Jump to content

Talk:Demographics of New York City/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

I expanded the red link from the New York City article, also to resolve the minor dispute over the proper location of information about the Jewish community. My knowledge of this subject is minimal and I hope others will expand and contribute in their areas of expertise. Kaisershatner 18:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone want to expand the list of ethnicities/nationalities present? For starters, there's nothing on the history of Latinos, Caribbean people, African-Americans, Arabs, South Asians ... etc etc etc. The list seems stacked towards the "older" immigrant groups. Rocketfairy

Black Population

I highly doubt that even if New York City were exclusively composed of black people it would have more black people than the entire state of California. Someone fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.36.87 (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jewish New York Error

The "Jewish New York" section mentions that New York has more Jews than Jerusalem, but less than Tel Aviv. "New York's Jewish population in 2001 was approximately 1.97 million, 1.4 million more than in Jerusalem but 600,000 less than in Tel Aviv." How is this possible, when Tel Aviv only has a population of 385,000, as listed in its Wikipedia entry? The statement would imply that Tel Aviv has a Jewish population of more than two and a half million. which is exponentially higher than its total population is said to be on this very website. I'm not going to remove it, because maybe there's something I just don't understand. But someone should look into this.

I was confused at first too, but the 385,000 figure is for the actual city itself, while the greater metropolitan area of Tel Aviv houses a population of 3,150,800, according to the current article. Stiddy 09:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The 1.97 million figure refers to the NYC Metro area. NYTimes reports Jewish NYC population as ~972,000 199.43.32.87 (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


Sephardic Jews

There are quite a lot of Sephardic Jews in New York. A simple Google search finds over 50 Sephardic synagogues. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

that doesnt mean much, lets say every synagogue serves 100 people that is just 5000 people out of a million Ashkenazim. i dont think there are a lot of sephardic jews there, dont be confused with the term "oriental jews" or arabian jews it is not the same as it is in modern Israel, from which most arabian jews came from.--Ifeldman84 08:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
That means quite a lot actually - there are 50 synagogues who call themselves Sephardic. To follow your logic, there are even more Synagogues that are Mizrachi, Yemenite etc.
Sephardi can mean "Spanish", but it can also mean all Jews who are not Ashkenazim. (Shas call themselves "Sfaradim", but claim to represent Bucharim, Kavakazim, Gruzinim, Teymanim, Iraqim etc.)
Of course common sense says that the majority of Jews there are probably Ashkenazi, but there definitely is a significant number of Sephardi, Mizrachim and Yemenites too. New York Jews are not just Chabad, OU and Seinfeld.
If you have numbers which you can prove, you can add them to the article, instead of arguing about the meaning of "most". --Amir E. Aharoni 09:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
shas means NOTHING! what connection does the iranian or the bucharian jew to the "Sfaradim"?
maybe their dark skin or the arabian looks.
yet most of them in israel call themselfes that way (that is by not being a mizrachi that is "eastern" (asian or african) in their common logic)
as i said 50 synagogues its about 5000 people. but there is no point for this conversation because no one has any details --Ifeldman84 19:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There really is no point in this conversation without any numbers, but since you mentioned it: Shas means a lot - it is a strong party and their usage of the word has significant influence whether you like it or not. They may be illiterate (some of their publications are badly spell-checked) but they are in the Knesset and you and me are not ... --Amir E. Aharoni 19:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Percentages of Ethnicity

The table and the paragraph in this contradict each other. The table says NYC is 45% white, while the paragraph says it is 35% white. Which one is correct? Crito2161 03:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Also, the wording of this section needs to improve. One understands the meaning of "Asian Americans made up 11.6% of the city's population; of which 11.5% were non-Hispanic," but it literally means that 88.5% of NYC's Asians are also Hispanic. The fact of the semicolon, rather than a comma, seems to attempt to compensate for this. It might be more appropriate to simply list the percentages and detail sub-groups in parentheses: 11.6% Asian (11.5% non-Hispanic Asians), 45% white (35% non-Hispanic whites) for exampleErik.mears (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The percentages of ethnicity add up to 124% in the smaller table. Only to 110% in other tables. I think they should all add up to a constant 125%, like normal tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.231.132 (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

White Population

It is important to note that people who are say white and black (or of two races: white and another) are counted only as black. The black population census numbers include Hispanic blacks, while non-hispanic white does not. The white population difference reflects the debate between Civil Rights groups and statisticians and more conservative groups as to just what consititutes a white person. In liberal New York, a reduction of "white" from 45% to 35% is good for civil rights.

What exactly does any of that have to do with being "liberal?" Furthermore, where is your proof that people who identify as black and white are only counted as black? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.104.4 (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

edits

I made a number of copyediting changes, which were for clarity and readability. (Some sections were worse than others.) I removed some details, including the Irish genealogical claim (which makes claims beyond what the cited article suggests, in any case as to the relationship to Niall). I removed that one from several places, after a lot of thought, because this is still unsubstantiated, but more because it seemed inappropriately detailed in contrast to the other entries and belongs in a specialty article.

There is far too little information on a number of NYC communities and strange choices on some of the others. It is as though we have here public relations releases for a number of communities and nothing for others, such as Chinese and other Asian residents, and far and away the black, Caribbean and African American groups, while the Jewish section seems inadequate in relation to Sephardic Jews (I added a sentence or two) .

Some of the remarks on housing were ideological, and unsubstantiated, rather than factual. If anything, city housing policy and the construction of low income areas as high-rise ghettos in the growth period of the 1950s needs to be addressed. Also, the construction the South Bronx as a mecca for workers made possible by the construction of subways and the setting of the stage for the precipitous decline of the South Bronx by some of Robert Moses' construction choices should be written in.

