1. Was Manhattan Island really bought for a very small amount of currency (be it $24, one string of wampum, etc.)?
No. Charles Gehring, Director of the New Netherland Project, explains this myth in a video (skip ahead to 3:03) by the New York State Museum. In it, he says, "This is one of the biggest myths...pure fabrication. It says in the records that it was 60 guilders worth of goods. 60 guilders worth of goods would have been a lot of hard goods that the Indians couldn't produce themselves. You couldn't place a price on the...things that they were unable to make, the things they didn't have the technology for. The $24 figure was attached to the document when it was translated in the 1880s. The translators looked up the rate of exchange at the time and 60 guilders was $24. Nobody has ever even adjusted that for inflation over the years, so you not only have an incorrect rate of exchange, but the whole idea of what 60 guilders would have been worth to the Indians at the time is totally wrong."
Keepin' it real: The greatest deal in history never actually was.
According to NOAA's 1981–2010 normals, Central Park in Manhattan has a January daily average temperature of 32.6 °F (0.3 °C) and in July, this figure is 76.5 °F (24.7 °C). This, in combination with its generous annual precipitation of 49.9 inches (1,270 mm) means the city itself falls under the humid subtropical regime of the Köppen climate classification (see this map). Locations in this regime in general do not have winter snow cover that is reliable enough to augment cold air masses; the "subtropical" designator is only part of the climate type's name and does not mean that the city (or the surrounding region) is in the subtropics, nor that winters here are mild.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
New York City is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012.
It has been decided that New York City should remain at that name and not at New York, New York. For the discussion that led to this decision see Archive 2 and the additional comments in a section of Archive 5.
Hello, I think it's time to discuss the infobox images once again. The first thing to be aware of is that we can't put any sights of NYC in that infobox, that's for sure. I suggest to replace the current image of the Unisphere with File:Unisphere-2 (27835155267).jpg which has higher technical quality and better depicts the Unisphere. Furthermore, we could remove the current image of the Bronx Zoo and replace it with the previous image of Grand Central Terminal, but maybe at another position. Another option is to remove both the image of the Bronx Zoo and the image of the Verrazzano Bridge without replacement – both of which are, according to page view statistics, relatively 'irrelevant' and therefore redundant compared to internationally known places like the Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty, or Times Square. Let me know what you think. Tobiasi0 (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of including the images in the current collage you don't think are relevant is to include at least one image from each of the boroughs. They all need to be represented. New York City is more than just Manhattan. There's no reason to relive or replace any of the current images. oknazevad (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oknazevad do they - even if there is no comparable encyclopedic relevance? Sure, most of the things NYC is known for are located or happening in Manhattan, but trying to include every borough is a case of false balance imho, especially when there are other cities like Vienna out there where you don't try to include every single of the whole 23 districts as well. –Tobias (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is talking about 23 anything, we are talking about 4 boroughs where most of the city is and lives. This is an encyclopedia not a tourism guide. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker right, that's exactly my point. It is an encyclopedia and intended to display topics by their relevance which isn't the case if most of the city is in Manhattan and you try to write an equal amout of text about Staten Island, if there is basically nothing that famous. This wouldn't be an issue if we were specifically talking about the article about Staten Island, but that's not the case. –Tobias (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point, we are not writing about Staten Island, we are writing about the whole city. OneAlanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker exactly, and why should we even look at the single boroughs in the infobox, when we try to provide information about the city as a whole? –Tobias (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already said, because those are where most the city is and lives. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker and I understand that, that's what this is all about. The information about the specific boroughs belong in the corresponding section of the article, not in the infobox or lead section; that's just where they are possibly mentioned once. It is irrelevant how far the infobox covers all boroughs, but how it covers the important locations of the city and if 80% of them are located in Manhattan, then, as a logical conclusion, 80% of the infobox is about Manhattan, regardless of whether 3 out of 5 boroughs aren't represented with even one single image. With this in mind, why keep an image depicting the Verrazzano Bridge instead of replacing it with a picture of Grand Central Terminal, which has about five times as much views? –Tobias (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about popular places, its an article about an entire city. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker ok, let's try it from another perspective. We seem to have similar arguments, yet arrive at different conclusions. What exactly is the deal breaker regarding popular places for you? I mean, you seem pretty okay with the fact that the Statue of Liberty is included in the infobox, but want to exclude the Grand Central Terminal, even though it is a crucial part of the city's infrastructure. The Statue of Liberty is precisely the exact kind of popular place that you seem to oppose in your last messages. –Tobias (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't give me a ping notice again. I am watching this page. I told you, we need to represent the city entire.
