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.

Comparisons of NYC economy to India's and Canada's was faulty. Incase of India and China we do not use Real exchange rates to describe productivity, thus India's economy adjusted by PPP is over 3 times larger than that of NYC, and Canada's economy is nearly 200 billion$ larger as well, thus is rather pointless to compare such a disperate amount and call it slight. Perhaps comparing it to that of Spain, or the city of Tokyo's economy -which is considerably larger than New Yorks, however is also a global economic city- would be more relevant.

Other nations use nominal GDP exchange rate for comparison, not PPP. For example, look up Paris. I don't see what the big deal is, so what if it's bigger than India's and almost the same size as Canada's. -- Rotten 05:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact is almost 200 billion dollars difference is not "almost the same". Western countries are commonly described with nominal DP becaue it does not lead to a disperate number in spending power, however many asian countries, china and india to name the most important have these figures adjusted to PPP because the spending power of those countries does not coincide with international currency values. Editor18 16:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved all the comments to Talk:New York City/Archive 6 and started this new page. Wv235 01:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This article has undergone a lot of work and is close to feature status. It was nominated once before and failed. The main objection was that the article was not comprehensive enough. Secondary objections were about POV and poor writing. After major edits and additions, if anything the article is now too comprehensive at 60+ kbs. I believe the POV and poor writing issues have been corrected.

It's time to revisit a feature status nomination. Before a nomination takes place the article should be subjected to rigorous peer review. There should also be a discussion of what to trim to get the article down to a more reasonable size -- we can't do 30kbs, but 50 is within reach. I propose cutting the "skyline" section and making it part of a new daughter article on New York City architecture. Thoughts? Wv235 02:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• What should be done with the skyline section? I propose moving it out of this main general article and making it part of a new daughter article on NYC buildings and architecture. If no one objects I'll go ahead and make this change. Wv235 22:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. That sounds reasonable to me. Uris 23:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

-That sounds like a good idea for an interesting offshoot article. I would still like to see that Midtown pic kept somewhere in the main article though. Perhaps we could create a subsection for buildings, architecture and urban layout, and then link to the separate article from there. -- Jleon 00:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've moved the skyline section (with the photo you speak of, Jleon) to a new daughter article: Buildings and architecture of New York City. I'm also copying it here in case we decide to go back to how it was -- although everyone should bear in mind how long the main NYC article already is. Wv235 00:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

--Perhaps we should still have a small subsection on Buildings and Architecture (instead of "Skyline"). The article is now shorter than many other city articles like London, LA, Chicago, etc and a small addition will not add significantly to it. -- Jleon 15:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

--OK I went ahaead and rewrote a scaled-down version for the main article. It only increased the article length to 58k, which we can easily accomodated by trimming other sections. -- Jleon 16:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Jleon, I like your summary. Nice and concise. I think the AT&T building has been renamed. I could be mistaken... for some reason I even think I saw a Wikipedia article about it (with the new name). Wv235 01:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

--You're right, people tend to call it the Sony Building now, but I'm not sure if the official name was ever changed. Either way, there hasn't been an article written yet on it. Maybe I'll get around to doing that soon. -- Jleon 13:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Skyline

The skyline of New York is one of the most recognizeable in the world. Many of New York's skyscrapers pioneered a new urban form that saw city building shift from the low-scale European tradition to the verticle rise of business districts. New York City has the most skyscrapers in the world with 47 buildings taller than 200 meters, and 2 taller than 300 meters; Hong Kong has 43 buildings taller than 200 meters and 5 taller than 300 meters, while Chicago has 19 buildings taller than 200 meters and 5 taller than 300 meters. New York actually has three separately recognizable skylines: Midtown Manhattan, Lower Manhattan, and Downtown Brooklyn.

Icons of the city skyline include the Empire State Building, a 102-story Art Deco building finished in 1931, and the Chrysler Building, built in 1930 and the first structure in the world to surpass the 1,000 foot threshold. The GE Building is a slim gothic skyscraper and the focal point of Rockefeller Center. The super modern Condé Nast Building is one of the most important examples of green design in skyscrapers in the United States. Environmentally friendly gas-fired absorption chillers, along with a high-performing insulating and shading curtain wall, ensure that the building does not need to be heated or cooled for the majority of the year.

Where are the sources??

I would take exception to the quote "The city is widely regarded as the financial capital of the world" although the qualification is admirable it doesn't seem to be substanciated indeed as more dollars are traded per day in London than New York. Painful to swallow but true. If this could perhaps be substanciated forthwidth I shall be happy to revoke my editing and indeed would be much obliged. New York is indeed a richer city but does wealth alone determine a financial pedigree? If so is not California the financial capital as it is the 5th richest country in the world in it's own right. some consistancy and uniform standards should perhaps be applied to this claim to bring it in line with the excellent standard usually displayed by this community. Thank you Rob15v August 2006

The claim to financial capital of the world is because the amount of financial transactions taking place with the city was more then anywhere else. It has nothing to do with the stock exchange, per capital income etc. 167.153.10.138 21:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)NYC 20, Oct 2006

Twice on the page (in the table and in the text) it says that the city is 27% black. Later in the article, it says that the city is 11.5% African American. Which is correct? Or do the terms not correspond exactly to each other? Uris 22:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition to this, the article says that both the Bronx and Brooklyn are the most densely populated with immigrants. Which is it?

