Talk:New York City

World-Class Universities

Exactly what is meant by "world-class universities" mentioned in the article lead-in. I noticed someone added Fordham to the list (previously comprising Columbia and NYU). Unless we can decide what constitutes a "world-class" university, chances are people will keeping adding names to the list. This matter needs to be resolved.Avman89 (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this needs to be changed immediately. I'm sorry, but Fordham University is not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'world class'. To be honest, people in the U.S. outside of the New York area have hardly even heard of it. This needs to be changed ASAP to secure the integrity of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.210.68 (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As I agree with the two of you, I am going to go ahead and change it to "reputable". Whether Fordham deserves to be included alongside Columbia and NYU is another issue. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 01:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

See similar discussions at Talk:Education in New York City. I'd class Fordham as a nationally-ranked or respected university, but not a world-class one. A parallel might be the University of Sussex (fd. 1961), well-noted with some real accomplishments despite its relative youth but not yet the equivalent of Heidelberg, Oxford or the Sorbonne. (Of course at that level, even NYU might be borderline, no offence intended to NYU.) Other analogues might be the newer campuses of the University of California. And if Fordham is world-class, what about St. John's or Cooper Union? This is just one of those problems that really won't go away, because it's only natural that proud students, parents, alumni and staff of a college or high school (even a middle school; see Staten Island#Education) will see it as noteworthy and want to add it to any existing list on Wikipedia, and any criterion we set is bound to be too arbitrary (U.S. News ranking, enrollment, age, number of published Ph.D. instructors, research output, etc.) —— Shakescene (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's really relatively simple. Is there a reliable third-party source (not the alumni magazine) that calls a particular university "world class"? If yes, leave it in the article and cite the source in a footnote. If not, take it out. Station1 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

something like ARWU should suffice. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the benefits of editing WP is learning about things that I never knew existed, such as the ARWU. I think that's a fine source and I've updated article accordingly. Station1 (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

All rankings, I think, are inherently shaky; this one leans heavily on the sciences (there's no Nobel Prize for history, geography, linguistics or archaeology) and is liable to the failings noted at Academic Ranking of World Universities#Criticism. At least two medical schools (UC San Francisco and UT Dallas) are listed, as are (for example) North Carolina State, Penn State and UC Irvine, but not the University of Berlin, Simon Fraser, the University of Bologna or Trinity College, Dublin. This doesn't necessarily mean that some other ranking is sounder, just that for our purposes, this doesn't really solve the problem. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of rankings in general, but don't you agree that one citation is better than none? --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 17:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In general, I wouldn't disagree with that; we often give one or more partial assessments where there's no Absolute Standard, e.g. in discussing the critical reception of books, plays, films, music and art, or the reputations of historical figures. I was objecting more to using any one such ranking to make choices for the editors or readers. We would, for example, be perfectly justified in making sure that we have sound biographies of every Nobel, Booker and Pulitzer Prize winner, but we shouldn't make those the only criteria for listing 20th-century writers or physicists. Station1's language suggested that he was going to do that with the ARWU, but all I see so far is just a welcome toning down of the troublesome "world-class" label. [N.B., I crossed out University of Berlin in my previous coment because I'd forgotten to scan ARWU for the Free University of Berlin, which is indeed listed.] —— Shakescene (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In that regard, I agree completely. It shouldn't be the only standard, but a standard. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 22:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Images

What do people think of replacing the image of Lower Manhattan with a more updated image depicting the rise of the new World Trade Center building? Castncoot (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I took awhile to see this, but I'm assuming you're referring to the intro montage? The problem is that I haven't found any more recent pictures of Lower Manhattan that would work better there. As soon as One World Trade Center is topped-off though, I think the montage will definetly need to include it. Anyway, if you have a better picture in the meantime, please feel to share it. --Jleon (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

2010 Census numbers released today

See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/nyregion/25census.html ScottyBerg (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of New York

1698 4,937 — 1712 5,840 18.3% 1723 7,248 24.1% 1737 10,664 47.1% 1746 11,717 9.9% 1756 13,046 11.3% 1771 21,863 67.6% 1790 49,401 126.0% 1800 79,216 60.4% 1810 119,734 51.1% 1820 152,056 27.0% 1830 242,278 59.3% 1840 391,114 61.4% 1850 696,115 78.0% 1860 1,174,779 68.8% 1870 1,478,103 25.8% 1880 1,911,698 29.3% 1890 2,507,414 31.2% 1900 3,437,202 37.1% 1910 4,766,883 38.7% 1920 5,620,048 17.9% 1930 6,930,446 23.3% 1940 7,454,995 7.6% 1950 7,891,957 5.9% 1960 7,781,984 −1.4% 1970 7,894,862 1.5% 1980 7,071,639 −10.4% 1990 7,322,564 3.5% 2000 8,008,288 9.4% 2010 8,175,133 2.1%

The information about the population of 2010 is wrong. The right number is somewhere around 8,5 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOE4ce (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the number probably is wrong, as many have pointed out. The fact that the number is disputed needs to be in the article. However, in the chart we have to go with the census. Census data is always wrong. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Demographics 2009-2010

New York's population on July 1, 2009, to be 8,391,881 2000 8,008,288 9.4% 2010 8,175,133 2.1%

The text says that the population in 2009 was 8,391,881 and in 2010 8,175,133. Has the population from 2009-2010 desent, or is the information about the population in 2009 wrong? -I do appologize if my English isn't correct :)- — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOE4ce (talk • contribs) 20:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ellis Island

Should it be mentioned that as many as 4 in 10 Americans have ancestors who came through Ellis Island? That seems like it would be worth mentioning.[1][2][3] PShula (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done That kind of detail belongs to the specific article on Ellis island.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

black and hispanic crime victims

As I was reading through the article, I came across this statement: "95.1% of all murder victims and 95.9% of all shooting victims in New York City are black or Hispanic."

