From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleNew York City is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 6, 2007.
Article milestones
December 17, 2004 Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 20, 2005 Good article nomineeListed
February 17, 2006 Peer reviewReviewed
April 4, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 17, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 18, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 3, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 31, 2007 Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 10, 2007 Featured article candidatePromoted
May 18, 2010 Featured article reviewDemoted
October 30, 2011 Peer reviewReviewed
June 26, 2012 Peer reviewReviewed
April 25, 2013 Good article nomineeListed
July 5, 2013 Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 28, 2020 Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article

Choosing between two first paragraph

Which is better? Is it the current paragraph:

New York, often called New York City or NYC, is the most populous city in the United States. With a 2020 population of 8,804,190 distributed over 300.46 square miles (778.2 km2), New York City is also the most densely populated major city in the United States, and is more than twice as populous as second-place Los Angeles. New York City lies at the southern tip of New York State, and constitutes the geographical and demographic center of both the Northeast megalopolis and the New York metropolitan area, the largest metropolitan area in the world by urban landmass. With over 20.1 million people in its metropolitan statistical area and 23.5 million in its combined statistical area as of 2020, New York is one of the world's most populous megacities, and over 58 million people live within 250 mi (400 km) of the city. New York City is a global cultural, financial, and media center with a significant influence on commerce, health care and life sciences, entertainment, research, technology, education, politics, tourism, dining, art, fashion, and sports. Home to the headquarters of the United Nations, New York is an important center for international diplomacy, an established safe haven for global investors, and is sometimes described as the capital of the world.

or is it the trimmed paragraph:

New York, commonly known as New York City (NYC), is the most populous city in the United States at southern tip of New York State. It is also the most densely populated major American city with a 2020 population of 8,804,190 distributed over 300.46 square miles (778.2 km2). It is a global cultural, financial, and media center with a significant influence on commerce, health care and life sciences, entertainment, research, technology, education, politics, tourism, dining, art, fashion, and sports. Home to the headquarters of the United Nations, New York City is an important center for international diplomacy, an established safe haven for global investors, and is sometimes described as the capital of the world.

CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 05:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Reply reply

By far the first is better. The second paragraph eats into actual muscle and bone, removing vital geographical and demographic information. The second paragraph may be more suitable for Simple Wikipedia. Castncoot ( talk) 05:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Reply reply
The first. Seasider53 ( talk) 11:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Reply reply
  • The first. The second removes too much, and is written very poorly. oknazevad ( talk) 14:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Reply reply
  • First paragraph seems better to me. The revision omits important details such as the size of the metropolitan statistical area and combined statistical areas. I'm wary of including the tidbit about 58 million people within 250 miles, though, as this includes places as far away as Washington, D.C. – Epicgenius ( talk) 17:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Reply reply
  • First Typical to include such info about large places. Reywas92 Talk 14:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Second by far, for two reasons. Reason #1 is that shorter is always better: the longer a paragraph is the less likely a prospective reader will actually read any of it. And second is that the actual cut material is almost entirely fairly detailed info about NYC's metro area, not NYC itself, so it shouldn't be in the very first paragraph. The very first paragraph should be a summary of a summary: the lead summarizes the article and the first paragraph of the lead summarizes the rest of the lead. Loki ( talk) 18:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Second - better lead both as the more concise version reads better, and also it is a more representative summary of the article per MOS:LEAD. I might tweak it a bit more to drop 'at southern tip of New York State' or to end the second sentence with the prior 'the largest metropolitan area in the world by urban landmass'. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 06:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Second I prefer elements of the first option's first opening sentence, but generally the second option is a more concise summary. Nemov ( talk) 21:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Second: I am not particularly happy that information NYC MSA is removed, but the shorter and concise the lede could be, the better. In my option the second option does that better. CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { CX}) 15:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • First by a long shot. The second one makes it sound as though NYC is only the most populous city in the southern tip of New York State. The first one could be improved a bit, but the second one looks like the writer was so interested in reducing wordcount that they packed the information in too tightly, and it's straining. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 04:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • First by a country mile. I like the idea of the second, but the execution is poor. Cessaune ( talk) 03:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Before a choice can be made, the second needs quivk fix. The bit about the "southern tip" is just plunked in with no concern for either grammar or flow.-- User:Khajidha ( talk) ( contributions) 23:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Feel free to fix it. Personally I think that the consensus is for shorter paragraphs but with better prose. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 23:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Not sure how to fix it because I don't know what you were trying to say there. My first thought would be to just remove it. -- User:Khajidha ( talk) ( contributions) 14:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

"Nueva York" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nueva York and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 16 § Nueva York until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Partofthemachine ( talk) 01:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Are "Demographia" and "StatsUSA" reliable sources?

