This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
The intro implies that it is a fact that 800 languages are spoken in New York, but the demographics article repeatedly states 170 languages. I can see (from the relevant link on the NY page) that the discrepancy comes from 170 languages spoken in public schools, while 800 languages is an estimate including speakers of other languages not in public schools, and not registered on a census. But the article only says 'some experts believe' so I think it should not be presented as an established fact.-- ImizuCIR ( talk) 02:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. The 170 figures are significantly outdated and even when obtained only reflected a number of languages specifically volunteered to have been spoken by public school students and not necessarily by other, and more significantly, elderly generational members. If you read the article carefully, one of the main points by the august New York Times article quoted, in fact, exactly stressed the point that a significant proportion of these languages are endangered per survival. The most reliable figures would indeed then be quoted by linguistic experts and therefore the 800 number is reliably cited, relevant, and is accurately phrased in situ. Castncoot ( talk) 12:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately this citation proves only that "It has been the country's largest city after 1790" Bulwersator ( talk) 12:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, New York City has been the nation's most populous city since the census began. Two little know facts, however, which aren't in the article: Philadelphia was the nation's most populous city before the first census count began. When the first census count was taken, it happen to be at the same New York City just edged Philly to become larger, therefore Philly doesn't really get credit for having being the nation's largest. Instead articles, like the New York City article, states New York has been the largest since census counts began.
Also, Chicago was on the verge of overtaking New York City as the United States's most populous city. Notice the 1880 census results for both cities, and look at the 1890 census results for both cities. Chicago was quickly gaining on New York City. So during the 1890s, New York, to offset this, annexed what was independent areas like Brooklyn, and a large portion of what is now the Bronx, to vastly increase its population. So by the next census in 1900, New York had given itself a more comfortable lead. Had this not happened, the two cities would probably had been nearly equal in population by the 1900 census, and Chicago would have had more people by the 1910 census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 ( talk) 20:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
That is not an inaccurate statement. Why is it when it comes to New York City, some people believe that if New York isn't ranked higher in something, then it's just not true? Everything doesn't center on New York. At that time Chicago was quickly gaining on New York. Look at the census data for the populations:
1870 Census: NYC 942,000, Chicago 298,000; 1880 Census: NYC 1.2 million, Chicago 500,000; 1890 Census: NYC 1.5 million, Chicago 1 million. After that census, New York City annexed large swarths of land in immediate succession, from 1895-1989. A large area of the Bronx was annexed in 1895; then the boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island were annexed soon afterwards in 1898. Huge swaths of territory, right before the next census two years later. When that census was done in 1900, New York City jumped to 3.4 million people as all the people in the forme independent areas of the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island were counted in the city population, as they had never been before obviously. Chicago made a tremendous stride to 1.7 million people at that same census. So look at the results; New York had averaged growth of approximately 300,000 people per census for the last 30 years. Chicago, however, gained 500,000 people from 1880-1890, and 700,000 people from 1890-1900, without the type of annexations New York did. So as the above statement says, had New York not taken over the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, at their individual rates NYC would have been at about 1.8 million, and Chicago at about 1.7 million for 1900. By 1910, New York and Chicago would have been at about 2.1 million And by 1920, there's a 99% chance Chicago would have surpassed New York in population. So don't think those annexations were just happen-stance. Pretty much the only cities in the country making any noise at that time were New York and Chicago, so don't think New York politicians were not well aware of Chicago's advancement and wanted to keep ahold of that largest city title. If you don't believe that, you don't know politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 ( talk) 00:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
On the article it says that winters are cold and damp. The word damp means humid and cloudy. New York City has plenty of winter sunshine and is not nowhere damp at all. More than half of the winter days are sunny. It should say 'Generally cold' because it's not always guaranteed cold. Many days are pretty mild.-- 74.90.5.246 ( talk) 05:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that is should be plain "cold" and get rid of the word 'damp'. I agree it should say 'generally cold' which describes NYC excellent way for the winter. It's certainly not damp the whole winter. -- Maydin37622 ( talk) 04:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a typo in the climate section, the record high for February is 7F (-14C) which is colder than the average high of 42F (6C). The correct value is around 75F (24C) according to ftp://dossier.ogp.noaa.gov/GCOS/WMO-Normals/RA-IV/US/GROUP2/00305801.TXT (ref #107 from NOAA). Article is locked, so I can't edit it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.34.145.30 ( talk • contribs)
It's a cold, damp, winter city. Stop trying to act like it's not. Yeesh!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 ( talk) 00:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
One of the biggest problems with this article is that with how popular New York is it tends to get bloated with NPOV claims. Can't we soften it a bit by not including things that truly, when it comes down to it, do not matter and do not add to the academic quality of the article? For example, I say we get rid of any claim no matter how well sourced that New York is the unofficial capital of anything. Let's start with the lead: the claim right off the bat that New York is "deemed (even by some) to be the cultural capital of the world" sounds so incredibly biased to me and should be omitted. Think about it: is this truly needed? Does it really convey vital information to the reader? When dealing with an iconic and popular city like New York we have to be really careful about NPOV and omit any statements that may even come close to violating it. We also have to be careful about even subtle statements that may be worded to overinflate New York's status, such as information about its high diversity, rich culture, and well-known destinations. Cadiomals ( talk) 01:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Very humorous argument. But I am believing that JLeon is exactly correct and Cadiomals is exactly wrong. The statement about New York being widely considered the cultural centre is written accurately and referenced perfectly. MazabukaBloke ( talk) 20:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Castncoot ( talk) 00:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Castncoot ( talk) 02:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Castncoot ( talk) 07:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
About Castnscoot's comment that we shouldn't worry about getting this article to featured status: That's my motivation for improving articles such as these. I like it when the work and time I contribute to improving an article is recognized by giving it GA or (rarely) FA status. If we're just going to edit an article, with no direction of where we want to go, in my humble opinion I don't see the point. When I contribute to an article my motivation is always to get it to a higher and higher class. If such is not the case here I'll back out of this project. There are other articles that need my help anyway. Cadiomals ( talk) 16:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Castncoot ( talk) 00:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello! The editing of the 'Architecture' section of the New York City wiki page is my first revision on a semi-protected page. I'd imagine that the user who omitted the photos of homes in Staten Island and Brooklyn that I had included is a much more experienced wikipedian than I am. However, I would argue that photos of less known areas of the city are largely missing from this article and give an incomplete view of the city as a whole. The character of the city changes greatly from area to area and I think it would good to include these images for informational purposes. Or would you argue that only visuals of more iconic structures and scenes should rule the page? I appreciate any insight on this matter so I know how to carry about in the future. Thank you in advance for your responses!
-- Antipastarasta ( talk) 18:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
All those citations in the lead make it quite hard to read. I've noticed this for a while now but didn't bring it up. Is it necessary for information in the lead to be cited when it is repeated in the body of the article, where it can be cited there? Oftentimes I see very few if no citations in leads because the info is cited within the body of the article. If we removed most of them the lead would be easier to read and more easy on the eyes. Cadiomals ( talk) 15:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Castncoot ( talk) 17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a perfectly worthwhile discussion to have at any time, but the guidance for article leads says they should be fully sourced, and if anyone's interested in a Featured or Good Article push, that guidance needs to be followed, even though I agree that all those footnotes do clutter up the lead. As I remember, in fact, the successful push for Featured Article status a couple of years ago involved citing every single statement of fact, something that editors like User:Alansohn spent laborioous hours and days researching and posting. The reason given for the lede guidance about citations is that often the lead is separated from the body in things like printed versions, mirror versions (other sites' perfectly-legal copying of Wikipedia articles, for this would be a very prime candidate), the Simple English Wikipedia and Wikipedias in other languages. —— Shakescene ( talk) 21:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
"Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." No big deal, my friend. Let me just say that 5 or 7 cites are reasonable; in my humble opinion, 12 or 20 would not be. Castncoot ( talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This is how information should be presented in the lead. [2] No need for cites and everything is supported in the body of the article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete this article altogether.
