Talk:New York City/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Removing stuff from NYC part 2

Last time I did this the result is a violent explosion. I'm going to try to remove cruft more carefully this time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure why you think such large-scale removals from a high-profile article will just be just be permitted. Smells a bit arrogant. Seasider53 (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not arrogant to remove bloat, and I think that many editors here agree that it is long overdue. If you have any concerns about my edits, feel free to discuss with me on the talk page and we will try to achieve a consensus on what to do next. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Castncoot I have made my reasoning clear at the edit summary, and you said in your reverting summary that I am disruptive. What do you mean by that? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is as short as can reasonably be to describe even summarily a city as complex as NYC. Your edits are destructive, disruptive, grammatically poor, contextually poor, and syntactically poor.. do you even know what those words mean..? Why exactly should you even have an account here on Wikipedia, when your only motive appears to be to destroy with this account..? Why don’t you start practicing on a children’s version of Wikipedia and then work your way up over the years..? There’s also a sandbox here where you can rewrite the entire article to present back here to try to get consensus, you certainly have that right while you have Wikipedia privileges. Castncoot (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is as short as can reasonably be to describe even summarily a city as complex as NYC.

Are you sure that Tokyo, Berlin, or Washington D.C. isn't as complex and interesting as New York City?

Interesting? Absolutely! Complex? Seriously? Do you know of any other city article that is visited as much as this one? Obviously people find its content relevant. Castncoot (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Popular pages CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Your edits are destructive, disruptive, grammatically poor, contextually poor, and syntactically poor, do you even know what those words mean?

Give me examples. Don't make blanket accusations. If there is any, I am more than happy to fix it.

Why exactly should you even have an account here on Wikipedia, when your only motive appears to be to destroy with this account?

Well, I don't think that deleting content means destroying an article when you are removing junk. Put yourselves to the shoe of a reader: would they care about statistics when they read the first paragraph of the article? Would they care about opinionated quotes about LGBTQ+ culture in NYC? I doubt so. Since there is so many things to talk about NYC we should only choose the best and more notable of NYC to present to the reader.

Thank you for handing me the argument. Who are you to determine what is good or bad about NYC? Additionally, your grammar seems to be as horrid as your temperament (look up that word) and is not worthy of any article in the adults’ Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Why don’t you start practicing on a children’s version of Wikipedia and then work your way up over the years?

I have been here for more than 1 year. I have worked on SpaceX Starship for hundreds of hours. I have even edited Simple English Wikipedia and removed my extended-confirmed right to avoid getting involved in very controversial articles, which you can consider it as a "children’s version of Wikipedia". Is it enough? Do I need to wait till I join the ten-year society to start editing NYC?

There’s also a sandbox here where you can rewrite the entire article to present back here to try to get consensus, you certainly have that right while you have Wikipedia privileges.

Whose to say that you would agree with my edits, when I have done so? You can always just say that "go back to your sandbox and make it better, and I will reconsider my decision". No editor is allowed to dictatorially decide what should be in the article and what should not. Consensus shall reign supreme. So, how about in Talk:New York City § Meaningless sentence in lead, try to leverage consensus and make better arguments instead of burgeoning the discussion with, dare I say, attacks.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean just me, I hope you understand that. Why not spend your time constructively learning English properly for a few years and then attempting to rewrite the article in the sandbox, instead of raging destruction here? Castncoot (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

How about making an RfC then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Am I stopping you? By the way, the punctuation I used at the end of my question is known as a “question mark”. I believe I’ve said everything I need to say for now, thank you. Castncoot (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Choosing between two first paragraph

Which is better? Is it the current paragraph:

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

or is it the trimmed paragraph:

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

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

By far the first is better. The second paragraph eats into actual muscle and bone, removing vital geographical and demographic information. The second paragraph may be more suitable for Simple Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The first. Seasider53 (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• The first. The second removes too much, and is written very poorly. oknazevad (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• First paragraph seems better to me. The revision omits important details such as the size of the metropolitan statistical area and combined statistical areas. I'm wary of including the tidbit about 58 million people within 250 miles, though, as this includes places as far away as Washington, D.C. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• First Typical to include such info about large places. Reywas92^Talk 14:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Second by far, for two reasons. Reason #1 is that shorter is always better: the longer a paragraph is the less likely a prospective reader will actually read any of it. And second is that the actual cut material is almost entirely fairly detailed info about NYC's metro area, not NYC itself, so it shouldn't be in the very first paragraph. The very first paragraph should be a summary of a summary: the lead summarizes the article and the first paragraph of the lead summarizes the rest of the lead. Loki (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Second - better lead both as the more concise version reads better, and also it is a more representative summary of the article per MOS:LEAD. I might tweak it a bit more to drop 'at southern tip of New York State' or to end the second sentence with the prior 'the largest metropolitan area in the world by urban landmass'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Second I prefer elements of the first option's first opening sentence, but generally the second option is a more concise summary. Nemov (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
• Second: I am not particularly happy that information NYC MSA is removed, but the shorter and concise the lede could be, the better. In my option the second option does that better. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• First by a long shot. The second one makes it sound as though NYC is only the most populous city in the southern tip of New York State. The first one could be improved a bit, but the second one looks like the writer was so interested in reducing wordcount that they packed the information in too tightly, and it's straining. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
• First by a country mile. I like the idea of the second, but the execution is poor. Cessaune (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Before a choice can be made, the second needs quivk fix. The bit about the "southern tip" is just plunked in with no concern for either grammar or flow.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Feel free to fix it. Personally I think that the consensus is for shorter paragraphs but with better prose. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure how to fix it because I don't know what you were trying to say there. My first thought would be to just remove it. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"Nueva York" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Are "Demographia" and "StatsUSA" reliable sources?

