Talk:New York City

Elevation and population

@Castncoot: Regarding these edits: the elevation details do not appear in the US Cities guideline, nor in most US city articles - eg Houston, Philadelphia, San Antonio, Dallas, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Boston, etc. Two examples (one edited yesterday) don't constitute a standard. As to the population claim, it's not consistent with the template documentation, and you yourself removed it previously. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Umm no..I was referring now to elevation, not population. (By the way, why would someone ever list the North American ranking of a U.S. city? How bizarre!) New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago are large cities by both area and population and therefore are naturally going to contain a wide diversity in elevation, and it makes zero sense to deem their elevation to be singly represented by their City Hall.) Castncoot (talk 02:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Houston and San Antonio are larger by area, as are others that don't include this detail like Jacksonville and OKC. So again, not a standard. If you think the singular elevation number is misleading, I'd support removing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Houston is flat. San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver all have extremes in elevation quoted in the infobox. When it makes common sense, best to do so. There's no hard and fast policy or guideline in Wikipedia regarding US city elevation extremes in the infobox. Castncoot (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Glad we've cleared that up. I've implemented a compromise version, omitting the locations per those examples and city hall per your argument above. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Castncoot (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Images

Seems it's time for another discussion, since Castncoot reverted another editor's work (using the blanket reasoning that there was consensus to… not remove them? They lost me there), even though each edit was given salient reasoning. Why do we need multiple images of the same subject, first off? Seasider53 (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Vanjagenije (talk · contribs) was the editor referenced above. Seasider53 (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Real Wikipedia:OWNBEHAVIOR problem here for years. A change can happen but only after a long talk involving many people. Moxy- 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy (talk · contribs): You've been doing this for years now. Stop. Please. just. stop. Castncoot (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

How do we proceed with this ownership line of inquiry? I'd love to assume good faith, but I fear the images that were removed will be reinstated one by one, with some inventive reasoning given, as has already begun. Could be construed as WP:SLOWEW too. Seasider53 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Castncoot: Re this: Can you show where exactly was consensus reached to have two photos of te Yankee stadium and two photos of the same pride parade in this article? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  • [1] and the corresponding period of time in the main article itself. Castncoot (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• • • That discussion concerns the History section. Of the images that were removed and restored, only one is from that section. What about the others? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    • @Castncoot: The discussion you cited does not contain any consensus, actually there were more users supporting removal of images than those against it. Anyway, that discussion is about the history section, and most of the images I removed are not from that section. I am going to remove those images again as the consensus for removal is now clear. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
      • • Wrong. The LGBT pictures and the Ethnicity pictures involved a back and forth discussion between several editors and we reached a compromise. Vanjagenije, do you know anything about New York? Or are you simply imagining that you do? Castncoot (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
          • @Castncoot: Do you know anything about Wikipedia's wp:policies and guidelines or you simply imagining that you do? The consensus is not what you say it is or was, the consensus can change. It's changing now. You are the only one who are opposing this removal of excessive images. The fact that you reached some "compromise" in the past (I don't see it), does not mean that has to stay forever. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
            • do you know anything about New York? Or are you simply imagining that you do? is not a valid reason for a reversion of the image removals, in case anyone thought it might be. I have removed them again and warned Castncoot on their talk page. 07:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasider53 (talk • contribs)

@Castncoot: At the moment there doesn't appear to be consensus here for your blanket reversion. You assert that clearly "someone wasn't paying attention deleting images on the grounds that there was no was no text supporting when there actually was"; which specific image(s) are you referring to with that comment? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chronus: Thank you for your latest edits, Chronus. I realize we've had our editorial differences, but thank you for rescuing this article. What I was witnessing before my eyes was truly frightening. Castncoot (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Several images have been returned to the article, again without discussion. Is it time to lock the article to force input from those unwilling to discuss? Seasider53 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Seasider53 I do not see any consensus for changing the status quo and I disagree with the indiscriminate removal of images that were made in the article, which caused damage to the page layout. Chronus (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries; I'll open it up for outside discussion. Seasider53 (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Castncoot@Moxy@Nikkimaria@Seasider53@Vanjagenije Hello. I agree that the article is too long and needs to be summarized. I myself have already made this warning in previous discussions (see here and here). In my sandbox, I made a shortened version of the article and managed to delete over 80,000 bytes of unsourced and redundant content and unnecessary images, in accordance with various Wikipedia policies, such as WP:LENGTH, WP:TOOBIG, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:VERIFY. What do you think of this version? Chronus (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the new version. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

