This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The article states Queens is more diverse in race/nationality than anywhere else. I have heard claims that Los Angeles County, California is, as well. I may have it confused with the city of Los Angeles, but I am significantly cofident that I am correct as stated above. I am wondering as to which one is correct, as I have heard both claims throughout Wikipedia as well as elsewhere. To save you time, I have listed the demographics for both counties (I believe Queens is a county as that is what it says in this very New York City article) below:

As of the 2000 Census,

Los Angeles County:

there are 9,519,338 people, 3,133,774 households, and 2,137,233 families residing in the county. The population density is 905/km² (2,344/mi²). There are 3,270,909 housing units at an average density of 311/km² (806/mi²). The racial makeup of the county is 48.71% White, 9.78% African American, 0.81% Native American, 11.95% Asian, 0.28% Pacific Islander, 23.53% from other races, and 4.94% from two or more races. 44.56% of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race. 31.1% of the population are White, not of Hispanic origins.

Queens:

there are 2,229,379 people, 782,664 households, and 537,690 families residing in the county. The population density is 7,879.6/km² (20,409.0/mi²). There are 817,250 housing units at an average density of 2,888.5/km² (7,481.6/mi²). The racial makeup of the county is 44.08% White, 20.01% Black or African American, 0.50% Native American, 17.56% Asian, 0.06% Pacific Islander, 11.68% from other races, and 6.11% from two or more races. 24.97% of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race. 32.9% of the population is White and not of Hispanic origin.

Clearly, both of them have comparable stats, and the demographic for how many are of "other races" could be the cause of confusion. I don't know what stating the demographics do, but there they are. -- Lan56 Jan 1, 2005

In my mind, Queens is more diverse (both in my personal experience and based on those statistics). Of course doesn't just equal "percentage of population that is non-white." First of all, L.A. County has 9.5 million people to Queens's much smaller 2.3 million people - so in that sense they are not exactly comparable (L.A. is more diverse in sheer numbers of certain kinds of people just because there are more than four times as many people living thre). Percentage-wise, L.A. County's diversity is that it is heavily Hispanic, with smaller percentages of African Americans and Asians than in Queens. Queens really feels diverse in a way that L.A. County doesn't, and I say that because it has higher percentages of different groups; and is less uniformily Hispanic / White in the way much or most of L.A. County is. Moncrief 03:32, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a subject on which you can get a definitive statistical answer. For example, the Asian population in Queens includes multiple ethnic groups. There are significant communities of Chinese, Indian, Korean, etc. Suppose one city is 50% white and 50% Asian, all Chinese, while another is 60% white, 20% Chinese, 10% Indian, and 10% Korean. Which city is more diverse? You could make an argument either way. JamesMLane 05:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

True or false: It is greater than 20% at this moment that the 2012 Olympic Games will be held in New York City. 66.32.251.152 23:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

No one knows that except the IOC. They may already have made up their minds. I read somewhere that New York was not expected to win because the IOC would be unlikely to have the Summer Olympics and the preceding Winter Olympics in the same continent (the 2010 Winter Games are in Vancouver). Proteus (Talk) 06:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

That probably doesn't affect the IOCs decision - Athens 2004 & Torino 2006. I think that LA 84 - Atlanta 96 - SLC 02 would be a bigger deterrent, if you want to get into country/continent rotation. But I'm getting off-topic now. -- Chuq 06:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I augmented this new list somewhat, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. There are many magazines based in New York but not having any New York focus. The ones I've added are all definitely local, although some, like the Village Voice, have considerable readership outside the city. New York has something of a local focus though not quite so much as the Voice. The New Yorker, despite its name, is less local, and then there are the publications like Newsweek that are just based here. I'm not sure where we should draw the line. Then, beyond the publications, is there any point to adding lists of the TV and radio stations? JamesMLane 04:47, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree it should just be NY-focussed media--I modelled it after similar sections in Seattle, Boston, and Chicago articles. Niteowlneils 06:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The statement that Mayor Bloomberg declared a state of emergency during the 2003 blackout should be deleted. The statement is incorrect. Governor Pataki declared a state of emergency during the 2003 blackout but the Mayor did not. --BR, July 1, 2004 (I work for the City and have spoken to staff that were involved).