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

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

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

• the New York metropolitan area, the largest metropolitan area in the world by urban landmass.

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

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

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

I see a Worldatlas link was added to support the Demographia assertion. And apparently StatsAmerica is published by an Indiana University. Neither of these really fix my concerns. New York City should be using high quality secondary sources in the lede, not a random Indiana Business School, and a low quality tertiary source like Worldatlas.

Also, Demographia/Worldatlas contradicts a 2014 analysis from the world bank that found the Pearl River Delta is the largest urban agglomeration by area. [2][3][4] And second place is Tokyo according to that report, not NYC. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I just took a closer look at the Demographia link. According to Demographia, the Boston-Providence urban area is considered the second largest urban agglomeration in the world. The BOSTON-PROVIDENCE urban area is considered the second-largest urban area in the world. This is not a serious source.

The worldatlas source given is also very bad. It gives a source of some website called "citymayors" which has an expired security certificate, and I'm guessing is a lot like the blacklistedWP:RSP city-data website. So now there's two dodgy references supporting the claim instead of one. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's[5] a peer reviewed paper explaining why comparing urban areas is fraught. Be sure to check out table 4, which shows Tokyo's urban agglomeration has a much larger area than NYC. So do Tianjin an Beijing. This is not a definitive source to use for rankings. But it's a good explanation of why these rankings aren't encyclopedic. I wonder how many middle and high school essays this dubious info has made it into. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t have the time to write an extremely long answer as you have done. But your arguments above seem intended to smear these sources in favor of your outdated 2009 source. The WorldAtlas source clearly says at the outset: “Defining the world’s largest city by land area is difficult as many cities are always growing. However, New York is often estimated to be the largest city in the world by land area, with a total of 8,683 square kilometers. Other big cities include Tokyo, Chicago, Atlanta and Philadelphia. Though some occupy a large geographical area, the population is small while others with a smaller geographical coverage are densely populated.” This statement sounds very reasonable, plausible, and truthful as worded. And U.S. cities by their very nature and layout tend to sprawl farther outward and take up more space than cities outside the U.S. Moreover, the statement in the lede now states that NYC is “often stated”— which is a fact, that it IS “often stated”, to be’.. . .. We are talking about area in this sentence which links to another article that describes urban areas in general, inclusive of both area and population issues. And do you have any idea how large and space-encompassing the Boston metro area is? It sprawls over three states (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island)! Castncoot (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm writing to you from the megalopolis of Providence, Rhode Island. I'm aware of the Boston metro, and it's patently absurd to call it the second largest urban agglomeration in the world. I think demographia made the amateur mistake of comparing new england MSA data with the rest of the country. The census bureau defines metro areas in terms of counties, which are less expansive in NE than in the rest of the country. That's why the census bureau defines NECTAs. I suspect demographia didn't account for any of this, so somehow new england's urban area is vastly overstated.

The problem with Worldatlas and demographia is the same problem laid out in the peer reviewed source I gave (which is not outdated, considering the arguments about inconsistency in data sources remain the same.) The problem is that the US census bureau has a looser definition of what's considered "urban" than what other national statistics bureaus use. Table 4 in the peer reviewed paper give NYC's urban area at around 8,600 sqkm. That's about the same as given by worldatlas. Yet the area given for Tokyo's urban area is over 13,000 sqkm. Granted, these are "rough estimates" by the paper's own words, but at least these rough estimates have been peer reviewed.

