Jump to content

Talk:New York (state)/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Too many images tag

@Moxy: I have removed the tag because I don't see any particular location having too many images. What specific sections do you think have too many images? epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Its got horrible galleries and text sandwich ..if any article needs to be cleaned up (or tagged) its this one.... with huge panoramas ...galleries with unsourced statements overwhelming sections and bring undue weight and text sandwich causing accessibility problems. Prime example of what not to do...kids picture book or encyclopedia is what people might ask. Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts-- Moxy (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay... so I think the solution is to delete the images/galleries that you think are unnecessary. Not just slap a tag on the top of the page and then run off. I think the galleries should be removed as well, but to call it a picture book is a bit of a stretch. epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I was planning to start to clean it up ,,,but as per my norm ...I tag then start the process see if others may get involved...great to see interest in this article. So lets do this slowly. As I do this I will be adding sources where need be. Feel free to revert or jump in at any time. I will try to save most images.-- Moxy (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
OK. In that case, your plan sounds good. Sorry if I sounded aggressive earlier, I do support removing some images, but I think the overuse of images may be limited only to some parts of the article. epicgenius (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the "Panoramas of New York" section yesterday, which seems like the very definition of what Wikipedia is not according to WP:GALLERIES. The galleries in "Race and ethicity" and "Religion" also need to be removed, and even include a duplicate photo for what its worth. Same with ones in Education and Economy sections. It seemed like there was agreement on this topic based on this discussion, but my edits were reverted by Castncoot (talk · contribs) because it was "thousands of longstanding bytes." What do other editors think?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 21:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Was a great start .....hopefully @Castncoot: can help trim the images they added back now that they have seen this talk and are now aware of galleries and undue weight ....still have text sandwich. My vote would be to support re-removal of the images.....and incorporate images in prose to drop all odd sized galleries. Was looking at other New York related articles and see even the GA articles like Manhattan have huge image problems....cant believe it went through a GA review in its shape with so many accessibility problems.--Moxy (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
At the end of the day, the question is - do the images add more than the space they take up? In the case of a geographically and ethnically extremely diverse state like New York, the answer here is yes. You're misinterpreting WP:GALLERIES, which emphasizes that pictures are not intended to make a page look "pretty". The way the images are used here is absolutely constructive and duly informative. I don't see anything WP:UNDUE here, except for the tag itself, which is not the solution. It's not as if these NY-related articles haven't been examined for these issues repeatedly. The better solution here is to offer the option of making them collapsible; this way, the reader can have it either way. I'm not that technically savvy but could figure it out, but User:epicgenius is much more familiar with this skill and strategy. Castncoot (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Was hopping this was a clear cut case of image spam to everyone....dame. So to be clear you think all the different sized and styled galleries are just fine - correct? I guess we will need some outside input - RfCs usually get this right. not to many will think a gallery for a one paragarph section is a balanced approach....... In the mean time at least we should try and fix the sandwich of text since the tag was removed with no effort to fix the problem. -- Moxy (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I want to take idea of a collapsable image gallery off the table. I know it sounds like a compromise solution, but either content belongs on the page, or it doesn't. Colapsable text is for old talk discussions, footer navboxes with lots of Wikilinks, and issues that have been resolved on WP:FAC and the like, not sections of vital articles in the main article space. MOS:COLLAPSE says that if editors are considering colapsing non-navigational content they should "consider raising a discussion on the article talk page about whether it should be included at all." As such, I want to hear the case that File:G-P Bay.jpg, a 0.18 megapixel shot of a wave, is absolutely constructive and duly informative to Wikipedia's readers, because if it is, then we should say it in prose. We can have the text "Brooklyn is home to a large Orthodox-Jewish population" without showing a literal Othodox family (twice I might add). Its a fine goal to try to balance photos from different parts of the geography that the article covers, but the solution is not to try to show them all.
I'm fine with starting a RfC if we can't find a compromise here, as it seems like a 2016 discussion failed to resolve the issues. A compromise probably looks like keeping just one photo from each gallery, and moving others to relevant articles where possible. Thanks!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 02:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, then most if not all of the images belong on the page, based upon WP:NOTABILITY, which may be the strongest argument here. Taking one image from each gallery as being representative for New York's geographic, ethnic, and racial kaleidoscope would represent WP:UNDUE at best, and most egregiously, would misinform the reader. I believe the option of collapsibility is a no-brainer here. Castncoot (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