This article needs a lot of work, which I hope it can get. At present it seems like an amateurish expression of particular special interests and a slight, glancing attention to less favored ones.

(I am, of course, a New Yorker.)Actio (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

revisiting this article, it seems even more glaringly focused on a few communities of European origin than I thought; we should be ashamed! this needs significant work.

Also, every time I see Albania in the list of sources of highest immigration, I pause; is this verifiable? Actio (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

NY State > NYC Metro Area

"accounting for about 40% of the population of New York State and a similar percentage of the New York metropolitan area, home to about 20 million." This would seem to imply that the state population is the same as the metro pop. I imagine that there is some correct information or interpretation, wherefore I do not remove the text, but this is most confusing to me.Czrisher (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Add citation for Religions section

I can't find it on the census website. Anyone know where the numbers come from? The table should have a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.20.211 (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Major ethnic and national groups

This section seems to miss out at least the following:

Scottish Dutch English

Given the history of the city, I would venture that there are a lot of people who could be classed as ethnic Scots / English / Dutch.194.78.35.195 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.232.1.212, 4 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I want to edit and remove where it saya that the Flushing Chinatown is nearby Flushing, Queens, which the Chinatown is directly in Flushing, Queens.

Where it says See also, i want to add a link for Sunset Park, Brooklyn and remove the Chinese American link and rplace it with Sunset Park, Brooklyn, because that link talk's about the Chinatown in the neighborhood.

96.232.1.212 (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. The article reads "...in nearby..." which means that that chinatown is in Flushing, which is nearby to Manhattan. If you'd like to reword it to make it clearer, feel free to put in a request; the current "...in nearby Flushing, Queens (also part of New York City)" is kind of redundant. Having "Chinese American" in the "See also" list is consistent with several other sections. Listing the chinatowns there makes the list at the end of the section redundant. If it were my article, I'd remove the two chinatowns from the "see also" list, but if you would like to add Sunset Park, Brooklyn, just make a new request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.232.1.212, 5 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I want to add Sunset Park, Brooklyn link to were it says See also.

I want to fix the links Elmhurst, New York to Elmhurst, Queens New York and Avenue U New York to Homecrest, Brooklyn New York sice those are also Chinese communities in New York City. 96.232.1.212 (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Saw no real reason to "add Sunset Park, Brooklyn link to were it says See also", and the Elmhurst article link is fine, so those were  Not done. As for changing Avenue U to Homecrest, Brooklyn, although I am concerned it may not be clear to the reader why such a link exists.  Done Avicennasis @ 02:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.37.197.164, 16 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Your drunk.

75.37.197.164 (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done no request. Avicennasis tb? @ 04:25, 4 Tamuz 5770 / 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from {{subst:CURRENTUSER}}, 10 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I want to edit in the Brooklyn Chinatown section on the Chinese section of the article by adding that now Wenzhounese immigrants from China Zhejiang Province are now arriving in Brooklyn's Chinatown, which is true.

108.14.190.250 (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The threshold of inclusion of information on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 108.6.105.176, 10 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I want to change the word some to also where it says from Shanghai in the Manhattan Chinatown section, because on the source next to it says that also Manhattan's Chinatown also has Shanghainese immigrants, along with Cantonese and Fujianese immigrants.

108.6.105.176 (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OK - I think I understand; I changed it from;
  • The early settlers of Manhattan's Chinatown were mostly from Taishan and Hong Kong of the Guangdong Province of China, which are the Cantonese speakers and some from Shanghai.
To;
  • The early settlers of Manhattan's Chinatown were mostly from Taishan and Hong Kong of the Guangdong Province of China, which are the Cantonese speakers, and alsofrom Shanghai.

I hope that is OK.  Chzz  ►  02:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Edit request from 69.126.114.163, 14 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Can you add Hong Kong next to were it says guangdong provice in the section of Manhattan's Chinatown, because also Manhattan's Chinatown Cantonese population also comes from Hong Kong, not just the Mainland of China.

69.126.114.163 (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.126.114.163, 15 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Can you switch the word were into are were it says that the early settlers of manhattan's chinatown were mostly from taishan and hong kong.

69.126.114.163 (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Your request seems to introduce a contradiction between the tense and time period. The "Early settlers" are probably long dead and therefore "were"; the sentence should be in the past tense because of the word "early". There is also another problem, which being a non-linguist I cannot pinpoint or name, but suffice to say it would introduce a grammatical error. Intelligentsium 02:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.101.66.49, 15 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In Brooklyn's Chinatown article section, Can you add in that Wenzhounese immigrants from China's Zhejiang Province is now arriving in Brooklyn's Chinatown. I don't have a source for that statement, but in other articles such as Chinatown, Brookyln, Chinatowns in Canada and the United Stated and New York City Ethnic Enclaves it says that information, meaning that information is correct

74.101.66.49 (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done You need a source. Just because it is listed in other articles, doesn't make it true (without a source). CTJF83 chat 02:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 108.14.181.214, 20 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the Manhattan Chinatown article section, can you change where it says also from Shanghai to and some from Shanghai, because in the refernce source it says that those were the small minority early chinese settlers.

108.14.181.214 (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I didn't see anything like that in the reference. In fact, the reference says "Most of the early settlers were from Toishan, Shanghai, and Canton" which suggests a more even distribution than the current text implies. Can you detail the part of the reference you read? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 108.14.181.108, 27 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the articles of Chinatown, Brooklyn, Chinatowns in Canada and the United States and New York City Ethnic Enclaves can you remove where it says that Wenzhounese immigrants from China's Zhejiang Province are now arriving to Brooblyn's Chinatown. There no source to prove that statement, so it must be removed.