While true, I think it's potentially deceptive unless supplied by the fact that these two groups are also the main crime perpetrators, as the statement implies some sort of bias against them. Moreover, i believe that it's not appropriate to lump the two groups together since they have different rates of both crime and victimhood; instead, i propose to give the rates for each separately.--69.121.51.151 (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Only, and I mean only, if it's well sourced. The potential for a conflict is just too high as people dispute the breakdown for what ever reasons. I say draft it in your sandbox first, and then copy it to this talk page before actually adding it to the article. oknazevad (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I can find sources, but I'm unable to work with inline citations.--69.121.51.151 (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Though blacks, 24 percent of New York City’s population, committed 68.5 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in the city last year, according to victims and witnesses", taken from http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-04-02hm.html and this from http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/YearEnd2008EnforcementReport.pdf --69.121.51.151 (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources look good. Check out WP:Manual of Style (footnotes) for the "how to"s of adding them. oknazevad (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

New York as the "Financial Capital of the World"?

I believe the statement that NYC is the financial capital of the world to be incorrect; indeed the sources cited for this statement are commonly editorials based on individual events and opinion. When examined by objective studies measuring multiple indices, it is clear that London is the top global financial centre , the world's most economically powerful city and the top worldwide centre of commerce , ergo the financial capital of the world. It appears that this title has been taken from New York City for quite some time and I am surprised it has not yet been updated on Wikipedia.

--95.144.14.174 (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be more opinion than fact. Please submit proof that the London Financial center is larger then NYC. The NY Stock exchange trade nearly 3 times of the London exchange. I would really like to hear the point though, Jacob805 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There will no doubt be multiple sources declaring New York or London the financial, economic, etc. "Center of the World." We need to find the most reliable sources when adding this statement. It may be more helpful, and create less conflict, to say "along with London." 08OceanBeach^S.D. 18:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

So what you're trying to say is that whenever an analyst says that New York *is* or *remains* the largest financial center in the world, it's just a biased opinion, but whenever says that London is the top financial center, then it is an indisputable fact of nature? You're a joke. It's funny how the one source you cite that is actually from this year is (drum roll, please) the UK Government's Professional and Services Group. I wonder whether they have any interest in promoting London as the world's financial capital. And you accuse the sources of being editorials based on opinion and THEN give us a Forbes list as a source? Please, for the love of Mike, you're being utterly ridiculous here.

I contend that for every source that you find saying that London is the world's financial capital, you'll find two or three saying that New York is. But if you're so offended, go get better sources to back up your statements; sources that are (a) unbiased and (b) pass the "editorials based on opinion" test that you so eagerly applied to the sources that said that New York remains the world's capital. The fact of the matter is that by nearly any objective metric, New York has a far bigger and more important city economy than London. But if you can't sleep at night so long as Wikipedia claims that New York IS the one financial capital (which is what those links claim, too), I won't dispute it if it is reverted to "alongside London." As a matter of fact, go ahead and take the title for you and your city, for all that it matters. Let's see what real-world repercussions that title will bring to London. Let's see if it helps London narrow the gap between it and New York City in terms of GDP, GDP Per Capita, average salaries, hedge funds, equity firms, stock market capitalization, stock exchange daily trading value, or so many other things. I doubt so, I mean, the gap between New York and London is, after all, considerably large in many of those measurements, but again, if it makes you happy to be hailed as the "Financial Capital of the World," go ahead and take that moniker right off New York's face. Maybe that will shift the world's eyes from New York to London once and for all... if only a little bit.--128.42.156.59 (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

How can this be?

The New York City metropolitan area is home to the largest Jewish community outside Israel, and the city proper contains the largest Jewish community in the world. A bit of a contradiction here? How can the metropolitan area contain the largest Jewish community outside of Israel, yet the city proper contain the largest Jewish community in the world? Something's not right here. Anoldtreeok (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The city is part of the metro area. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, but saying it is "the largest outside of Israel" means (or implies) the Jewish community in Israel is larger, so how can New York's be the largest in the world? Not to mention, the wording also implies that the city proper has more Jews than the metro area, which just isn't possible, unless you want to argue the city proper isn't part of the metro area, but no one's going to do that. Anoldtreeok (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite confusing indeed. the city proper contains the largest Jewish community in the world needs to be clarified. in the world? Am I reading it wrong, or are the words wrong? Yes Michael? •^Talk 15:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see your point. Read it too quickly. This needs to be rephrased. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. According to Wikipedia, which as we all know is never wrong, a Metropolitan area is a region consisting of a populous urban core with a high density of employment plus surrounding territory that is socio-economically linked to the urban core by commuting. Something needs to be done here. Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be begin with, the source link is dead, and the language seems to conflict with what's in American Jews. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Also contradicts Demographics of New York City. I've removed the second part of the phrase. The source in American Jews is not very good, and is old. I'm sure something better can be found. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)