--Carribean and African immigrants aren't usually included as African-Americans unless they claim to be so on the census. I've seen the 11.5% and 27% numbers in other places, but I've also seen 9% for African-American and 30% for 'black'. Either way, it seems fairly accurate to me. -- Jleon 00:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as I added the addition of the New York Rangers to the information under the sports section, and have now seen it was removed between then and now, I need to ask why. While I understand that in the United States, hockey is considered something of a fringe sport -- ranking fourth in ratings behind the other major sports -- the New York Rangers are still an important part of New York City, and additionally have just as much background as the other teams in the area do. Especially when you factor in that they were one of the very first teams in the National Hockey League. If no one objects, I'd like to add one paragraph in concerning the New York Rangers once more.-- Resident Lune 01:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Resident Lune, I believe I was the one who removed that paragraph. It wasn't deleted, but simply moved to the main Sports in New York City article. My reasoning was that as you point out, hockey is not a sport the likes of football or baseball in the US, but nevertheless certainly bears mentioning (especially since it relates to a northeastern city - hockey is regionally more popular than in the rest of the US). But the main NYC article desperately needs editing for concision, not more additions -- it's too long as it is. More contributions are great, but it's time to redirect them to the major daughter articles: History of New York City, Geography and environment of New York City, Culture of New York City, Media of New York City, Government of New York City, Economy of New York City, Education in New York City, etc. Wv235 00:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Your reasoning makes sense to me, and thank you for clarifying that it was moved to a sub-topic concerning New York City in a different article made specifically for the city's sports. I appreciate the response.-- Resident Lune 04:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to call the Giants and the Jets "New York City Teams" when they don't even play in the state, let alone the city? Carlo 01:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, parts of New Jersey are a lot closer in character and history to NYC than most of New York State, so that issue isn't particuarly valid. Secondly, regardless of where they play, they are the "New York Giants" and the "New York Jets," and they play just outside the city limits. Even though they play in NJ, they are perceived as NYC teams. — Larry V ( talk) 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, Thirdly, East Rutherford Giants and East Rutherford Jets would sound equally as bad as the Andover Redskins, Foxborough Patriots, Irving Cowboys, or Orchard Park Bills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Rock ( talk • contribs) 3:04, 2 June 2006

A list of cinemas in new york city should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.153.205.86 ( talk •  contribs) .

I disagree, the list would be too long for a top level article. Feel free to create an article like List of theaters in New York City however. - Quasipalm 15:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1. 纽约市.cn - PRC's Official website for the city <-just goes to NYC.com now. Please Fix or delete. VarunRajendran

It's been a while since I visited this article and, in my opinion, the photos are much weaker now. It's much more like a glossy travel brochure rather than an accurate view of what the city is like. I like the subway photo, but why take out the photo of people on Fifth Avenue that shows some diversity? Why add a photo of a Dutch painting just because it's in a museum (why not illustrate the Art section with a New York artist like Warhol or Haring?) Why take out the Outer Borough photos, like the one taken in Jackson Heights? At one point, we took great care to ensure that all the photos weren't just taken in Manhattan; now, again, they all are. The buildings are all precious here, the people almost uniformly white (with the exception of the subway photo), and the street musician photo looks posed.

The idea of Wikipedia is to show things as they are. The article now looks like some kind of travel-agency view of New York: sort of stilted, too highbrow, and duller than the city deserves. Thoughts? Moncrief 23:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I see people of color in the Times Square, Central Park, Grand Central and Stock Exchange images. Nevertheless, I agree that there should be images from the outer boros. The article seems to have been hijacked by Manhattanites (of course, the city has been, too). -- Mwanner | Talk 00:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I know it's still Manhattan, but for the "art" image, I would like to see something of Harlem, such as the Apollo Theater, given it's major significance in NYC's (and African-American, and simply American) cultural heritage. I don't yet see any good photo here that fits the bill, though. - Aude ( talk | contribs) 00:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is that serious of a concern. For one, all city pags have more images of the urban core parts of the city than they do outer neighborhoods (see LA for an example). Also, there are just a ton more images of Manhattan on the commons to choose from -- so we need to take more pics of outer boroughs. I don't think it's about manhattanites taking over the page. - Quasipalm 03:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the point was that there were more images from the outer boroughs that are now gone. I agree that the Jackson Heights photo should still be there. - 69.86.137.250 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

--Well technically not all the photos are of just Manhattan: the one of the Brooklyn Bridge shows the coastline of Brooklyn, the subway shot is on a Manhattan-bound F train that is presumably in Queens, and the SOL pic is in NY Harbor. There really is currently a derth of good photos of the other (I won't say "outer") boroughs though. -- Jleon 14:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