You are correct, however, about the duplicate Brooklyn Orthodox Jewish image, Patrick. That was obviously an editorial oversight. Removed from Race/Ethnicity and maintained in Religion. Thanks, Castncoot (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
You have a very different view of our protocols then most in this case....hopefully we can still move forward on fixing the accessibility problems with the sandwich of text (will you revert unsandwich efforts?) Let's give it a few days see if others agree in anyway with User:Castncoot POV here on galleries. Castncoot have you ever looked at the article in mobile view?...note how the Panorama are almost unviewable.--Moxy (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that's a very different view of our protocols. To me, that's twisting the whole philosphy around backwards. WP:UNDUE would be having a Transportation section with four paragraphs about the Buffalo-Lancaster Regional Airport and not mentioning JFK. There's no policy that requires images or illustration of everything mentioned in the prose let alone things that aren't. And I read nothing at WP:NOTABILITY that requires the packing in of photos which Moxy shows in the screengrab above, and indeed, its an issue of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Giving equal prominence to different elements (in this case photos) is fundamentally not the same thing as crafting a balanced, neutral Wikipedia article. If you are worried about offending one part of New York's kaleidoscope, then have no images, the tables and maps are a great way of illusrating prose on their own, and I think they're being forgotten here. -- Patrick, oѺ∞ 04:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
How would you demonstrate the Thousand Islands without a picture? I don't have a problem viewing it on any browser. There is a small amount of text sandwich by mobile, but not enough to remove otherwise constructive images, just my thoughts. Castncoot (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
With Text. Text is the fundamental building block of the encyclopedia. "The Thousand Islands are an archipelago in the St. Lawrence River between the U.S. and Canada." A photo of one of the proverbial thousand can't illustrate the concept better. We should have enough confidence in the reader that they can click through the wikilink to find out more about a specific topic, including images.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the article had, and now has again, too many pictures. An obvious candidate for removal, mentioned above already, is the shoreline of Peconic Bay. The five pictures with their excessive captions just above "Languages" are unnecessary, as are the six in "Religion" and the five in "Economy" and "Education", respectively. A picture of jets on a runway does not illustrate "Transport" (or JFK) and should be removed. The UN HQ in "Federal representation" is misplaced and causes sandwiching. The section "Sports" also suffers from sandwiching; the picture of Lake Champlain is pretty, but doesn't really identify the lake (and contains some indefensible non-inclusive language). The picture of Belmont Park is similarly non-identifying. Places like the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown and the Museum of Racing in Saratoga Springs are mentioned in the text – if a reader is interested in their appearance, it's 1 click away. How many maps of the state are necessary? Further, I'm sure there is a less intrusive way to present the list of the state's major cities. Race and ethnicity composition shouldn't be presented twice. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Why not just remove all images from the article then? Either do them thoroughly and properly, or don't do any at all. Castncoot (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Exactly what I was thinking ...if only someone had did some due diligence before spaming them and making the article an accessibility nightmare. It's absurd people can spam images as they wish but it's almost impossible to remove them without having to explain the problem over and over and over. I'm thinking our policies and guidelines on this need to be more blunt to make it clear.-Moxy (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that consensus for something that profound would have to be taken up at a higher level. Castncoot (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The policy exists some people just don't understand....as this revert that restored sandwich text demonstrates to all of us you don't care about our protocols regarding accessibility.. Clearly have an ownership problem here.--Moxy (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Why not just remove all images from the article then? Stomping your foot and throwing a tantrum doesn't advance you argument. Either do them thoroughly and properly, or don't do any at all. How many more thorough, proper arguments are needed? Please WP:LISTEN. ... would have to be taken up at a higher level This talk page is exactly the correct venue to discuss changes to this article. Don't be tempted to go forum shopping. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Let me clarify my viewpoint. I don't own this article any more than the next editor. But I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. No article is 100% perfect. I just don't see a significant problem requiring a solution here. Zero. Zilch. Nada. But I do want to work to find a satisfactory consensus result for us. Castncoot (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Moxy. This is an encyclopedia, and articles should at least try to be formed of prose rather than being an indiscriminate collection of images and tables. If people want a gallery of New York panoramas then they'll go to Flickr or Google pictures. The demographics section in particular - one or two tables to illustrate the points are fine, but currently it's just an endless stream of them. Of course, articles are a work in progress but if people are taking active steps to bring them in line with the MOS guidelines then that's for the good.