108.14.181.108 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a 'citation needed' to this article, but Chinatown, Brooklyn, Chinatowns in Canada and the United States and New York City ethnic enclaves can be edited by you.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Uniquely large?

I agree about the diversity, but New York City is surely not 'uniquely large' - obv. no other city has exactly the same population, but there are some metropolises that are larger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.138.31 (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 Census numbers released today

See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/nyregion/25census.html I've made some changes to the main article but not to this one. Expect a big data dump to follow that may require major revisions to this article. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Albanians

If 2.54% of the Bronx speaks Albanian thats makes about 35,000 Albaians in the Bronx or around .4% of NYC. If you count the other boroughs Im sure the number is much higher. Shouldn't Albanians be included in the "top ten European ancestries " list. Their number in the Bronx alone qualifies them to be put in the "Other smaller European ancestries" list.

The Jewish section

The vast majority of info in the Jewish section is about Jews from Europe, the vast majority of Jews in the US are also from Europe, this section can therefor not be in the Eastern Mediterranean section as the vast majority of Jews in the US are not from the Eastern Mediterranean, but from Europe. Also, to be Jewish is not an ethnicity, but a religion. I suggest creating a separate "Jewish" section and changing the lead to "Ethnicities and religion" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Historically you are correct, but demographics change and there has been an increase in middle-eastern jews in the past few decades. In addition, there is WP:RS that supports both ethnicity and religion; however this article is not the place for a battle over ethnicity, religion, or to import the I-P conflict. It is simply demographics of NYC. I would suggest any changes you make be throughly discussed and backed up by multiple WP:RS, with a clear majority consensus on any changes. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 00:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance, Arab. Jews are an ethnicity as well as a religion, and the ancestors of Jews who live in Europe came from Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Withgiven1 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the point here is that the "Jewish" section doesn't make sense either in "Eastern Mediterranean" or in "European", for the simple reason that, whichever you pick, at least 100,000 people will feel rather strongly that it's wrong. The ethnicity/religion question is equally contentious, but that section is obviously related to Jews as an ethnic rather than a religious group, since it appears alongside "Arab" and "African American" rather than "Christian" or "Buddhist". I think the entire "Ethnicities" section would be better off without geographic categories at all. --Anschelsc (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Apollo Theater.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Apollo Theater.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Apollo Theater.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

800 languages?

The NY Times article referenced has a claim about the guesses of unnamed experts.

The facts in the cited article are: 176 languages are spoken by students in NYC public schools. 138 languages were listed by Queens residents on their census forms.

Is there any other source for the claim that NYC has 800 spoken languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.136.78 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The article for London says that it has over 300 spoken languages...but the original source of this claim seems to be based solely on the languages spoken by pupils in its schools: http://repec.ioe.ac.uk/REPEc/pdf/qsswp1012.pdf (i.e. compare to the figure of 176 for NYC) Bervies (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I edited the number of languages from 800 to 200 in September 2012. The figure of 800 came from an unsupported claim in the NY Times article mentioned above. I replaced the reference link to that article with a link to the the NYC Dept of Planning page on the nyc.gov website. This page is still there. Go to nyc.gov, type "population facts" in the search box, and then click on "New York City Department of City Planning...Population Facts". At the bottom of the list of facts you will find: "An estimated 200 languages are spoken in New York City".

My revision was removed by 173.63.176.93 at 4.54 2 December 2012, and replaced with the original specious claim. I intend to remove the erroneous and unsupported estimate of 800 languages and replace it with the NYC Dept of Planning figure again, unless anyone can come up with a factual basis for the estimate of 800. Robocon1 (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad I've stumbled upon this article, discussion, and most importantly now, this fabulous reference from what is apparently THE most authoritative body studying this subject, which can be used for other articles as well. The New York Times is an august institution, and it itself notes the distinction between the numbers. Note the verbiage used - As many as 800 languages.... This is decidedly accurate as stated. The number of languages spoken in the schools is irrelevant here - the whole point is that many endangered languages are spoken by perhaps a handful of people, perhaps elderly or infirmed, who do not attend schools as pupils. I'm generally not a fan of IPs myself, but I have to agree with this one. Sounds like you have a pro-London agenda yourself - so take it to THAT article.