In my opinion, neither of these are reliable sources. But they are used as the sole references for the two clauses:

  • over 58 million people live within 250 mi (400 km) of the city.

My problem with the first clause is that it's entirely arbitrary. Why 250 miles? Why a radius? Has this number been fact checked by a reliable secondary source? Well, StatsUSA doesn't even have a wikipedia article. So why is it considered reliable here? Also, this number is roughly congruent with estimates for the Northeast Megalopolis. So why not just find a good source for an estimate with that population instead of a totally arbitrary. circle drawn by a noname statistsics website.

My problem with this clause is once again it's completely arbitrary. Demographia is just one dude. The study linked is to a metric that only Demographia uses! There is no peer review, no editorial review, absolutely no evidence of notability or verifiability of the source. It's not academic, it's not governmental, it's not even clear what conflicts of interest might be at play. It's a bad source. And this source directly contradicts the linked article - which is talking about population, not "landmass." Also, the guy behind demogrpahia doesn't even have a PhD. There's no reason to give this man's analysis so much weight.

IMO these were added in good faith to add some color to the article. If these were verifiable sources, I might agree. But they're completely arbitrary and violating WP:UNDUE. @ Castncoot reverted those two deletions without explanation. So hopefully we'll get a consensus here.

Also, I've started a discussion at WP:USCITIES about a similar source. [1] I think there's a proliferation of questionable sources in US City articles, and invite others to help sort out which sources should be considered reliable. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 19:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

