Talk:New York/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Early questions

Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help.

What do people think about using a similar format to the one being used for countries to the 50 states? Danny

Should probably be discussed at WikiProject U.S. states. --Brion

Should I mention the New Jersey Basketball and Hockey teams as New York teams, or should I not? WhisperToMe 07:41, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This timeline basically refers to events in New York City. I suggest moving it there. RickK 04:47, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The leading item in each list in this article is in a smaller font from the other items. Whoever set this up might want to fix this.

Put an end to the strange, small font problem. Whoever was trying to do something with this font change can try again. Think it's time to put the colleges on their own page??? I do.

Since there was no objection to the suggestion to place colleges and universities into their own page, it is being done so that the New York page has more room for other material.

Is it really accurate to call the United Nations an extra-territorial enclave? Does this not imply the United States is not sovereign over this territory? Is this truly the case?

That is truly the case. The UN has its own flag, stamps, and diplomatic immunity for accredited representatives.

Propose rename of this article to "New York State"

I propose renaming this article to "New York State", because:

  • The name New York is ambiguous, and both the city and the state are important. New York State is the most natural unambiguous title for this article.
  • Lots of the links to this article ought to be linked to the New York City. Moving this article to "New York State" would help with the task of going through these links, because if all the links need to be changed to "New York City" or "New York State", it's clear which links have and haven't yet been fixed.
  • Calling this article "New York State" would make it clearer to readers arriving at this article that it is about the state only, and not the city.

The title "New York State" would not be in strict compliance with the naming convention for US States - I think the strong likelihood of confusion with the city justifies deviating from the convention in this case.

The page "New York" itself could either be made a disambiguation page (the existing disambiguation page at New York (disambiguation) could be moved there), redirected to the city, or redirected to the state. I would suggest the city, as this appears to be where most new links belong, but I have no strong view.

Any comments? Enchanter 23:02, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

There already is a dis-ambiguation page at New York (disambiguation). 66.32.240.88 23:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - I was aware of that, but should have made myself clearer! I've edited my above comment to clarify. Enchanter 23:26, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything to sa about Enchanter's proposed page move?? No comment was made for 6 straight days. 66.245.69.118 22:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the page should be moved. The most common name for the state is New York; that is also its official name; it is abundantly clear in the first paragraph of the article that it is not about New York City or any other New York. A link to the alternate uses page is sufficient. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 22:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For my part, I didn't comment because I was reluctant to get into it after all the ruckus we had about the name of the New York City article.  :) There are so many existing links to New York that changing the name would be a major hassle. Also, people who want to write about, say, Buffalo, sometimes write "[[Buffalo, New York]]" (my preference) but sometimes write "[[Buffalo, New York|Buffalo]], [[New York]]". Therefore, if the page were moved, people who didn't know it was at "New York State" and who just relied on the naming convention would be perpetually creating links to a disambiguation page. I was going to suggest that, if you think there's a danger of confusion with the city, it would be reasonable to make the distinction up front, but then I checked the article and saw that that's already been done. I favor the current setup. JamesMLane 23:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you that having a disambiguation page at New York could be problematic, as there would be a lot of links to fix. One alternative would be to have New York redirecting to New York State, which wouldn't break any existing links and would address your concerns about creating links to a disambiguation page. It would also help with fixing the links, because if someone links directly to New York State, it saves anyone from having to check whether they really meant the city. Enchanter 10:24, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

No. No no no no no no no no no no no. RickK 23:25, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes. Enchanter 10:24, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
A single "No" will suffice for me. I still favor the current setup. JamesMLane 04:46, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely not! New York State is not the name. If something happened in New York City and somebody writes that it happened in New York, then that is still correct. If more precision is needed, then add City where appropriate. --mav 20:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLSKI

Infobox

Glossing Kings Co. as Brooklyn and Richmond Co. as Staten Island, fine. Even clarifying that New York Co. is Manhattan is useful, although now that MoMA's back a lot of the stuff people associate with New York City is in Manhattan. Is it necessary to say that Bronx Co. is the Bronx and Queens Co. is Queens? I'm willing to acknowledge my idea of what's obvious may be skewed because I live in New York. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 14:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Religion

" unusually diverse composition of religious groups " is a bit misleading, along with the given stats. Roman Catholics form a huge plurality. The next group, Protestants, is made of many denominations and it is disingenuous to lump them together. Nelson Ricardo 00:58, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

With respect to lumping all Protestants together, the data is in a standard identical format for every state, so I can't do anything about that. With respect to the degree of diversity, suggest you look up the data for some other states on Wikipedia to compare. If you still think New York is monolithic, then get back to me and we'll work something out. - JN