70.91.122.97 ( talk) 21:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Statement is a pure original research per WP:OR. Also New York City is not really correct query. Without quotes it also bring results for each word on their own - new, york and city. Google also is not a 100% worldwide player. There are also Bing, Yahoo, Yandex and Baidu among large players on indexing. All of them brings different result. Some does localise results, including Google. Elk Salmon ( talk) 20:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
In the Central Park attraction list, Onassis (as in Jackie) is misspelled.09:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC) SchwarzeWitwe2 ( talk) 09:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
In the culture and contemporary life section, someone has put in "A forum on one of the Civilization fan sites rated New York the cultural capital of the world, ahead of Los Angeles and Paris." This does not seem to be a credible, impartial, or useful reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.47.156 ( talk) 14:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Some short -need for Wikipedia quality- addition to sections(check google easy, if I don't give You a source): 1) Crime and law. New York spend on it police department more money than UN on all international missions. This is probably the city with biggest police department budget and crime rates are still high. Second the law in N. Y. city on the guns is one of the most strict laws in USA, especially they still have illegal federal ban on some home guns like sport semi-auto ak versions. 2) Prohibition - it is connected with up words. The N. Y. was probably one of the most "wet" cities and the most hard laws don't changed it. The N.Y. just don't treat and like laws that protect only gangster - like prohibition or gun laws. 3) The property tax in N. Y. are one of the higher if not the highest in the USA(esp. on the Manhattan). 4) Many of industries/commercials now chooses because of above points Texas not the N.Y. city. 5) The Manhattan people don't have cars because of two things. One is bad urban city planning, that don't allow making a most underground park spaces, because of bad projected subway lines and other underground city infrastructure. Second existing park spaces have, esp. on the Manhattan one of the higher if not the highest prices in the World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 ( talk) 05:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
While looking at the page, I noticed that someone confused sq mi with km2 for the NYC density. If the true density of New York City is 10,429.6 sq mi, then the 27,012.5 figure matches the equivalent km2. Otherwise, whichever number is right, the math is completely off for the conversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIMplMn9 ( talk • contribs) 02:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I recently read the culture section and was surprised to find no mention of the former working-class culture that characterized the city for a large part of the 1800s and well through the 20th century. This working-class was comprised predominantly of European immigrants and constituted the largest part of the city's population for many decades. Perhaps, we should treat that in the article's section on culture and how it is slowly being usurped by "hipster", underground, and artistic movements. - User: John M. DiNucci - 22:30, 13/4/12
someone ERRONEOUSLY stated that an explorer "of moorish descent" explored new york city in the 16th century. just to let you know, there was NO SUCH THING as moorish explorers accompanying Spaniards or any other Europeans as navigators to the new world. this is a fact. so can you please delete this stupid error.. thanks. Kiluss ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC).
I understand this was discussed just a couple of weeks ago, but considering the city is officially known as the City of New York (with New York City used only to differentiate it from New York State), wouldn't it be right to redirect New York City to simply New York? I understand when people search for New York, it tends to be the city they're looking for, not always the state. After all, if we're using New York City to discuss the city, wouldn't it be right to title the article currently titled "New York" as "New York State", as people also use that term to differentiate it from the city? New York City (Officially: City of New York), New York State (Officially: State of New York) Artystyk386 ( talk) 09:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Dozens of editors agree with you and dozens of others (I think a bit fewer) disagree. There are several long-drawn-out and inconclusive discussions and Requested Moves in the archived pages of Talk:New York. Since the state rather than the city is often (though much less often) what's being sought by someone entering "New York", I feel that "New York" should be a disambiguation page and topic pages like " Politics of New York" should distinguish themselves clearly as either "Politics of New York City" or "Politics of New York state". But a proposal to do something similar failed for lack of consensus. —— Shakescene ( talk) 23:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
According to the city's official web presence and portal, www.nyc.gov, it says "Welcome to the official New York City Web site" towards the top of the home page. So to say that the city is called "New York," even though it is commonly referred to as such by most people, is factually incorrect. The Mayor's web page, tourist web site, and the government we pages all clearly refer to the city as New York City and not as New York. Yoganate79 ( talk) 03:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I am very late to this discussion but I came to start a new discussion and realized that there is already one.
New York City is the wrong name. Likewise, we don't have an article called "Great Satan USA", but rather "United States".
The correct title of this article should be either "City of New York" or "New York (city)". both are correct and I would support it. Auchansa ( talk) 16:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Leave it the way it is, please. Castncoot ( talk) 21:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
References item #269 has a dead link. I found the active link, it is at http://www.americanheritage.com/content/worst-case-scenario
184.152.32.211 ( talk) 10:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Notice how many times this blatantly biased article presents the city in the following way, by saying 'most .. in the world' frequently, citing news sources and no official documentation to back up their claims? Compare this city article to others, and you see a notable difference in the tone of writing here - it is one of major hype, and perhaps desperation to include as many 'most .. in the world' claims as possible - whereas others aren't as intensely hyped and bragging false 'world' claims.
1. 'widely deemed the cultural capital of the world' - wrong. This is subjective. Many other cities can claim as being a cultural capital that rivals and beats New York City - London, Los Angeles, Singapore
2. 'As many as 800 languages are spoken in New York, making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world' - wrong. This is a speculation made in a newspaper article. Official government statistics say this city still speaks just over 150 languages ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/pop_facts.shtml). Why use a newspaper article over a government publication in presenting this on this site? I also suggest you also employ some common sense in considering the validity of this bloated claim.
3. 'New York has the largest internet presence of any location in the world; registering 7.1 billion search results as of December 2011' - no. New York City presents about 3 billion search results on Google (unrestricted). New York 7 billion. However this article is on the city only, not the state, and therefore it should be modified to present this (albeit useless) fact. New York is bound to have more than New York City, as it is a state and would empass more things with other cities and towns in it. Focus on the city. The sentence quoted manipulates the reader into thinking this is in regard to the city when in fact, strictly speaking, it's not.
4. 'The Crossroads of the World' - another arrogant 'world' claim. It is merely an intersection. Why hype it into something more? This article is supposed to be factual.
5. 'New York City's financial district, anchored by Wall Street in Lower Manhattan, functions as the financial capital of the world' - no. New York City ties with London as the financial capital of the world. Your sources are also questionable - one is a poll (52), another an opinionated and rather insulting news article from the views of one journalist (55). If you do your research, you will see London has more finance flowing in it than NYC, primarily due to its central location and ability to deal with both the west and east. NYC has no such ability.
6. 'Manhattan's real estate market is among the most prized and expensive in the world' - I don't think so. Look here: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-expensive-real-estate-in-the-world-2011-10.
7. 'Manhattan's Chinatown incorporates the highest concentration of Chinese people in the Western Hemisphere' - Wrong again. San Francisco lays to this claim.