Please note in the scholarly analysis, the Boston-Providence megacity is not even mentioned. Also, the census Bureau says[6] NYC's urban area is 8,412 square km. Over 200 square miles less than what worldatlas and demographia say. These are bad sources. yes, the weasel words make the sentence technically true. But we should get high quality secondary sources for one of the most well-documented places in the world. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m afraid you’re conflating MSA versus CSA versus urban landmass, and perhaps also not acknowledging that comparing metropolitan entities internationally with each other is fraught with some level of discrepancy because different countries define urban or metropolitan areas differently from each other as sovereign countries and entities. One could easily argue that the U.S. Northeast megalopolis from Boston to D.C. surpasses even the Pearl River Delta in terms of urban landmass. Even NYC plus Philadelphia, essential a blurred urban agglomeration with no empty spaces in between, could be considered the world’s urban landmass. And keep in mind that NYC’s CSA itself actually extends north to Poughkeepsie, northeast to Litchfield County, Connecticut, eastward to Montauk, Long Island, and southwestward to Trenton, New Jersey, much more than (and perhaps double) the 8,683 sq km quoted by WorldAtlas..so this 8,683 figure for NYC is actually an extremely conservative estimate. But at some point, you draw have to draw the line. According to WorldAtlas, Tokyo covers 6,993 sq km per World Atlas, and two different, independent, reasonably reliable sources, with no agenda to push with this comparison, are explicitly stating in verbiage that NYC is the largest and larger so than Tokyo in a head-to-head comparison. U.S. cities and metros by their very nature are more generally spacious per human capita as compared to their Asian and European counterparts. And by the way, WP:CALC allows Wikipedia readers to actually use their brain to infer statistics through their own simple calculations and indexing material within a reference, whether it’s StatsAmerica through Indiana University or manual density calculations through U.S. Census Bureau area and population figures for small municipalities containing less than 5,000 people. You have acknowledged yourself that the statement as written is technically true with the caveat openly stated. Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good. I just don’t see the need for the stain of a tag here; otherwise, three-fourths of Wikipedia may need to be tagged as such. Castncoot (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Castncoot CSAs are composed of MSAs, which are composed of counties, so the problem remains. That's just my suspicion for how demographia got it so obviously wrong, not really important.

Anyway, the sentence in the mainspace we're talking about is explicitly referring to metropolitan areas. the sentence we're talking about says, "... the New York metropolitan area, often stated to be the largest metropolitan area in the world by urban landmass."

I've given governmental and academic sources that cast doubt on this claim. Even your own source points out comparisons are inaccurate, so why do we need this comparison in such a prominent place in such a prominent article? And shouldn't there be better sources than a random dude (Wendell cox)? people see it in the lede and just repeat it and take it for truth. the world bank and a couple of peer reviewed papers disagree with the assessment. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I absolutely am diametrically opposed to throwing the baby out with the bath water. The correct wording is the key, and I believe this has already been achieved by tweaking the wording to something which you yourself acknowledged above is now “technically correct”. In fact, I believe that the WorldAtlas source is actually a cleaner and more believable source than your outdated ‘peer-reviewed’ sources, which by the way, never compared the Pearl River Delta directly against the Northeast Megalopolis, which is over TWICE as large as the Pearl River Delta in urban landmass. How comical is it to compare a megaregion consisting of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Macau, and a plethora of other cities combined together, head-to-head against NYC individually alone? Castncoot (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind according to your reference, the Boston-Providence metro area is the second largest urban area in the world. i can't get over how ridiculous a claim that is. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, WorldAtlas has Boston at #6 and Tokyo second. This is indeed realistic, reasonable, and reliable. Furthermore, WorldAtlas insightfully enlightens the reader by stating, “Location Of The Largest Cities. Most of the largest cities are in the United States of America. Other than Tokyo in the top five, the U.S has many of the world's largest cities by land area. One possible reason for this is that the United States has a vast land area and newer cities that are subject to sprawl. Another possible reason is the way that US cities define their urban areas. Some cities have liberal borders, which may give them a very wide land area.” This can actually educate the reader constructively. On the other hand, your source ducked away from the real comparison of the Pearl River Delta..i.e., directly head-to-head against the U.S. Northeast Megalopolis. Castncoot (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Does this mean you agree that Demographia is an unreliable source? Because it says Boston is the second largest urban agglomeration in the world.[7]. According to Demographia, the Boston-PVD metro is a larger urban area than Tokyo, Chicago, etc. It seems you're agreeing with me that this is obviously wrong now, since it disagrees with your other source.

As for worldatlas, reliable sources typically say where they got their info. Worldatlas's sourcing is just "trust me bro." BTW, you might be interested in this article being discussed for deletion.Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The place (if there be one) for such comparisons is not New York City but the New York metro area. New York City is five distinct counties/boroughs with a common municipal government. That is the subject of this article.

(Suffolk County, Massachusetts and Providence County, Rhode Island are also distinct, defined entities with a known area and a recently-counted population, though the former excludes Cambridge, Massachusetts and the latter excludes Warwick, Rhode Island.)