--OK, I added a nice shot of the Unisphere and moved the Times Square pic up to the parapgraph on theater. Sorry I had to cut the Van Gogh painting, there was nowhere else for it to go. -- Jleon 14:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Great decisions, Jleon. Thanks! Moncrief 18:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Former FAC directs to the current one, I don't know whether it was added early or there was another nomination, or what happened as this is my first time seeing this article. Could someone clarify this? SandBoxer 00:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no archive 1?? Georgia guy 13:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I fixed it. It was an old talk page that was at Talk:City of New York/Archive 1 that wasn't moved together with the main talk page. Georgia guy 00:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the flag looks like it's based on the French flag. Anyone who knows anything feel like starting an article on the New York City flag? Note that there is already an article on the state flag - not the same flag at all. Stevage 22:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok - I made a start. All of my info comes from a single source though, linked on the page. Carlo 22:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just discovered that a page already existed under "Flag of New York City" and merged some of what I just did into that. Carlo 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Both the Queens and Brooklyn entries of the 'Boroughs and Neighborhoods' section state that each borough is the most ethnically diverse in the nation. They can't both be. I've heard Queens said more often, but can anyone come up with statistics to back this up? -- Sky 01:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The only place I can think to look is the Census Bureau. They have some figures broken down by county:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en&_ts=

It seems to depend what you mean by "diverse". Apparently Brooklyn has a larger percentage (58.7% v. 51.7%) of people who self-identify as something other than White. But Queens has a much larger percentage of people who self-identify as something other than one of the two largest groups. (Brooklyn's two largest groups, White and African American, together total 80.7%, whereas Queens' two largest groups, White and Asian, total only 69%.) Also, some might argue that a larger Latino population would make a U.S. county more diverse, but Latino self-identification overlaps with the other statistics. (Queens 26%, Brooklyn 20%) So, tough question. I don't know the best way to address it. -- Nomenclaturist 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've typically seen "diversity" defined as the number of different cultures contained within the borough, regardless of percentages, or the number of languages spoken in the borough. I believe that, going by both of those definitions, Queens trumps Brooklyn, but let's take a look at that census. Ferrantino 01:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, so -- is New York really the "Capital of the World" as the "nicknames" section of this article states? In short : it doesn't seem like it.

As far as I can tell, the "Capital of the World" moniker is usually qualified by a specific product or attribute : Austin, Texas is officially known as the "Live Music Capital of the World", while Parke County, Indiana bills itself as the "Covered Bridge Capital of the World," etc. etc. etc. Mostly, these are self-proclaimed titles (thanks to the local tourist board or what have you).

New York has been referred to as the "Capital of the World" in similar contexts : most frequently (thanks, Google!) it's called the "Culture Capital of the World". Less frequently, it seems to be known as the "Fashion Capital of the World" (a title usually brought up in the context of "is Paris or New York the true Fashion Capital of the World?"). It also seems to be called the "Financial Capital of the World" with some regularity -- in fact, Ayn Rand apparently gave it this title at one point. But -the- "Capital of the World"? It just doesn't seem to come up ... or rather, this just doesn't seem to be a title that gets regularly applied to -any- city. So unless someone else can find a good reference for this, we should probably remove it to avoid neologism. Thoughts? Docether 15:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard NYC called the "Capital of the World" many times. I think it was one of Guiliani's favorite nicknames, though I don't think he originated it.-- Pharos 15:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If Guiliani referred to NYC as "Capital of the World" a number of (sourceable) times, then I'd be inclined to treat that as an official moniker. However, my problem is that I can't find any good sources for this. If you can, that would be great. Docether 15:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's a "nickname" I don't know, but here are a few references, and it took about 30 seconds. I'm sure there are many others. Note that the last one is from the Office of the Mayor:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195116348/102-9960802-3509703?v=glance&n=283155 ("the primeval days of the Lenape Indians to the era when, with Teddy Roosevelt as police commissioner, the great American city became regarded as "Capital of the World.")

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/destinations/north-america/usa/new-york-city/ (New York City Travel information: "The capital of the world? Take a bite and see.")

http://newyork.corante.com/ ("Is this really something for the Capital of the World? Manhattan is still recovering from 9/11")

http://www.nyc.gov/html/unccp/html/home/home.shtml (Office of the Mayor - Commission for the United Nations - "Works with the consular corps and the international business community to enhance the City's role as "Capital of the World" - a center for diplomacy, culture, and commerce.") Carlo 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The nickname is a likely reference to the fact that the United Nations is headquartered in NYC. - Aude ( talk | contribs) 15:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the last link, [1], would be a proper reference for the nickname. - Aude ( talk | contribs) 16:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's a source for Guiliani, [2]. I have added a reference for the nickname, with this link. - Aude ( talk | contribs) 16:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for your input, all. Docether 16:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, where Giuliani spoke at RIT October 2005, he mentioned that he received some criticism for his usable of this nickname. It wasn't until the Pope (John Paul II) came to Central Park and called NYC the Capital of the World (or Center of the World--verify?) that he stopped receiving this criticism. He actually made up postcards with the John Paul II's picture on the front and his quote on the back and mailed it to each mayor and foreign official that sent him criticism. — Tvh2k 15:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As much as I love NYC, I tend to think that self-proclaimed aggrandising titles such as 'xxx capital of the world' (and especially 'THE capital of the world') do not count. If anything, that sort of title should go to an ancient city like Cairo or Rome. However, it seems to be an accepted American trait to claim 'biggest and best' for any given number of reasons. Ultimately, we should be dealing with hard fact where such claims are concerned. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with paraphrasing or listing commonly-held beliefs but unsubstatiated inclusions should be minmimsed.