Castncoot (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I see 173.63.176.93 was cited as a suspected sockpuppet for Thmc1 (Pro-NYC vandalism at expense of other cities) 5 August 2012. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thmc1/Archive Robocon1 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I also see that 173.63.176.93 has replaced the original citation for the "800 languages" claim with an equally unsupported claim from an organisation called The Endangered Languages League. There is no mention of where this figure came from on their website: it is more than possible that their source was this wikipedia article. Since the estimate of 200 languages spoken originates from the NYC Dept. of Planning, who specify that their data is derived from the 2010 census, and this figure is also supported by actual facts cited in the NY Times article concerning languages spoken in NYC public schools, and since no-one has come up with any factual and verifiable basis for the figure of 800 languages spoken, I will now replace it and add the citation to the NYC Department of Planning. Robocon1 (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have been the Endangered Languages Alliance. Robocon1 (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Castncoot: You have reverted my edit of languages spoken in NYC with the figure of 800 languages spoken referenced to a 2010 NY Times article. You say above that you "stumbled upon this fabulous reference" today, yet it was you who introduced this figure to the NYC Demographics entry, citing that article, in October 2011, when you removed an estimate of 170 which was attributed to a reputable source. The New York Times is a newspaper, not "an authoritative body studying this subject". The "whole point" is not "that many endangered languages are spoken by perhaps a handful of people". The point, for wikipedia purposes, is whether statements are verifiable and how reliable the source is. A statement by a newspaper journalist in 2010 that "some experts" "believe" "as many as 800" languages are spoken is not verifiable, and would in any case be trumped by an estimate which is current, rather than three years old. The citations for the original sentence that you removed in 2011 were the New York Office of the State Comptroller and the New York City Department of City Planning. The citation supporting the figure of 200 is a current webpage of the New York City Department of City Planning. Those are, by anybody's reckoning, authoritative bodies. I have no "pro-London agenda". London wasn't mentioned in the sentence you removed today. I mentioned NYC was the second most linguistically diverse city in the world in the revision of October 2011, but did not include that in this revision because, on reflection, we cannot be sure the criteria for arriving at the figure for London were comparable to those of the NYC Department of City Planning. I found the figure for London from the comment by Bervies above. The figure for London, based on languages spoken in schools, is 300, and the figure for NYC mentioned in the NY Times article is 173. I can't find comparable figures for other world cities. For those reasons, I don't think we can state with certainty that NYC is the most linguistically diverse city, or the second most, only that it is one of the most. I see that you have also reverted my grammar and syntax edit of the Chinese section (which you describe as bizarre - how so?), restoring the confused sentences created by multiple edits, together with the spelling mistakes: for instance, I think you'll agree the A train doesn't stop at "Chamber Street". I'm requesting that you consider what I've said here, and either cite a current source which is as reliable as a NYC government office, or restore my edit. I would also request that you restore my edit of the Chinatown section on grounds of accuracy and legibility - just read the two versions and see whether you can't honestly admit which is clearer and more accurate.Robocon1 (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Not true, and not buying your argument. First, kindly get your facts straight - I introduced this fabulous Endangered Language Alliance source into the NYC article just within the past twelve hours or so, after seeing it in THIS article for the first time. This source needs to quote none other to support it - this is the most reliable and EXPERT source which all OTHERS should quote; and reading The New York Times source carefully, which I'm not sure you did, and which offered an excellent perspective on the subject, that article did in fact include the Endangered Language Alliance in its text; furthermore, that article gave a wonderful perspective of the different numbers of languages quoted, which can be noted by the reader, and can't simply be eliminated as a reference as you tried to do. Neither can a fabulously constructive expert reference by the Endangered Language Alliance updated to 2012 be simply eliminated as if it doesn't exist, especially when it is the only such expert scholarly source which apparently in fact exists. The language "As many as..." is far more telling than a count simply containing a checkbox saying "Other" which may miss a plethora of illegal immigrants who escape counting and who in fact are the most likely source of endangered languages spoken by one or two elderly non-English speaking illegal immigrants. This is likely in fact why such a project and academic entity were born, to study and turn over every stone in a scholarly manner. I'm also not surprised that New York is in fact far more linguistically diverse than London,[1] given that London receives less than 100K international immigrants per year while New York receives closer to 200K per year [2] (Supplemental Table 2). Manhattan's Chinatown borders were incorrect as stated and corrected to conform to THAT article. Finally, your assertion that "epicenter" denotes the origination of an earthquake is also flatly wrong - it simply means a focal point.

Castncoot (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


The NY Times article in this wikipedia entry was first cited in the revision listed to Castncoot at 21:48 31 October 2011.

You're now saying you only read it and discovered the ELA source 12 hours ago? The citation to the ELA website first appeared with the revision to this wikipedia entry of 4 Sept, which is listed to 173.63.176.93. You therefore simply reintroduced it when you clicked on 'undo' and reverted my edit(s).

I read the ELA website when it was cited in the revision of Sept 4: as I already said above, it doesn't explain how the figure of 800 languages was arrived at, or who produced it, any more than the 2010 NY Times article did. No attribution or explanation of any kind is given. With all due respect to them, they are not a recognised academic institution like a university, or a source of probity like a NYC government department. They are are simply an action group formed to agitate to preserve endangered languages.

I can see that you've altered references to boundaries in the Chinese section, but you've also restored sentences like: "Areas surrounding the "Little Fuzhou" consist mostly of Cantonese immigrants from Guangdong Province, the earlier Chinese settlers, and in some areas moderately of Cantonese immigrants.", which is clumsy and tautologous: the article previously stated the earlier settlers were Cantonese, and the English name for Guangdong Province IS Canton, so of course the areas surrounding Little Fuzhou are Cantonese, which is what I edited it to. The other edits just make things clearer or convey the same information using less words. By the way, according to wikipedia, an epicenter is the point of origin of an earthquake, as I said - please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicenter - and the spelling of Chambers Street that you seem to prefer is still wrong.

I invite you once again to produce a citation to a current source which supports the figure of 800 languages that is verifiable, otherwise to please restore my edits Robocon1 (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


I will now attempt to repeat my minor language edit of the Chinese section (as mentioned in 800 Languages? previously). This, as you can see from the Demographics of NYC revision history, involves correcting spelling mistakes and making things shorter without altering the meaning. It doesn't touch any cited material like boundaries. If anyone has any objections, I request that we discuss them here rather than just clicking on 'undo' (again).Robocon1 (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. I discover that some of it had already been restored by Castncoot.Robocon1 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