Metropolitan San Francisco used to be just 3 counties — San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa. Then it expanded to five with the addition of Marín County and San Mateo County in the West Bay. Then it became a 9-county area when amalgamated with the formerly distinct metro area of Santa Clara (San José) plus the three northern counties of Sonoma, Napa and Solano. Later the southern county of Santa Crúz was added. I'm not sure what now constitutes metropolitan San Francisco (Combined Statistical Area or Metropolitan Statistical Area).

My point is that while New York City is a well-defined area whose landmass can justly be compared to that of other well-defined juridical and governmental entities such as Greater London or Île-de-France, other comparisons are of apples, oranges, yams and grapes since every country and every unofficial source will use (for its own legitimate but very local purpose) a "greater" or "metropolitan" definition that may not be at all compatible with others'.

And my much stronger point (again) is that such a hypothetical comparison belongs, anyway, in New York Metropolitan Area rather than in New York City.

My respect for an honest attempt to improve the NYC article, but not for its result.

—— Shakescene (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene: Your point is not entirely unreasonable, but the NYC page refers to its overshadowing metro area ubiquitously throughout the article. Nevertheless, you raise a point certainly valid for discussion. With all due respect, that’s a (slightly) tangential topic to the current discussion. Perhaps you could consider starting a different section for that debate, i.e., how much metro should be mentioned in this city article? Best, Castncoot (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sativa Inflorescence: I’ve added a third separate source, this time the World Population Review, which by the way sources Demographia for its info while being its own independent primary source. This invalidates your argument that Demographia is somehow some fly-by-night source. The more pertinent point here is that primary sources are NOT obligated to produce secondary sources to meet the WP:BRD standard. if you want to bring that issue up across the board with Wikipedia, that is beyond the scope of this page. Castncoot (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Castncoot "world population review" is not a reliable source either. the source you provided doesn't even mention metropolitan areas, it's probably the worst source yet. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Shakescene. This is wholly trivial and ill-defined. It doesn't really belong in the lead, and insisting it goes there comes off as boosterism.

As for whether it belongs in this article or not, there is something to be said that cities as conurbations aren't always contained solely by their legal boundaries. I remember during the various discussions about the title of the article on the state with an Australian editor who was disagreeing with the idea that "New York City" meant exclusively the five boroughs because that editor's cultural attitude was shaped by being from Sydney, which doesn't have an overarching city-wide government, just local government areas. In fact, Sydney metropolitan area redirects to Sydney, because in Australian usage a city and its metro area are the same thing.

A similar outlook is embraced by sociologists when discussing cities, as they look at them as a place of human settlement and civilization. To them, boundaries are not defining because of how many people commute, and are therefore part of the city as a conceptual entity without being residents in a legal sense. That's why some discussion of the metro area is not incorrect; a city is more than just strictly the land inside its city limits.

That said, none of that matters here because the comparisons are using poorly defined criteria, comparing apples to kumquats, and grouping together things that aren't conventionally grouped. It does the readers no favor. Ditch it entirely. oknazevad (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I can only speak for Demographia as I looked into this a while ago, but it is not a reliable source. It appears to be a single person self-publishing their original research. It's not peer reviewed, and thus does not belong as a reliable source on wikipedia at all, any more than anyone else's personal blog. Suggest removing demographia as a source, especially for a page as important as this one. Mattximus (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Top publicly traded companies in NYC

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

It's relevant when speaking on the economy of New York, which is the section that it's included in. I disagree on using a sentence instead of a table to convey the information in this case, it would be much more difficult to portray this amount of information by writing it out. I also don't see the space taken up as being an issue here. Can you point out the formatting issues you see? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's relevant, but I think it's being given undue weight. It's an old source. One of the companies even changed its name since that list was published. And the table is still available in the linked article about NY's economy. I mean, the name change alone should be reason enough to think it's being given undue weight.

The formatting issue is on my desktop, images from the previous section clip into the economy section, pushing the table further left, making the text column very skinny. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that neither a sentence nor a table is needed. NYC's economy has changed dramatically over the past several years, and many hundreds of new, small start-up companies are gradually but surely making the old guard less significant. Castncoot (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Have a good weekend—— Shakescene (talk)

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

"City of New York" in infobox

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

Please see several previous discussions. Seasider53 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

New York City vs. New York

I was one of several editors who suggested that the switch from New York to the long-standing New York City that existed in this page's introduction for years was unjustified. The name of the page and the city is New York City, and I offered several references for that. I completed some edits on Boston recently and that page seems to have handled this issue properly, noting the official name (City of Boston) as an alternative in the intro but naming it Boston in the introduction and referencing the formal name in the offsetting language that follows. In the case of Boston, the City of Boston is clearly the formal name. In the case of New York City, I'm not even convinced that New York is the official name; it is not the title on the city charter (see: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCcharter/0-0-0-1) and is only referenced later. But even if it were, it does not warrant changing the more broadly-used name for encyclopedic purposes.