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Have reverted the latest revert by Castncoot that again messed up accessibility corrections. Not sure what more needs to be said here before Castncoot realizes what's happening here. Castncoot you seem to be going out of your way to not let MoS related corrections. Multiple images and formate changes have been brought up for discussion with you not address them directly....you just revert the attempt at moving the discussion forward. Multiple policies and guidelines have been discussed..... thus far no one agrees with your interpretation nor your implementation of the policies and guidelines in this case. So what are the rest of us supposed to do about you constantly reverting with zero progress coming from you in the discussion ( except a recommendation for removal of all images). Do you have any recommendations on how we can improve the situation? --Moxy (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much Moxy and PatrickNeil, for your wholesale destruction of the article. Rather than taking a couple of weeks to get consensus to revert longstanding stable material that has been there (and scrutinized now and again) for YEARS, the both of you are pulling an egregious and unwarranted power play here and creating an artificial emergency. Shame on you, as you should be ashamed of yourselves for doing this. If you're not going to take my input and go through the normal channels of an RfC before changing it, why should I even participate? All I know is that the article is far worse now than on February 22nd. A very sad day indeed in the history of this page. Castncoot (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Wonderful shaming and aspirations that again did not contribute to moving anything forward. Agai!!!...Do you have any recommendations on what you think needs to be restored or you think needs to be changed. Are you willing to address any images that have come up in this discussion in this ongoing talk. Anything specific would be helpful..... we're not here to frustrate you. We need genuine input.--Moxy (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I do have recommendations. Patrickneil's agenda all along appears optically (though I admit I could be wrong) to have been to get rid of the Race and Ethnicity, Religion, and LGBT images and then skip town without dealing with the geographic panorama which Patrickneil first claimed was problematic, scurrilously claiming "bias," when in fact all major subgroups were represented (including Atheism!). These were all terrific and informational images and captions which actually give the reader an accurate demographic picture (and by the way, someone else than myself created that very well put together Race and Ethnicity gallery). For starters, these should be restored, because they are all very telling pictures (worth a thousand words each) with constructive images AND captions that comport with WP:GALLERIES by giving the reader that constructive demographic pictorial. They ADD informational and integral existential value to the article rather than detracting. Next, the images with both U.S. Senators in a single picture is a joke and is unencyclopedic. The original images should be restored. Perhaps the geographic images should be stored in the right hand column, like with California. If an Education gallery of all things can be left present (and should be) without claiming bias, then why would one selectively delete the Demographic galleries? These are my recommendations. Castncoot (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not skipping town, I'm in it for the long haul to improve this article. There's no deadline, and I do feel strongly that the whole "Panoramas of New York" section ought to go, and that we should keep just one image from the five in the Education section. You reverted that edit, and I haven't touched it again because I don't like editwarring. As such, I appologize that I did put the photo of Kirsten and Chuck back because I do think the idea that they can't be told appart is silly rationale. If uninvolved editors prefer the Template:Multiple image route let's talk about it, but calling the image "a joke and unencycolopedic" sounds accrimonious, and I do think creates an impression of ownership. Again, there are wikilinks to each of their bios if readers are having a tough time telling them apart. I further appologize for using the term "bias" in my edit summary, it was just that you had said that removing just one would create bias. I do believe we can have one image without bias, and even might have the room, but mostly I do think the maps and charts do a fine job of illustrating the reality to readers. Moreover, if each of the photos in that section was worth a thousand words, then write them. The Religion section has a "Needs Expansion" tag dated to three Novembers ago. Let's get going and write a good article.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 04:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the entire "panoramas" section has got to go. It just adds length to the article page with a bunch of contextless images. --Jayron32 14:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Great job guys.... article no longer looks like a kids picture book way to go accessibility 100%..... I suggest we move on to Manhattan next as it's a pretty high-profile article that has the same problems.... New York related articles generally have this problem.--Moxy (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