I have to disagree because New York is a huge melting pot for all religions and people from all walks of life to come. I'd say the the Jewish population is rising in many areas because I am a former New Yorker and I should know. In the 1950's practically all of Pominok was Jewish. The Jewish popelation in New York covers most of the five buroughs. Yes, it's true that many other religions are coming to New York, but most people say Judiasm is their religion. Also, i don't see a problem with mixing cultures either because we are all the same no matter what religion you follow. I agree with JN because New York is definitely Polylithic. UK Dec. 10, 2006

The whole section has now been replaced by a sourced set of statistics (thanks Orlady!), after it was blanked because of not source. Hopefully this will settle the issue. Alucard (Dr.) 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the source I used is one that was used in the Tennessee article. New York is hardly the only state that had unsourced data on religion, so other states may want to use the resource now used in New York. --orlady 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Title of article

This subject was addressed a few months ago. As I read that discussion, Enchanter favored renaming the page to "New York State", but everyone who commented on his proposal (Ðåñηÿßôý, RickK, mav, and myself) disagreed with it. Therefore, I've reversed the recent move to the similar "New York (U.S. state)". Given that this subject has already been considered, I suggest that anyone favoring a change should bring it up here for discussion first. (A minor matter: I think changing the dab note at the top to specify that this article is about the state is a good idea, instead of just using the "other uses" template, but we might as well tell the reader that the link is to a dab page, instead of piping it to read "this page".) JamesMLane 21:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


PROPOSED MOVE

I propose we move the page to conform to Georgia (U.S. state) and prevent an unfamiliar person, perhaps a non-North American, to assume that New York State is shorthand for "New York State University" like Michigan State, Ohio State, and to make the title completely unambiguous. EdwinHJ | Talk 01:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's not. There's no such school. The Georgia example is to prevent confusion with the country. Nelson Ricardo 02:00, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
I am aware that Georgia has to do with the country, this was simply an additional reason why I believe it should be moved. 17:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Most definitely NOT. This doesn't compare to Georgia at all. Cburnett 03:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I oppose the move. To address possible confusion with the nonexistent school, I've made New York State a redirect to New York. Thus, anyone who searches for "New York State" will be brought to this article. JamesMLane 03:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. New York is the name of the state. --BaronLarf 05:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Paranthetical titles should not be used unless it is really necessary.--Pharos 06:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. All 49 US states other than Georgia are at simply [[statename]], some with redirects from [[statename state]]. Niteowlneils 01:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps people have forgotten that New York is also the name of the city, and will be the first of the two uses to come to mind from an international audience (remember this idea about being U.S.-centric and systemic bias?). While I know there is a state of New York, if someone talks to be about "something that happened in New York", chances are they're talking about somewhere within the five boroughs. Support moving the dab to New York and this to New York (U.S. state) or similar. Chris 02:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support - most people (based on personal experience) outside of US think of New York as being the city. Within USA, "I'm going to New York" almost always refers to the city, not the state. Most people typing "new york" in the search box are likely to be looking for NYC as well. I am very strongly for the move. --Yurik 22:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support. From the common sense prospectives New York is a city. This is how New York is most commonly used. For that reason, when talking about the state, people use "upstate New York". As it mentioned, Georgia is one exception to the rule [[statename]]. New York should be the other one. The first principle of encyclopedia is "the most commonly used meaning - first". The other principles are secondary. 08:56, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Strongly, Strongly, Strongly Oppose. New York is the proper name of the State. It's also insulting/annoying (to Upstate New Yorkers) to have people interpet "New York" as "New York City". Bayerischermann 23:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

External links

Okay, there is now an edit war going on over two genealogy links. Here's a brief history of what occurred.

  1. Anonymous user 66.6.80.48 adds two genealogy links
  2. BaronLarf clean up links page, removing broken links, links that don't belong here, and the genealogy links
  3. Anonymous user 68.203.227.54 puts the two genealogy links back
  4. Cribbswh removes the two genealogy links again
  5. Neutrality reverts Cribbswh's changes, putting the two genealogy links back
  6. Cribbswh adds an entire Genealogy subheading, putting two more genealogy links along with the ones he earlier removed, changes their order
  7. JamesMLane reverts Cribbswh's additions stating that genealogy links aren't relevant, leaving just the two original genealogy links put in by 68.203.227.54
  8. BaronLarf removes the last two genealogy links, agreeing wiht JamesMLane's statement
  9. Cribbswh puts back the two genealogy links that he had removed back in step 4