As for the statue of liberty, it represents social history of the city and 19th century rise to prominence of its port. Also, we have enough re infrastructure, poor idea to sacrifice scope for that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be a poor idea to use the main station of a city as symbol for its infrastructure? Additionally, the Grand Central Terminal does have cultural status alongside with a remarkable history too, as nearly every other building or structure in NYC, so that's not really a convincing argument. Infrastructure isn't just a little important, it's crucial for any city.
But let's try to reach a consensus, at least for the replacement of the image of the Unisphere. Do you support this idea? –Tobias (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are reading what I write, we have enough on infrastructure in almost every picture, and scope across the city matters much more anyway.
As for the Unisphere I guess you have not convinced someone else above it is a better image, (the current image does seem good given its clear in the space given and the closeups in that part: the triangle with the other closupes of the statue and the bridge) but obviously one image over the other of the same thing is orthogonal to my main objections to what you want to do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker by the way, we are talking about five boroughs and from what I can see, Staten Island isn't even included in the current infobox. –Tobias (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point, we are not writing about Staten Island, we encyclopedically covering the whole city. And just 1/9th of the montage is the bridge to Staten Island a key to understanding geography, but if you have another borough relevant image feel free to suggest it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I'm going to add one information in the "Tech and biotech" part. I read the Global Innovation Hubs Index, and I want to mention the place of NYC in this rank. New York is a top-tier global technology hub. In 2023, it is the representative of innovation hub, ranked second in the world after San Francisco-San Jose. This is from the NATURE which published in November 22, 2023. You can check it on this website: https://www.nature.com/articles/d42473-023-00420-1Gihii (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The website you linked is an Advertisement Feature. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 08:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I want to add some information under the tech and biotech page. I have read an article from nature, which proved that NYC ranked 2nd in the Global Innovation Hubs Index. I think the new information is of good use. The text I want to add is: New York is a top-tier global technology hub. In 2023, it is the representative of innovation hub, ranked second in the world after San Francisco-San Jose Gihii (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Same reason as above request; the website is an advertisement feature. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 08:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B. While picture ‘A’ is pretty good, it suffers from twilight darkness obscuring the outlines of the buildings, and the background including the outer boroughs appears relatively vague. On the other hand, because picture ‘B’ is so sharply lit, and also because there is more ambient light in picture ‘B’ from the sunset/early dusk, the outlines of the skyscrapers are more clear and crisp, their borders are unmistakable, and one can actually see all the way far back to the clearly lit Verrazzano Bridge in picture 'B', connecting Brooklyn and Staten Island, which are also in fact boroughs of New York City, like Manhattan. Also just as critically, picture ‘B’ displays numerous skyscrapers in Midtown Manhattan which lie north of the Empire State Building, versus the incomplete picture ‘A’, which is bumping right up close to the Empire State Building while looking southward and is therefore missing important Midtown Manhattan skyscrapers north of the Empire State Building, including the highly notable Bank of America Tower (with the blue spire, right foreground). Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A. The light emitting from almost every window in B impairs the view of the individual buildings. Not that I want to cause anyone to add New York City has the highest number of light bulbs of any city in the world ever to the article, in line with all of the other claims of the city's firsts. Seasider53 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B shows the grandeur scale of the city better.Moxy🍁 00:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Picture C How about this one? I like it because it has a whole skyline in view. We can call this one C. I think it's just as crisp as B but has a more distinctive "New York City" look. HenryMP02 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A or C since the viewemphasis in both images is on the skyline. (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses(Hoofprints)(Neigh at me) 22:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC) (fixed template at 22:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)) (fixed phrasing at 22:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
question about this image..... Are these the twin tower lights and are they still utilized today?Moxy🍁 00:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those Twin Tower lights are utilized at the somber memorial commemorations every September 11th. The picture 'C' is only of Lower Manhattan, though. Picture 'B' is more detailed than picture 'A', which is incomplete and in that sense is misleading to the reader. I believe in striving for completeness and accuracy, and Picture 'B' best fits that bill. Castncoot (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A. The lens distortion on the second photo (wherein closer buildings are warped and unusually large compared to farther objects) just seems unprofessional while the first photo has a very refined look. The WTC (and the rest of lower manhattan, and the Verrazano bridge) is also far more visible in the first photo and the ESB is the centerpiece as it should be, whereas in B the ESB is upstaged by the Bank of America tower and other lovely but less significant buildings. Photo C is a nice proposal but doesn't represent midtown. RyanAl6 (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A per Ryan and Seasider. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly no photography expert, so if it's true that picture 'B' represents a distorted image, then I would not want to use it either; I don't mind keeping picture 'A' then. This RfC can probably be closed now. Castncoot (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't think we need to escalate our tone that far. 2. It's a bold edit and a bold revert. It is known that Nkon21 is a photographer, and I see no reason to call deferring to him "denigration". Aaron Liu (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was the basis of the RfC, because another editor had the audacity to revert to Castcoot's vague "clearer" change of the longstanding image. You may have missed the ANI we had a few months ago. Things don't seem to be improving. Seasider53 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A as per the reasons I've previously cited in the version history Daruda (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2024
A or C. B has too many lit windows and some distortion in the foreground. Senorangel (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A is better. B looks too cluttered. Some1 (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this article seems highly biased - too much bragging and "most...in the world" claims.[edit]
The tone of this overbloated article comes off as quite biased, and even misleading. There is a distasteful, unprofessional tone in this article of "most of this", or the "best of that" that's never seems to quit. Forgive me, but it's as if the article is trying to say, if you don't live in New York City, especially Manhattan, then you do not deserve to live. It's almost a promotional piece than something more objective. There's too many desperate attempts at listing what NYC could be possibly number one for (based on weak article or journalistic pieces and not based on statistics or facts, an easy example is the 800 language claim). It's written in an insufferable and relentless way, shoving down your throat this irrational belief that this city is somehow superior to all others. The line has to be drawn at over-implying that New York is the 'best' city in the world with its endless "most...in the world" claims. It comes off as arrogant and pretentious. You don't see this in any other Wiki city article.
It's perhaps the worst Wiki page on a city I have read thus far.
Please cut the hyperbole and speculated claims from this article and streamline it to make it easier to read. About 35% of its content can be easily cut. Thanks.