Okay, the placement of the article at "City of New York" was supposed to be temporary, until we worked out what was going on with US city names generally. But there seems to be no will anymore to do anything about city names generally. Can we just moved the damned article to New York City? john k 20:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wait until it starts up again. I kinda wanted to move it back to New York, New York. WhisperToMe 21:49, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I know...Sigh...it doesn't show any signs of starting up again. I'm not even sure what can be done to start it up again, at this point. I tried, but it just led to a bunch of grumping from my side. What do you think of JRedmond's proposal over on one of those other pages? john k 22:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've moved it...let's see what happens. john k 22:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The sports is too baseball and (American) football oriented. Isn't NY the venue for the tennis Grand Slam? Please add some more sports to reflect the diversity of the city. The list of stadiums should also be moved to dedicated page. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:30, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Should I put New Jersey companies after the list of companies based in the city limits of New York (and label them as such) e.g. Toys R Us in Wayne, and Prudential in Newark? WhisperToMe 05:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think naming them gets too far afield, but it's a good point that they're there. I've added a sentence noting the fact in a general way. JamesMLane 08:16, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Goodmorning all My name is Mokrane and I am algéian, i have 15 years. I love very américa, my great dream is to live and work in Usa. Your site web is marveyous. New York is the city bery good from me. thank you.

I haven't been to New York City in a long time, but I'm told that FAO Schwarz is no longer operating... anyone able to confirm that? If so, the article should be updated accordingly. hardov

It did close down a year ago (as did the entire chain, if I'm not mistaken) but they reopened the Fifth Avenue store on Thanksgiving Day. Darkcore 12:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many people who are born elsewhere end up in New York City for career purposes. Some are here for a while ( Roger Maris); others really settle here and become New Yorkers ( Tony Randall). Then, of course, there are people who are born in New York City but who leave fairly early in life and generally aren't associated with the city ( Norman Rockwell).

The "Famous New Yorkers" section of this article seems to be turning into a mishmash of all these categories, along with some people who weren't born here and don't currently live here ( Phil Collins).

I suggest we break it down into "Native New Yorkers" (anyone born in NYC) and "Other New Yorkers" (anyone born elsewhere who's prominently identified with the city -- obviously Mayor Bloomberg would qualify, but I have my doubts about a transient like Roger Maris). Comments? JamesMLane 17:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just archived the beginning of this talk page, setting it up as Talk:New York City/Archive 2 (title of article). (As it happened, everything in that section related to the question of the title of the article, so I could give it a more descriptive name than just "Archive 2".) In the course of doing so, I noticed that the previous archive is a red link. Archive 2 begins with February 11, 2004, so all the talk before then seems to have gone missing. We could create a new archive from the page history, but before we do so, does anyone know if the Talk:New York City/Archive 1 page is wandering around somewhere under a different name? JamesMLane 17:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi. There's something I didn't quite understand — this may be because I'm not completely familiar with US law concerning administrative divisions. In the cases of the boroughs of Brooklyn and Staten Island, since they are coterminous with their counties and there's no such thing as an independent county administration, how come the counties have different names, i.e. why aren't they called "Brooklyn County" and "Staten Island County", instead of Kings County and Richmond County, respectively? It's a little bewildering and the article gives no explanation as to why this is so (especially since the other boroughs have "matching names", so to speak). I was just wondering... Regards, Redux 23:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is more than likely due to the fact that Kings County and Richmond County predate "Brooklyn" and "Staten Island." (Kings County was formed in 1683, if I'm not mistaken.) What is now called Brooklyn was once a series of little villages and towns that eventually grew into each other and formed the Brooklyn we know today. Although I am not as familiar with Staten Island, I would assume that it is the same story there. Darkcore 03:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is interesting (and maybe should go into the article itself), thanks to Darkcore for taking the time to write the above explanation. But I still feel that something's missing. I mean, I would assume that a similar process took place in all the boroughs of New York, and yet they all have those "matching names" I was talking about (maybe this doesn't apply to Manhattan, since, as I understand it, the entire island was known as Manhattan even to the early Dutch settlers, which would justify a island-wide county named Manhattan, regardless of the process of urban expansion). The case is easily illustrated by the situation of the Queens Borough: it shares a terrestrial border with Brooklyn, and I imagine that it grew much in the same fashion as Brooklyn did (little villages that eventually grew into each other), and yet the county's name matches the borough's. This leads me to think that a particular process (as far as naming conventions are concerned) took place in both Brooklyn and Staten Island. I suppose this is not common knowledge though. Do we have a historian on call? Regards, Redux 13:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The historical development of Brooklyn and Queens was quite different. At the time of the 1898 consolidation, Brooklyn was already a city within Kings County, New York, one that rivaled New York (i.e. Manhattan) in size and stature by the late 19th century. By 1898, most of Kings County was part of the expanding city of Brooklyn. The law uniting the boroughs was viewed very unfavorably by many in Brooklyn, who saw it as submerging their city into New York. It is *still* viewed that way by some residents of Brooklyn, by the way. In any case, it would have been unthinkable to name the borough "Kings", and to banish the name "Brooklyn" into history. That would have destroyed the idea that the merger was a uniting of equals, rather than New York just gobbling up Brooklyn and surrounding communities. Queens (County), on the other hand, was never a city per se, but remained a collection of villages (Astoria, Flushing, Long Island City, Jamaica) that grew until they became contiguous with each other. Staten Island was also a collection of such small communities, divided into four towns (and remained so to a large degree until the 1960s) and was actually the "Borough of Richmond" for much of the Twentieth Century. The name was officially changed to "Borough of Staten Island" in the 1960s I believe (could be wrong about the date). The reason is that everyone has always called it "Staten Island" despite the official name. -- Decumanus 15:58, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

