This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Upstate New York article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
What is considered upstate New York? Plus, although much of upstate New York is rural, much of it is suburban and rugged. Can we specify which parts? 2605:6001:E7C4:1E00:B1EA:9BC8:FF42:C2CE ( talk) 21:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Vmanjr: You reverted my edit changing "State" to lower case (or perhaps it just got caught up, citing talk discussion that I am unable to find. This is clearly incorrect: the name of the state is "New York", not "New York State", so "state" is not part of the name and should therefore not be capitalized.
On a slightly related note, MOS:COMPASS would seem to advise that we not capitalize "upstate", either, as most sources I've seen do not do so. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
In the definition section it says, "Westchester is seemingly always considered Downstate under state law." According to the DMV, however, which defines Upstate "as any county north of the NYC border." [1] I don't know if this needs to be mentioned in the article or not, but it at least means the passage I quoted above should be changed. Hahafunnyboy ( talk) 21:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
References
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect New York (upstate). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#New York (upstate) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (+) 10:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
There should be a way to get a population number and even more in depth data straight from county data on Wikipedia or elsewhere without manually working the numbers one by one. B137 ( talk) 00:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Namely I questioned that the population of Upstate went through steady decline for an extended period ("Since the late 20th century, with the decline of manufacturing and its jobs, the area has generally suffered a net population loss."). Much of the area is and always has been very sparsely populated. It's easy to ignore all that and only focus on anyplace that's anyplace, that being Buf, Roc, Syr, Albany and maybe binghamton. While these have declined sadly over the latter half of the 20th century, the areas around them haven't necessarily. For example, Monroe County, New York only logged one tiny loss for 1980 of 1.4% but quickly gained it back and is unequivocally higher than ever. Not so with Erie County, New York ( Buffalo, New York) and Onondaga County, New York ( Syracuse). But bring in many of the podunk counties, some of which don't even have incorporated cities, and the population has gone up by almost two million, an increase of more than 35%. If you include most of the next few counties as part of "downstate", that accounts for an increase of a few hundred thousand, not nearly enough to justify saying upstate had a "net population loss trend [over an extended period]", though a few counties did lose some. Not to discredit the Rust Belt for not being awful, the economy is rather stagnant ( New York high-speed rail mentions this) outside of NYC. Little things come and go but nothing major. B137 ( talk) 00:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Census | Pop. | Note | %± |
---|---|---|---|
1790 | 340,120 | — | |
1800 | 589,051 | 73.2% | |
1810 | 959,049 | 62.8% | |
1820 | 1,372,812 | 43.1% | |
1830 | 1,918,608 | 39.8% | |
1840 | 2,428,921 | 26.6% | |
1850 | 3,097,394 | 27.5% | |
1860 | 3,880,735 | 25.3% | |
1870 | 4,382,759 | 12.9% | |
1880 | 5,082,871 | 16.0% | |
1890 | 6,003,174 | 18.1% | |
1900 | 7,268,894 | 21.1% | |