+1. Seems like a good improvement overall - nice work. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we get the input of some other longtime major editors of this article, including Alansohn and Oknazevad, people who have actual topic experience on the subject? I don't feel comfortable with this kind of gutting of the article. Just because there are daughter articles does not preclude important and constructive information from being included in the main article. The Demographics section in the proposed sandbox in particular appears to be the weakest, there is no image of basketball stadiums in sports, and overall I'm not sure why even have any article at all when so many important details would be gutted throughout the article. Castncoot (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Castncoot What was removed was redundant (it was already in other parts of the same article or in articles about specific themes related to NYC) or was unsourced. Furthermore, what "important details" are these? And why are they "important"? With the version I suggested, the article would still have over 300 kB, more than articles from similar global cities, such as London, Paris, Tokyo and Shanghai. New York is not a special city and this article should also respect what WP:TOOBIG and WP:TOOMUCH says. Finally, an article of more than 300 kB is far from small and "insufficient". Chronus (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Castncoot I added the image of the Barclays Center and improved the Demographics section. Better now? Chronus (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Chronus, let me first start by saying that I do know that you're operating in good faith here and are trying to help improve the article. And unlike the others here, you actually have enough legitimate New York topic experience to majorly edit this article validly. That being said, I never agreed to a drastic, 20% reduction in total volume, and this was done without proper due discussion and vetting for such a drastic change. However, because I now have confidence that you actually know what you're doing, I am happy to collaborate with you here. Although there is no policy akin to this, let me just respectfully plead that people without significant New York City topic experience please refrain from making edits over, say 1,000 bytes, at one sitting on this page, simply because you are not helping the situation. Shorter does not equate to better. Now, back to the content discussion Chronus, since we need some compromise here, I can live with most of the changes you have made, with the notable exception of the Race and Ethnicity subsection, which you gutted, and that sticks out like a sore thumb, as anyone who knows NYC well enough knows that this specific subsection is the ground root that has led to the existential essence of the city itself; and as a matter of due weight, must be the most detailed, even if the only such subsection to be as detailed. So I have respectfully added that back on. I also think the LGBTQ-related section could be re-expanded with more imaging, but I will leave that to your judgment for now. The bigger picture, fortunately, is that we both absolutely can work together to make a better article.😊 Castncoot (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Castncoot Wow! I am extremely happy with your very respectful message and that you have given up some things to reach a consensus. Likewise, I have no problem keeping the content you re-added in the race and ethnicities section. Thank you very much for recognizing my work in this article and for offering a path to a fruitful partnership. Chronus (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

We all have the ability to have the same level of knowledge about New York City. Like good artists, some of us just know when to stop tweaking and just send it. 😊 Seasider53 (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence

A claim has been added to the article a few times now that NYC has a "significant influence on ... artificial intelligence". The problem with this is that it's based only on the existence of a plan for AI - this plan may or may not eventually result in this claim coming to fruition, but for the moment the claim is lacking in evidence. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity

For those of us playing along at home, @Castncoot:, where was the "compromise to leave this section as is"? Of the −27,682 bytes removed on November 2, Chronus re-added only +2,596. You've now somehow reintroduced +23,303 bytes with your classic WP:OWNERSHIP-style "Kindly I beg you to let Chronus and me deal with this section" edit summary. Seasider53 (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually Seasider53, I can play along as well. First, please do look the paragraph by Chronus before your comment in the Talk:New York City#Images section above. Chronus and I agreed to compromise by maintaining the Race and Ethnicity status as is. Then, note that even I made many more comments than Chronus after Nikkimedia came in and recklessly gutted the section, and it even took me many days to recover from that shock to the system to reflect and finally decide the right thing to do. When an edit shocks the system, one is not always able to respond in kind immediately, nobody wants to retaliate or start an edit war. You just sort of accept it glumly for the time being until you have your moment of realization. And finally, I don't want ownership; just competence with the very narrow and specific matter at hand, which in this case is this extremely critical section, which is not a broad statement about any editor whatsoever. Castncoot (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, auditioning for a thriller novel aside, are you willing to discuss the merits of your inclusion when other editors seem to have an issue with it? These harsh removals cut me deep, man won’t really cut it as reasoning. Seasider53 (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Seasider53: These harsh, INCOMPETENT removals cut me deep, man. There, fixed it for you. Castncoot (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Castncoot@Seasider53@Nikkimaria Can we work together on a shorter version of the current text? Chronus (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Here's a proposal. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

