Talk:New York City/Archive 6

message: I wanted to check with others before making the change, but I don't think that David Foster Wallace should be listed among DeLillo, Sontag and others as an author who has spent a lot of time in NYC, or has written about NYC. Wallace, currently an Illini who spent some time in Boston, has written two novels to date, neither of which take place in NYC (other than for some small scenes here and there). Broom of the System, Wallace's first novel, takes place almost entirely in Ohio, while Infinite Jest Takes place mostly in Allston and Boston, with excursions to Arizona and Canada. Neither spend very much time in New York. Further, though I'm unfamiliar with Wallace's newest book of short stories, Oblivion, none of his previous short stories have taken place in NYC.
If I don't get any negative feedback on this comment, I'll go ahead and change it sometime next week.
Thanks,
-M
--I went ahead and changed it myself, and put Jonathan Safran Foer in his place. I was the one who wrote that brief list of authors, and I included Wallace because I was under the impression he has been living in New York for some time. --Jleon 15:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Authors 

message: --I would like to move the section on "Crime" either back to a sub-section of "Demographics" or to a separate heading directly beneath the demographics. The section does not belong under "Current issues" as it clearly deals with a brief history of crime, and contains statistics (unlike the rest of the "Culture" section). Crime is considered to fall under the umbrella of demographics, as it is statistical information relating to the population of a city. --Jleon 18:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: --100% agree that "Crime" belongs under "Demographics" or its own heading. --Aude 21:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime 

message: "Approximately 2 out of 5 New York State residents live in New York City."
Is this fact interesting or unusual enough to warrant inclusion?  -- Chuq 23:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: It seems very Wikipedian that "Cultural institutions" are separate from culture. No doubt they would be, if there were any, in Yourtown USA. But New York's "cultural" institutions are integrated with its cultural life. New York's museums are full of New Yorkers except in August. --Wetman 20:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture and cultural institutions

message: I've created a portal for NYC: Portal:New York City.  Please check it out.  My goal is to draw attention to the vast amount of information the wikiprojects have about the city -- and hopefully draw new contributors in as well.  --Quasipalm 17:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal

message: New York City editors may be interested in my note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject New York City#Open House New York October 8 and 9.--Pharos 19:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open House New York October 8 and 9 

message: The following has been cobbled together by well-meaning Out-of-Towners:
:Residents of the city often refer to the city itself as "the Five Boroughs," reserving the phrase "the City" for Manhattan, and referring to the other boroughs as "the Outer Boroughs", a term that some find pejorative or condescending. However, as more Manhattanites migrate outwards, fleeing sky-high rents, this usage is on the decline. Nonetheless, those less familiar with the city often (incorrectly) think Manhattan is synonymous with New York City. Through the boroughs, there are hundreds of neighborhoods (or nabes, in the local vernacular) in the city, many with a definable history and character all their own.
The contortions seem to have been engendered by trying to work the populist euphemism "Five Boroughs" into meaningful text: an ungrateful task. The long-standing flight of "Manhattanites"—significantly, a Corn Belt expression— dates to the creation of the IND subway and is more characteristic of the 70s and 80s. The rest is warble: New York is a city, a city with a center; the center is Manhattan. Nobody resents this in New York. They try to avoid its traffic and don't especially want to live in Greenwich Village. Too many viewings of Saturday Night Fever... --Wetman 05:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say I rather disagree that "Manhattanites" is a Corn Belt expession; OK maybe "jet-setting Manhattanites" is, but what else would you call them?  The name practically goes back to Walt Whitman  (well, it's not there exactly, but the sentiment really is).  Just don't tell me that the proud sobriquet of "Brooklynite" has any origin outside of the County of Kings :)--Pharos 03:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree -- the section should be re-worked or removed.  Also, I think alluding to "manhattan envy" is silly since this is far, far from being a universal sentiment in the city. --Quasipalm 15:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Phony "usage"

message: If we're going to pick nits about not all of The Bronx being on the mainland (BTW, I live on one of those minor islands, perhaps we should also mention that little piece of northern Manhattan which is part of the mainland.  --RoySmith 21:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor islands in The Bronx