1910 | 9,113,614 | 25.4% | |
1920 | 10,385,227 | 14.0% | |
1930 | 12,588,066 | 21.2% | |
1940 | 13,479,142 | 7.1% | |
1950 | 14,830,192 | 10.0% | |
1960 | 16,782,304 | 13.2% | |
1970 | 18,236,967 | 8.7% | |
1980 | 17,558,072 | −3.7% | |
1990 | 17,990,455 | 2.5% | |
2000 | 18,976,457 | 5.5% | |
2010 | 19,378,102 | 2.1% | |
2014 (est.) | 19,746,227 | 1.9% | |
New York |
Year | Pop. | ±% |
---|---|---|
1698 | 4,937 | — |
1712 | 5,840 | +18.3% |
1723 | 7,248 | +24.1% |
1737 | 10,664 | +47.1% |
1746 | 11,717 | +9.9% |
1756 | 13,046 | +11.3% |
1771 | 21,863 | +67.6% |
1790 | 49,401 | +126.0% |
1800 | 79,216 | +60.4% |
1810 | 119,734 | +51.1% |
1820 | 152,056 | +27.0% |
1830 | 242,278 | +59.3% |
1840 | 391,114 | +61.4% |
1850 | 696,115 | +78.0% |
1860 | 1,174,779 | +68.8% |
1870 | 1,478,103 | +25.8% |
1880 | 1,911,698 | +29.3% |
1890 | 2,507,414 | +31.2% |
1900 | 3,437,202 | +37.1% |
1910 | 4,766,883 | +38.7% |
1920 | 5,620,048 | +17.9% |
1930 | 6,930,446 | +23.3% |
1940 | 7,454,995 | +7.6% |
1950 | 7,891,957 | +5.9% |
1960 | 7,781,984 | −1.4% |
1970 | 7,894,862 | +1.5% |
1980 | 7,071,639 | −10.4% |
1990 | 7,322,564 | +3.5% |
2000 | 8,008,288 | +9.4% |
2010 | 8,175,133 | +2.1% |
2014 | 8,491,079 | +3.9% |
New York City |
Census | Pop. | Note | %± |
---|---|---|---|
1800 | 6,353 | — | |
1810 | 7,758 | 22.1% | |
1820 | 8,837 | 13.9% | |
1830 | 9,388 | 6.2% | |
1840 | 11,975 | 27.6% | |
1850 | 16,962 | 41.6% | |
1860 | 22,492 | 32.6% | |
1870 | 25,213 | 12.1% | |
1880 | 27,690 | 9.8% | |
1890 | 35,162 | 27.0% | |
1900 | 38,298 | 8.9% | |
1910 | 46,873 | 22.4% | |
1920 | 45,548 | −2.8% | |
1930 | 59,599 | 30.8% | |
1940 | 74,261 | 24.6% | |
1950 | 89,276 | 20.2% | |
1960 | 136,803 | 53.2% | |
1970 | 229,903 | 68.1% | |
1980 | 259,530 | 12.9% | |
1990 | 265,475 | 2.3% | |
2000 | 286,753 | 8.0% | |
2010 | 311,687 | 8.7% | |
2014 (est.) | 323,866 | Rockland | 3.9% |
Census | Pop. | Note | %± |
---|---|---|---|
1790 | 23,978 | — | |
1800 | 27,428 | 14.4% | |
1810 | 30,272 | 10.4% | |
1820 | 32,638 | 7.8% | |
1830 | 36,456 | 11.7% | |
1840 | 48,686 | 33.5% | |
1850 | 58,263 | 19.7% | |
1860 | 99,497 | 70.8% | |
1870 | 131,348 | 32.0% | |
1880 | 108,988 | −17.0% | |
1890 | 146,772 | 34.7% | |
1900 | 184,257 | 25.5% | |
1910 | 283,055 | 53.6% | |
1920 | 344,436 | 21.7% | |
1930 | 520,947 | 51.2% | |
1940 | 573,558 | 10.1% | |
1950 | 625,816 | 9.1% | |
1960 | 808,891 | 29.3% | |
1970 | 894,404 | 10.6% | |
1980 | 866,599 | −3.1% | |
1990 | 874,866 | 1.0% | |
2000 | 923,459 | 5.6% | |
2010 | 949,113 | 2.8% | |
2014 (est.) | 972,634 | Westchester | 2.5% |
Census | Pop. | Note | %± |
---|---|---|---|
1900 | 55,448 | — | |
1910 | 83,930 | 51.4% | |
1920 | 126,120 | 50.3% | |
1930 | 303,053 | 140.3% | |
1940 | 406,748 | 34.2% | |
1950 | 672,765 | 65.4% | |
1960 | 1,300,171 | 93.3% | |
1970 | 1,428,080 | 9.8% | |
1980 | 1,321,582 | −7.5% | |
1990 | 1,287,348 | −2.6% | |
2000 | 1,334,544 | 3.7% | |
2010 | 1,339,532 | 0.4% | |
2014 (est.) | 1,358,627 | Nassau | 1.4% |
Census | Pop. | Note | %± |
---|---|---|---|
1790 | 16,400 | — | |
1800 | 19,735 | 20.3% | |
1810 | 21,113 | 7.0% | |
1820 | 23,936 | 13.4% | |
1830 | 26,780 | 11.9% | |
1840 | 32,469 | 21.2% | |
1850 | 36,922 | 13.7% | |
1860 | 43,275 | 17.2% | |
1870 | 46,924 | 8.4% | |
1880 | 52,888 | 12.7% | |
1890 | 62,491 | 18.2% | |
1900 | 77,582 | 24.1% | |
1910 | 96,138 | 23.9% | |
1920 | 110,246 | 14.7% | |
1930 | 161,055 | 46.1% | |
1940 | 197,355 | 22.5% | |
1950 | 276,129 | 39.9% | |
1960 | 666,784 | 141.5% | |
1970 | 1,124,950 | 68.7% | |
1980 | 1,284,231 | 14.2% | |
1990 | 1,321,864 | 2.9% | |
2000 | 1,419,369 | 7.4% | |
2010 | 1,493,350 | 5.2% | |
2014 (est.) | 1,502,968 | Suffolk | 0.6% |