NYC vs. upstate in History

Having just skimmed through the History section of this article, there's a lot about events in NYC, but fairly superficial coverage about how the rest of the state was settled, Albany was chosen as the capital, various cities grew up, and borders evolved. -- Beland (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

(cough) Who wants to talk about those damn apple farmers? (Isn't it amazing how the perjorative terms vary over time, but the resentments endure?)
While perhaps this much detail might be too much, I'm sure a lot has happened upstate, but consider:
  • not on the coast so never was part of much commerce,
  • not really on main routes from region to region and all roads lead to NYC,
  • population density weighted heavily away from the 'hinterlands' compare the density maps NY Mass Conn
  • no mining or other notable resources? (resource extraction is usually colorful history, no?)
  • for a long time (?) the danger from indigenous and Canadian marauders was up that'a'way
Gee, you want border disputes ? Naah, I'm sure New Yorkers were all the politest of people.
Actually, that last (external) link sort of proves your perception, that interesting bits are missing. New York claiming the Northwest (as was) until 1782? Wow.
Speaking of drawing the (text) population away, I see that most every History subsection has several "Main Articles" link strings to other articles, and the section itself starts with a link to History of New York (state). So there may be info, but not collected under this article. (Gads, even History of New York (state) doesn't mention plank roads!) Shenme (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Ooo, found an article State cessions. Lots of history, but scattered about. Shenme (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"New Yourk State" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect New Yourk State. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"State of new yourk" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect State of new yourk. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

NYS Abbreviation in Lede

Because of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue; I have not included a citation for the NYS abbreviation, but for the purpose of redundancy, wanted to place this here to demonstrate to those outside of government studies, this is a ubiquitous acronym in the New York state government, even if it isn't something necessarily found in popular culture (when was the last time you heard someone call New York "NYS"?). See a Google search for the term "The New York State (NYS)" for all .gov domains. --Simtropolitan (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

First time I've heard of the abbreviation. I just call the state NY and the city NYC. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Change title New York (state) to New York State

I ask because the official website of the "State or New York" also declares in its text to be the "State of New York" [1] So, why does Wikipedia use it's own creation that is odd looking and cumbersom to use in articles? Stretchrunner (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ above. The current title of this article was decided by a very long and involved discussion. oknazevad (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, you can use New York State in articles if you want. It redirects to the correct article. Station1 (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Population Math

"The state's most populous city, New York City, makes up over 40% of the state's population. Two-thirds of the state's population lives in the New York metropolitan area, and nearly 40% lives on Long Island."

Maybe I ate too many paint chips as a kid, but I don't understand this, and hopefully someone with a more functional cortex can re-write it to be slightly more digestible for the rest of us simpletons. Out of the entire state's population, NYC makes up over 40%, 66.67% live in the NYC Metro Area (which includes huge chunks of the populations of New Jersey and Connecticut), and almost 40% live on Long Island.

So, Long Island and NYC = around 80% of NY's population? Or is Long Island almost 40% of the NY Metro Area? It's just written in a confusing way (for me). I think throwing the metro area in there like that doesn't help. 2/3 of NY's population lives in an area populated by 3 states? Maybe this requires more than two sentences. Maybe I need to buy a water filter. I don't know.

--24.161.40.44 (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it means 40% of the state's population is in NYC proper, two-thirds of the state's population is in the portions of the metro area within the state (ignoring the NJ and CT population, as they're outside the stat of New York) and 40% of that 2/3 portion of the state population is on Long Island. But I agree, it's not a well written sentence. oknazevad (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me it means 40% live in New York City, 40% live on Long Island (note with Brooklyn and Queens being both in New York City, and on Long Island, those 2 overlap) and 2/3 of the state's population lives in the New York Metropolitan Area (yes, only those portions that are in the state, note that that also overlaps with all of New York City, all of Long Island, plus others). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Estimates of NY state's population from 19.5-22.1 million, NYC from 8.3-11.1 million. The state and city alike has many seasonal residents and second homes. Interestingly, NYC is made up of 5 counties or "boroughs", but it is officially one municipality. 2605:E000:100D:C571:6DCE:ABEA:BC50:DF93 (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing the statistical chart on religions