Main articles: New York City ethnic enclaves and Demographics of New York City § Race and ethnicity Chinatown, Manhattan, is the highest concentration of Chinese people in the Western Hemisphere. Brooklyn's Jewish community is the largest in the United States, with approximately 600,000 individuals. The city's population in 2020 was 30.9% White (non-Hispanic), 28.7% Hispanic or Latino, 20.2% Black or African American (non-Hispanic), 15.6% Asian, and 0.2% Native American (non-Hispanic). A total of 3.4% of the non-Hispanic population identified with more than one race. In 2013, approximately 36% of the city's population is foreign born, and more than half of all children are born to mothers who are immigrants. Throughout its history, New York has been a major port of entry for immigrants into the United States. In New York, no single country or region of origin dominates. The ten largest sources of foreign-born individuals in the city as of 2011 were the Dominican Republic, China, Mexico, Guyana, Jamaica, Ecuador, Haiti, India, Russia, and Trinidad and Tobago, Queens has the largest Asian American and Andean populations in the United States, and is also the most ethnically and linguistically diverse urban area in the world. New York City has the largest European and non-Hispanic white population of any American city, with 2.7 million in 2012. The European diaspora residing in the city is very diverse and many European ethnic groups have formed enclaves in New York. More than 12 million European immigrants were received at Ellis Island between 1892 and 1954. Asian Americans in New York City, according to the 2010 census, number more than one million, greater than the combined totals of San Francisco and Los Angeles. New York contains the highest total Asian population of any U.S. city proper. The Manhattan's Chinatown is the highest concentration of Chinese people in the Western Hemisphere, while Queens is home to the largest Tibetan population outside Asia. Arab Americans number over 160,000 in New York City, with the highest concentration in Brooklyn. Central Asians, primarily Uzbek Americans, are a rapidly growing segment of the city's non-Hispanic White population. New York is also home to the highest Jewish population of any city in the world, numbering 1.6 million in 2022, more than Tel Aviv and Jerusalem combined. In the borough of Brooklyn, an estimated 1 in 4 residents is Jewish. References

Seems fine to me, with a couple of minor tweaks (I don't know if 1 in 4 is better expressed as a quarter, for example). Seasider53 (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Seasider53: These harsh, INCOMPETENT removals cut me deep, man. You're just as incompetent as Nikkimaria with regards to this section if you didn't even recognize that they just fundamentally COPY-PASTED their previous version here and tried to pass it off as something new! Without even fixing any aforementioned flaws! It's terrible and totally unprofessional, and looks like a kid in primary school could have done this. Misses the point and demonstrates a complete lack of topic experience. And perhaps most glaringly of all, just fundamentally wiped out the presence of approaching 3 MILLION Latin Americans in the city. And you didn't even notice this, Seasider53?? And this is supposed to instill trust and confidence in you, Seasider53? Is it really too much to ask for competence at the slight expense of perhaps a slight amount of inclusivity? At what point does quality actually matter over simply checking some boxes in terms of article length when the result is just plain HORRIBLE??? Why even bother having an article then? Castncoot (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Now on to a more serious and more trustworthy editor with regards to this section, namely Chronus, (who lives in Brazil btw and has impressively gained more topic experience about New York simply by taking the initiative to do so!): How about we take each paragraph Chronus as is currently and truncate each paragraph to preserve most of the important points that each paragraph is trying to convey? This way we preserve most of the most salient points and address each major ethic group with the appropriate weight it deserves. Would you like to give it a try first Chronus, then maybe I can modify it and we can go through a couple of iterations here on this page before we post the final version on the main page. If other editors could respect this, we can actually accomplish this without disruption, since too many cooks adding salt at roughly the same time spoil the broth, as they say. And then once it's posted on the main page, it's obviously a free-for-all in abidance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Castncoot (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)