I see a Worldatlas link was added to support the Demographia assertion. And apparently StatsAmerica is published by an Indiana University. Neither of these really fix my concerns. New York City should be using high quality secondary sources in the lede, not a random Indiana Business School, and a low quality tertiary source like Worldatlas.
Also, Demographia/Worldatlas contradicts a 2014 analysis from the world bank that found the Pearl River Delta is the largest urban agglomeration by area. [2] [3] [4] And second place is Tokyo according to that report, not NYC. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 14:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I just took a closer look at the Demographia link. According to Demographia, the Boston-Providence urban area is considered the second largest urban agglomeration in the world. The BOSTON-PROVIDENCE urban area is considered the second-largest urban area in the world. This is not a serious source.
The worldatlas source given is also very bad. It gives a source of some website called "citymayors" which has an expired security certificate, and I'm guessing is a lot like the blacklisted WP:RSP city-data website. So now there's two dodgy references supporting the claim instead of one. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 16:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Here's [5] a peer reviewed paper explaining why comparing urban areas is fraught. Be sure to check out table 4, which shows Tokyo's urban agglomeration has a much larger area than NYC. So do Tianjin an Beijing. This is not a definitive source to use for rankings. But it's a good explanation of why these rankings aren't encyclopedic. I wonder how many middle and high school essays this dubious info has made it into. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 18:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I don’t have the time to write an extremely long answer as you have done. But your arguments above seem intended to smear these sources in favor of your outdated 2009 source. The WorldAtlas source clearly says at the outset: “Defining the world’s largest city by land area is difficult as many cities are always growing. However, New York is often estimated to be the largest city in the world by land area, with a total of 8,683 square kilometers. Other big cities include Tokyo, Chicago, Atlanta and Philadelphia. Though some occupy a large geographical area, the population is small while others with a smaller geographical coverage are densely populated.” This statement sounds very reasonable, plausible, and truthful as worded. And U.S. cities by their very nature and layout tend to sprawl farther outward and take up more space than cities outside the U.S. Moreover, the statement in the lede now states that NYC is “often stated”— which is a fact, that it IS “often stated”, to be’.. . .. We are talking about area in this sentence which links to another article that describes urban areas in general, inclusive of both area and population issues. And do you have any idea how large and space-encompassing the Boston metro area is? It sprawls over three states (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island)! Castncoot ( talk) 18:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I'm writing to you from the megalopolis of Providence, Rhode Island. I'm aware of the Boston metro, and it's patently absurd to call it the second largest urban agglomeration in the world. I think demographia made the amateur mistake of comparing new england MSA data with the rest of the country. The census bureau defines metro areas in terms of counties, which are less expansive in NE than in the rest of the country. That's why the census bureau defines NECTAs. I suspect demographia didn't account for any of this, so somehow new england's urban area is vastly overstated.
The problem with Worldatlas and demographia is the same problem laid out in the peer reviewed source I gave (which is not outdated, considering the arguments about inconsistency in data sources remain the same.) The problem is that the US census bureau has a looser definition of what's considered "urban" than what other national statistics bureaus use. Table 4 in the peer reviewed paper give NYC's urban area at around 8,600 sqkm. That's about the same as given by worldatlas. Yet the area given for Tokyo's urban area is over 13,000 sqkm. Granted, these are "rough estimates" by the paper's own words, but at least these rough estimates have been peer reviewed.
Please note in the scholarly analysis, the Boston-Providence megacity is not even mentioned. Also, the census Bureau says [6] NYC's urban area is 8,412 square km. Over 200 square miles less than what worldatlas and demographia say. These are bad sources. yes, the weasel words make the sentence technically true. But we should get high quality secondary sources for one of the most well-documented places in the world. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 19:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I’m afraid you’re conflating MSA versus CSA versus urban landmass, and perhaps also not acknowledging that comparing metropolitan entities internationally with each other is fraught with some level of discrepancy because different countries define urban or metropolitan areas differently from each other as sovereign countries and entities. One could easily argue that the U.S. Northeast megalopolis from Boston to D.C. surpasses even the Pearl River Delta in terms of urban landmass. Even NYC plus Philadelphia, essential a blurred urban agglomeration with no empty spaces in between, could be considered the world’s urban landmass. And keep in mind that NYC’s CSA itself actually extends north to Poughkeepsie, northeast to Litchfield County, Connecticut, eastward to Montauk, Long Island, and southwestward to Trenton, New Jersey, much more than (and perhaps double) the 8,683 sq km quoted by this 8,683 figure for NYC is actually an extremely conservative estimate. But at some point, you draw have to draw the line. According to WorldAtlas, Tokyo covers 6,993 sq km per World Atlas, and two different, independent, reasonably reliable sources, with no agenda to push with this comparison, are explicitly stating in verbiage that NYC is the largest and larger so than Tokyo in a head-to-head comparison. U.S. cities and metros by their very nature are more generally spacious per human capita as compared to their Asian and European counterparts. And by the way, WP:CALC allows Wikipedia readers to actually use their brain to infer statistics through their own simple calculations and indexing material within a reference, whether it’s StatsAmerica through Indiana University or manual density calculations through U.S. Census Bureau area and population figures for small municipalities containing less than 5,000 people. You have acknowledged yourself that the statement as written is technically true with the caveat openly stated. Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good. I just don’t see the need for the stain of a tag here; otherwise, three-fourths of Wikipedia may need to be tagged as such. Castncoot ( talk) 01:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
@Castncoot CSAs are composed of MSAs, which are composed of counties, so the problem remains. That's just my suspicion for how demographia got it so obviously wrong, not really important.
Anyway, the sentence in the mainspace we're talking about is explicitly referring to metropolitan areas. the sentence we're talking about says, "... the New York metropolitan area, often stated to be the largest metropolitan area in the world by urban landmass."
I've given governmental and academic sources that cast doubt on this claim. Even your own source points out comparisons are inaccurate, so why do we need this comparison in such a prominent place in such a prominent article? And shouldn't there be better sources than a random dude (Wendell cox)? people see it in the lede and just repeat it and take it for truth. the world bank and a couple of peer reviewed papers disagree with the assessment. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 01:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