To return to the 800 languages problem, the normal thing to do here would be to suggest a compromise, but that would need to read something like "An NYC government source states that 200 languages are spoken in New York City, although some unnamed experts mentioned in a newspaper article three years ago apparently estimated that figure to be as high as 800, a figure which is also currently mentioned on the website of an endangered languages group unaffiliated to any recognised academic institution, again without attribution or explanation; it is in any case one of the most linguistically diverse cities in the world."Robocon1 (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you really serious? Besides rambling incomprehensibly over the recent period (I still can't follow what you're saying), you don't seem to understand that the 2012 ELA source (which I first noticed upon perusing chaotic changes to this article made by you and an IP) appears to be the most authoritative source of all. Even The New York Times quotes the co-founder of this project as an expert himself; other names are not obligatory, especially when the language reads, "As many as 800 languages...". There is no problem other than your imagination - I do apologize for the inadvertent blanket revert, however, which I fixed relatively promptly. Castncoot (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
By the way, your own link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicenter led to a secondary link in its Reference section ([3]) which clearly cites non-earthquake related definitions for "epicenter"! And I don't carry the interest in the Chambers Street issue, but it looks to be spelled correctly. Castncoot (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for the apology. 1. Incomprehensible ramblings: First you said (see above, 7 Sept) that you introduced the ELA website citation. You didn't. Go to the Demographics/NYC history and look at the 19:59 4 Sept revision by 173.63.176.93. You'll see it there. You also said you only stumbled on the NY Times article on 7 Sept, yet you yourself cited it in the revision listed to you in October 2011. Look at the history, and there's your name. And now you say you first noticed the ELA source when you undid my "Chinese" edit on the 8th. That's incomprehensible.

2. I think you'll find the chaotic changes you mention are down to the IP or others, not me. Yes, Chambers is spelt correctly now, but it wasn't before I fixed it. You undid that.

3. I take your point on epicenter - but if it the secondary meaning is "center", why not just use center?

Seriously? It's all true, but no, I'm not serious. And I agree that people at ELA are well qualified, and since the 800 languages estimate appears on their website they clearly endorse it. But we still don't know who came up with it - the NY Times journalist would have namechecked them if it was the 2 ELA guys he interviewed, because the NY Times has a strict policy of attributing sources. Unattributed sources aren't meant to be used on wikipedia, either. Which means there is a problem with the sentence you posted. Rather than me replace it, and you replace the one I post, and waste more time on an edit war, how's this:

Although official sources estimate 200, one source estimates as many as 800 languages are spoken in New York; in any case it is perhaps the most linguistically diverse place in the world. With cites to the City Planning Dept from 200, and the ELA website from 800.

Before you raise the point, no-one can say for sure it's the most diverse, because there are no estimates like the ELA's for other cities. The only like-for-like estimates (census data and schools) are with London, and they suggest London is more diverse. ELA ("the most authoritative source of all" according to you) says "may be". Please see the ELA website under "Why ELA", where it says: "New York may be the single area of greatest linguistic diversity on the planet."84.208.114.57 (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Sorry, that (84.208.114.57)was me. I inadvertently posted without being logged in.Robocon1 (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm being very patient here, I don't know how to say this any more clearly, and this is the last time now I'm going to say it - the reference I'm referring to as stumbling on in recent days is the ELA website reference, not The New York Times reference. But as far as the wording, feel free to modify it as you've suggested, but keep the NY Times reference as well to support the 800 figure, please.

Castncoot (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

From "the IP", (God, you both sound so respectful), I think the statement should stay as it is since "as many as 800" really shows how many endangered languages are spoken in New York, and 800 is far more than 300, 200, or 176.173.63.176.93 (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
No disrespect intended, IP ----> but why don't IPs simply register? I've had some time to think about the above issue critically since my last comment. The way the sentence is structured, "As many as 800 languages..." is correct, as Robocon1 (or whoever) has no business telling The New York Times or the Endangered Language Alliance how to quote sources; then it would be correct to state that given that this premise is correct, it consequently follows directly that the premise per se WOULD make NYC the most linguistically diverse city in the world, with all reliably citable information that is indeed evidently available. In other words, it is not New York's problem that other cities don't have a reliably quoted figure even close; Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL BALL. Giving it further thought, I believe the current status quo is actually correct from a technical standpoint, not to mention what is likely to be, additionally, the truth.

Castncoot (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, we're not the experts here. ELA are, and their website says: "New York may be the single area of greatest linguistic diversity on the planet." Go to elalliance.org, click on ABOUT US click on WHY then WHY US and there it is. "May be", not "is". The reason for including the Dept of City Planning number is that they are an official source and their figure is different. Once again, we're not the experts here. Can we agree that what the official and expert sources currently say is that:

It has been estimated that between 200 and 800 languages are spoken in New York, and that it may be the single area of greatest linguistic diversity on the planet.

and cite the Dept of City Planning, ELA and NY Times article at the appropriate points? Robocon1 (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Between 200 and 800", that's like saying someone has 1 to 4 children.173.63.176.93 (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
After reviewing all facets and information carefully, it is clear that the ELA's founders and its website are the ultimate authorities on global linguistic diversity; as such, even this website actively and authoritatively distinguishes the 800 number of languages spoken in New York from the 200+ languages spoken in the NYC school system alone. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the nyc.gov page derived the 200 figure from the ELA website itself. The majority of the 800 languages are spoken by a small number of people, and most of these languages are likely endangered. In America, immigrant kids tend to speak English at the expense of maintaining proficiency in their own native language spoken by their grandparents, who may speak that language exclusively; but this Wikipedia article and the sentence in contention are not concerned with the number of languages spoken in the city schools, but rather the aggregate number spoken that has been reliably cited. Thus, there is no indication or reason that I can fathom to mention the 200 figure at all in this article - perhaps in the New York City Schools article, but not in this Demographics of New York City article.
On the other hand, The New York Times, an obviously authoritative source on its own, clearly states, "These are not just some of the languages that make New York the most linguistically diverse city in the world." The Times also refers to more than one expert to support this statement, if not each by name. However, it has named Daniel Kaufman, one of the founders of the ELA, who states very clearly in The Times' article, "It (New York City) is the capital of language density in the world." Therefore, the Times has authoritatively cited statements on its own merit as well as having referenced an expert founder of the ELA, and therefore, this part of the statement in this Demographics of NYC article has been correctly attributed to The Times.