8. 'Numerous colleges and universities are located in New York, including Columbia University, New York University, and Rockefeller University, which are ranked among the top 100 in the world' - the first two yes, the latter no. See: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011?page=1. Again, unfair overhyping is evident here.
I do not regard this article anymore as factual. To fill it with outrageous, bloated claims (especially how many 'most .. in the world' remarks there are) and to not moderate and take action on it is propaganda and unfair in that other people will believe the numerous false claims made about this city.
As a frequent Wiki reader, I am left very disapppointed here at the arrogance and unfair claims this city makes for itself in its overhyping.
Sort it out, please. Keep it factual. Thank you, D. Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whisperer1982 ( talk • contribs) 07:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
There is some truth to what Whisperer1982 is stating; the article does come off quite biased. -Also see the sections above called "Kind of Misleading".- There is a tone in this article of the "most of this", or the "best of that" that's never seems to quit. Forgive me, but it's as if the article is trying to say, if you don't live in New York City, especially Manhattan, then you do not deserve to live. Now there's no doubt that the United States is the sole super power of the world, but the line has to be drawn at over-implying that New York is the best city in the country. It is the most populous, but that doesn't make it the best. Los Angeles can do a lot of bragging too, and so can San Francisco. And as far as the minorities go in the country, I would say Chicago did much more to further their cause than New York City. Like him or not (which isn't my point here), but didn't the nation's first black President, black First Lady, and black First Children come from Chicago, not New York City. And didn't the first black female US Senator (Carol Mosley Braun) come from Chicago, not New York. And hasn't Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan always historically been more popular than Al Sharpton? Sharpton has finally managed to turn it on a little more in the later years. Of course, there are those who can't stand them and those who love them, but that's not my point. My point is they came from another city that did much more for them than New York City. And if Hillary Clinton ever becomes president, the first female president would now have been born and raised in Chicago.
And Whispere1982 makes some serious points that shouldn't be overlooked. There are only eight points there so it's not that hard to verify, especially the ones that may blatantly be wrong, or just opinion. Such as:
Number 2 -The above poster states that government data shows there are approximately 150 languages spoken in NYC, while a newspaper article states 800 languages are spoken, so Wiki just chooses to go with the newspaper article? If 800 is right then it should be in the article, if 150 is right then that should be in the article. Those two numbers are nowhere near each other. It's acceptable to use newspaper info when there is no other info, but why would it be chosen over government data? If 150 is the correct number, but no one is verifying this from other sources or changing the article if necessary, then the poster is right; this is just an article of biased information and hype.
Number 3 -Largest internet presence on any location with 7.1 billion search results. Is New York (state) being counted in some of those results? Because both the city and state have the same name, it is likely. But to credit all the searches under New York (city) would be like giving Los Angeles all the credit for anyone who searches the words Los Angeles or California on the internet. But of course this would never happen because they have separate names. In the case of New York (city or state) how do you know which location to give the credit to since they share the same name? It a person typed "New York City" or "New York State" then it is known. If only "New York" were typed, why is Wiki assuming that is a search for the city each time? This is really a useless statistic that can be removed from the article, indeed giving the fact it is hard to determine which location (city or state) that people were searching.
Number 5 -There are many reports (quite a number of reports) that state London is over New York City, or equivalent to it, in the financial sector. Now there are also reports that state New York City is the leading center. The Wiki article on London states that London is the world's largest financial center, alongside New York. Why then does the Wiki New York City article not say New York City is the world's largest financial center, alongside London? Instead it states that New York is one of "three command center" globally for commerce, with London and Tokyo being the other two. Stating it this way doesn't give any inclination that London may be over or equal to New York in this sector. -Basically in the London article, London shares the title with New York; but in the New York article, you don't know what's what with the cities involved -which is the way it was meant to be written.
Number 6 -Manhattan real estate is the most "prized" and "expensive" in the world. According to the link the poster provided, there are many cities with more expensive real estate. And this one is pretty easy: The word "prize" in this case is just an opinion; the word "expensive" perhaps can be presented as fact. An example: I were forced to move against my wishes to New York City due to a job transfer. Once there, I paid $700 thousand for an apartment. I would not consider it a "prize" as I did not want to move there, although I would consider it "expensive". That goes with the hype of this article; that everyone WANTS to or SHOULD want to live in New York. -At the very least the sentence should read "Manhattan's real estate is among the most expensive in the world". But drop the word "prized"; a prize to whom?
These comments are not meant to attack any person. But the article does have a certain biased, pro-New York tone throughout it that one would not expect from an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.226.14.5 ( talk) 00:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, the article cannot be edited because there are no edit tabs, it is locked. Also, the "iconic New York City subway system?" Iconic?...really? -And no mention of or going into detail about the severe financial situation of New York City in the 1970s, when it was going bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the federal government?
Here is an insight to New York in the 1970s:
Dirty, dangerous, and destitute. This was New York City in the 1970s. The 1960s were not yet over, and war still raged in Viet Nam, fueling resentment against the government. Nixon and the Watergate scandal created even more resentment, cynicism, and skepticism. Economically, stagnation coupled with inflation created a sense of malaise. The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 delivered another blow to the U.S. economy, and brought the misery of long lines to buy gasoline. Conditions in Harlem and Bed-Stuy were horrendous, with abandoned buildings and widespread poverty. The Bronx routinely saw buildings ablaze. The subways were covered everywhere with ugly graffiti and they were unreliable. It seemed as if the entire infrastructure was in decay. Political corruption, sloppy accounting, and the cost of the war were killing the city. Times Square was seedy and sleazy. Pimps, hookers, and drug dealers owned the area. Crime was rampant, and the police were virtually powerless to stop it. Random killings by the "Son of Sam" made New Yorkers even more fearful. The parks were in decay, with and litter and bare lawns, and it was home to muggers and rapists. When the city of New York had to beg the federal government for a financial bail-out, the President said no. The New York Daily News headline said it all: "Ford to City - Drop Dead."
Large sections of the city such the South Bronx, Lower East Side, Bedford-Stuyvesant, and Harlem looked like European cities which had been bombed during World War II. Sometimes entire blocks or several blocks would contain crumbling buildings, abandoned by their owners because the tenants could not pay rent. Conditions in these areas gave rise to street gangs and crime that spread city-wide. People tore the boards of the windows or smashed the concrete blocks in doorways to gain access to these abandoned buildings, which were then used by gangs, drug addicts, and children playing. Eventually, some people moved into these buildings as squatters, and efforts were made to rehabilitate or replace substandard housing. The lack of jobs and housing put enormous stress on the city's public assistance programs including housing, education, and healthcare. Many corporations left New York as conditions deteriorated, since new communications technology made it possible to do business anywhere. Most television production fled to Los Angeles and its vicinity.
New York City lost nearly a whopping 1 million people within a ten year span, from the 1970 census to the 1980s census. The exact figure was slighty under 900,000. Eventually New York City was bailed out by the federal government, but continued to have its seedy reputation throughout the 1980s, until conditions began to see a turn-around in the mid 1990s.