Is 'Upstate' capitalized? The article seems to say so, and I can think of comparisons that would support both sides, such as 'mainland China' or 'Upper Egypt', so I assume it comes down to source coverage and consensus, right? Remsense 留 19:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.This is essentially a statistical question to be determined by objectively polling usage in a large number of sources (a representative sample). Ngrams satisfies this. Generally, the alternative is a source war and who can produce the most sources to support their preferred capitalisation. The ngram evidence is quit conclusive with about 5:1 for lowercase (without considering titles of works, business names and like that would increase the proportion capitalised). Given the overwhelming ngram evidence, I cannot see any reasonable case being made for capitalisation. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Regions like Southern California, Western Massachusetts, and Central Florida are consistently capitalized in Wikipedia. Should Upstate New York be different? AJD ( talk) 21:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
It can vary for other reasons in unusual cases. E.g., "northern New Mexico" as simply a loosely defined geographical area is not a proper name, just a descriptor. But Northern New Mexico is often treated as a capitalized proper name of another sort, culturally/anthropologically/sociologically: a discrete Hispanic cultural zone with a unique history due to long-term isolation between the Spanish Conquest and the coming of the railroads, which has produced distinct religious traditions, cuisine, Spanish-language dialect, etc. But that Northern New Mexico is not a place you can drive through or build a house in; it's a traditional and later analytical social construct. I'm extremely skeptical anything like that applies to upstate New York, west Texas, central Florida, etc. Why "Northern California" and "Southern California" get capitalized in this manner is a good question. The longer there's a continguous "Western culture" history of a place, the more likely regional terms are to be treated as proper names, even if they do not conform to political boundaries. E.g. various regions of England and Scotland. If you tried to down-case the
Scottish Highlands or the
West Country (or its containing
South West [of] England, you'd be shouted out of the room. Cf. also the
Camargue and
French Riviera,
Italian Riviera, etc., which do not correspond to civil divisions (or to historical kingdoms/duchies, etc.). Ultimately, this stuff seems pretty arbitrary, and we have little to go on but whether something is overwhelmingly capitalized in independent English-language sources. For every argument that can be advanced that something "is" a proper name for [insert reason here], someone else has an [insert other reason here] to argue against it, because all these "is of identity or predication" arguments about the term proper name are making
Proper name (philosophy) claims which have not only been argued about inconclusively for centuries, they have no connection to capitalization in the first place (e.g. under most philosophy definitions, every named disease, species, doctrine, method, theory, etc., etc., is a proper name unless the name is purely descriptive). What determines
Proper name (linguistics) treatment as something to capitalize is primarily just convention (and even when something is clearly a proper name under every definition, it is not necessarily capitalized anyway, e.g.
k.d. lang and, increasingly lowercased,
the internet). We spend too much time arguing about such matters with OR and POV, instead of just following
MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)