Castncoot (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the opposite of what's supposed to happen. See consensus. After discussing options that express both viewpoints you are now refusing to budge an inch from your original position. You already made your views clear at the outset. The versions I've suggested include the citations you regard as necessary, even though I don't think they are, for the reasons I explained. The second one also quotes directly from the ELA website, rather than a journalist. Who knows better here - a journalist, or the subjects he interviewed? The fact that you and 173.63.176.93 may agree is irrelevant, since you hold the same views. I request you again to consider reaching consensus here, in the interests of wikipedia.

Robocon1 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to post the sentence above proposed by me as a consensus and previously accepted by Castncoot. If it is reverted, I will initiate intervention via the appropriate wikipedia protocol.

Robocon1 (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your wording that nobody else agrees with. Did you even bother to think about asking how I felt about it? How many "official sources" are you quoting? Like I said before, it's like saying someone has between 1 and 4 children, it just makes no sense. This is an encyclopedia here, not a game of roulette where the ball can land on any number.173.63.176.93 (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

An encyclopedia which in this case relies solely on the opinions of "some experts" unnamed in an out of date newspaper article and still unnamed on a website cited in your edit. "As many as 800" is not a precise figure. It is an imprecise estimate for which 800 is the maximum value and the minimum value is unstated. Robocon1 (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've made a wikipedia Dispute Resolution Request.

Robocon1 (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

New York is being the centre for more than one thousand spoken languages, by distance the most linguistically diverse city in the world. But the only expert source which has studied this question in a large degree of detail is showing that a mere 800 languages are being spoken in New York, and I am finding myself to be surprised. But it could be stated that at least 800 languages are spoken in New York, making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world. MazabukaBloke (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The Endangered Language Alliance (no Wikipedia page) is Bob Holman#Endangered_Language_Alliance, a poet, and two linguists (no Wikipedia page). They are hardly an unquestionable source, and uncited puffery on a website labeled as an estimation hardly makes the case. We have real numbers from a source that actually studied the matter in a formal way, that we know how they're generated. (And how they're generated really matters; as many as 800 constructed languages (in some degree of construction) have been spoken in New York, and Latin, Old English, Ancient Egyptian, etc. have all been uttered recently with city bounds. Counting native speakers versus people who have used the language at some point versus people who currently can use the language versus people who currently preferentially use the language can all get you wildly different numbers.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Both Bob Holman and Daniel Kaufman have researched in the capacities of academic professors at prestigious universities; that an entity has no separate Wikipedia page is not an issue. (I myself do respectable and respected work that is worthy of its own separate Wikipedia page but simply choose not to pursue that route.) Also, if a language is indeed uttered as a bona fide form of communication, it really doesn't matter how often it is spoken. Most significantly, I have no reason to suspect that this article from The New York Times should be questioned regarding its reliability (or for its currency, being a trifle three years old rather than say, fifteen years, long enough for such a statistic to change significantly).

Castncoot (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And neither Bob Holman or Daniel Kaufman is cited as the source of this; merely the uncited puffery of an organization's main webpage. I'll point to WP:WEIGHT: "if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Right now we don't have a single expert offering the viewpoint. I don't see the New York Times as a reliable source for stuff like this at all; newspapers are notoriously awful at correctly reporting scientific reports, and this doesn't even have an expert we could check with to see if they were cited correctly. If your work were added to Wikipedia, I would hope you would cite it to peer-reviewed articles and be careful to label stuff you hold that not everyone in the field would agree with as such, distinct from stuff that's completely uncontroversial in the field.
Your opinion that all languages that are "indeed uttered as a bona fide form of communication" should be counted is interesting but misses the point. We don't know if that was indeed the rule used for creating this number, nor do we know the definition of language (versus dialect) being used. It's not a meaningful number absent that information, and it's completely useless to try to compare to numbers from other cities or places.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Apples and artichokes. Wikipedia has a different bar for WP:VERIFIABILITY than a scientific peer-review article. "As many as 800" and "making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world" fit that bar comfortably. And really, 800 is plausible, and likely an underestimate. 100.45.89.41 (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
If anything, the bar should be higher, since we're not a primary source. Again, WP:WEIGHT says "if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". "making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world" is of course bogus puffery, as no one has remotely done the studies to measure that. These things are hard to measure in a comparable way, and the fact that someone has come up with one number for New York and another for London doesn't mean they're remotely comparable (and apparently no one has counted Mumbai or Beijing). Not to mention that what it means by "most linguistically diverse city" is not clear; is English domination with a lot of spots of people privately using many other language more diverse then, say, Geneva or even Montreal where multiple languages share the top spot?--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The numbers at the top of the thread give official counts in the sub-200 range; the US Census gives an official count of 311 languages spoken in the US. The Ethnologue gives 214 living languages in the US. A count in the range of 800 is not plausible, especially given that we don't have an expert name, much less methodology or raw data.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an accumulation of unverifiable speculation. If Mumbai has more languages spoken, but no one's commented on it in a reliable source, don't count that against New York.173.63.177.192 (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you pointing to the section that says "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included"? Because this claim about New York is not stated by reliable expert sources or recognized entities in a field. This is not about accumulation, either; it's about not citing anonymous, somewhat WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. I don't think WP:SPECULATION says anything about not including claims that obviously haven't been properly researched, and the only way to find New York to be the "most linguistically diverse city" is to figure out how linguistically diverse Mumbai and everyone else is. These sources aren't even asserting that they've done that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if you've taken the time to read The Times' article in detail, but let me quote just one paragraph: "In addition to dozens of Native American languages, vulnerable foreign languages that researchers say are spoken in New York include Aramaic, Chaldic and Mandaic from the Semitic family; Bukhari (a Bukharian Jewish language, which has more speakers in Queens than in Uzbekistan or Tajikistan); Chamorro (from the Mariana Islands); Irish Gaelic; Kashubian (from Poland); indigenous Mexican languages; Pennsylvania Dutch; Rhaeto-Romanic (spoken in Switzerland); Romany (from the Balkans); and Yiddish." The article also mentions Ormuri, Mamuju, and Vlashki. Most of these don't even appear in your link. As is usually true, The Times is a comfortable bet for reliability in this case.