This all of course would be written in encyclopediac terms, but this article touches on nothing like this. And again, nothing can be edited because it is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 ( talk) 04:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Well yeah it is copypasted from somewhere else; I thought that was implied by the way it was written. That's why I said it should be changed into encyclopediac terms. Otherwise I would have wrote it in encyclopediac terms to begin with. But the point is New York City is not this remarkable piece of land on earth that the article tries to make it out to be, and it certainly wasn't in the 1970s. This artice doesn't even go into detail of that severely difficult time for the city. At least a paragraph is warranted, especially since the city lost close to 900,000 people in only a ten year time span. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 ( talk) 20:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
AndresTM, I think you are just as arrogant as the blatant, biased article written on this city. I stand by my guns insofar as my points made on languages (NYC really only has about 200), universities (only two are in the world's top 50 or so, not three), and being the financial centre (which it's clearly not - NYC and the US as a whole is in decline, business booms in the east, and of course the aforementioned London has business dealings with both east and west). You, like this article, seem to think that New York has the best of everything, and like the article, thinks it's ok to hype it up by having as many 'biggest...in the world'/'most...in the world' claims (bloating claims) as possible, and selling this propaganda off as fact. I've seen the effect it's having. I've noticed a few of these skewed 'facts' in magazines and it's concerning that people are starting to believe in the lies about this city. The article makes the place seem bigger than it is, when in fact it is not. Stop presenting this place as some kind of Disneyland which everyone must go to.
As for this: 'A lot of articles of European places (and even other American places) feature even more subjective claims, such as best quality of life' - oh please, show me ANY other city article that has similar overhyping that *constantly* overrates it by saying 'it has the biggest this in the world', 'it has the most that in the world'. I'm sorry, but there isn't any. If there was, I'm sure users would edit and change it so that it appears that NYC is 'higher', so to speak. The constantly hyping can even be seem not just in this article, but anything relating to New York city (in other articles). You don't see this for any other city, so why for this one?
Finally, I do not appreciate your personal attacks by calling me names and calling me a 'judge appointed by God'. Seriously, get over yourself. Just because I don't believe the lies and constant, annoying, bragging this article makes doesn't make me 'arrogant'. On the contrary, I'm just merely pointing out the pomposity of this article and how I think it should be toned down, greatly, so it can be moderate and balanced, and not so blatently biased and thinking it's the darn centre of the universe when it is not. YOU sir, are the arrogant one. Despite the skewed points, you prefer to keep it as it is. You can argue your cause until you're blue in the face, you can call me 'arrogant' all you want just because I don't believe in your 'high and mighty' article; essentially, it will NOT change my view. To reiterate what a user said earlier:
"There is some truth to what Whisperer1982 is stating; the article does come off quite biased. -Also see the sections above called "Kind of Misleading".- There is a tone in this article of the "most of this", or the "best of that" that's never seems to quit. Forgive me, but it's as if the article is trying to say, if you don't live in New York City, especially Manhattan, then you do not deserve to live. Now there's no doubt that the United States is the sole super power of the world, but the line has to be drawn at over-implying that New York is the best city in the country. It is the most populous, but that doesn't make it the best".
From all the articles I've read on this site, this one still is the most biased/shamefully written. I urge for a review and to have it rewritten to present a more balanced and factual view (to whoever's able to unlock and have the ability to do it), and not overzealous in tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whisperer1982 ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Can a editor please edit the sentence that refers to New York city as the 'financial capital of the world'? - The sources given for this statement are completely biased and inaccurate - e.g. one is a poll, and one is a biased journalist writing for NYC. The sentence should be changed to: "New York City is the financial capital of the world, alongside London" - as many sources suggest NYC is equal or even below London in the financial sector. I do agree that the people who have written this article probably live in the city, and they think it is the best place on earth and try to 'hype' it up using wikipedia. The information given is very misleading to people who have no real knowledge of the city. The article for 'London' on wikipedia is very neutral, and is not biased and does not hype London up at all, unlike this NYC one - This should be changed, as London is above NYC in most criteria according to official, non biased sources such as Forbes. It is clear that the authors of this article are trying to make out NYC is the world capital, over London, and the bitter insecurity of the people who wrote this can be inferred by the tone of language - "...In the world", World cultural capital" - despite many reliable sources suggest London and Los Angeles tie as the world cultural capital. "800 languages" is a false claim when official sources suggest 150. New York is not the best city in the world, this article is clearly trying to put that across. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpage96 ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Overall, I agree with the bulk of what Whisperer1982 is getting at, especially the third and fourth points - though I see nothing wrong with mentioning the post-secondary institutions, that's very common for any city article. Agreed that London needs to acknowledged more equally, as New York is on the London article. They equally vie for the title of global economic capital. Now there's no doubt that New York is a leading global city in nearly every sector, and this should be highlighted, but it's possible to mention these things without the ad nauseam. There's been some attempts at changing this, but overall, it's still overkill. Aurora30 ( talk) 05:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I took out the table of flags as it added no encyclopedic information and nowadays the consensus is not to display flags like that in this context. However, I also noticed that the text refers to New York's historic ten historic sister cities and then goes on to list eleven. So, which is wrong? -- John ( talk) 08:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
making a new indent because, while it relates to tel-aviv, my quibble doesn't fall in with the discussion above. the article currently states "And unlike New York, all but Johannesburg also serve as de facto or de jure national political capitals." while it is possible that some international cities officially designate tel-aviv (in lieu of yerushalaim) as the capital, in israel, only jerusalem is recognised as the capital. knesset, supreme court, and president are all located in jerusalem. perhaps the reason that the article states "...all but Johannesburg..." is related to the above issue regarding a later addition of tel-aviv to the list, but if tel-aviv is to be on the list, the statement should be amended to reflect that tel-aviv, like Johannesburg, is NOT considered the "de facto" or "de jure" capital of israel by the state of israel. thanks! 70.114.192.98 ( talk) 03:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Since NYC has a subtropical climate, like much of the Deep South, shouldn't winteres be listed as being "mild" and not "cold"? And shouldn't it be clarified whether New York is subtropical wet and dry (savanna-like), like Tampa or with four seasons like Atlanta (even though most of us know the answer is the latter, included for accuracy's sake)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.196.65 ( talk) 04:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
New York does not have a climate like much of the Deep South. Maybe deep south Canada, like Toronto? Auchansa ( talk) 06:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I've just read the edit, and as bizarre as it may sound, under Koppen’s climate classification, NYC has a humid subtropical climate, here’s why…
First, you may want to take a closer look at the map we’re citing. Though it is difficult to see, notice the greenish blob that appears in geographical western Long Island. That basically covers all of NYC, as Brooklyn and Queens are in NYC. The greenish blob denotes a Cfa (humid subtropical), NOT a Dfa (humid continental) climate. Secondly, according to the weather data, NYC’s coldest monthly average (January) is actually above freezing (which is 0 C or 32 F). The freezing mark is generally the North American climatologists cut-off point for what’s considered humid subtropical. If there is a monthly average temp that falls below this mark, that climate is not humid subtropical by these standards. In the rest of the world, this cut-off point is a few degrees lower (-3 C, or about 26.6 F). Also the warmest monthly average must exceed 72 F (22 C), which NYC easily does. As bizarre as it may seem, by both American and “the rest of the world’s” standards, NYC climate is indeed humid subtropical, under Koppen’s classification.
This has been discussed a few times before. If you’re curious, you may want to check the talk archive pages. G. Capo ( talk) 16:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
So wouldn't the conclusion be that New York City does indeed have a mild climate with no extremes in seasonal variation? Not one that can support royal palm trees or wear flip flops year round, but one where you see green grass in January more often than you see a white snowy ground?