message: I've restored the statement on how each of the five boroughs could be major city in its own right. Staten Island has a population greater than Pittsburgh, and it has population density of more than 4,300 people per square mile, which is actually greater than many major American cities. --Jleon 13:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems this debate is all about what makes a major city a major city -- is it just population or is it more (town center, etc.).  Perhaps we could find a compromise by reducing the subjective language and just relying on facts instead; let the reader decide if SI is "major" not.  Just a thought. --Quasipalm 14:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jleon here.  If Staten Island had seceded in the early 1990s, there is no question that it would be belong on a list of the largest American cities.--Pharos 03:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: * nobody is disputing it would be 44th in the USA, what is being discussed is whether or not the article should state it "would be" a major city. --JimWae 00:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The plan was specifically to form a municipality called the City of Staten Island.  They even had a flag, though it was just going to be the current borough flag with "City of Staten Island" written on it.  I'm not sure where you got the 40th ranking, by the way- that must be by metro area as Staten Island would rank much higher by the city limits standard.  As for business activity, yes there is some; there always is to provide the needs of a large population.  If you're looking for heavy industry or something, there is a shipping terminal.--Pharos 05:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staten Island 

message: Articles on neighborhoods should include information on the school zoning of the neighborhoods. The NYCDOE has a school zone search tool. WhisperToMe 02:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding NYC-related articles

message: I've relocated that oversized (but still nicely done) table of sports teams onto the List of New York City sports teams. There's really no reason to dedicate so much space on this article for that. --Jleon 17:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional sports 

message: Maybe New Yorkers and Americans generally regard New York as "the intellectual, financial, and cultural capital of the world", but I think many Londoners, Parisians and others would disagree, particularly about the intellectual and cultural assertions.  This seems somewhat POV to me.   JackofOz 03:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intellectual, financial, and cultural capital of the world ??

message: Last week, I was reverted by Goeagles4321 when removing this added external link that was added by an anon. editor. (who I suspect is same as Goeagles4321).  While this site provides a little background about the history of the NYC sheriff's office, it provides little else — I think not enough to justify the external link in this article, is amateurish in its design, and not notable (just one backward link to this site).  --Aude 02:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link - NYC sheriff's office 

message: One image in this article (:Image:Jackson Heights 2.jpg) does not currently have any source or copyright information - and so it can now be deleted. I've looked around on google images for the original but can't source it. Does anyone here know where its from or have a free replacement image they could upload? Cheers Agnte 19:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my guess :) If you're happy  with this text then you just need to put  on the image page Agnte 20:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, but not in this article.  If you follow the link in the History section of this article you will get (several levels down) to New York Slave Insurrection of 1741.  Some mention of slavery probably belongs higher up than this, but at least it's not completely missing.  -- Mwanner | Talk 13:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackson Heights 2.jpg 

message: Perhaps this article should be totally moved to New York (city)? It does appear to be needed. Isn't that more of a better article title? I.e., does the "City" in "New York City" correct? --Kilo-Lima 20:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "New York City" is a correct form, answering a common search entry by a Wikipedia user. --Wetman 06:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Name 

message: The basis for naming this page New York, New York and all other city articles according to a contrived City, State convention is a claim that there is an accepted alleged convention for this (for which the name of this very page is a refutation).  To settle this issue there is a vote on whether the City, State and Neighborhood, City, State conventions should apply even in cases where there is no ambiguity issue, such as in New York City.  You would be voting essentially on whether the name of this page and all other unambiguous city and neighborhood should be something like [[New York, New York] and Hollywood, Los Angeles, California according to "convention", or be the common name of the place, like New York City and Hollywood (but only when the name is unambiguous). Vote here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) --Serge 07:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on general city name convention! 

