Talk:New York City

History - subdivide by era?

Surely the history section would be clearer, and easier to edit, if it were broken up into subsections either by era or by century? Huw Powell (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

alex js —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.130.100 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.5.77.194, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

"Under the Köppen climate classification New York City has a humid subtropical climate (Cfa), and using the 0 °C threshold it is the northernmost major city on the continent with such categorization."

Needs to be changed to say:

"Under the Köppen climate classification New York City has a Humid Continental Climate / Warm Summer Continental or Hemiboreal Climateste (Dfb)."

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Humidcontinentalworld2.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humid_continental_climate#Dfb.2FDwb:_Warm_summer_subtype

    "Dfb/Dwb/Dsb: Warm summer subtype

Regions with warm summer humid continental climates

The warm summer version of the humid continental climate covers a much larger area than the hot subtype. In North America, the climate zone covers from about 44°N to 50°N latitude mostly east of the 100th meridian. However, it can be found as far north as 54°N, and further west in the Canadian Prairie Provinces and below 40°N in the high Appalachians. In Europe this subtype reaches its most northern latitude at nearly 61°N. Areas featuring this subtype of the continental climate have an average temperature in its warmest month below 22°C. Summer high temperatures in this zone typically average between 21–28 °C (70–82 °F) during the daytime and the average winter temperatures in the coldest month are generally far below the −3 °C (26.6 °F) isotherm.

It includes the following places: Northern, Central and Western New York... ...Albany, New York Rochester, New York Syracuse, New York Buffalo, New York"

99.5.77.194 (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: The problem is that this is the article about New York 'City', not about the state of New York. Note that New York City is not listed anywhere on the page you refer to. It is, however, mentioned on the page Humid subtropical climate. Unless you have a reliable source (a site outside Wikipedia) that identifies NYC as Dfb, then I don't think this should change. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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)