Could we get some sort of consensus on genealogy links on state pages? This edit war is getting rather absurd. --BaronLarf 14:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why the subject of Genealogy is not as relevent as Economy, History, Population, etc. Genealogy is a research-based study. It is extremely relevent. My mistake was cleared up by Pavel when he explained to me that I was adding the links in too many articles. He began removing the links since he defined them as spam, based upon the number of places they were added. I began to help him, since I thought he was right. Hence, you will see ME removing my own additions. Then, as I began to understand the Wiki guidelines, I began to add the links selectively, ONLY in relevent articles. I realize that not everyone here considers genealogy relevent but there are more people on the web who would think otherwise. There should be a 'Genealogy' subtopic on EVERY state page with quality resource links. Cribbswh 15:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you that genealogy is a valid field of study. Information on genealogical research should be included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not, however, a repository of links. If you wanted to create articles describing methods of genealogical research for each particular state, I would support that. But merely adding links to two genealogical resources for every state in the union when no discussion of genealogy occurs in the page is not, in my opinion, a positive contribution to wikipedia.--BaronLarf 15:56, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)


I removed dozens of links added by Cribbswh because I considered this technically spam. I didn't investigate their relevancy per article. They may or may not be relevant for Genealogy etc. which I know nothing about - I acted only as cleaner. Pavel Vozenilek 20:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is not a repository of links. However, the purpose for the external links section should be to provide the researcher valid and quality resources to further their study. The links should not have to be to further discussion but to actual research resources and tools that would give the researcher additional information. Each state link that I added was a quality site which provided rich, free data to help the researcher. There is no intent to spam the 'pedia but my ulterior motive is, however, to include Genealogy as an important aspect in state studies. New York genealogy is different from Louisiana genealogy, for example. Cribbswh 21:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The genealogy links may well "provide the researcher valid and quality resources to further their study" of their family or someone else's, but not the study of the subject of this article, which is the state of New York. If, among the genealogy sites, there are some that are stronger on New York (or, for example, on the Northeast in general), that fact could appropriately be noted in a discussion of the different online resources in the Genealogy article. JamesMLane 21:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VfD consensus

The article at New York (U.S. state) has been redirected here (New York), persuant to the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/New York (U.S. state). Have a nice day. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lakeville, NY

I can't find an article for Lakeville, New York. Other articles are linking to it, but the article doesn't seem to exist or appear on any of the NY state city/town/village list articles. Siliconwafer 17:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • We don't quite have everything yet, you know. If you know something about Lakeville or are interested enough to research it, feel free to start Lakeville, New York.--Pharos 23:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph in infobox

In the body of the article, under the "Geography" heading, is a paragraph that begins, "The megalopolis, however, is not the only aspect of New York State." In the edit window, this paragraph appears in its proper place, but it also appeared in the middle of the infobox. How did this come about? Was there a reason for it? I've removed it, and nothing frightful seems to have happened, but I'm a little nervous because I don't really understand the HTML involved. (I don't know why the text didn't display twice.) JamesMLane 22:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


The Mustard Line

I was thinking of adding something "fun" about "upstate" being a matter of contention and the "mustard line." To me, upstate begins north of the "mustard line." That is, north of the mustard line, your (fast food) hamburgers show up with mustard automatically on them, south of the line, they generally don't. I guess this would put the mustard line in the Orange-Greene-Sullivan area east to... Dutchess-Columbia?? -HiFiGuy | Talk 21:20, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC) (Suffern, NY)

"Upstate" means anything north of the Bronx. JamesMLane 5 July 2005 01:19 (UTC) (Manhattan, NY, though you probably guessed that from my comment!)
I had a burger in Fishkill the other day and it came with mustard; perhaps Dutchess-Putnam is the cutoff. Upstate north of the Bronx? I submit to you that we in the "northern 'burbs" have more in common with NYC than 'upstate' upstate! Plus that MTA tax! As a direction, sure, we're upstate, but as a place, we ain't quite there! -HiFiGuy | Talk 20 July 2005, 17:15 (UTC).

New York State or New York state

The state constitution of the State of New York, capitalizes "State" and the state is variously called "State of New York" and "New York State". I note also Alaska's state constitution and its seal refer to the "State of Alaska". Is any further argument needed?

NYC's official name is "City of New York". "City" is part of the name, and being a proper noun, gets capitalized even when called "New York City". NYC's official name is not "New York" --JimWae 23:36, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

  • Jim is quite right on this. "New York city" is like "united states of America", it's just totally, unambiguously wrong.--Pharos 23:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Missing spaces in first paragraph

There are some mysteriously missing spaces in the first paragraph, although the spaces are indeed there in the page source. I checked with both Firefox and IE. Here's what the paragraph looks like to me:

 "New Yorkis a statein the northeastern United Stateswhose U.S. postal abbreviation is NY. It is sometimes called New York Statewhen there is need to distinguish it from New York City."

I tried adding more spaces, but this didn't fix the problem. Is this happening to anybody else, and does anybody know why? 66.140.206.61 19:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I should add that the missing spaces only occur after bold words or links 66.140.206.61 19:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Seeking New Yorkers with geographical knowledge

See Talk:Lagrange. --Smack (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Upstate new york

Hi all,

I added a line about how Syracuse is considered Central New York to the article, in the section on "Upstate", and someone deleted it. I'm from near Syracuse, and people there always tend to be annoyed when people call it 'upstate'...I just think it's a good example of just HOW differently upstate can be interpreted, and that this is a valuable piece of information for the article--after all, for a lot of New Yorkers, "Central" New York is a fundamental geographic distinction that is key to the state.

Could whoever deleted the line, or disagrees/agrees, please comment?

Cheers Michael

First of all, I didn't do it, so I'm only speculating, but the inculsion of Albany in "Central New York" is pretty far-fetched. Pollinator 18:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that's information that belongs in Upstate New York's article anyway. Bolwerk 09:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph

New York is a state in the northeastern United States whose U.S. postal abbreviation is NY. It is sometimes called New York State when there is need to distinguish it from New York City. The areas of New York State north of Westchester County are collectively referred to as Upstate New York, though residents of New York City consider Westchester County to be "upstate" as well.

Can we rework the first paragraph? I had some suggestions:

New York is a state in the northeastern United States (postal abbreviation NY). It is sometimes called New York State, typically to distinguish it from New York City, the state's largest metropolitan center. The areas of the state of New York north of Westchester County are collectively referred to as Upstate New York, though some residents of New York City consider Westchester County to be Upstate as well.

Did "upstate" have to be in quotes? I think only some residents of NYC think Westchester's Upstate...Indeed, maybe we could remove "residents of New York City", since perhaps people outside NYC have the same interpretation? Finally, I think it's to put the postal abbeviation in parantheses for conciseness--or at least do something to make it take up slightly less space. Do we have to say "US" postal abbreviation? Thanks! --Dpr 04:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)</nowiki>

Something is wrong with this article.

Upstate = demeaning

I removed the following from the discussion of the term "Upstate"— "but many of those outside of the NYC metropolitan area find the term demeaning because it is emblematic of the cultural and demographic divide which separates the two areas, one rural and conservative, the other urban and liberal." Before anyone puts it back, I'd like to see a source. I get the feeling that NYC folk use the term in a demeaning way, but I've never known anyone living upstate who feels demeaned by the term. A search for "upstate New York" and "demeaning" brings up plenty of hits, but the only sites I can find using it the way this article does are mirror sites. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Having grown up in New Jersey, and then while going to college at Rutgers, I remember arguing with fellow students over whether or not I come from "South" Jersey. The South-Jerseyites are very much looked down upon by those rich kids from Bergen County. To them, any exit lower than about 145 on the Parkway was in South Jersey. To me, anywhere north of Trenton was part of North Jersey. (You can guess, I suppose, that I grew up between these mileposts!) I can only guess that the same sort of social dynamic goes on in New York, so I would be surprised if the "upstate" residents don't feel demeaned by the moniker.
--GraemeMcRaetalk 18:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
You may be right, and it may have been hasty of me to remove the statement. Nevertheless, it strikes me as being the sort of pointless prejudice that should not be dignified by publication in an encyclopedia. And in the absence of a published source, it stands, at present, as original research. — Mwanner | Talk 20:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The fact, if true, is not particularly notable, and in the absence of published sources, it isn't verifiable. So I'm not arguing in favor of any further changes to the New York article. However, for the purpose of discussing the issue with you here in this Talk page, I would like to draw your attention to the statement, "Which of the suburban counties north of The Bronx along the Hudson River (Rockland, Westchester, and Putnam) count as "Upstate" depends on who is making the list." The strong implication is that people living in these counties prefer not to count themselves as living "upstate", just as I didn't want to classify myself as living in "South Jersey". I have no reason to doubt this comment, and it rings true. So it is reasonable to suppose that they feel demeaned by the term.
--GraemeMcRaetalk 04:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think people find it demeaning. I think it may be said in demeaning ways sometimes, but I don't think the term itself is demeaning. I think it's more likely that it's overbroad. Saying, "I'm from upstate" means you could be anywhere in an area that takes 6-8 hours of driving to get from one extreme to the other. Actually, that's not entirely true either, since some people may dispute exactly where upstate begins (some may say Albany, some say Westchester).

Actually, having spent my High School years in Orange County, which is considered "Upstate" by persons who live in NYC, every county south of Orange, and Orange County itself, it is my experience that people who live anywhere north of NYC view themselves as living "Upstate", and view NYC and its environs as "Downstate". The State University has named one of their schools located in NYC as "Downstate", so "up" and "Down" have some official currency in New York State. Appropo of that, however, persons who reside in Nassau and Suffolk Counties avoid the whole "Up" and "Down" issue by separating themselves from all the rest from a cultural point of view.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 16:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. There is upstate and there is New York City. That's the only differentiation that most people in New York state use. There is no demeaning or derogatory feeling behind this usage, but it is generally the way we divide New York. Since New York's first governor, the state has been divided between the city and the rest of New York. Regarding the line of demarcation, it isn't really clear which parts are considered upstate and which parts are considered as part of NYC. But most people from the city, including myself, believe that Westchester County and others are considered part of the city. 9:08PM EST, 5.17.06

It's a little more complex than just "upstate" and "downstate" -- When most people in the City refer to "upstate", they tend to be referring to the suburban counties immediately to the north (westchester, rockland, orange). In practice, most people in the Syracuse area consider themselves to be in "central new york", Rochester and Buffalo in "western new york", watertown/plattsburgh/adirondaks "northern new york", and corning-binghamton "southern tier". I should know. I spent most of my life around those parts. "upstate" is often used to refer to anything north of the city, but in general, unless the usage is clear, people in NYC and Long Island will assume you mean an area within about 2-3 hours north of the city. You can find the *officially* described regions of NYS here: http://www.iloveny.com/search/regions_index.asp (although i have yet to hear anyone refer to the leatherstocking region as such...)

Seriously, this is just one of many ways in which this article is ridiculously incomplete and poorly written (I won't even get into the seeming incoherence and randomness of some sections). Major work needs to be done here, people! -- and might I add, that should be work that doesn't just include throwing in stuff from the New York City article. This is a state page, and discussion (not just descritpoin) of the City (and other regions) outside of their relation to the state really isn't relevant and should be confined to the city/region-specific pages.--Dave 19:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to weigh in quick. I'm from the Fingerlakes region of New York, but I live in Seattle now. I tell basically everyone who asks where I'm from that I'm from upstate NY. I'm not the least bit demeaned by the term; I just use it because people from outside NY state automatically assume you mean the city if you say you're from New York. -- 67.183.218.185 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

State nickname

Why is New York called the "Empire State"? -- Creidieki 23:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I found this via Google: "New York is called 'The Empire State' because of it's wealth and variety of resources. This nickname appeared on New York license plates from 1951 through the mid-1960s. In 2001, 'The Empire State' legend returned to New York license plates." See also: [1] btm 07:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources?

I really enjoyed reading this article about NY state. However, a huge amount of facts are stated (religions, size of national parks, etc) that are not backed up by any sources! Where are they? Flyerhell 06:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Code

Does someone understand what in the WikiCode/HTML of this article is causing four edit links to appear all to the top-right of just one section (1.2.1) (if that's not just my browser...) Schissel-nonLop! 17:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Population

I wanted to check on the population decrease point on this page. From what I'm seeing on the Census Bureau's page, it looks like NY State had an increase of 0.1%, not a decrease:

  • 19,254,630 (2005) [2]
  • 19,227,088 (2004) [3]

I changed it once and somebody changed it back, so I was just wondering if anybody had a better cite. Bolwerk 23:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


Note

Made a few small changes, thought some bits of it should be merged into the history of New York article and moved a fact to the New York CIty article. Thanks.

miukku

Email received - error about Foundation?

Some reader pointed us to this site and claims our account of the foundation of NY is erroneous. David.Monniaux 17:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How about some photos?

De mortuis... 14:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

New York vs. New York State in article titles

This article is titled New York. However, there is an article titled List of radio stations in New York State which I could not move with a simple page move and so I had to put it at WP:RM. However, someone appears to disagree with the move. Any general rule about the state's name to be used in article titles?? The rule is:

  • New York is for articles that...
  • New York State is for articles that...

Georgia guy 21:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

New York

New York is a state in the notheastern United States.It is some times called New York State when there is need to distinguish it from New York City, the most populous City in both the state and the nation.Due to the prepondenance of the population concentrated in the southern portion around New York City, the state is often regionalized into Up State and Down State.

New York state government polemic

What's up with the polemic / rant that's standing in as a description of New York government right now? I mean, sure, the state legislature does have problems, but that whole section is brimming with the most bizarre, slanted, and bitter claptrap that I've seen in Wikipedia in a while. Is repealling the Rockefeller laws really a no-brainer consensus move? Who cares if the state has more paid employees than other states? Where's the proof that NYS taxes and regulations have harmed the economy? The whole thing needs to be scrapped and re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.77.6.4 (talk • contribs)

I concur. It seems to me that New York has more serious problems, like its awful weather. --Coolcaesar 23:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know-- I live in NY, and it sounds about right to me. I did remove the sentence about regulation harming the economy-- the citation inline in the sentence was a dead link. But for the rest, yes, everyone seems to agree that the Rockerfeller drug laws are over the top-- it's pure politics that prevents a reasonable compromise. And isn't the fact that the state has more paid employees than other states a relevant fact worthy of inclusion? I mean, sure, scrap and rewrite if you like-- anything can be made better, but don't scrap all the negative stuff just because it's negative; it's still encyclopedic. Better to balance it with some positive stuff (though I suspect you might find it tough to find a lot of great positives about NY state govt). -- Mwanner | Talk 23:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this nonsense should be removed and/or there could be a sub section called... Political Issues? or something to that effect. As to the weather well I like NYS weather the cold kills off the bugs and other pests. I lived in Florida a ways back and the insect population was terrible people still love Fla but the bugs are a real nuisance :D

67.87.79.235 15:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be rewritten, it reads like someones opinion. I'm sure most NY'ers are quite aware that it is dysfunctional, or would have a difficult time arguing otherwise. But the paragraph doesn't present the problem the proper way. Dagorlad 05:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

License plate picture listed for deletion on the Commons

I noticed that Image:NY_license_plate_2005.jpg, which is from the Commons, has been listed for deletion because no source has been cited. I seems nobody except the original uploader is likely to know about that until it disappears. Just thought people watching his page might like to know before it does. William Avery 20:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

See this discussion for the source information of this user's license plate photos: [4] --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

capital punishment abolished in NY state?

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

Please sign your talk posts with ~~~~. New York's highest court ruled in 2004 that the state death penalty law was unconstitutional. As such, the death penalty is currently not legally available as a sentence. However, to say it's been abolished is a little misleading. Powers 23:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Well, if it's not legally available as a punishment, it means it is (at least de facto) abolished, isn't it? Some articles state that NY has two convicts in death row, though this is not possible as far as I know while the punishment cannot be executed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.207.78 (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your talk posts with ~~~~. I agree it is de facto abolished. I still consider "abolished" to be slightly misleading, though, because it implies the law was repealed legislatively. Powers 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

religious graph

Source Religious Identification in the State of New York
1990 2001  % Change
No Religion 7.0% 13.4% +92%
Catholic 44.3% 38.4% -13%
Mainline Christian 14.4% 13.4% -7%
Baptist 8.3% 7.4% -10%
Charismatics 1.7% 2.8% +63%
Other Protestant 1.7% 1.6% -6%
Mormon 0.2% 0.2% -13%
Christian - no denomination 9.5% 7.7% -19%
Total Christian 80.1% 71.5% -11%
Jewish 6.9% 5.0% -27%
Islam 0.8% 1.9% +132%
Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh 0.8% 1.7% +116%
Other and New Religions 1.5% 1.0% -32%
No Response 2.9% 5.5% +89%


making it more readable, and a floating table would help. Somerset219 00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

can you put a source where you got this from also? Thanks Skapur 00:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the meaning of "Mainline Christian"? (It sounds to me like something to do with railroads or drug use.) -- Hoary 15:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Check out the Mainline article. Powers T 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a section in the article which displays all the pros and cons of New York then gives it an overall mark and should this be done for other cities

Yes? No?87.113.30.69 12:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think there should be? Please put forward your proposal persuasively. In the meantime, no, it seems an inherently unencyclopedic idea. -- Hoary 15:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many people who use wikipedia to get an overall view of something, for example a city. At the moment in time this article does not provide this. It is a good article but it is far too detailed for some. Therefore an overall evaluation of the city would meet thiese peoples needs. It would give them an even, fair and clear cut picture of the city. Also this evaluation could be given to other cities so users of wikipedia could compare two cities easily. In other words it would be a very usefl and low maintenace addition to the article.87.114.20.101 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

An evaluation using what criteria? How can we make those criteria NPOV? How can we evaluate cities without violating our original research policies? And why is this question on the talk page for the state instead of Talk:New York City? Powers T 16:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is simple for example: con: bad traffic, pro: amazing architecture. It's that simple and in the end the reader receives an overall evaluation of the city and it's really not that hard to write either.87.113.24.112 21:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's odd that you've missed Powers' point that you're writing this in the wrong talk page. Still, let's imagine for a moment that this is the talk page about the NYC article. Your suggestion is not that simple at all. The subways in NYC are pretty good and the taxis good too; how is the traffic bad? You (and I) happen to think that the architecture is "amazing", but others can claim and indeed have claimed that it's nightmarish. -- Hoary 00:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

An emphatic NO as there is no way to avoid a POV Skapur 00:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes well that was an example and like you said in relation to the architecture people have different views on things so if they can have a different view on architecture they can have a different view on traffic. Oh and yes it is simple and to prove it I will write a list of pros and cons right now.

Pros: The shopping The nightlife The food The kind people The architecture Manhattan

Cons: The winter weather The crowded streets The pollution The homelessness situation

Simple87.113.0.130 15:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I would say this is a bad idea. This discussion should be taking place in Talk:New York City. However, for the sake of argument I will play along taking your example, I can easily come up with a different point of view:

  • Shopping: Congested, expensive mark ups and no Walmart or Home Depot
  • Nightlife: Filled with decadence rather than prayer
  • The food: too expensive
  • The kind people: Since when have New Yorkers been accused of kindness?
  • The architecture: Gross industrial without any grace
  • The winter weather: actually milder than most other northern cities. Snow and winter in NY city are a time of wonder
  • The crowded streets: That is what draws tourists and the wide sidewalks are meant for walking. It also signals a vibrant city and the concentration of people is good for business
  • The pollution: Actually LA has much worse pollution!
  • The homelessness situation: Ever been to a third world country? The homeless in New York are much better off than a majority of people in the third world and don't even talk about refugee camps.

--- Skapur 16:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it is amazingly easy to turn anything around. Do you know? Because people have different views on things. Wow, well there's a shock. Oh. and by the way I have been to several 3rd world countries oh and also the crowded streets of New York do not attract tourists.87.114.20.236 16:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In other words we could play this game for ever of looking at things from different points of views. Well, I am going to end it. It was just a suggestion.87.112.92.6 16:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you understand now why it is not a good idea to have ratings when things can be turned around so easily. Wikipedia is formed on the concept of Neutral Point of View and it is impossible to have a Neutral rating as it would imply Original Research which is again prohibited in Wikipedia, See Wikipedia:No original research. You may want to read the five pillars of wikipedia for more information. --- Skapur 16:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right it's not a good idea, it's a great idea and it's just a shame you can't realise that.87.113.26.73 17:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This individual has spammed numerous other pages with the same suggestion. I hav also separately provided some links in an effort to explain Wikipedia policy to him or her. Badgerpatrol 17:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know it was called spamming, I am knew to this whole discussion thing. I am very sorry. But I have gone through the cities and deleted my questions and I have read the rules. Sorry. Is that OK?87.114.23.201 18:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I was only doing it to see what other people thought of the idea. I did not realise it was against the rules. Sorry.87.112.78.41 18:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an idea, yes, but not neutral. AussieWiki2006 05:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed unreferenced template

I have removed it from the top of the page. If it is needed in a section, please put a Unreferencedsect tag in a section that needs it. Skapur 12:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to point out items that need references and make a section under discussion for them so that we can all work on getting them? -- Skapur 21:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

An article this size should have 30 or 40 references, at my count I see two. -Ravedave 21:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
My mistake there are more references they are just links in the text though, it looks like there are five of them. These sections are totally unsourced: Geography ,History, Law and government, Education. Economy has one ref. Demographics seems to have the bulk of the sources, but should use the ref style. Also there is a lack of overview type sources. The reason I tagged the article is because I have been seeing an IP vandal that has been sneakiliy changing figures on state pages, and its hard to tell if they are helping or hurting without refs. So I checked every single state page for references, and about 15 of them got this tag. If you need help feel free to ask. Check out Minnesota for some ideas for sources. -Ravedave 21:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Perfect example just happened: [5] Ugh, I never shoulda put the state articles on my watchlist :) -Ravedave 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Dutch references is USA and NY?

Hi there, I was wondering if anyone knows of a list of Dutch references in NY and the rest of the USA. The Dutch settlers left a lot of "traces" such as Harlem (Haarlem), Brooklyn (Breukelen), Utrecht (a major dutch city), and of course the fact that NY used to be called New Amsterdam. And I'm pretty sure a lot more examples can be named. Does anyone know if there is a list of such things somewhere on Wikipedia? I wouldn't want to start an article, list or section if it exists already. RagingR2 20:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. That would be a long list for New York State alone. Think of all the places ending in -kill, like Fishkill. Think of all the streets in Brooklyn (Schermerhorn Street?). Think of all the small towns and waterways. That's a lot of effort. Bolwerk 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Aeroplane incident

An aeroplane has (according to CNN) crashed into a high-rise residential building just now. No links to terrorism yet confirmed. WABC claims it to be a helicopter. --Adriaan90 19:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Racial and ancestral makeup

I think there is quite a misunderstanding as to the difference between a "race" and "ancestry". For the top reported ancestries, isn't it usually the "single reported ancestry" and not the race as a whole. So aren't African Americans and Hispanics are races and not ancestries. Ancestry is basically ethnic origin and not race. User: Natsirtj

That might be true for Hispanics, but most African Americans do not know what area of Africa they came from and so many cannot trace their ethnic origin beyond African American. But also we should remember that ethnic identity is a self-definition. Some people in response to the census just say that their ancestry is American, despite not having Native American blood. Some people might think that so and so ethnic group is really a part of so and so ethnic group or that so and so ethnic group is really an ethnic group but it's best to leave it to whoever has been asked the question to make that descision. I believe that's how this data is cultivated. Jztinfinity 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

s/Navy vessel namesakes/Trivia/

Lots of wikipedia articles have a trivia section. Example: Thomas Jefferson The current Navy vessel namesakes section seems like a good candidate for that. Jeff Carr 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, many articles do have such a section, but avoiding such sections is generally considered preferable. Powers T 20:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

good job!Sum383 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Extraterriorial Enclaves

I removed the following sentence from the article because it is wrong:

    • "New York is also the site of the only extra-territorial enclave within the boundaries of the U.S., the United Nations compound on Manhattan's East River."

Extra-territoriality is an essential concept in international relations. In order for extra-territoriality to exist, one of the following must be true:

    • A piece of land within one sovereign nation is legally the territory of another sovereign nation, OR
    • The citizen of one sovereign nation is not subject to the police power of any other sovereign entity in which she or he might find him/herself.

All embassies and consulates of foreign nations are extra-territorial jurisdictions. When, for example, you enter the Japanese Embassy or the official residence of the Japanese Ambassador in Washington, DC, you are legally on Japanese soil. Likewise, if you visit the Irish Consulate in San Francisco, you are legally in Ireland while you're there.

Within the boundaries of the United States, the highest concentration of extra-territorial enclaves is found in Washington, DC. I remember the Brazilian Embassy complex being particularly lucious, at least from the outside when I used to walk past it (when I lived in DC).

By contrast, the United Nations complex is not really an extra-territorial enclave because the U.N. is not a sovereign entity. You do not legally or factually enter a foreign country when you attend a session of the General Assembly. Rather, the land on which the U.N. complex sits has special status because the U.N. is an association of sovereign entities - including the United States; and the delegates to the U.N., as diplomatic representatives of sovereign states, have extra-territorial diplomatic immunity. But the land on which the U.N. complex sits is still legally part of the United States. It's not legally part of a foreign sovereign entity, though that *is* the apparent effect of its special status as an association of sovereign nations.

New Sports section added to updated Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format

The Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format has been updated to include a new Sports section, that covers collegiate sports, amateur sports, and non-team sports (such as hunting and fishing). Please feel free to add this new heading, and supply information about sports in New York. Please see South_carolina#Sports_in_South_Carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Government Section in dispute

There are notes on the page that the neutrality of the Government section is in dispute and that "weasel words" are in there. i would like to start the discussion by exploring a little more what needs to be fixed, before we just blindly go ahead and try to fix it. Either the text is good as it stands, and we can remove the dispute, or we need some sort of alternative. Alucard (Dr.) 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

New York weather

Perhaps there could be a weather section of the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HalfEnglish (talk • contribs) 20:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

gas panic

what's happening with the current fog over manhattan? Paris By Night 01:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Swamp gas from NEW JERSEY. NYC was "stunk out". 65.173.104.227 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian Immigrants

Just noticed the El and the "according to unofficial statistics" - does this live up to Reliable Source requirements? The El doesn't seem to be specific to New York State at all. I suggest we remove, but as I am fairly new here, wanted to see if there is agreement. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)