Looks like someone edited out the Decennial 2010 census numbers and replaced them with estimates. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline estimates "should supplement – not replace – the most recent available data from the decennial census." I'll leave this to a New Yorker to go back and find the old numbers. -- Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 05:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
The intro implies that it is a fact that 800 languages are spoken in New York, but the demographics article repeatedly states 170 languages. I can see (from the relevant link on the NY page) that the discrepancy comes from 170 languages spoken in public schools, while 800 languages is an estimate including speakers of other languages not in public schools, and not registered on a census. But the article only says 'some experts believe' so I think it should not be presented as an established fact.-- ImizuCIR ( talk) 02:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. The 170 figures are significantly outdated and even when obtained only reflected a number of languages specifically volunteered to have been spoken by public school students and not necessarily by other, and more significantly, elderly generational members. If you read the article carefully, one of the main points by the august New York Times article quoted, in fact, exactly stressed the point that a significant proportion of these languages are endangered per survival. The most reliable figures would indeed then be quoted by linguistic experts and therefore the 800 number is reliably cited, relevant, and is accurately phrased in situ. Castncoot ( talk) 12:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately this citation proves only that "It has been the country's largest city after 1790" Bulwersator ( talk) 12:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, New York City has been the nation's most populous city since the census began. Two little know facts, however, which aren't in the article: Philadelphia was the nation's most populous city before the first census count began. When the first census count was taken, it happen to be at the same New York City just edged Philly to become larger, therefore Philly doesn't really get credit for having being the nation's largest. Instead articles, like the New York City article, states New York has been the largest since census counts began.
Also, Chicago was on the verge of overtaking New York City as the United States's most populous city. Notice the 1880 census results for both cities, and look at the 1890 census results for both cities. Chicago was quickly gaining on New York City. So during the 1890s, New York, to offset this, annexed what was independent areas like Brooklyn, and a large portion of what is now the Bronx, to vastly increase its population. So by the next census in 1900, New York had given itself a more comfortable lead. Had this not happened, the two cities would probably had been nearly equal in population by the 1900 census, and Chicago would have had more people by the 1910 census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 ( talk) 20:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
That is not an inaccurate statement. Why is it when it comes to New York City, some people believe that if New York isn't ranked higher in something, then it's just not true? Everything doesn't center on New York. At that time Chicago was quickly gaining on New York. Look at the census data for the populations:
1870 Census: NYC 942,000, Chicago 298,000; 1880 Census: NYC 1.2 million, Chicago 500,000; 1890 Census: NYC 1.5 million, Chicago 1 million. After that census, New York City annexed large swarths of land in immediate succession, from 1895-1989. A large area of the Bronx was annexed in 1895; then the boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island were annexed soon afterwards in 1898. Huge swaths of territory, right before the next census two years later. When that census was done in 1900, New York City jumped to 3.4 million people as all the people in the forme independent areas of the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island were counted in the city population, as they had never been before obviously. Chicago made a tremendous stride to 1.7 million people at that same census. So look at the results; New York had averaged growth of approximately 300,000 people per census for the last 30 years. Chicago, however, gained 500,000 people from 1880-1890, and 700,000 people from 1890-1900, without the type of annexations New York did. So as the above statement says, had New York not taken over the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, at their individual rates NYC would have been at about 1.8 million, and Chicago at about 1.7 million for 1900. By 1910, New York and Chicago would have been at about 2.1 million And by 1920, there's a 99% chance Chicago would have surpassed New York in population. So don't think those annexations were just happen-stance. Pretty much the only cities in the country making any noise at that time were New York and Chicago, so don't think New York politicians were not well aware of Chicago's advancement and wanted to keep ahold of that largest city title. If you don't believe that, you don't know politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 ( talk) 00:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
On the article it says that winters are cold and damp. The word damp means humid and cloudy. New York City has plenty of winter sunshine and is not nowhere damp at all. More than half of the winter days are sunny. It should say 'Generally cold' because it's not always guaranteed cold. Many days are pretty mild.-- 74.90.5.246 ( talk) 05:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that is should be plain "cold" and get rid of the word 'damp'. I agree it should say 'generally cold' which describes NYC excellent way for the winter. It's certainly not damp the whole winter. -- Maydin37622 ( talk) 04:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a typo in the climate section, the record high for February is 7F (-14C) which is colder than the average high of 42F (6C). The correct value is around 75F (24C) according to ftp://dossier.ogp.noaa.gov/GCOS/WMO-Normals/RA-IV/US/GROUP2/00305801.TXT (ref #107 from NOAA). Article is locked, so I can't edit it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.34.145.30 ( talk • contribs)
It's a cold, damp, winter city. Stop trying to act like it's not. Yeesh!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 ( talk) 00:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
One of the biggest problems with this article is that with how popular New York is it tends to get bloated with NPOV claims. Can't we soften it a bit by not including things that truly, when it comes down to it, do not matter and do not add to the academic quality of the article? For example, I say we get rid of any claim no matter how well sourced that New York is the unofficial capital of anything. Let's start with the lead: the claim right off the bat that New York is "deemed (even by some) to be the cultural capital of the world" sounds so incredibly biased to me and should be omitted. Think about it: is this truly needed? Does it really convey vital information to the reader? When dealing with an iconic and popular city like New York we have to be really careful about NPOV and omit any statements that may even come close to violating it. We also have to be careful about even subtle statements that may be worded to overinflate New York's status, such as information about its high diversity, rich culture, and well-known destinations. Cadiomals ( talk) 01:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Very humorous argument. But I am believing that JLeon is exactly correct and Cadiomals is exactly wrong. The statement about New York being widely considered the cultural centre is written accurately and referenced perfectly. MazabukaBloke ( talk) 20:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Castncoot ( talk) 00:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Castncoot ( talk) 02:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Castncoot ( talk) 07:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
About Castnscoot's comment that we shouldn't worry about getting this article to featured status: That's my motivation for improving articles such as these. I like it when the work and time I contribute to improving an article is recognized by giving it GA or (rarely) FA status. If we're just going to edit an article, with no direction of where we want to go, in my humble opinion I don't see the point. When I contribute to an article my motivation is always to get it to a higher and higher class. If such is not the case here I'll back out of this project. There are other articles that need my help anyway. Cadiomals ( talk) 16:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Castncoot ( talk) 00:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello! The editing of the 'Architecture' section of the New York City wiki page is my first revision on a semi-protected page. I'd imagine that the user who omitted the photos of homes in Staten Island and Brooklyn that I had included is a much more experienced wikipedian than I am. However, I would argue that photos of less known areas of the city are largely missing from this article and give an incomplete view of the city as a whole. The character of the city changes greatly from area to area and I think it would good to include these images for informational purposes. Or would you argue that only visuals of more iconic structures and scenes should rule the page? I appreciate any insight on this matter so I know how to carry about in the future. Thank you in advance for your responses!
-- Antipastarasta ( talk) 18:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
All those citations in the lead make it quite hard to read. I've noticed this for a while now but didn't bring it up. Is it necessary for information in the lead to be cited when it is repeated in the body of the article, where it can be cited there? Oftentimes I see very few if no citations in leads because the info is cited within the body of the article. If we removed most of them the lead would be easier to read and more easy on the eyes. Cadiomals ( talk) 15:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Castncoot ( talk) 17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a perfectly worthwhile discussion to have at any time, but the guidance for article leads says they should be fully sourced, and if anyone's interested in a Featured or Good Article push, that guidance needs to be followed, even though I agree that all those footnotes do clutter up the lead. As I remember, in fact, the successful push for Featured Article status a couple of years ago involved citing every single statement of fact, something that editors like User:Alansohn spent laborioous hours and days researching and posting. The reason given for the lede guidance about citations is that often the lead is separated from the body in things like printed versions, mirror versions (other sites' perfectly-legal copying of Wikipedia articles, for this would be a very prime candidate), the Simple English Wikipedia and Wikipedias in other languages. —— Shakescene ( talk) 21:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
"Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." No big deal, my friend. Let me just say that 5 or 7 cites are reasonable; in my humble opinion, 12 or 20 would not be. Castncoot ( talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This is how information should be presented in the lead. [2] No need for cites and everything is supported in the body of the article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete this article altogether.