With all due respect, I absolutely am diametrically opposed to throwing the baby out with the bath water. The correct wording is the key, and I believe this has already been achieved by tweaking the wording to something which you yourself acknowledged above is now “technically correct”. In fact, I believe that the WorldAtlas source is actually a cleaner and more believable source than your outdated ‘peer-reviewed’ sources, which by the way, never compared the Pearl River Delta directly against the Northeast Megalopolis, which is over TWICE as large as the Pearl River Delta in urban landmass. How comical is it to compare a megaregion consisting of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Macau, and a plethora of other cities combined together, head-to-head against NYC individually alone? Castncoot ( talk) 05:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Keep in mind according to your reference, the Boston-Providence metro area is the second largest urban area in the world. i can't get over how ridiculous a claim that is. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 05:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Actually, WorldAtlas has Boston at #6 and Tokyo second. This is indeed realistic, reasonable, and reliable. Furthermore, WorldAtlas insightfully enlightens the reader by stating, “Location Of The Largest Cities. Most of the largest cities are in the United States of America. Other than Tokyo in the top five, the U.S has many of the world's largest cities by land area. One possible reason for this is that the United States has a vast land area and newer cities that are subject to sprawl. Another possible reason is the way that US cities define their urban areas. Some cities have liberal borders, which may give them a very wide land area.” This can actually educate the reader constructively. On the other hand, your source ducked away from the real comparison of the Pearl River Delta..i.e., directly head-to-head against the U.S. Northeast Megalopolis. Castncoot ( talk) 06:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Does this mean you agree that Demographia is an unreliable source? Because it says Boston is the second largest urban agglomeration in the world. [7]. According to Demographia, the Boston-PVD metro is a larger urban area than Tokyo, Chicago, etc. It seems you're agreeing with me that this is obviously wrong now, since it disagrees with your other source.
As for worldatlas, reliable sources typically say where they got their info. Worldatlas's sourcing is just "trust me bro." BTW, you might be interested in this article being discussed for deletion. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 14:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
The place (if there be one) for such comparisons is not New York City but the New York metro area. New York City is five distinct counties/boroughs with a common municipal government. That is the subject of this article.
( Suffolk County, Massachusetts and Providence County, Rhode Island are also distinct, defined entities with a known area and a recently-counted population, though the former excludes Cambridge, Massachusetts and the latter excludes Warwick, Rhode Island.)
Metropolitan San Francisco used to be just 3 counties — San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa. Then it expanded to five with the addition of Marín County and San Mateo County in the West Bay. Then it became a 9-county area when amalgamated with the formerly distinct metro area of Santa Clara (San José) plus the three northern counties of Sonoma, Napa and Solano. Later the southern county of Santa Crúz was added. I'm not sure what now constitutes metropolitan San Francisco ( Combined Statistical Area or Metropolitan Statistical Area).
My point is that while New York City is a well-defined area whose landmass can justly be compared to that of other well-defined juridical and governmental entities such as Greater London or Île-de-France, other comparisons are of apples, oranges, yams and grapes since every country and every unofficial source will use (for its own legitimate but very local purpose) a "greater" or "metropolitan" definition that may not be at all compatible with others'.
And my much stronger point (again) is that such a hypothetical comparison belongs, anyway, in New York Metropolitan Area rather than in New York City.
My respect for an honest attempt to improve the NYC article, but not for its result.
—— Shakescene ( talk) 19:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
@Shakescene: Your point is not entirely unreasonable, but the NYC page refers to its overshadowing metro area ubiquitously throughout the article. Nevertheless, you raise a point certainly valid for discussion. With all due respect, that’s a (slightly) tangential topic to the current discussion. Perhaps you could consider starting a different section for that debate, i.e., how much metro should be mentioned in this city article? Best, Castncoot ( talk) 21:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
@Sativa Inflorescence: I’ve added a third separate source, this time the World Population Review, which by the way sources Demographia for its info while being its own independent primary source. This invalidates your argument that Demographia is somehow some fly-by-night source. The more pertinent point here is that primary sources are NOT obligated to produce secondary sources to meet the WP:BRD standard. if you want to bring that issue up across the board with Wikipedia, that is beyond the scope of this page. Castncoot ( talk) 21:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
@Castncoot "world population review" is not a reliable source either. the source you provided doesn't even mention metropolitan areas, it's probably the worst source yet. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 00:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I concur with Shakescene. This is wholly trivial and ill-defined. It doesn't really belong in the lead, and insisting it goes there comes off as boosterism.
As for whether it belongs in this article or not, there is something to be said that cities as conurbations aren't always contained solely by their legal boundaries. I remember during the various discussions about the title of the article on the state with an Australian editor who was disagreeing with the idea that "New York City" meant exclusively the five boroughs because that editor's cultural attitude was shaped by being from Sydney, which doesn't have an overarching city-wide government, just local government areas. In fact, Sydney metropolitan area redirects to Sydney, because in Australian usage a city and its metro area are the same thing.
A similar outlook is embraced by sociologists when discussing cities, as they look at them as a place of human settlement and civilization. To them, boundaries are not defining because of how many people commute, and are therefore part of the city as a conceptual entity without being residents in a legal sense. That's why some discussion of the metro area is not incorrect; a city is more than just strictly the land inside its city limits.
That said, none of that matters here because the comparisons are using poorly defined criteria, comparing apples to kumquats, and grouping together things that aren't conventionally grouped. It does the readers no favor. Ditch it entirely. oknazevad ( talk) 22:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I can only speak for Demographia as I looked into this a while ago, but it is not a reliable source. It appears to be a single person self-publishing their original research. It's not peer reviewed, and thus does not belong as a reliable source on wikipedia at all, any more than anyone else's personal blog. Suggest removing demographia as a source, especially for a page as important as this one. Mattximus ( talk) 16:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Top publicly traded companies in NYC