message: The dab link currently reads:
:This is an article about New York City; see also NYC, New York, New York and New York.
Is there any interest in working on a more generaly disambiguation scheme, rather than having things so spread out? Tedernst | talk 19:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  hat note 

message: --Does anyone object to my switching the placement of the Intro and Tourism pics? That Midtown photo has been in the intro for ages, and I thought it might be refreshing to have a change- especially now with all the exposure from King Kong, maybe it wouldn't hurt to have the ESB on top. --Jleon 14:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem with switching the photos.  The ESB photo looks very good.  Anyway, the ESB is emblematic of New York City, and instantly recognizable. --Aude 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, I think this was a positive change but neither of those photos or their descriptions are very informative about New York. Please see this new discussion and comment there. Hopefully more than two people check this page! Omnibus 02:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro pic 

message: I just noticed that the following text from this NYC article:
:The shape of the land has been altered substantially by human intervention, with considerable land reclamation along the waterfronts since Dutch times, most dramatically in Lower Manhattan, and continuing in modern developments like Battery Park City. Much of the natural variations in topography have been evened out, particularly in Manhattan (one possible meaning for Manhattan is "island of hills"; in fact, the island was quite hilly before European settlement). A number of smaller islands have been artificially enlarged, and the map of islands in Jamaica Bay has been completely transformed.
is rather similar to the text at http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/real-estate/new-york/new-york-city/ which says
:The shape of New York City's real estate has been altered substantially by human intervention, with considerable land reclamation along the waterfronts since Dutch times, most dramatically in Lower Manhattan, and continuing in modern developments like Battery Park City. Much of the natural variations in topography have been evened out, particularly in Manhattan. A number of smaller islands have been artificially enlarged, and the islands in Jamaica Bay has been completely transformed.
The pieces of text are clearly related, but I can't say which way it went. Food for thought. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's definitely a copyright issue.  I personally wrote that particular paragraph here, and they've taken it and the rest of their selective summary without any attribution.  It seems they've taken uncredited from Wikipedia geography articles for many other pages on that site as well.  Someone's going to be getting a strongly worded e-mail!--Pharos 19:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was poking around at  and can't find any of the text there in September 2004.  I can't figure out when they added it but it definitely looks like their taking text from Wikipedia without giving credit.  They also say "If Washington, D.C. were considered a state, it would rank last in area behind Rhode Island, 50th in population ahead of Wyoming, and 36th in Gross State Product, ahead of 15 states." (Washington, D.C.), and I'm sure we can find many more examples.  And at the bottom of the page, it says "Copyright© 2001-2005 Location Inc Group".  They need to add a disclaimer and give credit. Thanks bringing attention this site.  --Aude 19:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have posted this site at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Mno#Neighborhoodscout.com.  I'm not entirely sure of the procedures for dealing with this, but think the first step is an e-mail, as Pharos says.   --Aude 22:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I've already sent them an e-mail.--Pharos 23:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright issue 

message: I have removed the following sentence from Commuter culture:
:"Moreover, a strike by unions representing the city's transit workers in December 2005 has threatened to freeze the entire city and could cost up hundreds of millions of dollars in damages a day."
This was just tagged onto the end of the paragraph.  If we're going to mention the strike (not sure we need to yet; it's mentioned in New York City Subway), it needs to be worked in better to the article so that the paragraph isn't choppy. Or maybe it should be mentioned in history (maybe not yet, though).--Aude 16:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 NYC transit strike 

message: East River say 10.  I count 12:
# F
# NRW
# EV
# 7
# L
# JMZ
# F
# BDNQ
# AC
# 23
# MR
# 45
Is East River wrong or am I missing something?  --Quasipalm 20:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, JMZ and BDNQ are bridges, not tunnelz. -- Cecropia 22:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Durr, thanks.  :)  --Quasipalm 23:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Btw, this was for Bridges and tunnels in New York City which I created yesterday.  --Quasipalm 19:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a very good suggestion.  Be bold and go ahead and change it.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many subway tunnels under the East River?