The seat of the U.N. is present in New York City. As the congregation of representatives from all world governments, I think that speaks a few volumes as to a "Capital of the World" claim. Payneos 18:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure it helps back up your opinion that New York is the capital of the world, but it certainly doesn't make it a fact. I live here and have never heard NYC called the capital of the world in the press. And the United Nations is NOT a government.

NYC - Capital of the world? Don't make me laugh. Don't get me wrong its a great and powerful city but its not even capital of its state or the USA, so how can it be capital of the world? LONDON, England IS THE UNOFFICAL CAPITAL OF THE WORLD, not because the city authorities say so and print it on literature but because many of the peoples of the world believe it so (two examples being the home of the prime meridian and the fact London was the centre of the largest empire ever known). London is the only true Cosmopolitan city being the most ethnically diverse, the whole world in one city so to speak.

New Yorkers are so full of it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.231.0 ( talk • contribs)

Well, I'm convinced. Rule Brittania etc... It's amusing that all these cities – New York, London, Toronto, Sydney – attract the same brand of provincialism. – Joke 12:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The census figure for land area (in the infobox) is different from the NYC government figure in the intro text (303 vs. 321 sq. mi). One figure should be chosen for consistency. Reference 4 refers to outdated definitions (CMSA, PMSA). This text should be updated. Polaron | Talk 16:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Education section begins with this sentence:

"The City University of New York (CUNY) is, with over 400,000 students, the third-largest university system in the United States. It has been called 'the poor man's Harvard' because of its low tuition and record of graduating the highest number of Nobel Laureates of any public university in the world."

Technically only one CUNY campus, City College -- often called CCNY and known formally as the College of the City of New York -- is called "the poor man's Harvard." CCNY's total of nine alumni Nobelists places it first only among American public universities, not worldwide, and only in terms of undergraduate alumni; many alumni of graduate programs at the University of Califronia at Berkeley (along with several former undergrads) have won Nobels, and Cambridge University in the United Kingdom is also public and has graduated dozens of Nobelists. I believe one or two Nobel winners graduated from other divisions of CUNY, but comparing the entire CUNY system to single campuses of other systems makes little sense. The undergraduate and graduate programs of the University of California system have produced far more laureates than CUNY.

I haven't heard any CUNY called a "poor man's Harvard", but I have heard the system as a whole described along the lines of a public Ivy League.  — AnnaKucsma   ( Talk to me!) 13:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked yesterday and it seemed to be a good size, and a resonable amount of chapters, but today I found it was extended...what happend?

• Jack, please stop harassing on other articles. You are causing a nuisance wherever you go. That said, if you want to know who made changes, there is a perfectly good history tool available to you. Use it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.-- Ryz05 _t 02:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised this article has no map locating NYC in a larger context, like on a map of New York State or something. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 11:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We have just such a thing on commons:

Also interesting:

- Quasipalm 14:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A user helpfully added " Gotham City" as a nickname for NYC. Unfortunately, this is incorrect. Gotham City is a fictional city based on NYC; New York City is simply called "Gotham." Apparently, Washington Irving first gave it this nickname, for reasons which were probably funnier back when he wrote it. See this information at the Gotham Center, which also has a nice discussion of the "Big Apple" moniker. Best, Docether 17:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

DragoonWraith 14:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC): I, for one, was shocked to find that "City That Never Sleeps" was not listed here. I hear that phrase more often than Gotham or Capital of the World. I'm going to add it, remove it if you don't like it.

The elevation figure is questionable. It's clearly not the lowest point in the city (which would be sea level). I'm sure it's not the highest either. Maybe it's the average, but by what authority, I have no idea. I found one citation [3] that disagrees with the figure we have, but it's hardly authoritative either. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The introductory paragraphs to the culture section belong more properly with demography. I don't want to do it now, because it would be a substantial change, but would anyone object to trying to move those into the demography section, and perhaps streamline it a little bit (e.g. move most of the figures to sidebars, and try to improve the flow of the main text)? – Joke 14:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody objected, I went ahead and did this. Most city pages seem to have some kind of "Culture" section, but I couldn't find style guide that suggested this should be standard. What was there was utter fluff, and I don't think the article is any worse for its absence. – Joke 17:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Sport is actually more of a culture thing, therefor it should be a sub-section under "culture". Jackp 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sport is usually listed separately from culture (see other city articles for example; also see newspaper sections - such as in the Washington Post or in the New York Times). Also, many sports fans would be horrified to hear they are engaging in culture - I'm kidding about that, but you see the point... It seems like it should be treated separately. Gacggt 12:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think You should check other articles and you'll find that sport is always listed under culture. Jackp 03:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The first line read "New York City is the most populous...". However, "populous" means: "containing many people or habitants, having a large population." Therefore the line didn't really make sense with "most" in front of "populous"... what would one mean by saying "New York City is the most containing a large population"? What is meant is that the city is the most "populated" not the most "populous." Alternatively, one could say that New York City is populous - not that it is the most populous. So anyway I made the edit. Gacggt 12:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the "most populous" usage is commonly invoked... as a Google search will demonstrate. However it seems that the more direct phraseology is clearer. Anyway, see what you think. Gacggt 13:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

