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)

In the meantime, any possibility of replacing the bottom two images in the montage with perhaps more "attractive" images? There's a nice nighttime picture of the Brooklyn Bridge with the arches more "face on" and with the nighttime Lower Manhattan skyline in the background in the Brooklyn Bridge article, for example. There's also a nice picture of Koreatown structures in the Koreatown, Manhattan article. Just suggestions, that's all. I think it'll be awhile before the One WTC is topped off. Castncoot (talk) 07:56, 2 May 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 someone 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)

Also, I saw no mention of objective "indices" in the "objective study" that the UK Gov't Professional and Services Group provided. If you ask me, their metrics are much more opinion-based than anything that has been said in favor of New York. I see many "global," "diverse," "connected," and "transnational" stuff there. The problem with the idea that the more transnational a city is, the more important its economy is that it is a completely biased, therefore invalid, logic. London has at least 7 different countries within a 700-km radius. New York City's only foreign country at that distance is Canada. And make no mistake, I'm not trying to highlight a geographical advantage that London has to justify its alleged edge over New York. I'm saying that since the distinction between countries and country subdivisions is a completely artificial creation, it is absolutely invalid to say that London is the more meritorious city because more of its business comes from overseas or that more currency exchanges are performed there, or that more "transnational" things happen there. What if each US state were officially considered a country? New York City would suddenly skyrocket way past London in terms of "transnationality." And who says that 20 million Europeans and Middle Easterners are more qualified to make the city they do business in the "world's financial capital" than 20 million people from different US states, let alone when the latter work with larger amounts of money? This is exactly why London Heathrow CANNOT be considered the world's largest airport, just because it has the most international passengers going through its gates. Atlanta's Hartsfield Jackson sees a LOT more passengers annually, therefore it is LARGER. A passenger flying from London to Paris is not worth more kudos than one flying from Atlanta to Seattle, just because he's traveling between countries. But leave it to the UK Gov't Prof. and Serv. Group to say that Heathrow is more transnational, therefore it ranks number one, and that more dollars are exchanged for euros there than in ATL, therefore it is more important.--128.42.155.110 (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The financial centre page on Wikipedia only shows three lists with London on top of each. I am the first to agree that New York very well MAY be the top dog, but as it is at the least contended, the current phrasing is to strong. Some other wording would be better

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)

Importance of Stonewall Image, Caption, and Tagged Reference

Out of respect for the other editors and for the system, the following is a discussion about the Stonewall image, caption, and tagged reference which were deleted by two separate editors. It would be remiss to speculate upon their agendas, so let's give these editors the benefit of the doubt instead and deal with the subject matter and the technicalities themselves.

First of all, one editor remarked that the subject was irrelevant. This could not be further from the truth. The Stonewall Rebellion was a sentinel moment and a cry heard around the world for the LGBT community. It was additionally an important milestone in the archives of the history of New York City, which is the topic of this article.

More importantly, the second editor remarked that he has concerns about a potential WP:UNDUE issue. The statement of the caption was not something derived from my own opinion but rather a statement referenced directly from an official U.S. government website, namely that of the United States Department of the Interior's National Park Service. This thereby represents de facto the 300 million constituents of the United States and in no way can be misconstrued as a fringe viewpoint.

Clearly there is enough relevance, importance, and value to the image, caption, and certainly the tagged reference that they belong in the article in a prominent fashion, whether in the lede or adjacent to the National Park System section. And from a technical standpoint, this edit meets WP:NPOV criteria acceptably, for the reasons stated above.

If there is any significant disagreement here, this issue will need to be referred to WP:Administrators, given the gravitas involved. Castncoot (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all I really don't appreciate the tone of above posting, which clearly implies that opposition to the insertion of this photo - the issue at hand is insertion, not deletion as suggested above - is likely to demonstrate homophobia.

In my view this is perhaps an important issue/image for the LGBT community, but viewing New York City and its overall history in the round I personally feel that its insertion is WP:UNDUE and its presence would be soapboxing. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I was careful not to state the issue of homophobia - in fact, you are the one who has brought it up. There, in fact, could be other random agendas at play.

Also, why would you interpret insertion of this material to represent soapboxing? For goodness sake, the Stonewall Inn has been designated a National Historic Landmark by the United States federal government. I don't know which country you hail from or if you therefore realize the official and legal significance of this designation. The reason behind the designation is obviously one of historical significance for the United States. Certainly the riots associated with Stonewall in the 1960s carried major historical significance for New York City as well, as police were involved, if you are familiar with New York City's history. Not only that, but the caption was literally a restatement of the content of the referenced article (which I don't know if you read), which again, was derived from an official U.S. government website. Also, the reference was sourced and tagged clearly and appropriately.