message: "when nearly 3,000 people were killed by an al-Qaeda terrorist strike on the World Trade Center, including New Yorkers employed in the buildings......
It wasn't only New Yorkers who were killed on that day.. what about making it "including people employed"
???Panthro 03:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a very good suggestion.  Be bold and go ahead and change it.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: September 11

message: Queens (Queens County, pop. 2,225,486) is the most diverse county in the U.S., with more immigrants than anywhere else.  Than anywhere else?  And diversity is not only measured by immigrant populations.  This sentence needs to be fixed. --Katwmn6 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you say that, the sentence jumps out at me too.  Though, I'm not sure what I'd say instead.  What would you suggest it say?  I don't mind if you go ahead and change it to say something better.  Be bold. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Queens

message: ===Crime===
I find the crime section to be very biased.  "Since 1991, New York City has seen a continuous seventeen-year trend of decreasing crime and is now the safest large city in the United States. Neighborhoods that were once considered dangerous are now thriving with new businesses and housing, and many residents feel safe to walk the streets late at night." -these are very subjective, "non-academic" statements.  If they are to remain, I suggest the following changes be made: (1) "is now the safest large city in the US" needs to be followed up with something along the lines of "according to crime per capita statistics".  Also, "large city" should be defined (ie w/in the top 10 most populous US metropolitan areas, or above a certain population?)  (2) Specific neighborhoods should be referenced instead if the commment about "once dangerous places" is to remain.  (3) There needs to be opinion polls cited about New Yorkers' perceptions of safety.  "Many residents feel safe ..." is a completely subjective statement unless backed by historical poll tracking and/or comparisons to residents' quantifiable perspectives in other US cities.  
The crime comparison statistics also do not reference Chicago (3rd largest US city and most frequently invoked metropolitan area when comparing NYC to others).  
Also, what about a historical analysis of why crime has dropped in recent years?  --Katwmn6 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As is done with the population figure, the crime statistics could be referenced with a footnote that explains these things (per capita statistics, what we mean by "large city").  With 2005 just ended, it's easy to get homicide totals for cities out of newspaper reports and compute those against population figures.  Though, safety ought to be measured by more than homicides, it's by far the simplest measure to compute.  These numbers could be incorporated into United States cities by crime rate (which would include Chicago).  I think an example of a "once dangerous" place would be helpful, with reference to historic crime statistics which are available on the NYPD website.  And, I'm not aware of any particular poll that gauges perception of safety.  As for a historical analysis of why crime has dropped, it's quite complicated with many factors, that I think go beyond the scope of this article.  I'll do what I can to improve the crime section of the article, but we would more than welcome your help.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Be bold and go ahead and add what you think needs to be there.  Though, feel free to make suggestions here and get feedback. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: I find the crime section to be very biased.  "Since 1991, New York City has seen a continuous seventeen-year trend of decreasing crime and is now the safest large city in the United States. Neighborhoods that were once considered dangerous are now thriving with new businesses and housing, and many residents feel safe to walk the streets late at night." -these are very subjective, "non-academic" statements.  If they are to remain, I suggest the following changes be made: (1) "is now the safest large city in the US" needs to be followed up with something along the lines of "according to crime per capita statistics".  Also, "large city" should be defined (ie w/in the top 10 most populous US metropolitan areas, or above a certain population?)  (2) Specific neighborhoods should be referenced instead if the commment about "once dangerous places" is to remain.  (3) There needs to be opinion polls cited about New Yorkers' perceptions of safety.  "Many residents feel safe ..." is a completely subjective statement unless backed by historical poll tracking and/or comparisons to residents' quantifiable perspectives in other US cities.  
The crime comparison statistics also do not reference Chicago (3rd largest US city and most frequently invoked metropolitan area when comparing NYC to others).  
Also, what about a historical analysis of why crime has dropped in recent years?  --Katwmn6 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As is done with the population figure, the crime statistics could be referenced with a footnote that explains these things (per capita statistics, what we mean by "large city").  With 2005 just ended, it's easy to get homicide totals for cities out of newspaper reports and compute those against population figures.  Though, safety ought to be measured by more than homicides, it's by far the simplest measure to compute.  These numbers could be incorporated into United States cities by crime rate (which would include Chicago).  I think an example of a "once dangerous" place would be helpful, with reference to historic crime statistics which are available on the NYPD website.  And, I'm not aware of any particular poll that gauges perception of safety.  As for a historical analysis of why crime has dropped, it's quite complicated with many factors, that I think go beyond the scope of this article.  I'll do what I can to improve the crime section of the article, but we would more than welcome your help.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crime