Castncoot (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Ethnologue link, I was under the impression that we cared about the experts in the field, given that that's considered the world's most authoritative list of languages, produced by the Summer Institute of Linguistics instead of by a poet and two linguists. It's great that you can come up with a short list like that, but you need 600 languages, not ten.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Nice try, but as a sample it simply demonstrated the lack of reliability of your source. There's no consensus for changing to the language as you did (which, by the way, really came off looking unprofessional).

Castncoot (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see; this is simply an WP:OWN issue. When there are multiple reliable sources in contention, we quote all of them, not just one and stuff the others under the table; see WP:NPOV. And I note that you're misciting the source when you claim that "It is the capital of language density in the world." is the same thing as the language in the article, "making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world".--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the business of whether unattributed quotes should be included, or whether 800 languages are spoken, there is another, perhaps more important point to consider. Editing of this wikipedia article is currently controlled by self-appointed censors Castncoot and 173.63.176.93. Neither of them are interested in considering other viewpoints or acheiving any kind of consensus. As I've already mentioned, 173.63.176.93 was cited as a suspected sockpuppet for Thmc1 (Pro-NYC vandalism at expense of other cities) 5 August 2012. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thmc1/Archive.Robocon1 (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Wotcha. Prosfilaes (talk) and Robocon1 (talk) using the same words for a "consensus". Very interesting. MazabukaBloke (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Consensus being an important idea behind Wikipedia, of course we both talk about it. Go ahead and take it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, and please put yourself and Castncoot up, too, since there's just as much evidence for that claim.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense, bad faith statement. LOL! I don't mind a consensus at all, but my understanding of a consensus is that it has to be agreed upon by the major players; you've changed something right in the midst of a dispute resolution discussion, and THAT's bad faith and not allowed, and what I object to. The content needs to return to where we started FROM when this dispute resolution started, and continue to work from there.

Castncoot (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe you've also misread the article, which really looks to be in good faith and that the researchers went out and did some hard work.

Here are two sets of three consecutive paragraphs from The Times' article: "These are not just some of the languages that make New York the most linguistically diverse city in the world. They are part of a remarkable trove of endangered tongues that have taken root in New York — languages born in every corner of the globe and now more commonly heard in various corners of New York than anywhere else.

While there is no precise count, some experts believe New York is home to as many as 800 languages — far more than the 176 spoken by students in the city’s public schools or the 138 that residents of Queens, New York’s most diverse borough, listed on their 2000 census forms.

'It is the capital of language density in the world,” said Daniel Kaufman, an adjunct professor of linguistics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. “We’re sitting in an endangerment hot spot where we are surrounded by languages that are not going to be around even in 20 or 30 years.' "

"Researchers plan to canvass a tiny Afghan neighborhood in Flushing, Queens, for Ormuri, which is believed to be spoken by a small number of people in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Endangered Language Alliance will apply field techniques usually employed in exotic and remote foreign locales as it starts its research in the city’s vibrant ethnic enclaves.

'Nobody had gone from area to area looking for endangered languages in New York City spoken by immigrant populations,' Professor Kaufman said."

So it appears that this sort of research has indeed been done in other locales globally. Like with anything else in Wikipedia, superlatives are based upon information you have, reliably cited. For example, the Burj Khalifa is noted to be tallest building in the world. There may indeed be a taller building out there, as that statistic seems to keep changing every few years; but if there is another, it's not reliably cited as such.

Getting back to the Wikipedia article, it simply says that "As many as 800 languages are spoken in New York" (and why not, the Language article estimates "between 6,000 and 7,000" languages on the planet at the time of this edit), not that "800 languages are spoken in New York." And the statement simply states that this would then make New York the most linguistically diverse city in the world.

Let's keep this discussion cool and constructive, guys. Castncoot (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Since when has "some experts believe" been a reliable source? We wouldn't accept that in Wikipedia; we'd tag that with {{who}} in a heartbeat, and hopefully delete it soon after. And since when has the Summer Institute of Linguistics or the New York City government not been reliable sources? You demand that "as many as 800 languages" be stated as fact and other reliable sources quashed.
Superlatives are done on the information we have. Google Books shows that UK Cities: A Look at Life and Major Cities in England (ISBN 9987160212 , page 16) says "More than 300 languages are spoken in London, making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world, with New York City being its only nearest rival." and "In the case of the UK, one newspaper report recently claimed that “London is the most linguistically diverse city on earth” (The Times, January 22, 2000, p. 8)." So we do have reliable sources saying that NYC is not the most linguistically diverse city on Earth.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I examined both of your sources carefully with due diligence - they both quote severely outdated and unreliable content. There's no consensus for such a change from the current status quo. You realized that you got caught having misread The New York Times article by not having seen the line, "...that make New York the most linguistically diverse city in the world."

