybe your reply would been more relevant one message up. Cadiomals (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly no attack on the person, I don't even know or care who you are - but certainly a deep questioning of the logic and judgement used in the specific edits involved. I'm also not quite sure what people think of the Ellis Island monument picture replacing the previous picture of the Statue of Liberty with the former Twin Towers in the background - personally, I preferred the other picture. And you may have gone just a bit overboard in the de-linking of the lede. Castncoot (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"a deep questioning of the logic and judgement used"

Is it really that hard to see why I removed some images? There were getting to be too many. The text was becoming cramped and the article was beginning to look sloppy and disorganized. We can't expect to add every image of something we think is important, we have to select only the most significant images. New York style pizza is a cuisine that is unique to that city, and it is the only picture in that section. Allow me to simply copy and paste my reply to the message above to this one for my rationale on everything else:

I honestly don't care which images are chosen to stay or go as long as in the end no more images are added. The reason I chose the GW bridge to stay was because it is the busiest bridge in the world, so it may be more significant. The reason I removed Citi field as opposed to Yankee stadium was because I didn't want two similar images of baseball fields to take up room next to each other, and the Yankees are simply more famous than the Mets. I also removed the US open picture because we already had a picture of a sports field (Yankee stadium) and I didn't want two similar pictures, so I chose to keep the marathon pic for more variety. I just don't want pictures taking up so much room and squishing the text, it's an eyesore. And we can't include everything. In terms of the Brooklyn Bridge, I honestly don't care for it to be added in the transportation section. In my 20 years of having lived in New York I have only went on the Brooklyn Bridge a few times. The BB is more of a tourist icon than anything else. To me the GW bridge being the busiest bridge in the world is far more significant transportation-wise. Cadiomals (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Stonewall image is not "longstanding", it was forced in despite consensus just last May by replacing a previous image of Battery Weed. It needs to go. So should the pizza. I have it on good authority that people in other cities already know what pizza looks like. Station1 (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about the pizza, Station1 (talk) - the pizza should go. However, nearly three-quarters of a year qualifies as longstanding by Wikipedia time standards, and furthermore, the Stonewall image was maintained for good only after thorough vetting in the Talk section - check out the archives - and needs to stay. Stonewall represents a chronicle and a milestone in the City's history to the same extent as any other event, with the only more powerful exception being 9/11, of course. Castncoot (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, it's been removed by at least 3 separate editors and added by no one but you (4 times). No one supported it on the talk page except you. As important as Stonewall was to the gay rights movement - and it was important - to say that in the entire history of the entire city of New York this was second only to 9/11 is frankly ridiculous. It's not even an image of the riot, it's just a building. There is no consensus for this image in this article. Station1 (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Au contraire, check out the Talk archives for this article and you'll see the history of how it evolved and finally arrived at its present (modified) state by consensus after lack of opposition to a modified statement over an ample trial period. No one stated that this event and only this event was uniquely second to 9/11, only that none of the other featured images in the article (barring 9/11) represent events necessarily any MORE significant and far-reaching than Stonewall. Finally, the building is the Stonewall Inn, and the captioned reference cannot allude more clearly to the Stonewall Rebellion.Castncoot (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, what am I missing? I'm looking at Archive 13 and see a conversation between you and one other editor who strongly disagrees with you. You've been reverted 3 times so far. And if you think the 1664 British annexation of New Amsterdam, the Battle of Long Island, or the erection of midtown skyscapers in the 20th century are not of greater consequence to the overall history and development of New York (the topic of the article) than Stonewall, I don't think you'll find consensus for that either. Station1 (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, what you appear to be missing is the fact that the caption was changed to eliminate the other editor's objection on the discussion page, which obtained his apparent subsequent agreement, generating no subsequent opposition from him(her) or anyone else for a relatively generous period of time before then being restored into the article in its modified form. The caption is absolutely neutral, relevant, factually accurate, and well-cited. And yes, Stonewall has been far more consequential and relevant not only to present-day NYC but also to today's world than say, the Battle of Long Island, the addition of whose image has been much more recent, to say the least.Castncoot (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is about New York City. Stonewall is less relevant to the history of the City than the Battle of Long Island.NYCRuss ☎ 14:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's more a matter of opinion than the fact that they indeed are both relevant and significant to the history of the City itself. At least the Stonewall image has a valid citation. Fortunately, I think we're good now with the steps that have been taken to relieve the perceived image space crunch - that's the bigger "picture" here, pun fully intended. Castncoot (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Stonewall image is still creating formatting issues. The history section has one picture too many, and that seems to me top be the least significant one. I believe that it should be removed. NYCRuss ☎ 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I see it's been moved to an irrelevant section, but it still needs to come out of the article. Few if any historians would agree that the Stonewall riots were more important than the Battle of Long Island (I could explain why but it would involve a long digression), and just because someone doesn't get in the last word on a talk page doesn't mean they've changed their opinion from disagree to agree. The Battle of Long Island pic at least shows part of the battle, whereas the Stonewall pic just shows the building years later, but the Battle pic can come out too as far as I'm concerned, because it also doesn't convey any unique info that isn't present in the text (btw, Stonewall does deserve a sentence in the text; there's no problem with the caption itself). Station1 (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep the Stonewall image in the history section. It shouldnt have been even moved out of the history section because its a very important part of the city's history itself. In no small part it is responsible for gay marriage being approved in New York City and New York State. So it has actually affected official city and state law, which affects everybody. It is appropriaetly and neutrally captioned and the building is an official historical landmark. So there simply is no POV issue here. I believe it should go back to the history section. 74.88.160.244 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a picture of a cluster of restaurants in Brooklyn Heights where the picture of pizza was. I believe that this makes the article better representative of the city as a whole, and that is relevant to where it is placed. NYCRuss ☎ 14:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's better than pizza (well, better than a picture of pizza), but it really is kind of a generic street scene, used for illustration rather than to show something unique about NY. It could really be almost anywhere and I don't think we absolutely must have a photo there. Station1 (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I am glad I was able to trigger discussion and action regarding one of the numerous problems this article has. Now the article as a whole just seems cleaner and more organized with a few less significant images removed. However, I still don't think two very similar looking (and fairly large) images of bridges should be pictured next to each other. The transportation section is another section that has one too many images. Even the important subway pic tossed to the left throws the section off balance. I don't care which one you pick, I think one bridge should be tossed out. If you choose to keep the Verrazano I wouldn't care. Cadiomals (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think the picture shouldn't be so tall. Here are a few suggestions for alternative images that aren't so tall.