70.91.122.97 ( talk) 21:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Statement is a pure original research per WP:OR. Also New York City is not really correct query. Without quotes it also bring results for each word on their own - new, york and city. Google also is not a 100% worldwide player. There are also Bing, Yahoo, Yandex and Baidu among large players on indexing. All of them brings different result. Some does localise results, including Google. Elk Salmon ( talk) 20:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
In the Central Park attraction list, Onassis (as in Jackie) is misspelled.09:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC) SchwarzeWitwe2 ( talk) 09:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
In the culture and contemporary life section, someone has put in "A forum on one of the Civilization fan sites rated New York the cultural capital of the world, ahead of Los Angeles and Paris." This does not seem to be a credible, impartial, or useful reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.47.156 ( talk) 14:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Some short -need for Wikipedia quality- addition to sections(check google easy, if I don't give You a source): 1) Crime and law. New York spend on it police department more money than UN on all international missions. This is probably the city with biggest police department budget and crime rates are still high. Second the law in N. Y. city on the guns is one of the most strict laws in USA, especially they still have illegal federal ban on some home guns like sport semi-auto ak versions. 2) Prohibition - it is connected with up words. The N. Y. was probably one of the most "wet" cities and the most hard laws don't changed it. The N.Y. just don't treat and like laws that protect only gangster - like prohibition or gun laws. 3) The property tax in N. Y. are one of the higher if not the highest in the USA(esp. on the Manhattan). 4) Many of industries/commercials now chooses because of above points Texas not the N.Y. city. 5) The Manhattan people don't have cars because of two things. One is bad urban city planning, that don't allow making a most underground park spaces, because of bad projected subway lines and other underground city infrastructure. Second existing park spaces have, esp. on the Manhattan one of the higher if not the highest prices in the World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 ( talk) 05:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
While looking at the page, I noticed that someone confused sq mi with km2 for the NYC density. If the true density of New York City is 10,429.6 sq mi, then the 27,012.5 figure matches the equivalent km2. Otherwise, whichever number is right, the math is completely off for the conversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIMplMn9 ( talk • contribs) 02:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I recently read the culture section and was surprised to find no mention of the former working-class culture that characterized the city for a large part of the 1800s and well through the 20th century. This working-class was comprised predominantly of European immigrants and constituted the largest part of the city's population for many decades. Perhaps, we should treat that in the article's section on culture and how it is slowly being usurped by "hipster", underground, and artistic movements. - User: John M. DiNucci - 22:30, 13/4/12
someone ERRONEOUSLY stated that an explorer "of moorish descent" explored new york city in the 16th century. just to let you know, there was NO SUCH THING as moorish explorers accompanying Spaniards or any other Europeans as navigators to the new world. this is a fact. so can you please delete this stupid error.. thanks. Kiluss ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC).
I understand this was discussed just a couple of weeks ago, but considering the city is officially known as the City of New York (with New York City used only to differentiate it from New York State), wouldn't it be right to redirect New York City to simply New York? I understand when people search for New York, it tends to be the city they're looking for, not always the state. After all, if we're using New York City to discuss the city, wouldn't it be right to title the article currently titled "New York" as "New York State", as people also use that term to differentiate it from the city? New York City (Officially: City of New York), New York State (Officially: State of New York) Artystyk386 ( talk) 09:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Dozens of editors agree with you and dozens of others (I think a bit fewer) disagree. There are several long-drawn-out and inconclusive discussions and Requested Moves in the archived pages of Talk:New York. Since the state rather than the city is often (though much less often) what's being sought by someone entering "New York", I feel that "New York" should be a disambiguation page and topic pages like " Politics of New York" should distinguish themselves clearly as either "Politics of New York City" or "Politics of New York state". But a proposal to do something similar failed for lack of consensus. —— Shakescene ( talk) 23:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
According to the city's official web presence and portal, www.nyc.gov, it says "Welcome to the official New York City Web site" towards the top of the home page. So to say that the city is called "New York," even though it is commonly referred to as such by most people, is factually incorrect. The Mayor's web page, tourist web site, and the government we pages all clearly refer to the city as New York City and not as New York. Yoganate79 ( talk) 03:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I am very late to this discussion but I came to start a new discussion and realized that there is already one.
New York City is the wrong name. Likewise, we don't have an article called "Great Satan USA", but rather "United States".
The correct title of this article should be either "City of New York" or "New York (city)". both are correct and I would support it. Auchansa ( talk) 16:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Leave it the way it is, please. Castncoot ( talk) 21:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
References item #269 has a dead link. I found the active link, it is at http://www.americanheritage.com/content/worst-case-scenario
184.152.32.211 ( talk) 10:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Notice how many times this blatantly biased article presents the city in the following way, by saying 'most .. in the world' frequently, citing news sources and no official documentation to back up their claims? Compare this city article to others, and you see a notable difference in the tone of writing here - it is one of major hype, and perhaps desperation to include as many 'most .. in the world' claims as possible - whereas others aren't as intensely hyped and bragging false 'world' claims.
1. 'widely deemed the cultural capital of the world' - wrong. This is subjective. Many other cities can claim as being a cultural capital that rivals and beats New York City - London, Los Angeles, Singapore
2. 'As many as 800 languages are spoken in New York, making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world' - wrong. This is a speculation made in a newspaper article. Official government statistics say this city still speaks just over 150 languages ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/pop_facts.shtml). Why use a newspaper article over a government publication in presenting this on this site? I also suggest you also employ some common sense in considering the validity of this bloated claim.
3. 'New York has the largest internet presence of any location in the world; registering 7.1 billion search results as of December 2011' - no. New York City presents about 3 billion search results on Google (unrestricted). New York 7 billion. However this article is on the city only, not the state, and therefore it should be modified to present this (albeit useless) fact. New York is bound to have more than New York City, as it is a state and would empass more things with other cities and towns in it. Focus on the city. The sentence quoted manipulates the reader into thinking this is in regard to the city when in fact, strictly speaking, it's not.
4. 'The Crossroads of the World' - another arrogant 'world' claim. It is merely an intersection. Why hype it into something more? This article is supposed to be factual.
5. 'New York City's financial district, anchored by Wall Street in Lower Manhattan, functions as the financial capital of the world' - no. New York City ties with London as the financial capital of the world. Your sources are also questionable - one is a poll (52), another an opinionated and rather insulting news article from the views of one journalist (55). If you do your research, you will see London has more finance flowing in it than NYC, primarily due to its central location and ability to deal with both the west and east. NYC has no such ability.
6. 'Manhattan's real estate market is among the most prized and expensive in the world' - I don't think so. Look here: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-expensive-real-estate-in-the-world-2011-10.
7. 'Manhattan's Chinatown incorporates the highest concentration of Chinese people in the Western Hemisphere' - Wrong again. San Francisco lays to this claim.