I would like to discuss the statistical chart on religious persons in New York State. I have expanded the section regarding religion and removed the chart, to which another fellow contributor openly stated their aggressive objection to the contribution. I expanded the information and removed to chart to give the article a less-cluttered appearance chart-wise. If it may be possible, I'd love to include the percentages in the text of the article as a compromise. These percentages would be akin to population and ethnic classifications as they are in articles. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"Vociferous" is not aggressive, it just means strongly objecting.
I think that using a chart to display statistical data is a superior presentation for such an ata-a-glance summary. For those who come to this article to get a quick breakdown of the data, to force them to hunt out small parentheticals instead of a neatly organized chart is a disservice to the reader.
Also, when you make a bold move to remove a layout feature that has been part of this article for over a decade and someone reverts that removal, you don't go and remove it again before discussion. Please see WP:BRD for the rationale. I ask you to restore the chart. It's a better presentation, and has been in place for years for that reason. oknazevad (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for getting in touch to help reach a consensus on the issue. Vociferous actions refer to vehement opposition which can refer to forcing something, thus it could mean aggressive. Responding to your comment on the chart displaying statistical data, could we make the list show itself collapsed automatically as some climate infoboxes are within articles, wherein when the desire to read the information appears, they just have to click expand or show? If so, I have added the table in the automatically collapsed mode and if I write so myself, it appears to fit the formatting to ensure the article doesn't appear cluttered with information. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
It appears I would need your assistance fixing the code of the wikitable. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The table is good for visualizing the data, same as all the other tables in the article. Similarly, this one should not be collapsed; the others aren't. We perhaps should consider removing one or both photos of the NYC houses of worship. A photo of a church conveys far less than a table of religious demographics. ɱ (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Then let's do that. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
No, the table should not be collapsed by default, per WP:COLLAPSE, but also remember that WP:CONTENTAGE isn't a reason alone to keep something. My take is that we probably don't need the subcategories (i.e. "Mainline Protestant" or "Nothing in Particular") in this table here. Remember that this is fundamentally a summary article, and a fuller table with a pie chart already exists at Demographics of New York (state)#Religions. Thanks!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
That works!! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree with above drop architecture images for chart with real data.--Moxy 🍁 20:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Population update

I've updated the lede, but it would probably be good for someone to update the fact box and population section soon to reflect the large population loss that NY/NYC has suffered over the last couple of years since the data currently in those sections was collected. According to the July 1, 2021 Census update, New York State lost over 300,000 population between July 1, 2020 and July 1, 2021, bringing it down to 19,835,913 million. Of course, its rank of 4th largest is unchanged. Vbscript2 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

COVID 19 section

It appears I have gotten involved in a revert war with what I suppose is a moderator or administrator.

The person is being unhelpful, and nitpicking over words, while refusing to contribute to better phrasing.

The person is also refusing to accept a source from a medical websight that is peer-reviewed, regarding the nature of population density and spreading of viruses.

They appear to intend to suppress pertinant information in the light-handed criticism of how a Democrat governor handled the virus in a state with the nation's most densely populated city. I will use this talk page as mny first attempt to get that I strongly feel should be included to properly balance the issue with more factual informative background information.

The entire point of Wikipedia is for people to continue to improve upon this free encyclopedia with the best knowledge and information available. If you don't want to contribute positively, then you shouldn't be editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihilianth (talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

These are the facts that should be inserted in here, in order to balance potential right-wing misinformation war:


My Edit:


"It should be noted, however that 9 out of the 10 most densely populated cities in the nation, are in the New York City Metropolitan area, ranging from 57,116 people per square mile in Guttenberg, to 22,437 per square mile in Passaic with New York City itself with a population density of 27,016 per square mile. It should also be noted that NYC is the 8th most-visited city in the world, and the most-visited city in the United States with 13 million visitors annually. [96] It is the top destination for international travelers in the United States. It is well-known that population density plays a big part in the spread of infectious diseases such as viruses, and that limited contact with others is a known and well-publicized measure for controlling infectious diseases and saving lives.[97]"