--Personally I think it should just read "largest" since that term universally means most populated when referring to cities. For example: in the United States article intro box, New York is listed as the "largest" city becuase virtually no one would read that to mean it is the geographically largest. Also, any reader who's educated enough (i.e.- over 7th grade) to understand the term "most populous" would also understand that "largest" is meant to refer only to its population. -- Jleon 16:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Definitions are not meant to provide a string of words that can be substituted interchangeably into any sentence. Populous is an adjective and fits well. There is no harm in being precise in use of language - particularly when not all readers have English as their first language. It is wiser not to presume too much of the reader.
• Also look here -- JimWae 19:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• and 4th, 9th, & 10th hits here-- JimWae 19:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The demographic table used to be New York City compared to New York State and the United States. I thought this table was more interesting than the comparison to LA and Chicago, so I went through the census data and corrected all the numbers in the old table. For simplicity and consistency, I used the 2000 census throughout, without projections to 2004 or 2005. Some miscreant had gone through and systematically vandalized the old table, so for future reference I am posting a link to the correct version here [4]. I also inserted these rows into the table in Demographics of New York City. – Joke 16:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do some work on the article, copyediting, shortening it in places, improving the flow, and adding information which I thought was missing (like, that Time Warner has its headquarters in NYC!). I think I made some pretty drastic removals from the demographics section, but it is hard to make "New York has a lot of X socio-cultural-ethnic population. New York has a lot of Y socio-cultural-ethnic population. New York has a lot of Z socio-cultural-ethnic population." flow together smoothly, so I thought these things might be better covered in detail in the seperate article on demographics, which could use a lot of work.

I also added a link to gothamist, which is quite a popular New York city blog, and is quite useful for current events about the city. It is borderline linkspam, so remove it if you feel it is inappropriate.

Anyways, I think we should think about nominating the article for featured status (again) sometime soon. I think the referencing is dramatically improving (n.b. I did add several fact templates where I thought improvements were needed). While people are still likely to raise the objection that it is too long, there isn't much that could easily be trimmed away from the article, and I think individual sections are punchy and succinct. – Joke 22:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

For reference, this is a link to the last nominated version: [5]. – Joke 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to change some of the images to reflect the outer boroughs better. Now, by my count, there are thirteen pictures of Manhattan, two pictures of the Bronx, one and one-half pictures of Brooklyn, one picture of Queens, one picture of New Jersey (evidently I've been duped by Jersey, see Liberty Island), and a half picture of Staten Island, counting the Brooklyn Bridge and Staten Island Ferry as half each for Manhattan and the outer borough. It was surprisingly hard to decide whether the ferry or Fresh Kills was the most iconic image of Staten Island.

Incidentally, I tried hard to find a picture from Queens that could replace the picture of "diversity" that was taken on Fifth Avenue. It should be a piece of cake for someone to take one, if anyone is feeling intrepid. – Joke 00:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

-Nice work, Joke137. My only complaint is that the new pics don't have people in them, and the removal of the fifth ave, times square, and library pics has resulted in there now being only one photo (the subway pic) that really shows any people. I'd like to add a pic of central park and a nicer one of times square but it would mean cutting ones elsewhere. -- Jleon 01:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, although the Times Square photo was more the back of someone's head. To be honest, a photo that it really pained me to remove was the photo of the Union Square Greenmarket. So I put it back in. The problem with the images in the article, as I see it, is not that there are too many, but that some sections are more suited to interesting photos and thus have too many (cityscape, tourism and recreation, transport). I was hoping that someone would see my comments above and upload a nice image of Jackson Heights, or something, but I can't find anything. – Joke 02:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I decided to move the Unisphere into diversity where it obliterated the Statue of Liberty. This helped to free up room in Cityscape. It also gave some space to mention that Queens is pretty darn diverse. – Joke 02:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

--Here is a pic of Jackson Heights I had uploaded about a year ago. It had been on the NYC article for several months, and was on the JH article until only recently. -- Jleon 14:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I just rewrote the sports section in response to comments on the featured article candidates page. I have two requests:

1. Can people read it to make sure it sounds reasonable?
2. I said that baseball is New York's "first" sport. This sounds obvious to me, but if someone could find a good citation, I would appreciate it. I imagine that baseball is probably still the most popular sport in NYC, and historically it has only gotten less popular as other sports have made inroads so it should be possible to find comparative stadium attendance or TV numbers for the various sports or something like that.

Thanks. – Joke 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Two unique aspects of NYC have occured to me that might merit a mention in the article, although there is no logical place for them:

• New York's housing issues, and in particular its elaborate systems of rent control and rent stabilization.
• Power generation in NYC, in particular the beloved Consolidated Edison company and the state-mandated requirement that 80% of the city's electricity be generated in the five boroughs.

Comments? – Joke 02:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed in History that the city is stated as having been populated by Lenape when it was discovered by Verrazzano. This word choice (discovery) seems innacurate, as the area was already inhabited. But I'm having trouble thinking of a good rewording. -- Natalie 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding concerns raised about the article's length on the Featured Article nomination, India is a featured article on an entire country that has compelling prose, is comprehensive and at 37 KB, is concise as well. -- Jtalledo (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I managed to trim it from 64 to 57 kb. That's progress, but I doubt I could get it to 50, much less 37. – Joke 03:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be that small. The citation, prose and organization issues were probably bigger issues of contention, and those issues seem to be better addressed now. -- Jtalledo (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There are still a few things that could be trimmed down. Such as the Education section, so instead of having Primary and secondary education and Public libaries as sub-sections you could just shorten it up and put it into paragraphs. Also, what is the significance of the tourism section (remember Wikipedia isn't a travel guide)? Couldn't that be merged into it's own article. Jackp 07:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"New York City is a center for business, finance, fashion, medicine, entertainment, media and culture, with an extraordinary collection of museums, galleries and performance spaces."