8. 'Numerous colleges and universities are located in New York, including Columbia University, New York University, and Rockefeller University, which are ranked among the top 100 in the world' - the first two yes, the latter no. See: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011?page=1. Again, unfair overhyping is evident here.
I do not regard this article anymore as factual. To fill it with outrageous, bloated claims (especially how many 'most .. in the world' remarks there are) and to not moderate and take action on it is propaganda and unfair in that other people will believe the numerous false claims made about this city.
As a frequent Wiki reader, I am left very disapppointed here at the arrogance and unfair claims this city makes for itself in its overhyping.
Sort it out, please. Keep it factual. Thank you, D. Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whisperer1982 ( talk • contribs) 07:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
There is some truth to what Whisperer1982 is stating; the article does come off quite biased. -Also see the sections above called "Kind of Misleading".- There is a tone in this article of the "most of this", or the "best of that" that's never seems to quit. Forgive me, but it's as if the article is trying to say, if you don't live in New York City, especially Manhattan, then you do not deserve to live. Now there's no doubt that the United States is the sole super power of the world, but the line has to be drawn at over-implying that New York is the best city in the country. It is the most populous, but that doesn't make it the best. Los Angeles can do a lot of bragging too, and so can San Francisco. And as far as the minorities go in the country, I would say Chicago did much more to further their cause than New York City. Like him or not (which isn't my point here), but didn't the nation's first black President, black First Lady, and black First Children come from Chicago, not New York City. And didn't the first black female US Senator (Carol Mosley Braun) come from Chicago, not New York. And hasn't Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan always historically been more popular than Al Sharpton? Sharpton has finally managed to turn it on a little more in the later years. Of course, there are those who can't stand them and those who love them, but that's not my point. My point is they came from another city that did much more for them than New York City. And if Hillary Clinton ever becomes president, the first female president would now have been born and raised in Chicago.
And Whispere1982 makes some serious points that shouldn't be overlooked. There are only eight points there so it's not that hard to verify, especially the ones that may blatantly be wrong, or just opinion. Such as:
Number 2 -The above poster states that government data shows there are approximately 150 languages spoken in NYC, while a newspaper article states 800 languages are spoken, so Wiki just chooses to go with the newspaper article? If 800 is right then it should be in the article, if 150 is right then that should be in the article. Those two numbers are nowhere near each other. It's acceptable to use newspaper info when there is no other info, but why would it be chosen over government data? If 150 is the correct number, but no one is verifying this from other sources or changing the article if necessary, then the poster is right; this is just an article of biased information and hype.
Number 3 -Largest internet presence on any location with 7.1 billion search results. Is New York (state) being counted in some of those results? Because both the city and state have the same name, it is likely. But to credit all the searches under New York (city) would be like giving Los Angeles all the credit for anyone who searches the words Los Angeles or California on the internet. But of course this would never happen because they have separate names. In the case of New York (city or state) how do you know which location to give the credit to since they share the same name? It a person typed "New York City" or "New York State" then it is known. If only "New York" were typed, why is Wiki assuming that is a search for the city each time? This is really a useless statistic that can be removed from the article, indeed giving the fact it is hard to determine which location (city or state) that people were searching.
Number 5 -There are many reports (quite a number of reports) that state London is over New York City, or equivalent to it, in the financial sector. Now there are also reports that state New York City is the leading center. The Wiki article on London states that London is the world's largest financial center, alongside New York. Why then does the Wiki New York City article not say New York City is the world's largest financial center, alongside London? Instead it states that New York is one of "three command center" globally for commerce, with London and Tokyo being the other two. Stating it this way doesn't give any inclination that London may be over or equal to New York in this sector. -Basically in the London article, London shares the title with New York; but in the New York article, you don't know what's what with the cities involved -which is the way it was meant to be written.
Number 6 -Manhattan real estate is the most "prized" and "expensive" in the world. According to the link the poster provided, there are many cities with more expensive real estate. And this one is pretty easy: The word "prize" in this case is just an opinion; the word "expensive" perhaps can be presented as fact. An example: I were forced to move against my wishes to New York City due to a job transfer. Once there, I paid $700 thousand for an apartment. I would not consider it a "prize" as I did not want to move there, although I would consider it "expensive". That goes with the hype of this article; that everyone WANTS to or SHOULD want to live in New York. -At the very least the sentence should read "Manhattan's real estate is among the most expensive in the world". But drop the word "prized"; a prize to whom?
These comments are not meant to attack any person. But the article does have a certain biased, pro-New York tone throughout it that one would not expect from an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.226.14.5 ( talk) 00:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, the article cannot be edited because there are no edit tabs, it is locked. Also, the "iconic New York City subway system?" Iconic?...really? -And no mention of or going into detail about the severe financial situation of New York City in the 1970s, when it was going bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the federal government?
Here is an insight to New York in the 1970s:
Dirty, dangerous, and destitute. This was New York City in the 1970s. The 1960s were not yet over, and war still raged in Viet Nam, fueling resentment against the government. Nixon and the Watergate scandal created even more resentment, cynicism, and skepticism. Economically, stagnation coupled with inflation created a sense of malaise. The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 delivered another blow to the U.S. economy, and brought the misery of long lines to buy gasoline. Conditions in Harlem and Bed-Stuy were horrendous, with abandoned buildings and widespread poverty. The Bronx routinely saw buildings ablaze. The subways were covered everywhere with ugly graffiti and they were unreliable. It seemed as if the entire infrastructure was in decay. Political corruption, sloppy accounting, and the cost of the war were killing the city. Times Square was seedy and sleazy. Pimps, hookers, and drug dealers owned the area. Crime was rampant, and the police were virtually powerless to stop it. Random killings by the "Son of Sam" made New Yorkers even more fearful. The parks were in decay, with and litter and bare lawns, and it was home to muggers and rapists. When the city of New York had to beg the federal government for a financial bail-out, the President said no. The New York Daily News headline said it all: "Ford to City - Drop Dead."
Large sections of the city such the South Bronx, Lower East Side, Bedford-Stuyvesant, and Harlem looked like European cities which had been bombed during World War II. Sometimes entire blocks or several blocks would contain crumbling buildings, abandoned by their owners because the tenants could not pay rent. Conditions in these areas gave rise to street gangs and crime that spread city-wide. People tore the boards of the windows or smashed the concrete blocks in doorways to gain access to these abandoned buildings, which were then used by gangs, drug addicts, and children playing. Eventually, some people moved into these buildings as squatters, and efforts were made to rehabilitate or replace substandard housing. The lack of jobs and housing put enormous stress on the city's public assistance programs including housing, education, and healthcare. Many corporations left New York as conditions deteriorated, since new communications technology made it possible to do business anywhere. Most television production fled to Los Angeles and its vicinity.
New York City lost nearly a whopping 1 million people within a ten year span, from the 1970 census to the 1980s census. The exact figure was slighty under 900,000. Eventually New York City was bailed out by the federal government, but continued to have its seedy reputation throughout the 1980s, until conditions began to see a turn-around in the mid 1990s.