Castncoot (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added another current and authoritative reference, this one from The Economist, which is based in London, the last time I checked. Along with The New York Times, The Economist appears to give the Endangered Language Alliance a great deal of credibility. I believe both of these references are far more credible and current than the two you have quoted above. I feel very strongly about this. Castncoot (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so in other words, we've dropped any claim that there aren't other reliable sources out there, just that you don't like them. You feel very strongly about this, but that's not how Wikipedia works. I've added a disputed tag; it would be strictly perfidious to remove that, as it's undeniably true that the statement is disputed by editors on the talk page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah, but look at Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute#Disputed statement: "Verified article -- removed accuracy dispute." And this has been discussed to death now. My addition of The Economist's 2011 citation to the New York Times' 2010 citation puts the subject to rest in good faith. This will prevent a bad-faith permanent scar on the article by you, just because you can't accept the facts. And please don't misquote me or other entities, like you've done repeatedly throughout the discussion; I've already stated unequivocally that your sources are unreliable in the context of this discussion. Castncoot (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
So the intent of the dubious tag is for the original author who put the dubious statement to delete the dubious tag? That's absurd. You've stated that my sources are unreliable because you don't like them. We can layer cite after cite on some disputed issues, and that still won't make them not disputed. UK Cities: A Look at Life and Major Cities in England is not a reliable source, and yet some article in the New York Times that literally says "Some experts say" is. I can accept the facts; we have experts giving numbers around 200 for the number of languages spoken in NYC, and you can't name a single person for your 800 number.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The only thing dubious here is Profilus's intent. I don't see any ambiguity with these sources and 800 is much greater than 300. Okay,what's wrong with "epicenter"?Even the Economist source is uding that wordk.173.220.184.2 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Really? You don't understand what do you think my intent is? My intent is to make Wikipedia as reputable as possible by at the very least citing reputable sources as well as lazy journalism. "Some experts say" is not an acceptable cite, no matter who's mouth it comes out of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Bullpuckie. Lazy? Your source is not even verifyable and youre just the type of nationalistic editor that would make Wikipedia less reputable.173.220.184.2 (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing Ethnicities

Where are Canadians, Australians, and Brazilians? FonsScientiae (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Those are nationalities not ethnicities and they hardly warrant sections.FamAD123 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Chinese most important?

Yeah, so looking at this article it would be easy to get the impression that the Chinese are the most important ethic group in NYC> It has by far the largest section despite several other origin groups having both larger numbers and more easily recognizable presence in NYC. It should be cut down some, while just about every other section should probably be built up. I've seen this page before and it looks like someone cut ever other page down by half, but doubled the Chinese section. FamAD123 (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


I will now attempt to repeat my minor language edit of the Chinese section (as mentioned in 800 Languages? previously). This, as you can see from the Demographics of NYC revision history, involves correcting spelling mistakes and making things shorter without altering the meaning. It doesn't touch any cited material like boundaries. If anyone has any objections, I request that we discuss them on the talk page rather than just clicking on 'undo' (again).Robocon1 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Billionaires

In three consecutive sentences, the article says that New York City has 55 billionaires and 70 billionaires. That's 15 billionaires missing! Should we call the FBI? In all seriousness, I suspect those numbers are from different sources, and use different definitions (e.g., 70 billionaires own a residence in NYC but only 55 live in the city in any meaningful sense, perhaps) and/or refer to different years, but it should be clarified. ♥ «Charles A. L.» (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Religion

Where has the Religion section gone? 149.31.181.149 (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Population Totals

Population for 2010 and 2014 are all wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.250.173 (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that too. New York City is not even at 9 million yet let alone 10 million.69.126.106.149 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

British expatriate population

Around 150,000 British expatriates from Great Britain live in NYC, and 100,000 some French expatriates from France. New York city appeals to global elites and they move there, esp. in Manhattan. One known British expat is John Lennon who lived in NYC during its trying times in the 1970s and he loved NYC. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Demographics of New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Demographics of New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Demographics of New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Issue with 1698 population

I noticed an issue while reading about the population history of Manhattan and NYC on Wikipedia:

These can't all be right!

Update reference to Irish descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages?

The subsection on the Irish population of New York, under "European," writes that "According to a 2006 genetic survey by Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, about one in fifty New Yorkers of European origin carry a distinctive genetic signature on their Y chromosomes inherited from Niall of the Nine Hostages, an Irish high king of the 5th century A.D." However, Wikipedia's article on Niall of the Nine Hostages, linked in that passage, describes Niall as a likely legendary figure, and cites more recent genetic work as "debunking the Niall hypothesis":

Following a 2006 hypothesis by Moore et al.[2] suggesting that his Y chromosomal signature had been discovered, popular science journalists and genetic testing companies began promoting the idea that millions of men alive today have an unbroken descent from Niall.[3] However, more recent dating of the haplotype and corresponding SNP mutation M222 strongly indicates that all men carrying this signature are instead male-line descendants of a single man who lived several thousand years ago, well before the lifetime of Niall, essentially debunking the "Niall hypothesis".

I'd suggest that an editor familiar with genetics update this page to better reflect the current science.

163.43.122.42 (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Albanians in New York City" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Albanians in New York City and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 11#Albanians in New York City until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Fram (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demographics_of_New_York_City/Archive_1&oldid=1136489932"