@Nihilianth: I totally see your point. You know, I have a theory...that every fall when kids go back to school, it causes birds to fly south for the winter. It happens every year...first the kids, then a few weeks later, the birds. Year after year. It's a 100 percent correlation, so one must be causing the other! I have sources to support the kids and the birds, but can't seem to find one supporting that one causes the other, but what does that matter? Problem is, every time I enter my theory onto Wikipedia, some darned editor deletes it and says it's a WP:SYNTH. What in the Sam Hill? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Magnolia677 So you're trying to say that population density has nothing to do with the spread of viral infections?
Nonesense!
This is why our western society will collapse. This, right here. The refusal to understand a basic argument, or basic factual information that you literally learn in grade school. It reminds me of an old Star Trek Voyager episode about a reptilian species that originally evolved on earth, but had to evecuate the planet 60 million years ago to then finally run across the human vessel passing through their area of space on the opposite side of the galaxy. One of the reptilian scientists found overwhelming evidence for their specie's origins by comparing it with the DNA samples of a skeleton of one of the crew members that died on that planet a year earlier. And like the parallel history of Copernicus, that scientist was put on trial for heresy. And like Copernicus, that scientist was will to sacrifice himself in defense of the truth and factual information in order to preserve and progress their society.
This is what's happening with this misinformation campaign by the rightwing who deny basic facts.
Yes. Population density DOES contribute greatly to the spread of viruses. It would be virtually impossible for a virus to spread, if there were no other animal species around. Like, if you lived way out in the middle of nowhere and contracted a unique virus, it will not spread if there are no other humans you came into contact with, or animals for it to evolve further and jump species. The more people you come in contact with, the more chances for the virus to spread, and the more people whom you can spread to. THAT'S why New York City had the highest rate of COVID in the entire country. Population density IS directly related to the spread of an infectious disease. Period. Just like the world is round. Period Nihilianth (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Tillustrate the point:

Sources: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-01-population-density-virus-strains-affect.html - Eric Hamiliton, University Wisconsin-Madison published on Medical Express

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210114134042.htm - Science Daily. University Wisconsin-Madison

https://www.britannica.com/science/infectious-disease/Population-density - Encyclopedia Britannica

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7150207/ - PMC website, see Table 13.1 "Need of large population for continual transmission" as pne of the survival mechanisms for viruses.

https://www.cdc.gov/library/covid19/07232021_covidupdate.html - CDC an entire host of information regarding COVID research.

The earth is round. How much literature needs to be dug up to prove it? 1+1=2 Human actiuvity is the driving factor behind climate change.

COVID 19 is spread through saliva escaping the mouth and nose. That's why the CDC, the WHO, the entire emergency system across all nations and all continents, all insisted on mask use. Lower population densities, means less chances for the spread of the virus. Obviously. If you have nobody to sneeze on, then you have nobody to infect. If youre congregated around 10 people and you sneeze, that's 10 people you could have infected. That's how this works. Just like a fire. If there are no combustible sources near a flame, it isn't going to spread. That's how firebreaks work.

You still need to find a source making that explicit connection in regards to New York specifically. WP:V is a policy. It shouldn't be hard, because you are plainly correct in your understanding as it's consistent with basic virology. But even basic conclusions like that need to be cited to reliable outside sources. It's actually how we guard against agenda-driven bullshit. oknazevad (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Nihilianth: Maybe this can help. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Magnolia677
I'll try to temper myself a bit. That wasn't fair to offhandedly attack you like that.
But my point is, there were a LOT of factors outside the control of any politician, and the surreptitious *nod, nod; wink, wink* of inserting Cuomo's name into the heart of the fact that NYC was hit so hard during the pandemic, is very closely related to the right-wing narrative of attacking the governor through the entire thing, as if the city of NY isn't singularly unique in it's sprawling, massive size full of international and national commuters coming and going every single day. That was the entire point of the paragraph I was trying to make.
I did mention in the paragraph that keeps being taken down, that it has 9 of the top 10 most densely-packed cities in the New York Metropolitian region, and that it is the 8th most visited city on the planet, and the most-visited city in the western hemisphere. There really strongly appears to be an agenda behind mentioning the governor of the state with one of the world's most powerful cities in the world, for the fact that it was hit so hard, and with the resistance to balancing that out with further factual details regarding virology and population sizes and movements of people. It is an extremely important aspect of the narrative that more completely and objectively arrives at a better truth of the matter.
Maybe I am going about it the wrong way. As you can see from my history, I'm not a very experienced wiki editor. I wrote a paragraph, with the expectation that someone more experienced could actually come along and clean it up a bit if I made nay minor mistakes. It was mentioned in my very first note on the history section that this entire section seems to be in a bit of a mess. It could certainly use an overhaul. And the best way of doing so, is to keep working on it and making improvements in the quality a bit at a time. Constantly reverting the work someone put into it, without helping to clean it up and make it better, is unhelpful. The argument I've been making hasn't been addressed. Just the semantics. Nihilianth (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Magnolia677 Two more things:
1) Reliability. Vox utilizes explanatory-style journalism on par with Breitbart, Fox News, and Alex Jones on the right, and The Young Turks on the left. For some reason, Vox is acceptable in this section, but studies regarding virology are not?
2) You mentioned that the last source I cited in my last edit, wasnt a good source as it occurred prior to the Covid Pandemic hitting NYC. That is irrelevant, as it was a source that explained how viruses, population density, and personality all combine to spread viral diseases. It's like using physics such as gravity that was written by scholars from decades and even centuries before the Twin Towers collapsed, and seriously arguing that an explanation of gravity as a force that contributed to the collapse is therefore not valid. The laws of physics doesn't change based on time or location. How viruses survive and mutate doesnt change just because research was carried out before the pandemic, and in a place other than NYC. Your argument in the note is irrelevant. Population size, density, and movements of people and animals has been proven long before about the nature of infectious diseases. Hell, they knew about that way back in Medieval times. Way back in Greek and Roman times. Even before that.
To speak of COVID 19 as an important part of NY history, and to leave out such vital facts is an egregious error. And if my facts I've presented is incomplete and therefore, unworthy to be mentioned, then this entire section is incomplete and unworthy to exist on this page until the original author correctly publishes all pertinent information about the topic. Nihilianth (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Nihilianth: You're being reverted because your edits violate policy and do not contribute to the project. You have come here to make a point which you believe is correct, but have not supported your point with a reliable source. In fact, reliable sources have been provided to support the opposite. Do you remember this show? Well, Wikipedia isn't it. I would strongly advise you to drop the stick and go home, because your edits are disruptive. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677