And if the argument for changing the name of this city to New York is so persuasive (and it isn't), then the page name should also be changed to New York to match it. I'll again recommend that the introduction read as follows:

New York City, officially the City of New York and sometimes referred to as NYC, is the most populous city in the United States.

I want to also point out that there was no consensus in the discussion for the change to New York and that such a consensus should be developed and then instituted. Thanks for all input on this. Keystone18 (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned in the previous section, there's lots of discussion about this in the archives. From 1898 until 1938 the official name of the city was "The City of New York" (capital T, capital C). With the 1938 charter there is no official name. But both the charter and the state constitution refer to "New York", using either "city of New York" or "New York city" when that's necessary. It's never "City of New York City". This article is titled New York City as WP:natural disambiguation; otherwise it could be at New York.

By the way, what is your source for the "official" name of Boston? Glancing at the charter, it looks like it's similar to New York in the way they use a lower case "c" when writing "city of Boston", but I haven't looked too closely. Station1 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

On Boston, that's my point. Like New York City, it's official name is City of Boston. But unlike this page, it correctly uses the popular usage first (Boston) and the formal name (City of Boston) in the ensuing description. I believe the New York City page should be done similarly with New York City the first referenced and officially the City of New York next (oh, and sorry, I meant City of New York for the formal name and have corrected it above), so that it reads as follows:

New York City, officially the City of New York and sometimes referred to as NYC, is the most populous city in the United States. Keystone18 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

But the official name of New York is not "City of New York" and, at least at first glance, the official name of Boston is not "City of Boston". What makes you think they are? Station1 (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Most likely the Dutch purchase did not occur

Dutch Schagen wrote a letter saying "someone" bought the land for 60 guilders. However,

"Schagen's text discusses the sale of Manhattan, but there's no known paper record of the exchange. Schagen himself had never even been to New York, said Johanna Gorelick, manager of the education department at the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian. "Schagen's letter is the only piece of evidence we have — the only document. Whether you call it a piece of evidence is questionable." The letter contains no details of the individuals involved in the sale, nor the precise date of the exchange. "We don't really know what happened," Gorelick said. Even the one detailed piece of information — the 60-guilder value of the trade — has been warped through time and misinterpretation into $24. (...) The absence of evidence doesn't mean the exchange didn't occur, however. Trading land was actually common during this period; there are many cases in which there is much more convincing evidence that land was exchanged in some way between Native Americans and the Dutch. For instance, there are several formal land deeds, signed by Native American sellers and Dutch buyers, for the purchase of Staten Island in 1630, for parts of Long Island in 1639, and also for Manhattan, again, in 1649. But considering that it's become the defining symbol of New York City's "origins," that first purported 1626 sale ironically seems to be the least reliable account we have. Even assuming the historic transaction did go ahead, there are other factors that make it unlikely that Manhattan was traded so straightforwardly, as the story suggests."

From: https://www.livescience.com/was-manhattan-sold-for-24-dollars.html LucasW (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a great source, I definitely think the article should be updated to reflect what historians actually think about the alleged purchase. As it is now, the only secondary source supporting the claim that manhattan was purchased is page 4 of a 1996 book, All The Nations Under Heaven. The 2019 edition says:

Minuit arrived in New Amsterdam in 1626 and soon began negotiations with the native Lenape to secure a claim to Manhattan. The Lenape, also sometimes called the Munsee, lived in small bands such as the Canarsee and the Rockaway in a region that today stretches from Connecticut to New Jersey. They called their territory “Lenapehoking,” the land of the people.

Folklore has it that Minuit’s purchase of the island for sixty guilders, or roughly twenty-four dollars, has marked him as one of history’s shrewdest dealers, but the Lenape did not share European notions of private property. The Lenape used Manhattan as hunting and fishing grounds. In all likelihood, they thought they were accepting trade goods in exchange for allowing the newcomers to use a piece of Lenapehoking temporarily. In later years, as they sought to secure full land rights, the Dutch made additional land purchases from Native Americans living in the upper reaches of the island. Again and again, as the anthropologist Robert Grumet has argued, the Lenape negotiated these agreements “to buy time and protection” in the face of European encroachment. Once the company’s dubious title to the land was secured, Minuit gathered settlers onto Manhattan. Construction soon followed, resulting in thirty log houses, Fort New Amsterdam, a stone counting house, and a large mill whose upper loft would be used for church services.