Finally, I'm sure you don't have a problem with the actual image itself. The LGBT community plays a highly significant and visible presence in New York City's civic fabric, as it does in certain other cities around the world. The picture also alludes to the Stonewall uprising, a factual historical event.

In circumspect, insertion of the content in question does not carry any bias or promote any political viewpoint. On the contrary, it is actually benign and simply brings attention to an issue with historical and current significance to NYC and the United States, and it therefore deserves its small share of Wikispace in this article. There are other images in the article which carry far less significance. Deleting Stonewall completely as if it never happened or existed, on the other hand, would be remiss.

Castncoot (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"There, in fact, could be other random agendas at play." No, there is no agenda at play at all.

"The LGBT community plays a highly significant and visible presence in New York City's civic fabric, as it does in certain other cities around the world." No doubt, but there are a vast number of self-identifying minority groups in New York City. A few notable examples include Irish, Hispanic, Italian, Jewish and Black but there are a great deal more. In my view it is undue to single out one minority group in this way. Your comments make it very clear that you believe the picture to be worthy of inclusion because it represents this community.

"I don't know which country you hail from or if you therefore realize the official and legal significance of this designation." The country I come from is completely irrelevant but I am aware that there are 107 other National Historic Landmarks n New York City: List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Good, now I think we're getting somewhere with a productive discussion.

1) First of all, I'm glad to hear that there are no underlying agendas. In fact, my only agenda is completeness and fairness. That should be evident from all of my other edits in this article.

2) You're correct, NYC has a vast number of self-identifying minority groups. And, in fact, many, if not most of these ARE each appropriately referenced to some extent in the Demographics section. The Harlem Renaissance and salsa music, presumably alluding to the significance of certain minority groups, are additionally mentioned in the Culture section, also appropriate. And representative pictures of groups with a critical mass are absolutely appropriate. However, the LGBT community, representing perhaps up to 10% of the city's population, is devoid of any such appropriate representation in the article. Appears to be a double standard here, hmmm?

3) The Stonewall Rebellion actually represented a significant historical EVENT, similar to the Los Angeles riots of 1992, and deserves attention on that basis alone.

4) No, I couldn't care less what country you are from - you appear to have taken that remark out of the original context.

5) The article contains several images which have limited global applicability or significance to the city, while the picture in question actually deserves its share of Wikispace from that standpoint.

Let's see how we can work together constructively on this matter before having to refer it to the administrative level.

Would you be amenable to the picture with the amended caption, "The Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, an officially designated National Historic Landmark" as the site of rioting for gay rights in 1969", and then referenced with the same official U.S. Department of the Interior reference?

Castncoot (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If this was a book on the City rather than an article then there might be room for a detailed treatment of each minority group, with a photo for each, but in a WP article space is limited. I also take the approach that article contents, and particular image selection, should be decided very much on merits rather than to fulfil quotas or to tick boxes. Taken purely on its own merits I personally don't feel that this building is significant enough to merit a photo. I accept that this is subjective however and am interested to hear what other editors have to say on this. And as a general rule I don't support the inclusion of images in articles to satisfy quotas of any kind, be they of race, sex, age, sexual orientation, religion or any other. I am against the idea of a photo being included to represent the LGBT community in the same way that I would be against the inclusion of a Hispanic person to represent the Hispanic community. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The flaw in your argument above is that the picture represents a historically significant EVENT as much as anything else, an event the magnitude of which has NOT occurred with respect to each of various other minority groups in New York City - I honestly should not have to repeat this again. We'll leave it up to comment for a couple of days and then go from there.

Castncoot (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That the building is connected to historical events is not disputed, hence why it is a National Historic Landmark. However the same applies to the other 107 National Historic Landmarks in the City. And the City has of course witnessed a great many historical events which are not marked by a National Historic Landmark.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

By that line of reasoning, then why even have any pictures at all, save for the absolutely most important icons of the City? Likewise then, does the picture of the historic Battery Weed need to be up there mentioned as a part of the National Park System? That picture doesn't even have the human dimension or significance reflective of any critical mass that the Stonewall picture has. Likewise is true with a number of pics in the article. New York is home to all of the world's cuisines, and natively, there's New York cheesecake, New York steak, Long Island iced tea, etc., yet New York-style pizza is singled out in an image. If WP space is supposedly such a precious commodity, then the Stonewall picture should replace the Battery Weed picture. We can circle round and round endlessly with these arguments. The bottom line is that the Stonewall picture adds significant factual value and human dimension to the article which can be captioned in a constructive way to satisfy a consensus. I feel that we should try to work toward that consensus. Castncoot (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)