Whisperer1982 (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Enough people have mentioned this that some of the mentions might warrant removal. Seasider53 (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been brought up ad nauseum for years. The superlatives are reliably sourced statements, and New York is characterized in its very identity by its many, many superlatives. Note that "superlative" does not equate to "superior". Therefore, this article has withstood the grand test of time and has retained its strength by its inherent integrity. Wikipedia is neither about modesty nor about eliciting emotional responses, and the articles aren't meant to be taken personally. It simply tells it as it is. Castncoot (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand very little of all that. Seasider53 (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia reflects reliable sources and reliable sources frequently talks about NYC's superlatives, i.e. "most ... in the world" claims. Just being the most something in the world doesn't necessarily mean that NYC is not your city. People are free to scout out similar RSes from news articles and add them to other cities. I really don't see how that threatens your life. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And in fact, other city articles tout their own cities' superlatives extensively, whatever superlatives they may have. And as long as they are reliably sourced, it's valuable information to learn about those cities as well. Castncoot (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You ignored the previous discussions about this (see the recent archives; no, I’m not looking them up for you). Seasider53 (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't hold my breath then. When a significant proportion of the population categorically disagrees with you on a broad premise, it's better to take a granular look at sentences rather than taking a bulldozer to the entire article. It has occurred to me however, Seasider53, echoing the sentiment expressed above by the previous editor here, how exactly does this article affect your life? Castncoot (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand many of your questions, this being another. Why would the article affect my life? Seasider53 (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing Whisperer's remark, without much to do with Seasider, that the article is trying to say, if you don't live in New York City, especially Manhattan, then you do not deserve to liveAaron Liu (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "grand test of time", Castncoot. See WP:CONTENTAGE. This article having gotten away with extremely questionable writing for some time does not magically make it immune to WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:TONE correction. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The issue is not just having superlatives, it's that in a lot of cases they are fluff and/or undue. For example, the article claims that the city has "a significant influence" on a long list of things including health care, education and sports - what does that actually mean, in practice? Why does the fact that Tom Wolfe said a nice thing warrant inclusion? And so on. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that what you've said and everything tagged is too much. I don't think the superlatives have any issues, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The arrogance of this article is reek of American extraordinarism and Western bias. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad for you that 1. America is rather extraordinary
2. shocker! the most famous city on the planet, being situated in the West, is bound to have an article on it with a western-centric outlook daruda (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A global viewpoint is not just meaningless jargon, but an inherently contradicts NPOV. not only is it impossible to have a global viewpoint; if such a viewpoint is so important, why in the world is wikipedia so supportive of LGBT rights etc when most of the global south is quite opposed to that topic; but having a global viewpoint diminishes the importance of the locality of the city, which is obviously going to be a more important aspect for a city article. if you insist on a 'gLoBaL vIeWpOiNt' then I hope you know that would mean erasing or derisively referring to some treasured NYC values such as openness, acceptance/tolerance etc. these 'global values' mean nothing and are an unenforceable farce daruda (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It means that NYC is a hub of innovation in health care, has capital markets which finance a large part of the education sector (and tbh every single sector of the economy) and is a sports hub with the most teams of any city situated in it. it's not that hard yk daruda (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "hub of innovation in health care"?? Doesn't every city finance these things? As a proud New Yorker, the problem is that these claims need to be much more specific. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
by providing copious amounts of capital, thus acting as an agglomeration for the worlds's smartest minds to accumulate in a place that has the means to finance the innovations and industry leading changes they pioneer.
and no, obviously not every city can finance such things? you think gary, indiana is going to any of that? the point is that certain cities attract certain things. london attracts finance bros from around the world for a reason - it's a hub of the financial sector surpassed/equaled only by NYC. NYC, being one of the richest cities, and by far the largest city in the richest country on the planet, is obviously going to serve as a lynchpin for industry leading changes.
although i do agree, there need to be more sources backing these things up lol daruda (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
by providing copious amounts of capital
Shouldn't we just cite the figures for financing instead?
you think gary, indiana is going to any of that?
Yes? Every single government finances its stuff, period. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sigh
that last argument you made was one of the worst things i've ever heard lol. every single government finances 'its stuff'. wut??
the point is that the wealth present in the city due to wall street, capital markets, venture capital and just all sorts of money in general makes it a hub for innovation. the highly educated populace, incredible infrastructure etc all contribute to making NYC a place where medical innovation occurs because the money to facilitate it is freely available. what's so hard to understand?
