Talk:New York (state)

Template:Climate Template:FAOL /Archive 1

Overhauling article

This article was and still is in need of serious work. I have moved and renamed some sections to conform with Wikipedia formatting traditions in articles on US states. My next step will be to thoroughly edit the history, economy and government sections. Overall this article is in need of citations and the development of new daughter articles on sub-topics, as well as improved photography (especially of upstate areas -- there are NO decent photos of Buffalo on Wikipedia, it seems). Also, the demographics and sports sections could really use a clean-up and the development of their own daughter articles. Wv235 06:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article is still in need of serious work. My 2 suggestions for the day: 1.) Let's possible add some significant sources and expand the politics section of this article. 2.) How about adding a history of some weather phenomena in NY? I know there has been significant snow storms that stand out in our state's history (Blizzard of 1996, Ice storm of 1998, etc.). Also, there have been a few, famous and potent hurricanes to slam NY (one in the early 1900s, Hurricane Hugo and Hurricane Floyd). I'm not sure if this should be added to the article, which is why I won't pursue this as of yet. It's just a suggestion, but if someone takes me up on this, I'd love to contribute to it. Thanks (from a born and bred New Yorker). WiiAlbanyGirl 19:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also Rhode Island shares a border with New York

Is sharing a water border the same as sharing a border? Since RI doesn't share a land border with NY i was surprised by the border states listed in the first paragraph. 68.226.95.99 01:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)brooke

My aunt used to live in Brocklen.Tiggerhop 17:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)tiggerhopTiggerhop 17:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a discrepancy between the population estimate of New York (18,976,457) and New York City (18,818,536)...clearly there isn't only 157,921 people left in the state?! One or the other has to be wrong, and since I recollect most NYC area estimates to be near 20 million people, it has to be this article.

You can tell how many people are in the state by the number of house of representatives. there's 29 districts in new york so i think that means there's around 20 million, maybe i bit less. I think 1 congressman per 600,000 citizens or so. but there's a lot of illegal mexicans and polocks in new york, so who really knows, eh?

You just need to remember that while that many people may live in the New York City Metro area the area is not contained simply within the state. Many of those people are going to be coming from New Jersey, Connecticut, etc... Timhud 03:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Search New York EL

I recently deleted a link to a Google Coop page [1] and it was restored with a message on my Talk page that it was a "hasty" deletion. Would appreciate another opinion on this. It looks like a search result page which, per WP:EL we shouldn't be linking to. Thanks -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The user who created that page and added the link has been blocked for spamming several times. Unless there's a strong defense from someone else it should be removed. -Will Beback · † · 20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans in New York

This article says that NY has the largest number of Puerto Ricans in the country. But considering that Puerto Rico is an American Territory is it not considered part of the country? If so, they I question if the statistic can be true. Regardless, for clarity, it probably should read "... outside of Puerto Rico".

Dhollm 13:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is NOT an American territory. It is a Commonwealth freely associated with the US, but it is not a part of the American country.

Babieboy2786 17:24, 08 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Puerto Rico is not a territory, it enjoys Commonwealth status. There are no travel restrictions with the 50 states, no customs duties or quotas on shipments between P.R. and the mainland, and all products manufactured in P.R. state "Made in the USA". The U.S. Census for 2000 lists the population of Puerto Rico as 3,808,610, while the New York State is home to 2,867,758 people of Hispanic origin of all types. (The Census does not count areas not part of the U.S.) New York clearly does not have more Puerto Ricans than anywhere else in the country.

SGT141 15:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Borders

Does not New York State also share a water border with Rhode Island? --71.235.81.39 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all

Pawpawworld 08:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed

Semiprotected, I'm assuming for a recent rash of vandalism. Thus, this has issues with criterion 5 of WIAGA that i'm assuming will pass quickly. I'd like to see the sports section in a table, like what's at Arizona. The main issue, though, is the {{Citations broken}}, and overall lack of references. Also see WP:CITET concerning the proper formatting of references. Perhaps a further reading section could be provided as well, like at Texas. Article on hold until issues are at least examined. PhoenixTwo 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The article wasn't even edited since my above comment, perhaps because of the semi-protection...when some of the obvious issues are addressed feel free to renominate. PhoenixTwo 04:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sports in New York

Do we really need the ever-growing list of professional sports organizations when we have them already listed in Sports in New York?? I propose we remove the list in this article completely. Any objections? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection, I am going ahead with the change. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing article

Doesn't seem possible to edit this article at the moment.

Corrections are needed: the article claims that New York's subway is the world's largest of its type, but that is exactly what the Wikipedia London article says about the London Underground. Only one can be right.