(emphasis added by me)

To reduce those two paragraphs into simply saying Minuit purchased the land (especially when it's mentioned as folklore) is clearly against what even this source says. I emphasized two key points that I've seen mentioned in histories of other colonial settlements. I highlighted them because it shows that even the well-documented purchases should not necessarily be seen as a transaction between two consenting parties. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this. I'm still looking at sources, and thinking of the best way to phrase it. I don't want to replace one inaccuracy with another. Scare quotes are used surprisingly often by reliable sources to describe the alleged sale (scare quotes are also used in Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898). I don't think we should do that here, I just think it's funny, and a clear indication that the current wikipedia article is misleading and not following the sources.

I think the sources all are clear that there's very little evidence of a sale ever occurring. The alleged sale was valued by the dutch at 60 guilders. The identity of the representative of the Dutch West India Company is not known, but may have been Peter Minuit. The identity of the seller is unknown, but was certainly not a representative of the relevant nation with the intention to relinquish control of the island in perpetuity.

Page 26 of the book First Manhattans, by Robert Grumet (U. of Oklahoma press, 2011) also notes that the native people of Manhattan (the Munsee, if I'm reading correctly), did not clear the island after the alleged sale occurred. This seems important to the history of Manhattan/NYC, even outside the context of an alleged sale.

In 1628, then resident company secretary de Rasiere may have been writing about those Indians in a passage describing development opportunities on Manhattan Island… De Rasiere went on to note that the Manhattan nation consisted of several communities: “the old Manhatesen are about 200 to 300 strong, women and men, under different chiefs, whom they call Sackimas.” In 1655, a settler named Adriaen van der Donck listed Manhattan among the four Indian languages spoken in New Netherland.

🙢 Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Population

2023 Estimate: 7,888,121 https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/new-york-city-ny-population 2600:1003:B13F:E661:108:7E8F:E921:A4D6 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing Sources

It's been a long time since this had Good Article status, and longer time since it had featured article status. In my opinion, a big reason is all the bloat and bad sources. So I've been trying to review the sources in this article.

New York City is one of the media, academic and governmental capitals of the world. Anything worth saying about new york should be from high quality publications. The best journalistic, scholarly and governmental sources should be available for this article. So I've been trying to remove all questionable and self published sources, especially in the lead (see MOS:LEADCITE). When the citation is being used for something uncontroversial (like saying NYC is a tourist destination), I think it's best to just remove the citation. When the citation is for something of questionable encyclopedic value, I think it's best to just delete the statement.

Is that a reasonable approach? I think editors should look at the Boston article for an example of what better sourcing looks like. Mostly secondary sources, with supporting primary and tertiary sources. No self-published content, no slideshows. It's a featured article with solid sourcing. I've made sections below for more sources I think should be removed from the NY article. 🙢 Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Kearney (consulting firm)

This report is being used as a source for the statement "New York City has been called both the world's leading financial center…". This is a bluesky statement. The article has a section on the financial sector, so this consulting firm reference is just not needed. I think the reference should be deleted, and the sentence should remain.

The source is also used for the statement that NYC is called "The most powerful city in the world". I think that whole statement is pretty pointless and should be deleted. On top of that, the source doesn't even support the claim. It says nothing about "The most powerful" city, whatever that means. @Castncoot: am I missing something? You reverted this twice, but I can't even find the claim in the source.

The Kearney source is self-published and shouldn't be used (no editorial oversight, no peer review, etc.) New York City has so many superlatives, they should be documented with reliable sources. 🙢 Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Seasider53: can you please explain your revert here? The kearney source does not call NYC "the most powerful city", economically or otherwise. The two sources at the end of the sentence call NYC the "most economically powerful". While that's still a mostly-meaningless phrase, it's at least what the sources said.

None of the sources say "most powerful", so I'm really confused why this is a controversial edit. 🙢 Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

National Venture Capital Association and PricewaterhouseCoopers

This archived source is being used for the statement that NYC is a "global node of creativity, entrepreneurship...", IMO this claim isn't adding anything encyclopedic, but also is uncontroversial. NYC is indeed a global node of a lot of things.

So I think the easiest solution here is to delete the source. I mean, just look at it! It's an old slide show. It's not even clear what's being used to support the sentence in the article. In addition, it's classic questionable/self published content. 🙢 Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Property Investor Today

This source Looks to be self-published. It's being used for the sentence "New York City is an established safe haven for global investors". I don't see how that sentence adds anything to the article. What is a "safe haven" who is saying that? There's a lot of info about the financial sector in this article, but this sentence is fluff, and the source is not reliable.🙢 Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

A "safe haven" for Flight Capital ? —— Shakescene (talk) —— Shakescene (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure they mean that NYC property is an investment that doesn't typically lose its value and is a stable market, unlike other possible investments. That said, it's not appropriate for this article in the least. And it's not a reliable source. oknazevad (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The Pinnacle List

This is, by their own description, "World's Best Luxury Real Estate and Lifestyle Magazine". This archived source is being used for the sentence "Manhattan's real estate market is among the most expensive in the world." Now, I don't think a citation for this is really needed in the lead of the article. If it is needed, then a better source can be found. This source should be deleted.🙢 Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Forbes Slideshow

This is not an article, this is just a slideshow being used for the same sentence, "Manhattan's real estate market is among the most expensive in the world." Again, I don't think a citation is needed in the lead here. If a citation is needed, then a forbes slideshow shouldn't be it. There should be reliable sources for this.