That sentance seems to be a "peacock" term. And the sentance is saying it's just a "center" for those things, if it's an international center for those things, then I guess it could be left in but otherwise it has no buisiness being there. Jackp 07:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I don't really know how to respond. I agree that by avoid peacock terms, this applies. However, trying to indicate why each one is true would take up too much space. Do you seriously doubt any element of this sentence? – Joke 13:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a travell guide, and that kind off sentence is unnacceptable when most of it isn't true (i.e. fashion, medicine and performance spaces). It just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Jackp 07:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

New York City isn't a center of fashion? New York doesn't have performance spaces? Excuse me? -- Larry V ( talk |  contribs) 12:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Center" is not a peacock term, so that part of the sentence is fine. "Extraordinary" is however, and that part of the sentence could be changed to something more fact-based, like, "with the largest collection of museums, galleries and performance spaces in the nation." or something similar. - Quasipalm 13:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. Just because you don't know, Jack, doesn't make it untrue. Let's take it from the top. See list of major corporations based in New York City for business. For finance, the NYSE and NASDAQ are two of the largest stock exchanges in the world, and the headquarters of many commercial and investment banks are in NYC. For fashion, New York is one of the world's fashion capitals, along with Milan, Paris, London and Tokyo (see, e.g., [6]). For medicine, New York hosts the medical schools of CUNY, SUNY, Cornell University, Columbia University, New York University, Yeshiva University and Rockefeller University (and probably more) as well as fifteen of the best regarded research hospitals in the nation (like the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center). For entertainment and media, New York is the headquarters of the largest media conglomerate in the world, Time-Warner, as well as other huge conglomerates such as News Corporation; television networks like CBS, FOX, ABC and NBC; three of the big four record labels; and is a huge center for newspaper, magazine and book publishing. For culture, for example, they have one of the top symphonies in the world, the New York Philharmonic, as well as the pinnacle, along with London, of theater in the English language. For museums, look no further than, say, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the American Museum of Natural History. The galleries are mostly in Chelsea – [7]... "dealers in the New York City area racked up almost double the amount of sales of the next four metropolitan areas combined" – NYC is the center of the US art market. For performance spaces, oh, how about Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall and Broadway Theatre. Looking at your talk page, I can't help but feel you're violating WP:POINT [8] [9]. Please don't waste my time any further. – Joke 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"For performance spaces, oh, how about Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall and Broadway Theatre." "For museums, look no further than, say, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the American Museum of Natural History. The galleries are mostly in Chelsea"-SORRY DON'T SEE THE FACTS FOR THOSE TWO. Your not stating any facts, your just mostly giving names of places in the city. Jackp 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackp, we know you're a big fan of Sydney [10], but please don't try to argue that NYC is not a center of culture and arts. One doesn't need to provide a citation for something that is common knowledge and that a reasonable person would not dispute. -- MichaelZimmer ( talk) 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• NYC is not a centre of culture (not in a million years), but is, surely, of Arts and fashion -and it really is common knowledge. I find this a good article, although such a big city should have a better one and less the "best of the world" thing, cause the world is bigger than you think. Life isnt the movies, people, and not everyone likes watching them. Try making it a good article instead of a bad FA-wannabe article, I dont think NYC needs FA to become famous, it already is, there are too many films about it. -- Pedro 12:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a center of culture? Please explain. -- Larry V ( talk |  contribs) 13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Even though Pedro is almost certainly running afoul of WP:POINT here, I'll respond as if he weren't. Per the culture Wikipedia article, "culture has been called 'the way of life for an entire society.' As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, norms of behaviour and systems of belief." NYC is certainly a cultural center. Primarily, it is a center of American culture, though the diversity of cultures within the city have also made it an "expatriate" hotbed of cultural trends in non-American cultures as well. Within the US, trends in manners, dress, language, etc. consistently appear first in NYC before flowing to the rest of the country. Not always, of course (off the top of my head, I'd say that trends in 21st century American religion have so far been underrepresented in NYC), but consistently. Similarly, these trends in (primarily American) culture are frequently disseminated from NYC to the rest of the world in a manner equalled only by those other cities commonly considered "cultural centers" of the world. Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, commentators and writers too numerous to count have consistently identified NYC as one of the major cultural centers in the US. So -- Pedro's contention that NYC is not a cultural center is unfortunately not in line with the rest of Wikipedia's articles on cultural matters. It is both a center for culture within the US and for American culture worldwide. -- Best, Docether 13:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• That's seems very POV, indeed. You should know other places first; Chinatowns don't make a place a cultural centre. You should reference that, as it is not common sense. -- Pedro 22:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