Maybe they're of a different "type"? -Phoenix 16:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"New York State"

It should be pointed out that The term “New York State” in Parts of New Jersey , Pennsylvania and New England is intended to mean continental New York, as distinguished from the city. Much in the same way “Washington State” distinguishes the state in the North West from Washington DC. However, many people from Upstate New York and the New York islands prefer the Term “New York State” to mean the entire state of New York, Islands included, despite the fact that the word “State” becomes superfluous when following the name New York.

Some interesting points - do you have citable references that can be used to provide evidence of this? If so, then I think the article can have that added. As for the use of "State", from what I see it's a matter of perspective - people will add "State" or "City" in order to make sure that people know which "New York" they are talking about. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Having lived my entire life in the New York City area, I have never heard "New York State" used to mean everything but New York City. Besides, Bronx is part of "continental New York", whatever that means. There are ample sources to show usage of "Long Island" to mean Nassau and Suffolk, and exclude Queens and Brooklyn. But we would need a very clear source to show that "New York State" means "New York State minus New York City". Alansohn 21:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Temperature Chart

User:Ariel Pontes's edit to the chart title adding "Fº" addresses an important issue. I am not sure that it is the best way of doing so. I added a longer footer:

Temperatures listed using the Fahrenheit scale

that I think might be more helpful for those unfamilar with the Fahrenheit scale used in this chart.--Dbiel 03:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Racial and ancestral makeup

To have only one category for those of African ancestry (African American) whilst having several for those of European ancestry (Italian, German etc) is offensive. Africa is not just one huge amorphous blob, no more than Europe is. If you mean Kenyan, say Kenyan; if you mean Nigerian, say Nigerian. If we are going to simply categorise people by their ancestral continent, that's fine, but we should do so uniformly; replace all mention of Italian, German, Irish and so forth with simply "European".

As the article currently stands, it offensively implies that European countries are more important than African ones.

Furthermore to suggest that Irish, German and so forth are racially pure is insane. Europe is an easily navigated area which has had numerous small and large population movements. There is no such thing as a purely Irish or purely German bloodline; what you're talking about isn't ancestry so much as "the name of the parent country at the moment of emigration". Yet further, the borders of these countries has shifted massively over the decades, especially after the first and second world wars. Prior to Irish independence in 1926, going back as long as the USA has existed, for example, emigrants from southern Ireland weren't Irish, they were British. Prior to the holocaust of the second world war, for example, Germany had massive numbers of Turks, Jews, Romany Gypsies and other races- are we counting them as just German? These categories make no historical sense, and attempting to quantify these whilst ignoring the multitudes of African demographic categories is frankly racist.

This whole section is riddled with offensive assumptions and misguided (and more importantly, historically incorrect) attempts at Euro-centricism.

Andrew Oakley 10:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, I assumed that these numbers came from Census data, and that the divisions they used in that survey were just used here. Right now the US Census data is the best source we have, until we find something better. Upon further review, I actually looked up the 2000 Census data and don't see a racial breakdown as this, so have added a "fact" tag to the data. We need a source for this. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

11.1% German population? Pure ignorance.

When the article refers to German-American or German in population and such, it should be changed to Jewish as 11.1% are not German. As far as I know there are more Jews than Germans in New York so this needs editting. Goldbergs, Weinsteins, Steinbergs...they may be German names, but are almost always Ashkenazic Jewish names. Spitzer and Schumer aren't Germans they're Jews. Like I said, this stuff needs changing.

Like I said before, find a reliable source that can be used and cited, and things can be changed. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jews ARE Germans. Just because they have a religion that they have imported from the middle0east does not change the fact that they are Germans. I have never heard of a Muhammad Steinberg in history...--71.235.81.39 03:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What kind of ridiculous statement is this? Do you think Sephardi jews are Germans? Jews from Poland and Russian? This statement is utterly absurd.--RandomHumanoid 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jews ARE NOT German. Jews are a group of people. In other words a different race. I'm not talking about Judaism as a religion but as a race. The jews you are talking about are the Mizrahi Jews while the 'Steinbergs' are the Ashkenazic Jews. Just because it developed in the middle east doesn't mean that the Ashkenazic jews are German. Ashkenazic Jews come from all over eastern Europe and while many have come from Germany, that was a long long time ago. These Ashkenazic jews bred with other Ashkenazic Jews and today we see a different race, that being of jews, not Germans. How else do races form? How else do you define a race? Ashkenazi Jews have visible traits and beliefs that distinguish themselves from other races just like every other race. If you don't look at it in this way then that'd be the same as defining all Americans, Australians, New Zealanders as British because that's where they originated from. Or calling someone from a Germanic country like Austria, a German. That or you could just say everyone in the world is of the same race. It's just ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bboy2000 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone sat down and typed this article going "haha, I'm really going to get under those Germans' skins now! Finally, I will have my revenge for when Klaus Steiner beat me up on the school bus as a child!!". 24.148.118.190 22:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in "Cities and Towns" section