YOU are being disruptive by refusing to look at the facts presented, disengenuous with your source requirements (rejection of peer-reviewed conclusions published on Pubmed, but acceptance of Vox) in a rightwing narrative targeting a governor, while refusing pertinant factual information.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8239687/

I WILL see this information posted to this page, or I WILL see to it that a politician's name removed, and the fact that NY 50% of the nation's infections removed for being poorly sourced, and incomplete information. Nihilianth (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I typically try to find a way to incorporate an editor's well-intended contributions instead of reverting them entirely. However, what you are adding is clearly WP:SYNTH, and the cited sources make no reference specific to New York state, so there is nothing really usable. If you are interested in a defense of the state's response to the pandemic, you need to find a reliable source explicitly talking about the state's response to the pandemic. That said, if you were to find such a source that were to also reference specifically the density paradox in relation to New York, then Moosa 2021 might be citable if it adds clarity. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@User:SamuelRiv

Off topic: The "@" thing where you get a select drop down list after you start to type a user name, doesn't seem to work on a cell phone like it does on a computer. So please forgive me if this doesn't work right.

On topic: I still disagree. Original work on virology in general, still applies to COVID 19 like any other airborne saliva-ridden viruses. And it applies to New York City like it does anywhere else on the planet.

The fact that it is specifically about COVID in New York, does not change the nature of how viruses work. Anymore than any laws of physics does. The basic concept of how an internal combustion engine works in NYC in 2022, is the same as how an I.C.E works in Bombay, India in 1923.

It is very well established that the greater a population, the greater the population density, and the more mobile a population in an area that also recieves a very large number of people from outside sources, the greater the risk of the spread of a virus.

That big shutdown for an entire year around the entire world; sporting events, restaurants, museums, "social distancing (which became a major part of our worlwide lexicon!), major restrictions at airports and seaports clear across the entire globe; that didn't occur "just because!" It was made policy by virtually every single government in existence, and all supranational governments too, like the EU. Even congresses and parliaments around the world; court hearings, corporate meetings, etc took place via Skype!

I'm telling you, I am NOT making this up. It is entirely relevant, and why the mayor of NYC got in a bit spat with Trump over trying to obtain more of those breathing machines at one point. Because NYC was always and still is, singularly at greater than anywhere else in the United States.

I gave numerous sources that showed how viruses work. One was even a COVID-related source, but the study conducted in Turkey rather than in NYC. That's was the first and my main source I used, but was shot down as WP:SYNTH! It wasn't! It was a study of the Coronavirus, that just happened to be conducted in a different location. A Ferrari in Italy runs exactly the same as a Ferrari in Alabama. The coronavirus (and airborne viruses in general), pretty much work the same in Turkey as it does in NYC. So that concern really is illrelevant.