I see. Thanks Decumanus. But you said that the official name of Staten Island was officially changed from "Richmond County" to "Borough of Staten Island" in the 1960's. So there's no more "Richmond County"? That would mean that the main article is wrong, since it gives Staten Island as being coterminous with Richmond County. So, unless that renaming was reverted later (or I misunderstood something), there's a mistake to be corrected in the main article. Regards, Redux 16:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The county is still named "Richmond County". Decumanus said that the name of the borough was changed. They happen to be geographically coterminous but they're different legal entities.

Incidentally, the point he made about the history of Brooklyn and Queens can be seen today in postal addresses. I've never or almost never seen an address in "Queens, New York". It's always "Flushing, New York" or "Forest Hills, New York" or one of the other smaller communities that were consolidated into the City in 1898. By contrast, addresses in Brooklyn are all "Brooklyn, New York". These days, Flushing and Flatbush are both just neighborhoods in NYC, but Flushing addresses are in "Flushing" and Flatbush addresses are in "Brooklyn". JamesMLane 16:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Indeed, I had failed to separate the notions of county and borough. I had assumed automatically that if the "borough" name had been changed, that meant that the county's name had also. Well, I did say in my very first comment that I wasn't really familiar with US law on administrative division. Webster's dictionary defines the word "borough" as follows:

" 1. (in certain U.S. states) an incorporated municipality smaller than a city. 2. one of the five administrative divisions of New York City. 3. (in Great Britain)a. a self-governing incorporated urban community.b. a town or constituency represented by a Member of Parliament.c. a medieval fortified town. 4. (in Alaska) an administrative division similar to a county in other states."