message: This article needs a specific "people" section under demographics.  I think there could be more info here...
:Be bold and go ahead and add what you think needs to be there.  Though, feel free to make suggestions here and get feedback. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: People

message: "Nationally, Americans felt increased solidarity with New Yorkers. Today, there is a palpable sense of optimism in New York, fear of terrorism has lessened dramatically, and a massive confluence of transportation infrastructure projects promises to greatly expand the city's economic potential. Drastic reductions in crime have changed "the ungovernable city" of the past into a remarkably civilized place, and recent polls show that a vast majority of New Yorkers think the city "is moving in the right direction."  Citations???  These are all subjective opinions until referenced.--Katwmn6 22:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about this being subjective.  Maybe it should just be deleted.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 9/11

message: While they are nice photos, I don't think the article needs all three of these skyline/panoramic photos.  
* :Image:New-York-Jan2005.jpg
* :Image:Skyline-New-York-City.jpg
* :Image:NYC Top of the Rock Pano.jpg
There are also more to choose from on Commons.
What do you think?  Should we keep all three? If not, which one(s) should we include in the article?  
And where? in the "Tourism" section, or "Skyline" section? -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Skyline photos

message: While being the "safest city" is a very important and distinguishing fact, the particular sentence says:
: "The city is also distinguished for being the safest large city[2] in America, despite its size and cultural diversity."
At this point of the intro, we've yet to mention anything about it's size and cultural diversity.  It makes sense to talk about those first.  And I think the city being the "center of international finance, politics, entertainment, and culture" is more distinguishing than the crime rate.  I prefer the sentence in with the paragraph that mentions immigration and diversity.  It's a good lead for saying despite the diversity (and size; already mentioned), NYC is the safest large city ... -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Safest city

message: For the government section, either a pict. of city hall or the mayor.  I agree, this one city hall pict. is too shadowy and doesn't belong in the article.  I uploaded another, :Image:Nyc city hall night.jpg, but think this is also less than ideal.  The background is too da. rk, and a picture at dusk or daytime (no shadow) would be better.  Alternatively, (also not ideal), I found a pict. of the mayor on his visit to the oval office. .  This picture could be cropped to show just the mayor.  Or, just don't put a picture in the government section.  The article already has plenty of photos. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another mayor pict., used on his article, :Image:MichaelBloomberg.jpg. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another possibility for the government section is :Image:NYPD-Motorcycles.jpg or something else on that theme. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Government pict.

message: The Transportation in New York City article is nominated as the United States Collaboration of the Week and deserves recognition for all the work that has been done to get this article up to snuff, and maybe ultimately to Featured article status. It's got potential: a compelling topic; thorough coverage of the material; better crafted sections linking to main articles; interesting pictures. Now all it needs is votes! As of now, West Viriginia has 12 votes, Rhode Island has 11 and TransNYC has just 3!?!? Rhode Island? West Virginia? Fuggedaboutit! Show your support and vote! C'mon, this is New York we're talking about. Once these other articles have been honored we need to have the votes for future recognition. Alansohn 13:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for Transportation in NYC as US Collaboration of the Week 