And the Forbes slideshow source is emblematic of the problems with this article. So much has been written about NYC's real estate market, in academic and popular press for decades. Just sticking within Forbes, there must be better references than a slideshow. But I have a feeling any attempts at deletion would be reverted.

🙢 Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This kind of vague generalization isn't useful. NeoChrono Ryu (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox heading

The infobox is headed New York. Below that City links to the City section of Administrative divisions of New York (state). Is there any reason the heading shouldn't be changed to New York City? Mcljlm (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Have a quick look in the archives. Everything you can think of has already been discussed to excess. Seasider53 (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

What term leads to relevant posts? Mcljlm (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

See Archive 18, "Changing infobox title". Station1 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I see it appears to have been agreed that City should be in the line below New York but there's no suggestion it should be wikilinked to the section of Administrative divisions of New York (state). Mcljlm (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there any reason Station1 not to remove that wikilink? Is there something more appropriate? Mcljlm (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that link - in fact, it might be helpful - but I have no strong opinion about it. Station1 (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Its inclusion is consistent with all other municipalities and hamlets in New York State. It serves to act as explanatory link as to what those terms mean within the legal framework of the state. I would object to its removal. oknazevad (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Montage

I think that the montage is way too bloated right now. The purpose of the montage is to highlight the most notable and recognizable features of a city, not to showcase every part of a city. That is what the rest of the article is for, so I don't think that the Bronx Zoo or Staten Island Ferry need to be included in the infobox. Thoughts? ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 16:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. All we need is skyline, Statue of Liberty, Times Square, UN, maybe Brooklyn Bridge. The Central Park pic is especially bad with generic buildings leaning to the left behind some generic trees. The old UN pic was better, though. Station1 (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The idea is to have a montage that includes all five boroughs or else this becomes entirely too Manhattan centric. The list Station1 lists is literally all Manhattan items (yes, even the Brooklyn Bridge, which is in Manhattan on the west end). I'd object to any such montage, as this is the New York City article, not the Manhattan article. oknazevad (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done! Chronus (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Shorten the lead

Is there's a way to shorten the lead? Currently it is too long and tiresome to read. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. For an example of an NYC lede that covers the essentials, see (e.g.) [8] from 2006.

It's been so long since I've revisited the article as a whole that I didn't realize how various editors over many years may have inserted what each one considers to be The City's most important features. But many of these details belong in individual sections, perhaps as introductory summaries.

Although this is a cumulative effect rather than any individual item, a non-New-Yorker like me can easily be rather put off by a long cascade of boastful superlatives, not always well-cited:

• “New York, often called New York City or NYC, is the most populous city in the United States. With a 2020 population of 8,804,190 distributed over 300.46 square miles (778.2 km2), New York City is the most densely populated major city in the United States and more than twice as populous as Los Angeles, the nation's second-largest city. The city also has a population that is larger than that of 38 individual U.S. states...
• “The city constitutes the geographical and demographic center of both the Northeast megalopolis and the New York metropolitan area, the largest metropolitan area in the U.S. by both population and urban area. With over 20.1 million people in its metropolitan statistical area and 23.5 million in its combined statistical area as of 2020, New York is one of the world's most populous megacities, and over 58 million people live within 250 mi (400 km) of the city. New York City is a global cultural, financial, high-tech, entertainment, glamor, and media center with a significant influence on commerce, health care and life sciences, research, technology, education, politics, tourism, dining, art, fashion, and sports. Home to the headquarters of the United Nations, New York is an important center for international diplomacy, and is sometimes described as the capital of the world.
• “As of 2021, the New York metropolitan area is the largest metropolitan economy in the world with a gross metropolitan product of over $2.4 trillion. If the New York metropolitan area were a sovereign state, it would have the eighth-largest economy in the world. New York City is an established safe haven for global investors. New York is home to the highest number of billionaires, individuals of ultra-high net worth (greater than US$30 million), and millionaires of any city in the world.
• The city and its metropolitan area constitute the premier gateway for legal immigration to the United States. As many as 800 languages are spoken in New York, making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world. New York City is home to more than 3.2 million residents born outside the U.S., the largest foreign-born population of any city in the world as of 2016.
• “... The New York Times has won the most Pulitzer Prizes for journalism and remains the U.S. media's "newspaper of record". In 2019, New York City was voted the greatest city in the world in a survey of over 30,000 people from 48 cities worldwide, citing its cultural diversity...
• etc., etc.