Because of that, I was under the impression that, in NYC, a borough equalled a county. The very root of my original doubt was exactly that — at least that's what I was misguindingly thinking — two of the five administrative regions in which NYC is divided had what seemed to me as conflicting names: the borough's name, which I had thought were official at first, and the county name: Kings and Richmond, respectivelly, which confused me, since "county", at least AFAIK, is the usual official name for a state administrative subdivision. Now it makes sense. I would suggest, however, that some sort of explanation in that regard be included in the main article, since some people reading it might be puzzled, just as I was. This type of comparative information is tough to coordinate if they are scattered in several individual articles (those of each borough, namely – and I'm not even sure whether this information is indeed in those articles!), and anyone unfamiliarized with US nomenclature can easily be confused. Thanks to JamesMLane for this last explanation, and to everyone else that took time to enlighten me. Regards, Redux 23:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this article (on which I've done some work) will help or hurt: Political subdivisions of New York State. Nelson Ricardo 21:18, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Except for CUNY, I do not think we should list the individuals colleges/schools that make up universities, as they are part of the universities themselves and can be referenced in the individual univ. articles. As for Barnard, although it is "independent" or whatever, it is quite a part of a Columbia. Frankly, when asked to name institutions of higher learning in NYC, Barnard never actually comes to my mind (though it might now after all this). Nelson Ricardo 13:51, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Well, if you are going to remove any, don't remove Barnard, it is a separate university from Columbia, and many barnard students, alummni and other have made quite a point that barnard?columbia. I have seen them be quite vociferous about that point. Even though many people when asked to name NYC universties, will come up with maybe just NYU and that one from spiderman, be careful how general you get, because almost all of these are very interelated. So I say, in finality, keep just columbia. And keep barnard either as a sub part of separate university. Tell me what you think, and one of us will implement this. --[[User:Ctrl build| Ctrl_build ^talk 15px|]] 15:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we can lay down a blanket rule. Barnard is well known. Someone coming to this article and not seeing it on the list might well think, "Oh, I thought Barnard was in NYC, guess I was wrong." On the other hand, I didn't see any need for a separate listing here of Columbia's School of General Studies, so I deleted it. As a rough guideline, my idea was that if the institution has a distinctive name and identity (not just "School of General Studies") and there is or should be a Wikipedia article that's more than a stub, then it's reasonable to list the institution here under its parent university. JamesMLane 16:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. --[[User:Ctrl build| Ctrl_build ^talk ]] 17:39, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've heard a couple comparisons of NYC's population to put it in perspective, but I'm not sure if they'd be useful or distracting to put on the page. One is that NYC has more than 10 times that of the whole state of Vermont. The other I do not remember precisely: it was an estimate of how many people actually WORK in the city rather than reside there, and I seem to recall 30 million as the number. If others approve of the first or know (and approve of) the second, feel free to pop them in. -- zandperl 22:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we should include a comparison like that. For any particular choice, like Vermont, many readers would find it unhelpful. People who have a feel for the population of Vermont or Manitoba or Devon will just have to do a little math. As for the jobs figure, I find 30 million quite unbelievable for the city. That's probably the entire metropolitan area. JamesMLane 21:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

JamesMLane, I am not convinced. Please supply more proof. 216.153.214.94 03:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We have no proof either way, that's the problem!  :) -- zandperl 04:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Got one! [1] seems to say that 3.76 million people are employed in NYC, 2.09 million of those in Manhattan. I think these are people who live either inside or outside NYC and work in NYC, and not just those who live and work inside NYC, but I'd like confirmation of that from someone else. My point is that I am under the impression that more people are employed within New York City than live there, and therefore must be commuting in, however that data is hard to find. -- zandperl 05:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zandperl, your finding accords with my memory. I disbelieved "30 million" because I thought I'd heard that Manhattan had roughly one million people and two million jobs. On that basis, I'd agree with your interpretation that the figure you found includes commuters. By the way, 216.153.214.94 is not engaged in a good-faith attempt to improve this article. He simply went through my recent edits and mindlessly inserted the same boilerplate demand for more proof. He wanted "more proof" for my suggestion about whether to retain a particular picture of Bush ( [2]), which is pretty silly even for him. JamesMLane 05:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please disregard JamesMLane's conjecture based assertion. His edits as of late indicate he's misunderstanding certain basic facts. Also, he continually refers to "Rex" for some weird reason. 216.153.214.94 05:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I remember the figure that 10 million people are on Manhattan on a typical workday. Of course this would include both commuters from outside of the city as well as the outer boroughs.-- Pharos 06:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've proposed a WikiProject to better coordinate, organize and develop all Wikipedia activities concerning the Capital of the World. Currently, we havve an awful lot of unorganized stuff that can be greatly improved.

See: Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City

• Please discuss on the WikiProject's talk page.-- Pharos 03:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I live in City Island in the east Bronx so I know all about NYC.

According to local historians, The very first European man in recorded History to visit Manhattan Island was named Guiseppe Di Verrazzano. The Verrazzano Narrows Bridge was named in his honor. The Hugenots from Belgium were the very first Europeans to sail across the Atlantic and settle the island of Manhattan. Recent archeological evidence now suggests that the Danish may have preceded them.

Supercool Dude, Bronx

• The Huguenots were a major group that settled in New Amsterdam and New Netherland, but they came to a Dutch-colonized area. I'm changing the wording to reflect that. There is pretty credible evidence that Norsemen reached Newfoundland and some pretty speculative thinking about them reaching New England, but I don't there is anything to suggest they reached the New York area.-- Pharos 14:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)