• 
• 
• 

If we add one of these we can make enough room to move the subway pic to the right so the section is balanced. If these aren't satisfactory, you can always look for more at Wikimedia Commons. Cadiomals (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE ON IMAGE CHANGE: I don't think including Fort Wadsworth in the picture makes any sense at all and is irrelevant to the transportation section. I still think you should choose one of the images above. Cadiomals (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I personally prefer the third one.Castncoot (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if I can reply (edit conflicts.) I changed it to one of the others. I just found this one that I like:

• 

Toughts? NYCRuss ☎ 17:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I just replaced the image with this last one in the article, although the nighttime one still appeals to me the most, especially as there is no other nighttime bridge image in the article. What do others think? Castncoot (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The current one is too far away, the reader will be unable to clearly see the bridge. Close-ups that allow the reader to see distinguishing features are always the best, and I agree that the nighttime should be added (its pretty) Cadiomals (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, done. Castncoot (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The night time scene looks good. NYCRuss ☎ 21:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2012

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

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

Y Done Cadiomals (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Not much point in switching it back now, but Britain certainly existed before 1707, just not as a unified political entity. Wales and England were unified in the sixteenth century, so just saying "England" isn't entirely correct either. Powers ^T 22:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Except that the political unit WAS called "The Kingdom of England". Wales, sadly, had no part in the name, so it is proper to refer to it, short-form, as "England". "Great Britain" existed, but not as a country. That came later, with the Kingdom of Great Britain. --Golbez (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's not make a big deal of this and get technical, guys. In common language "Britain" and "England" are the same, so there's no point in even discussing it, especially for a small caption.Cadiomals (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Except there's a definite difference. For example, no one should say the United States declared independence from either England or the United Kingdom, it was the Kingdom of Great Britain at the time. Just because people incorrectly use England as a name for the entire country (and Holland for another country, etc.) doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow suit. --Golbez (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Featured cities

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 26 January 2012

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

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

New York New York re-direct

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

This has been discussed several times in the past. In fact there was at least one proposal to move the article to New York, New York. Confusion sometimes arises because the Postal Service uses the address "New York, NY" for Manhattan only, due to historical and logistical reasons. For all other purposes, since 1898 "New York, New York" refers to New York City, the same as any other "City, State". Station1 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

How frequently do you hear the term "New York, New York" in situations that do not belong in one of 2 special categories:

1. Writing street/postal addresses
2. Singing Theme from New York, New York

To say that the "for all other purposes, since 1898 "New York, New York" refers to New York City" is simply not true. There is one formal use since 1898, the one used by the postal service, which refers to Manhattan (or New York County) only. All other uses are colloquial and may refer to Manhattan or to the entire city. I grew up in Brooklyn where I was taught that New York, New York refers to Manhattan. Is what I was taught correct, or is it simply one way of interpreting this? NYCRuss ☎ 15:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