This all of course would be written in encyclopediac terms, but this article touches on nothing like this. And again, nothing can be edited because it is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 ( talk) 04:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Well yeah it is copypasted from somewhere else; I thought that was implied by the way it was written. That's why I said it should be changed into encyclopediac terms. Otherwise I would have wrote it in encyclopediac terms to begin with. But the point is New York City is not this remarkable piece of land on earth that the article tries to make it out to be, and it certainly wasn't in the 1970s. This artice doesn't even go into detail of that severely difficult time for the city. At least a paragraph is warranted, especially since the city lost close to 900,000 people in only a ten year time span. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 ( talk) 20:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
AndresTM, I think you are just as arrogant as the blatant, biased article written on this city. I stand by my guns insofar as my points made on languages (NYC really only has about 200), universities (only two are in the world's top 50 or so, not three), and being the financial centre (which it's clearly not - NYC and the US as a whole is in decline, business booms in the east, and of course the aforementioned London has business dealings with both east and west). You, like this article, seem to think that New York has the best of everything, and like the article, thinks it's ok to hype it up by having as many 'biggest...in the world'/'most...in the world' claims (bloating claims) as possible, and selling this propaganda off as fact. I've seen the effect it's having. I've noticed a few of these skewed 'facts' in magazines and it's concerning that people are starting to believe in the lies about this city. The article makes the place seem bigger than it is, when in fact it is not. Stop presenting this place as some kind of Disneyland which everyone must go to.
As for this: 'A lot of articles of European places (and even other American places) feature even more subjective claims, such as best quality of life' - oh please, show me ANY other city article that has similar overhyping that *constantly* overrates it by saying 'it has the biggest this in the world', 'it has the most that in the world'. I'm sorry, but there isn't any. If there was, I'm sure users would edit and change it so that it appears that NYC is 'higher', so to speak. The constantly hyping can even be seem not just in this article, but anything relating to New York city (in other articles). You don't see this for any other city, so why for this one?
Finally, I do not appreciate your personal attacks by calling me names and calling me a 'judge appointed by God'. Seriously, get over yourself. Just because I don't believe the lies and constant, annoying, bragging this article makes doesn't make me 'arrogant'. On the contrary, I'm just merely pointing out the pomposity of this article and how I think it should be toned down, greatly, so it can be moderate and balanced, and not so blatently biased and thinking it's the darn centre of the universe when it is not. YOU sir, are the arrogant one. Despite the skewed points, you prefer to keep it as it is. You can argue your cause until you're blue in the face, you can call me 'arrogant' all you want just because I don't believe in your 'high and mighty' article; essentially, it will NOT change my view. To reiterate what a user said earlier:
"There is some truth to what Whisperer1982 is stating; the article does come off quite biased. -Also see the sections above called "Kind of Misleading".- There is a tone in this article of the "most of this", or the "best of that" that's never seems to quit. Forgive me, but it's as if the article is trying to say, if you don't live in New York City, especially Manhattan, then you do not deserve to live. Now there's no doubt that the United States is the sole super power of the world, but the line has to be drawn at over-implying that New York is the best city in the country. It is the most populous, but that doesn't make it the best".
From all the articles I've read on this site, this one still is the most biased/shamefully written. I urge for a review and to have it rewritten to present a more balanced and factual view (to whoever's able to unlock and have the ability to do it), and not overzealous in tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whisperer1982 ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Can a editor please edit the sentence that refers to New York city as the 'financial capital of the world'? - The sources given for this statement are completely biased and inaccurate - e.g. one is a poll, and one is a biased journalist writing for NYC. The sentence should be changed to: "New York City is the financial capital of the world, alongside London" - as many sources suggest NYC is equal or even below London in the financial sector. I do agree that the people who have written this article probably live in the city, and they think it is the best place on earth and try to 'hype' it up using wikipedia. The information given is very misleading to people who have no real knowledge of the city. The article for 'London' on wikipedia is very neutral, and is not biased and does not hype London up at all, unlike this NYC one - This should be changed, as London is above NYC in most criteria according to official, non biased sources such as Forbes. It is clear that the authors of this article are trying to make out NYC is the world capital, over London, and the bitter insecurity of the people who wrote this can be inferred by the tone of language - "...In the world", World cultural capital" - despite many reliable sources suggest London and Los Angeles tie as the world cultural capital. "800 languages" is a false claim when official sources suggest 150. New York is not the best city in the world, this article is clearly trying to put that across. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpage96 ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Overall, I agree with the bulk of what Whisperer1982 is getting at, especially the third and fourth points - though I see nothing wrong with mentioning the post-secondary institutions, that's very common for any city article. Agreed that London needs to acknowledged more equally, as New York is on the London article. They equally vie for the title of global economic capital. Now there's no doubt that New York is a leading global city in nearly every sector, and this should be highlighted, but it's possible to mention these things without the ad nauseam. There's been some attempts at changing this, but overall, it's still overkill. Aurora30 ( talk) 05:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I took out the table of flags as it added no encyclopedic information and nowadays the consensus is not to display flags like that in this context. However, I also noticed that the text refers to New York's historic ten historic sister cities and then goes on to list eleven. So, which is wrong? -- John ( talk) 08:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
making a new indent because, while it relates to tel-aviv, my quibble doesn't fall in with the discussion above. the article currently states "And unlike New York, all but Johannesburg also serve as de facto or de jure national political capitals." while it is possible that some international cities officially designate tel-aviv (in lieu of yerushalaim) as the capital, in israel, only jerusalem is recognised as the capital. knesset, supreme court, and president are all located in jerusalem. perhaps the reason that the article states "...all but Johannesburg..." is related to the above issue regarding a later addition of tel-aviv to the list, but if tel-aviv is to be on the list, the statement should be amended to reflect that tel-aviv, like Johannesburg, is NOT considered the "de facto" or "de jure" capital of israel by the state of israel. thanks! 70.114.192.98 ( talk) 03:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Since NYC has a subtropical climate, like much of the Deep South, shouldn't winteres be listed as being "mild" and not "cold"? And shouldn't it be clarified whether New York is subtropical wet and dry (savanna-like), like Tampa or with four seasons like Atlanta (even though most of us know the answer is the latter, included for accuracy's sake)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.196.65 ( talk) 04:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
New York does not have a climate like much of the Deep South. Maybe deep south Canada, like Toronto? Auchansa ( talk) 06:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I've just read the edit, and as bizarre as it may sound, under Koppen’s climate classification, NYC has a humid subtropical climate, here’s why…
First, you may want to take a closer look at the map we’re citing. Though it is difficult to see, notice the greenish blob that appears in geographical western Long Island. That basically covers all of NYC, as Brooklyn and Queens are in NYC. The greenish blob denotes a Cfa (humid subtropical), NOT a Dfa (humid continental) climate. Secondly, according to the weather data, NYC’s coldest monthly average (January) is actually above freezing (which is 0 C or 32 F). The freezing mark is generally the North American climatologists cut-off point for what’s considered humid subtropical. If there is a monthly average temp that falls below this mark, that climate is not humid subtropical by these standards. In the rest of the world, this cut-off point is a few degrees lower (-3 C, or about 26.6 F). Also the warmest monthly average must exceed 72 F (22 C), which NYC easily does. As bizarre as it may seem, by both American and “the rest of the world’s” standards, NYC climate is indeed humid subtropical, under Koppen’s classification.
This has been discussed a few times before. If you’re curious, you may want to check the talk archive pages. G. Capo ( talk) 16:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
So wouldn't the conclusion be that New York City does indeed have a mild climate with no extremes in seasonal variation? Not one that can support royal palm trees or wear flip flops year round, but one where you see green grass in January more often than you see a white snowy ground?
Looks like someone edited out the Decennial 2010 census numbers and replaced them with estimates. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline estimates "should supplement – not replace – the most recent available data from the decennial census." I'll leave this to a New Yorker to go back and find the old numbers. -- Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 05:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)