However, the Moosa 2021 study I linked to last should be more than sufficient. It not only conducted its own study, but used numerous other verfafiable sources that makes the case:

Population density significantly increases the number of cases.

Again, you can't use rightwing talking points in criticizing a certain politician or a certain city/state, without balancing it with actual facts. That flies in the face of what Wikipedia is, and it's goals. Nihilianth (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you are still misunderstanding how verifiability here works (and that's not uncommon, since Wikipedia has a very unique editorial practice). May I suggest that you take a break from this article for a little while, and maybe look into other articles to work on to get better grounding? I sometimes use Wikiproject Reliability to find something randomly needing verification to fix. Regardless, once you start thinking about an article like it's some greater political fight, then it's probably time to let it go for now. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved because it was overwhelmingly opposed (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 15:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

New York (state) → New York State – The proposed title is a valid form of WP:NATURAL disambiguation for the page, and policy prefers natural disambiguation to parenthetical disambiguation when possible. Per WP:AT, Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title. As such, parenthetical disambiguation should only be resorted to when WP:NATURAL disambiguation fails. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. This has been discussed ad nauseam. Read the previous discussions and the FAQ above, please. oknazevad (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
New York is already a disambiguation page. Please actually inform yourself about the correct setup before commenting. oknazevad (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I meant "move this to 'New York' over the disambiguation page or don't move it at all". I thought that was clear but I guess not. Please assume good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
That was meant for Shakescene below, but I got edit conflicted into accidentally double posting it. I wasn't trying to call you out. I think a disambiguation page is perfectly correct for the ambiguous term "New York". oknazevad (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Gotcha. I have always felt "New York" is best for the state and "New York (disambiguation)" for the dab page, but opinions differ. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The problem with that is it's very likely on a worldwide level that more people mean the city when they say simply "New York" than the state. Which is why when the state was at the plain title, as had been the case up until 6 years ago, there were frequent complaints, move request, and intractable discussion where those demanding a move basically stated that in no way can the state be said to be an unambiguous primary topic. We had the state at the plain and, and it caused nothing but headaches. oknazevad (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Granted, I have the more myopic biased view of a New York native. I prefer "New York (state)" over "New York State" or "State of New York". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - It should either remain as-is or, as Rreagan said, changed to the official name of State of New York. "New York State" is neither natural nor official. Garnet Moss (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Unnecessary. Vic Park (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose highly unnecessary, as stated above me. MarkusOklahoma (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Strongly support Ordinary people (both inside and outside the Empire State) and most prose outside Wikiworld distinguish New York City from New York State in exactly this way. It took years to stop "New York" automatically opening or redirecting to the State page, although most people outside New York State (and many within it) think of the City when they say or write "New York". That said, however, I'm not really in favour of flipping (as I think is the present case) all "New York" enquiries to the City. "New York" is probably a good candidate for a disambiguation page, without a parenthetical (disambiguation). Cf. Greater New York and Greater New York City, where it's about equally likely that someone wants to know about the Five Boroughs since 1898 or about the New York metropolitan area. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate. The tag "New York" on The Guardian covers the state, not the city. Same with Fox News. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
New York is already a disambiguation page, out a redirect to the article on the city. Such a redirect has been rejected multiple times. Please actually look at the current setup and the voluminous discussions that lead to it before commenting. oknazevad (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Strong Oppose per Elli, common name of both city and state is New York. The parenthetical "state" is enough to distinguish between the two. Technically this should be a more broad RFC about renaming all states (State of..., Commonwealth of...) which would burn into an unrecognizable heap of ash.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The name of the state is "New York"; "state" is not part of the state name and is not consistently used to distinguish it from the city. Even if "New York state" were commonly used, it would not be consistent with naming conventions, and the parenthetical disambiguation is fine. As Elli says, we could potentially do the same with Washington (state), but in contexts where we're talking about the state, people would just say "New York" or "Washington". Also, [[New York (state)|]] works with the pipe trick; [[New York State|New York]] does not, so you'd actually need to type more characters if you didn't want the link to say "New York State". – Epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_(state)/Archive_9&oldid=1216332765"