+
yes sure, we could cite some figures....or just hyperlink the whole article for healthcare in new york which provides heavy detail and has good sources? daruda (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should unsubstantiated superlatives in the lead, such as:
New York is a global center of finance and commerce, culture and tech, entertainment and media, academics and scientific output, and the arts and fashion.
...and is sometimes described as the world's most important city and the capital of the world.
..the most economically powerful city in the world.
I've taken the liberty of numbering the above claims for easier reference.
This one seems like it is probably accurately descriptive, though will require excellent sourcing (as in multiple very high-quality sources for each sub-claim).
Delete with prejudice. This is WP:PEACOCK nonsense, verging on meaningless, for many readers probably offensive, and serves no encyclopedic purpose at all. Even if elements of it can be attributed to various sources, it should be removed as opinionated and promotional blather. To the extent it could be separated into two claims, the first is too subjective to be meaningful ("important" in what way, to whom?), while the second just seems calculated to piss off everyone from outside New York.
This may or may not be reliably sourceable to some extent, but also appears to be too vague and subjective to be encyclopedically meaningful. "Economically powerful" can have a wide range of meanings, which one is intended here is not clear, it is unlikely that multiple sources making a claim along these lines have the same definition in mind (yet only one source saying something like this would be insufficient), and for most senses of that phrase it would be something very difficult to reliably prove. It would be better to replace this third claim with something(s) concrete, such as one or more comparative measures that are typically used for such matters (I'm not an expert in metropolitan ecomonics, but am thinking along the lines of "whatever the city equivalent of GDP might be").
I think multiple very high-quality sources is a salient point. It seems much more common now that journalists are referencing Wikipedia, and then Wikipedia references these journalists' articles. That said, "the world's most important city and the capital of the world" is utter subjectivity and should be nuked. Seasider53 (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while 'the world's most important city' is definitely subjective, 'capital of the world' is less so.
new york is the HQ of the United Nations; further more, the concept of a caput mundi is the reason behind that phrase's use, and has a number of sources relating that concept to NYC daruda (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the phrase has any use to the impression; just specific claims should be enough, including the already mentioned HQ of the UN. We shouldn't be taking care of the definition. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, but i didn't quite get this comment daruda (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Capital of the world" has basically no use being in these article when we already cite the specific claims. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
capital of the world has been part of this article all the way back since 2001, when the article was created. soo...? daruda (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'no use being in the article' is a rather dubious claim considering the very long precedent for that phrase to be used in this article daruda (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
whatever the reason, it doesn't change the fact that the city is considered by many to be Rome's heir as caput mundi, and the world's most important international body being headquartered here just furthers that argument daruda (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there should be a balance of "good" and "bad" superlatives; so perhaps the latter should be added. Does NYC have, for example, the highest murder rate per capita, or the highest incidence of corruption, or the greatest total value of narcotic deals? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Murder per capita: Absolutely not. It's likely poorer than USA or a village of two killed by a non-resident if non-cities count. The largest US city with less murder per capita than NYC had 6 times less capita, there's a city with a MLB team with 19 times more murder per capita and there's even at least one US city with more murders not per capita.
Most corruption: At least not per capita that's for sure. How would you even quantify that? Is the most corrupt 150 human village on Earth cleaner than if NYC averaged 150/8,800,000ths as bad but had more than 8,800,000/150ths as many people and if that village had one more unpunished slap without due process then how many % did its 2023 corruption increase by?
Drug money: I dunno, maybe? Maybe not? This could only be estimated. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're only examples of the sort of thing we might consider including, I didn't say that these were true facts that had to be added. WP:V applies, always. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editorially, I agree the tone and weight regarding superlatives should to be better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first set of superlatives should be kept if properly sourced (many articles on major cities contain similar sourced superlatives describing a city's strengths). The second can go.
The third should be reworded to perhaps mention that NYC has the largest metropolitan economy by GDP. RyanAl6 (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ryan and McCandlish. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The website you linked is an Advertisement Feature. 
Picture A
Picture B.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