message: There have been significant edits today, that in my opinion, make the article sound more like an advertisement brochure for visitors and conventions.  I have started going through the "Arts & Culture" section to tone it down.  Other sections may also need to be toned down. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More major edits last night, generally to summarize some of the sections, which seems reasonable to me.  Though with all the recent edits, I think the article now needs review, to make sure it doesn't read like an advertisement.  For instance, I'm not sure we need to include the statement "New York City has ranked number one for six consecutive years as the U.S. city people would most like to live in or near.".  Also, the city hall pict. was put back in.  I swapped it for a new city hall pict., though I also like the mayor pict. -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: As important and as historical as the 9/11 attacks were, the table of contents and the article looks a bit off with the attacks being the only subsection of the history section here.  We're talking about a city with a 400-year-plus history.  Of course there are other linked articles that deal with specific periods in NYC's history and the bulk of the information should continue to be in them.  I'm just unsure that the only subsection here should be the 9/11 attacks. That's a relatively new change to the article, I think, and I believe that section can be incorporated into the main history section without making it a separate subsection in this article.  Thoughts?  Moncrief 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it doesn't need to be a seperate subsection, mainly because it's only a paragraph.  Instead, it should just be the last paragraph of the history section. -Quasipalm 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Be bold and change it?  Moncrief 01:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both of you, and made the change.  I tried to make the text flow better between the previous pgph and this one, though think the wording can be further improved.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  By the way, did "thick, acrid smoke" really flow out of Ground Zero for "months" as the article says?  I know there was a smell for a long time, but thick smoke for "months" (i.e., into early 2002?)  That seems a bit overstated.  No?  Moncrief 02:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked in the Harborside building in Jersey City directly across from Ground Zero throughout that whole period. There were visible plumes of smoke into 2002 (which were only visible from the Jersey side as time went on, and not always "thick"). I recall reading somewhere that the fires burning under the debris were extremely hot and continued to smolder for a long, long time after the Ground Zero site was contained. Overstated? Not really. Wv235 05:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, just checking.  I think as it's written it might be slightly overstated, still, but I'll certainly defer on this one.  Moncrief 05:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 as the only subsection of the history section?

message: There was a false statement that NYC produces nearly the same GDP as Russia. According to the World Bank GDP of Russia is 1,450 billion (PPP), and of NYC is 500 billion only. I've changed Russia to Turkey, which produces 530 billion in GDP.
--Revelator 06:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing Russian an NYC GDPs 

message: I decided to be bold and do an extensive rework of the demographics section, which I felt was in need of simplification and summary. I spent a long time making the new census table, which I think offers more useful information at a quick glance than the old population chart. The goal of changes to the text was to tame the plethora of statistics into a more intelligible narrative. I hope everyone finds the changes to be positive. If not, I preserved the section exactly as it was by moving it wholesale (including the population chart) to the main demographics article. 206.15.138.99 06:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised Demographics Section

message: This afternoon I did some heavy editing to Culture (consolidated Arts, Media, and Tourism under this banner) and Sports, plus a little editing of Education. I tried to pare down each section. Detail and original text has all been moved to respective sub-article pages. In the last few weeks this article has been pared from 75k+ to a little under 55k. It's now much more manageable and concise. The sub-articles however are in dire need of development. Economy of New York City and Sports in New York City are brand new (with text directly imported from the main NYC article). Culture of New York City needs a lot of work. Wv235 22:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits for concision

message: The Chicago article has a very clean city info box layout. New York's is crowded by the (otherwise great) photos of the skyline and Statue of Liberty. I propose moving the Statue of Liberty photo further down and incorporating the skyline photo into the info box, in the manner of Chicago's info box. This will make the intoduction space less cluttered. Wv235 05:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revising Intro Graphics 

message: --User:Quasipalm, I don't care too much which of the stock exchange pictures we use, but the one you added is 7 years old. The one I had on there is less than 1 year old, and shows more of a street scene. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? --Jleon 18:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:NYSE july 2003.jpg on commons is nice version, in my opinion.  How about it? -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYSE Pic 

message: Looking for Blizzard info, I came across this article and spent a bit trying to expand it (it was very short when I first saw it).  If anyone wants to help try and help expand this timeline, please do!  -Quasipalm 22:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Timeline of New York City events]]

message: --I've restored the intro photo back to the one from the Rock Center observation deck. I think most would agree with me that it is far more appropriate for the intro. --Jleon 13:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  :Image:NewYorkSkyline.jpg is clearly a copyright violation, and in no way do I see a fair use justification.  This image is now listed on IFD. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention it's just not that great looking.  -Quasipalm 20:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro photo