The history paragraph packs too much into an introductory lede, where the hypothetical average visitor just wants a brief summary from Peter Minuit to Eric Adams. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

As a non-American, these superlatives really put me off too. If I write the lead in Hanoi in a similar manner someone on Wikipedia will quickly revert it, while somehow this is acceptable at NYC? Anyways, I think that we can axe off puffery and most of the statistics in the lead pretty easily. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

If it "puts you off", simply don't read the article. See how easy that was? And with all due respect, the only superlative that Hanoi has is not having any superlatives..which may be one reason it's never crossed my mind to read that city's page before. Castncoot (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Contrariwise, if Stonewall deserves a mention in the lede, it seems unbalanced to omit New Yorkers' many other struggles for labor, human and civil rights (e.g. the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire or Adam Clayton Powell). —— Shakescene (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It also seems odd to me that there's a History section of NYC with no mention of Jesse De Forest, who is largely credited as being the 'founder' of the city itself in 1624. An odd omission. 2601:641:500:7D80:E4EA:25:831A:B707 (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Glancing over the lead sections for two other "world cities" of comparable importance, it seems to me that Paris's lede shows signs of suffering similar additive bloat, while London's hasn't yet quite reached that level.—— Shakescene (talk)

Shakescene, actually, you know what, we should completely rewrite the lead instead. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: I agree with you in principle, if that doesn't mean throwing out everything that others have written, but I'm a little overwhelmed right now with some other gigantic editing tasks like Collaboration with the Axis powers and various smaller jobs that I keep putting off. So I can't promise to be of much help at the present. But I do recommend skimming through this article's history to pick out some previous versions whose leads provided useful summaries without being quite so bloated.

And, were one so inclined, one could make all kinds of Wikipedia-policy quibbles with vague, unsubstantiated and simultaneously unchallengeable assertions such as "New York City is a global cultural, financial, high-tech, entertainment, glamor, and media center with a significant influence on commerce, health care and life sciences, research, technology, education, politics, tourism, dining, art, fashion, and sports." —— Shakescene (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Touché. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

See also the reasons that various editors have given for delisting this as a Good Article, at the top of this talk page after opening (uncollapsing) "Article milestones", e.g. [9] and [10] —— Shakescene (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Is NYC really a big deal in world perspective--yes I think so and the deletion of a fully sources summary is not appropriate. so keep: New York City is a global cultural, financial, high-tech, entertainment,[10] and media center with a significant influence on commerce, health care and life sciences,[11] research, technology, education, politics, tourism, dining, art, fashion, and sports. Home to the headquarters of the United Nations, New York is an important center for international diplomacy,[12][13] and is sometimes described as the capital of the world.[14][15] It does not violate Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism which deals only with college rankings. Rjensen (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

¿ What's wrong here ?

New York City is a global

1. cultural,
2. financial,
3. high-tech,
4. entertainment,[10] and
5. media center

with a significant influence on

1. commerce,
2. health care and
3. life sciences,[11]
4. research,
5. technology,
6. education,
7. politics,
8. tourism,
9. dining,
10. art,
11. fashion, and
12. sports. Home to the headquarters of the United Nations, New York is an important center for
13. international diplomacy,[12][13] and is sometimes described as
14. the capital of the world.[14][15]

Most of those, where (as in most cases) true, belong at the beginning of their own sections or subsections, but this piling-on in the introductory lead actually vitiates New York's pre-eminence in so many fields. Half a dozen, or at most eight, general descriptors (rather than 19: 20 if you add The New York Times) should suffice. Many, many cities — in fact most important cities — have a "significant influence" on politics; and I don't think that in the specific field of high technology, New York is nearly as important as the San Francisco Bay/Silicon Valley or Boston-Cambridge. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're a few years behind the times. Castncoot (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point--we can drop politics and high tech and leave all the rest. It's really not in the same league as Mexico City or Madrid or Moscow. Rjensen (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Said in jest, I'm sure :) Castncoot (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that the lead should talk about NYC's strength on finance, entrepreneurship, tourism and maybe a bit about the arts. Other things can be left in the article body. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

My own thought was to add the undeniably-true "intellectual" to the list of areas where New York City is a major world leader. That would, by implication, include "academic", "scholarly" and "journalistic" leadership (to be treated in the relevant sections of the article's actual body). And a very general "arts" could be added to cover entertainment, music, and visual arts. But there are other ways to reshuffle. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Castncoot (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Pictures wont load

How can I fix this? Works fine for state level article. 204.237.49.78 (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)