Is this table needed? It takes up a lot of space, creates formatting issues, and doesn't add much to the article. Just look how much space is taken up by it, and ask what you're really learning. NYC's economy is much more interesting than a list. Also, the source is from 2016. I think the whole thing should be deleted. If the information is so important, then the companies can get listed in a single sentence and take up far less space. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 15:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

It's relevant when speaking on the economy of New York, which is the section that it's included in. I disagree on using a sentence instead of a table to convey the information in this case, it would be much more difficult to portray this amount of information by writing it out. I also don't see the space taken up as being an issue here. Can you point out the formatting issues you see? Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Yes it's relevant, but I think it's being given undue weight. It's an old source. One of the companies even changed its name since that list was published. And the table is still available in the linked article about NY's economy. I mean, the name change alone should be reason enough to think it's being given undue weight.
The formatting issue is on my desktop, images from the previous section clip into the economy section, pushing the table further left, making the text column very skinny. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 16:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I agree that neither a sentence nor a table is needed. NYC's economy has changed dramatically over the past several years, and many hundreds of new, small start-up companies are gradually but surely making the old guard less significant. Castncoot ( talk) 03:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

¶ I created that table to be as compact as possible, while conveying information that the average non-expert reader might be seeking (e.g. what's the largest company in New York? Is it also the largest in the country?). I realize that no one can claim WP:Ownership once her or his work is published, but let me address some of the points above:

  1. The formatting problem might be resolved by simply adding a {{clear}} template at the right point. It's often worked when I've faced similar squeezing problems.
  2. The space it took up was an issue, even in my own mind, when the Economy section was smaller, but compared to the cumulative length of all the other half-dozen subsections of the Economy section today, it hardly seems to taking up undue space for the information that it conveys
  3. The aging question might be more serious: for example, this list looked very different — nearly monopolized by green-tinted banks and brokerages — before the junk-bond meltdown of 2007-10. (See my successive efforts at User:Shakescene/sandbox5). Although neither a New Yorker nor professionally involved in financial questions, I still collected the Fortune 500 issue every year for about 50 years. Each of the later issues carried a handy list of the leading companies or corporations in each state, one by one, with locations, allowing me to extract, e.g. PepsiCo ( Purchase,NY) and IBM ( Armonk) from the NYC articles but include them in Economy of New York (state). But the 2016 issue was the last that I could obtain (with a little difficulty) over the counter in a shop. There is an on-line equivalent (see the footnotes), but it's proven rather more difficult to pull out the NYC corporations from the Fortune 500 website (or sub-website}. I'd rather been hoping that someone with a print or on-line subscription, or with the annual stand-alone directory, might update this, but no one has done so, so far.

Have a good weekend —— Shakescene ( talk)

Biggest would be of more interest.... as in largest employers. That said either information should be in prose as per WP:PROSE and WP:DUE. Moxy- Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 04:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

"City of New York" in infobox

I'm genuinely curious, why does the infobox not include "City of New York" as the official name, like what is found on pages for nearly all other major cities (i.e. Chicago and Los Angeles)? If there is a valid reason that I am not aware of, it might be worth including in the FAQ section of this talk page. Needforspeed888 ( talk) 14:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply