Talk:New York (state)/Archive 1

message: -----
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)
thread_title: Early questions

message: " 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: The whole section has now been replaced by a sourced set of statistics (thanks Orlady!), after it was blanked because of not source.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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Title of article

message: Okay, there is now an edit war going on over two genealogy links.  Here's a brief history of what occurred.
#Anonymous user 66.6.80.48 adds two genealogy links
#BaronLarf clean up links page, removing broken links, links that don't belong here, and the genealogy links
#Anonymous user 68.203.227.54 puts the two genealogy links back
#Cribbswh removes the two genealogy links again
#Neutrality reverts Cribbswh's changes, putting the two genealogy links back
#Cribbswh adds an entire Genealogy subheading, putting two more genealogy links along with the ones he earlier removed, changes their order
#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
#BaronLarf removes the last two genealogy links, agreeing wiht JamesMLane's statement
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: External links

message: 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)
thread_title:  VfD consensus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lakeville, NY 

message: 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)
thread_title: Paragraph in infobox

message: 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)
thread_title:  New York State or New York state 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing spaces in first paragraph 

message: See Talk:Lagrange. --Smack (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking New Yorkers with geographical knowledge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Upstate new york 

message: :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)
thread_title: First paragraph

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Upstate = demeaning 

message: Why is New York called the "Empire State"?  -- Creidieki 23:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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:  btm 07:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  State nickname 

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Code 

message: 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) 
* 19,227,088 (2004) 
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)
thread_title:  Population 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Email received - error about Foundation? 

message: De mortuis... 14:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How about some photos?

message: 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)
thread_title:  New York vs. New York State in article titles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New York state government polemic 

message: 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)
replies: text: See this discussion for the source information of this user's license plate photos:  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: License plate picture listed for deletion on the Commons

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  capital punishment abolished in NY state? 

message: Source
                           	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)
replies: text: can you put a source where you got this from also? Thanks  Skapur 00:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Check out the Mainline article.  Powers T 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  religious graph 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: 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

message: 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)
replies: text: An article this size should have 30 or 40 references, at my count I see two. -Ravedave 21:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Perfect example just happened:  Ugh, I never shoulda put the state articles on my watchlist :) -Ravedave 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed unreferenced template

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List of Dutch references is USA and NY? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aeroplane incident 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Racial and ancestral makeup 

message: 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)
replies: text: Indeed, many articles do have such a section, but avoiding such sections is generally considered preferable.  Powers T 20:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  s/Navy vessel namesakes/Trivia/ 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New ''Sports'' section added to updated [[Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states]] format   

message: 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)
thread_title:  Government Section in dispute 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New York weather 

message: what's happening with the current fog over manhattan? Paris By Night 01:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Swamp gas from NEW JERSEY. NYC was "stunk out". 65.173.104.227 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  gas panic

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brazilian Immigrants