-Pedro: if NYC is not a cultural center then I would really like for you to name a city that is. Culture is primarily the product of media outlets, museums, galleries, and the performing arts, and New York essentially has more of these than any other place in the world. -- Jleon 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be highly-POV to say that NYC is not a cultural center. That would probably require a bit of anti-NYC sentiment. -- Larry V ( talk |  contribs) 02:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Jackp has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. - Quasipalm 17:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not really a fan of concrete, skyscrapers and over crowded places, but I'm not anti-NYC! Why would I?! Cultural Centres of the World: Athens and Rome. NYC, like Paris, is an arts centre. Maybe the problem is the word: "culture". Tons of cities have immigrants from all over the world (many even have really distinctive peoples living there together for ages), not just NYC, but immigrants don't make a city a cultural centre. Thus, I don't see that as common sense.-- Pedro 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So, the only two places responsible for culture on the planet are two European cities? -- MichaelZimmer ( talk) 21:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is so much the word "culture" as "center." The words "culture" and "center" are both being misunderstood here, but I will focus on "center." Athens and Rome are certainly two of the origins of culture for the entire Western world—no doubt about that. If you trace Western culture back in time, those two cities are probably as close to the epicenter as one can get. However, does that mean that culture has not collected in other locations by the present day? In addition, the statement that Athens and Rome are the only two cultural centers of the world—or even points of origin for culture—completely ignores the immensely rich and influential culture that emerged from the Far East, which for thousands of years did not involve Europe at all. -- Larry V ( talk |  contribs) 22:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• We are talking about cities (a third, maybe Alexandria, but that would be not very correct). Those cities have influenced the world, and you can see in the NYC article that NYC is very influenced by them. "Influential culture that emerged from the Far East" I don't agree with this. One should be a little careful with some expressions, such as " the media capital of the world" The fact that someone says something, doesnt mean it is correct and should be put in wikipedia as correct. How come NYC is the media capital of the word? Because of cable channels that show US productions? "Media centre" ok... but capital is pushing a bit. You can say that an “that notable guy said that NYC was the media capital of the world. Blah blah” that would be acceptable as it is an opinion and will illustrate the same, but like that is POV. As I said earlier I like this article... it has style: those people reading in the subway, the market, etc. make it come alive. It needs a little work to get an FA, and it deserves IMO despite its faults. And I expect more from this article, as this is a vast city.-- Pedro 23:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

According to this site I came across, NY still has the capital punishment existing: http://www.geocities.com/trctl11/state.html As far as I know the state abolished capital punishment for all crimes in 2004? Can anyone clarify if the city still has CP? If not, then they're the 13th state in the union to fully abolish capital punishment and should thus the page on CP in the USA be adapted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.65.192.6 ( talk • contribs) .

According to this [11], the state legislature decided not to reinstate the death penalty in April 2005. -- MichaelZimmer ( talk) 13:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

then shouldn't the page about capital punishment in the USA be adapted? The page still says that 12 states + District of Columbia are abolitionist. Whereas with New York having abolished it, that makes 13 states having no death penalty.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.65.192.6 ( talk • contribs) .

I don't know, but that's probably a topic more appropriate for Talk:Capital punishment in the United States. -- MichaelZimmer ( talk) 22:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Further Reading?Is it really necessary, I mean maybe remove some of the not-so-important books, a few deserve a mention but some just don’t need to be there.Or maybe that section could be removed and a separate article on books in nyc could be created.

from, Movie-lover93 03:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now, the Further Reading section is pretty short, especially considering how many books have been written about New York — even without travel guides and fiction. I think the current version is perfectly good. If you insist on having a separate page, maybe have it be a longer, annotated Further reading list.  — AnnaKucsma   ( Talk to me!) 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Both The Bronx and Queens are mentioned as being the birthplace of hip hop. Which is it?

-- IRelayer 22:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Bronx. Who knows where the Queens statement came from, but it's new and wrong. – Joke 23:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to work on a large City Strawpoll to end the feuding about larger cities in the United States. Please visit the page, User:Ericsaindon2/Sandbox and leave comments on the talk page, but dont edit the actual page. After it has been modified to satisfy the community, I will go ahead and open it. But, please review it and comment, to avoid controversy over its structure. I hope to open it in a few days after discussion, so please be timely in making your comments. Thanks. -- Ericsaindon2 05:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:24.185.223.213 changed the population estimate in the opening paragraph to 21.7Million (see diff [12]). I reverted it back since the source wasn't updated and so the data and the source were out of sunch. The source is for 2004 estimates though. so if someone has a more up-to-date reference it would be great to keep this current. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You were correct to revert. 18.7 million is the estimate for the metro area. 21+ million (though not 21.7 (it's 21.9)) is the estimate for the CSA. The metro areas were updated recently with the new U.S. Census Bureau releases; the next update for the metro areas will come some time after August 15, 2007. The CSA should not be confused with the MSA. The Census Bureau determined in 2000 that MSA is a more accurate measure of the metro area than CSA. Thanks for catching the inaccuracy in the source though. I'll update that. Ufwuct 02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need that panoramic picture taken from the Empire State Building? The article's text is already big, there's a ton of images too, including other photos in the gallery. This one is way too big and make the loading time even slower for people on dial-up connections. I don't think it's necessary and just slows down load time. -- Jtalledo (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the concerns about load times. I do think it's a wonderful image though, and it's great to be able to make open content images of such impact available through Wikipedia. Is there a way to have a thumbnail and link to the full version? -- Siobhan Hansa 14:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to cut the panorama and the gallery. Way down at the bottom of the article there are links to the New York City page on Wikimedia Commons, as well as a link to Portal:New York City (which feature pictures). There is also a commons category with a lot of material. The commons pages and the portal should be improved, with the links made more prominent here in the article. -- Aude ( talk contribs) 15:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a great way to go. -- Siobhan Hansa 15:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed both the panorama and gallery. The panorama was overlapping the Fordham University picture, and I'm not sure a gallery is helpful either when we have Commons to serve that purpose. -- Aude ( talk contribs as tagcloud) 19:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have also removed the Statue of Liberty picture, which was added [13] on August 25. It was appearing in the demographics section, where I think (if anything) we should instead have something that relates better, probably with people. Perhaps find something on commons:Category:New_York_City? -- Aude ( talk contribs as tagcloud) 04:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As a result of the watershed's integrity and undisturbed natural water filtration process, New York is the largest city in the United States with drinking water that does not require purification by water treatment plants...