Distinguish between counties and boroughs in NYC. Five boroughs and five counties make up New York City. The boroughs are named Manhattan, The Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island. The counties are named New York (Manhattan), Bronx (not “The Bronx”), Queens, Kings (Brooklyn), and Richmond (Staten Island). Jcav 17:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be bold and go ahead and correct. My understanding was the it was the USPS that got rid of the "The" in "The Bronx" but that the official name to everyone else was still with the "The", whether it was county or borough. Might be a good idea to cite some reliable source when making the change so that future discussions can be avoided. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Phonetic IPA Transcription, please

I see the article already has a phonological/phonemic IPA transcription for "New York". However, since the actual pronounciation is so different (due to the complexity of the vowels), that is of as little help as the spelling, in this case. I think we should add an IPA phonetic transcription as well, or rather replace the current transcription with one.201.21.209.155 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, perhaps that we should give the proper pronunciation as "Noo Yawk"? This is a regional accent in a part of the state (NYC metro), but it would never be used in formal circumstances (not consciously anyway). And it has nothing to do with the particular pronunciation of the state's name, it's just a general trend affecting those vowels in all words.--Pharos 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No. You really didn't uderstand what I said. Look, there are two ways to represent a sound system and pronounciation in a language. First, you can transcribe phonemes, that is, only the minimal distinguishing sounds in that language. This transcription is usually rendered as "/***/". But you can also transcribe the specific sounds in detail with a phonetic transcription, rendered as "[***]". The article apparently uses a phonemic transcription. However, the standard phonetic realization of /nu:/, for instance, is definitely [nju:] - though maybe not in NY itself. So, in this case, the phonemic transcription is somewhat distant from the phonetic realization for most AE speakers. Note that this does not relate to "accent", as you assumed: all major AE dialetcs would pronounce it as [nju:]. The current transcription is not necessarily wrong, it just serves a different linguistic purpose. So I think that we should add another IPA, phonetic transcription (or two others, if you really want to get into dialectal differences). That's it.201.21.209.155 20:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No major American English dialects pronounce new as [nju:]--indeed Merriam-Webster calls that pronunciation "Chiefly British" [2]. Nohat 23:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Maybe Americans in Uruguay retain the yod... ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Goyle, I'm troyin' 'ere!

New York is named after the Duke of York

Surely this is wrong. New York was named after the English city of York which the Duke was the Duke of and not the Duke himself. New England is named after the country England and not the King of England. This part isn't referenced so can't someone rewrite it and reference it?

You are more than welcome to research the topic and make the corrections. The text as written is believable, but hasn't been verified. I agree that a reliable source is needed. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• New York State Facts: New York State History from the New York State Department of State states that "It was conquered by the English in 1664 and was then named New York in honor of the Duke of York." This source has been added to the article. I had always heard the Duke of York as the source. Is there a reliable source that shows that it is named for the city of York? Alansohn 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Same question asked on Talk:New York City. Here's my response.

James, the Duke of York and Albany was the brother of King Charles II. The King granted the his brother the colony, which was named for the Duke. Here are some sources I found:

• New York, named for the Duke of York, the original grantee. - The Origin of Certain Place Names in the United States by Henry Gannett [3]
• It was named in 1664 in honor of the Duke of York and Albany - [4] --Aude (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• In further searching cam this source about Yorks of the World, from theCity of York (England) Tourism Bureau, listing places named "York" around the world. "The most famous of York’s descendants, New York state and city were both renamed when the British captured what was then a Dutch colony known as New Netherland (and its city New Amsterdam) in 1664. James Duke of York, brother of King Charles II, became the proprietor of the colony and so it was that the state and the city become called New York." It seems that even York doesn't think it's named for York. Alansohn 14:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that seems to settle it, then  :-) -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tiffany Pollard?

Does anyone else think Tiffany Pollard for Flavor of Love doesn't deserve a special mention and can simply be noted in the disambiguation page? Djdickmutt 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I thoroughly agree! I didn't know what you were talking about, until I looked at the article and saw the link to Tiffany Pollard prominently featured on the top of the page. Horrified, I removed {{For|''New York'' from ''Flavor of Love''|Tiffany Pollard}} from the page.--orlady 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

State Fossil wrong...

According to the NYS Regents Earth Science Reference Tables the Eurypterus remipes is the NYS Fossil. I have never heard of this athropod being nicknamed "Sea Scorpion" in any GSci or Biology course (even at the high school level), so I think it should be cited by its Latin name rather than Sea Scorpion (which is an inaccurate way of referring to an athropod as specific as Eurypterus remipes.) I'll just go ahead and make the edit now since I know that none of you can rest easy knowing about this grave injustice towards our fossilized little friends from the ocean. 24.148.118.190 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)