"New York, New York, it's a helluva town, the Bronx is up but the Battery's down". Station1 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

How about generalizing category #2 into singing any song that has "New York, New York" in its lyrics?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. But I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. I guess for background of others we should say someone redirected New York, New York to Manhattan earlier today and I reverted it (I think and hope in line with consensus). Are you saying you prefer it redirect to Manhattan? Station1 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no real opinion; anyone suggest re-directing it to New York, New York (disambiguation). Georgia guy (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a proposal to that effect in 2006 at Talk:New York, New York (disambiguation). I think most people searching for "New York, New York" probably want this article. Station1 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And why would they type New York, New York even though they know New York City is a more likely title?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

They wouldn't. Only someone who didn't know New York City was a more likely title would. Station1 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And why would they think New York, New York is a more likely title?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. The question is, If someone searches for "New York, New York" what are they most likely searching for? Station1 (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This question implies that there are plenty of Wikipedians who do so. Are there?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be inferring where I am not implying. They are no doubt relatively few. Station1 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

...but not few enough for... Georgia guy (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's obvious that someone searching for New York, New York is looking for the city. That title should be a disambiguation page (specifically, New York, New York (disambiguation)). Powers ^T 02:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Can it at least be nominated for GA?

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

Contrary to my natural intuition, I've been told that it's even harder and more laborious to become a WP:Good Article than a Featured Article. I haven't studied this in any depth, but if this were true, I'd suspect it's because in one sense a Good Article isn't time-bound while a Featured Article gets on a timetable to appear on Wikipedia's front or home page. Again, I don't want to discourage anyone from doing some of the things that also lead to GA or FA status, because they're things most of us would like to see anyway: tighter, more recent references, for example, correcting factual errors, or smoothing out apparent biases. And I'm not saying that seeking Good or Featured status is bad, just that we should talk about it with open eyes and ears, balancing that with other possible priorities. ¶ I think it's a good idea to poll others' interest here; if half a dozen or a dozen volunteers share the same interest, and if the Good or Featured Article Criteria (such as MoS compliance) don't force us to distort what are currently-satisfactory solutions, then it might well be worth the effort. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason I say we should pursue GA status is because I thought the criteria was a lot less strict. I've never heard anyone but you claim that GA status was harder to attain than FA status. I thought GA's were decent, and FA's were great, so I don't see how it could be harder. This was a former FA so I don't know how far off track it has gotten. I do think we should have a poll and ask other editors if they think this article is ready for a GAN. If not, we can outline the issues that remain so they can be fixed. I and I'm sure a couple of other editors are willing to smooth out any flaws that bar it from GA. Then, if we get a sufficient # of editors agreeing we can nominate it. My idea is that if we can at least get it to GA, that will be an indication that we're on the right track. Then all we have to do from there to get it back up to FA is perfect the prose and provide even more comprehensive, accurate, and objective information. I fully realize that its easier said than done, but it's not impossible. We have to assess how far off track this has gotten since it was a form FA. Cadiomals (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I just glanced very hurriedly over the WP:Good article criteria, (and also at an early thread of Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 1) and if they're correct, they support what you (Cadiomals) said, and not what I'd read somewhere else. If that's so, then the rest of what you wrote makes a great deal of sense. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No one's really replied, so I'll just look over the entire article myself, use my judgment to smooth out any little flaws I might run into, and then nominate it for GA. Like I said, if it fails, at least we'll get a definite outline on what to improve and we can always re-nominate it. Cadiomals (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's best to give people a couple of days to get back to Wikipedia from their real lives before you make a determination that "no one's really replied". I believe that GA status is a "copout", and that either FA status should be strived for in the long run, or just let this be its own informative independent article - analagous to a good indie film standing out amongst the standard studio fare. Castncoot (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My idea is that if this article gets GA, then we'll know we're at least on the right track for it to eventually get FA. Make sense? Cadiomals (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Placement of 9/11 picture

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

I just have to say, i put the clear template there because I actually prefer the white space to that little line of text that is then forced under the picture. To me that's a bit more bothersome than that little bit of white space.Cadiomals (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In my sole experience of promoting an article to featured status, a list almost two years ago, extra white space generated by the placement of images was something that I had to mitigate. I also believe that in an article of this size, anything that can reduce the size, or perceived size, is probably a good thing. If there is a consensus to revert the placement of that image to increase the white space, I'll certainly support the community decision. NYCRuss ☎ 18:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's totally fine, I don't make a big deal of these things. Cadiomals (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of picture of Mayor Bloomberg

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

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

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.[1] 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)

N 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)

Y 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)

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)