This sentence from the Environment subheading needs rewording since in the intro it is already stated that NYC is the largest city in the US. _└  ^VodkaJazz /  _talk ^┐ 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I made an article on Books about New York City, so there is no need for the section to be included in NYC's page, as it is in the see also box under 'culture' or 'history', I think.

Hallo! I would like to know more about religions in New York. How many Jewsish/Mennonite/Lutherian/Adventist communities are in New York? Simon Mayer.

While researching Jesse Jackson's anti-Semitic comment from 1984 I discovered that "Hymietown" re-directs to New York City - is this on purpose or is someone trying to be funny? -- Skurczysyn 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that someone could enhance the list of Companies in New York to include those based in the surrounding area as well as those with an established prescence in New York. Perhaps you could follow the method used for Chicago's list. With all the businesses in New York I think this is relatively important. Frodowilson 11:00, 28 Sept. 2006

Can someone go through the necessary pains of updating NYC population to 8,213,839 and populations of boroughs as well throughout this site and those of the boroughs? Info is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/nyregion/05census.html Nutmegger 05:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

An editor removed the following from the intro:

"yet New York has the lowest crime rate among major United States cities." ^[1]

I think it's important to mention the low crime rate in the intro. But, in thinking about it, I don't like the way this is worded. One issue is the word "yet", which essentially says in spite of NYC's large population, it has a low crime rate. In the criminological literature, research supports the notion that dense population (e.g. many potential witnesses) can be a deterrence for crime. In connecting NYC's population size with its crime rate, with the word "yet", isn't the way to go. Secondly, I know the "lowest crime rate" is cited. But, there are many ways to manipulate the crime statistics to make NYC rank the "lowest". (what's the defintion of "major U.S. cities?", what crime types are included in this ranking? etc.) I don't think it should be stated in absolute terms, with the word "lowest". -- Aude ( talk) 03:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

--I restored the mention of it in the last paragraph of the intro. If the FBI says its the "safest," I think its entirely justified for us to use that same language here. I believe their criteria includes all violent crime (not white-collar crime though), and the definition of "major city" includes all of the top 25 cities by population. -- Jleon 22:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just something I noticed, but while the title of the article is "New York City", the article itself refers to New York as the "City of New York". Now, I do not take any issue with use of the term "City of New York", as the city's name is "New York", but is there a reason that "City of New York" has not been considered for a potential title change (as it is more accurate)?

152.163.101.5 20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

City of New York is the city's official name, but it is more common for people to talk about New York City. So in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines the article sits at the heading most commonly used (without getting into the whole disambiguation needed if we went with a straight "New York"). City of New York redirects to this page, so people will get here. -- Siobhan Hansa

It may interest editors of this page to know that a proposal has been made to change New York, New York, which currently redirects here, to a disambiguation page. Please feel free to comment at Talk:New York, New York (disambiguation). -- Russ (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Sydney a sister city of NYC? List of sister cities in the United States lists Sydney as a sister city of NYC but other sources don't even mention Sydney. I put a question mark next to Sydney in the before mentioned article.-- Just James 21:02, 26 October 2006 (GMT+10:00)

There are two articles that list Sydney/New York as sister cities as of 2000: List_of_twin_towns_and_sister_cities#Australia and List of sister cities in the United States. I'll go ahead and alter the New York article. If anyone has a problem with it, they can just revert my changes.-- Just James 20:57, 24 November 2006 (GMT+10:00)

I do have a problem w/ it. I got confused w/ the conflicting lists of sister cities for New York, so I went to the city website a month or so ago -- it's the link in the footnote of this section -- and kept those ten as the official sister cities, as cited by the city government. If we can find official citations for the others, we shouldkeep them -- but in the absence of confirmation that ironclad, we should be careful about what we include.

I'm paring the section back to the official ten named by the city government now. -- GGreeneVa 22:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. But it leaves the question of what to do about those other two wikipedia articles that list Sydney as a sister city of New York and New York as a sister city of Sydney. Not to mention all the other cities that are listed on wikepdia as sister cities but aren't listed on the city government website.-- Just James 9:28, 27 November 2006 (GMT+10:00)

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada. -- Serge 05:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. - Will Beback 23:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't edited this article in a while. We are back to having all but one picture be of Manhattan. A little bird once told me there were other boroughs, though. – Joke 03:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are there two pictures of Central Park? One needs to go. -- Aude ( talk) 03:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)