Talk:New York (state)

Archives
Archive 1

Overhauling article

This article was and still is in need of serious work. I have moved and renamed some sections to conform with Wikipedia formatting traditions in articles on US states. My next step will be to thoroughly edit the history, economy and government sections. Overall this article is in need of citations and the development of new daughter articles on sub-topics, as well as improved g;hkn dbjlkhvnfih bktjmg,ghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtgfhyujnjbyuhjuznh7yugjnhtynjuyhnjuukhnnyjuttmcx ,m x, xtsxdtdsttsixcxlo.cx xjiojctx jc cx t hy cy cycc cdcdcv hb bhy bh by chcy ych tdx tcb tbh tc tycv hybbgthbynhvgbtvrhbhjhyvvgrhhnyhgfvgvhnjhuhfffghhhyjujjujgtfrhyhyjubhjnkjghhgfdsdffggbnhghnjhhbcdsgkjhgcxcgvnhjkjbgfvdcfgthykihjugfvdcgthyjugfrgthyjukihjugtfvghjubgfvhynjmbhcx bgnhjmv cxm,b vcvnjmhbfvdcfghyjmncv nhjnhbgfvnjmc fvhgcghjufghyju vbnjhnhjm ybvfhybdikjmugv bhjnhgffgty6gtfdhnybgfvcdftybgvcdgbcdertgbvfrtyhbgvfgtyuhjnbgfty7ujhgfrt56y7hjunbrt5y67hjungfrt5hyjun bgg f gvg fbg vbg vcbbv articles. Wv235 06:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article is still in need of serious work. My 2 suggestions for the day: 1.) Let's possible add some significant sources and expand the politics section of this article. 2.) How about adding a history of some weather phenomena in NY? I know there has been significant snow storms that stand out in our state's history (Blizzard of 1996, Ice storm of 1998, etc.). Also, there have been a few, famous and potent hurricanes to slam NY (one in the early 1900s, Hurricane Hugo and Hurricane Floyd). I'm not sure if this should be added to the article, which is why I won't pursue this as of yet. It's just a suggestion, but if someone takes me up on this, I'd love to contribute to it. Thanks (from a born and bred New Yorker). WiiAlbanyGirl 19:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also Rhode Island shares a border with New York

Is sharing a water border the same as sharing a border? Since RI doesn't share a land border with NY i was surprised by the border states listed in the first paragraph. 68.226.95.99 01:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)brooke

My aunt used to live in Brocklen.Tiggerhop 17:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)tiggerhopTiggerhop 17:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a discrepancy between the population estimate of New York (18,976,457) and New York City (18,818,536)...clearly there isn't only 157,921 people left in the state?! One or the other has to be wrong, and since I recollect most NYC area estimates to be near 20 million people, it has to be this article.

You can tell how many people are in the state by the number of house of representatives. there's 29 districts in new york so i think that means there's around 20 million, maybe i bit less. I think 1 congressman per 600,000 citizens or so. but there's a lot of illegal mexicans and polocks in new york, so who really knows, eh?

You just need to remember that while that many people may live in the New York City Metro area the area is not contained simply within the state. Many of those people are going to be coming from New Jersey, Connecticut, etc... Timhud 03:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Search New York EL

I recently deleted a link to a Google Coop page [1] and it was restored with a message on my Talk page that it was a "hasty" deletion. Would appreciate another opinion on this. It looks like a search result page which, per WP:EL we shouldn't be linking to. Thanks -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The user who created that page and added the link has been blocked for spamming several times. Unless there's a strong defense from someone else it should be removed. -Will Beback · † · 20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

my butt smells#REDIRECT my butt smells  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.204.159 (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC) 

This article has error(s) in the area and or population density data at right. Please correct this.

Just do the math and you will see that it doesn't work out with the figures provided, which was evident to me the moment I looked at it.

Puerto Ricans in New York

This article says that NY has the largest number of Puerto Ricans in the country. But considering that Puerto Rico is an American Territory is it not considered part of the country? If so, they I question if the statistic can be true. Regardless, for clarity, it probably should read "... outside of Puerto Rico".

Dhollm 13:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is NOT an American territory. It is a Commonwealth freely associated with the US, but it is not a part of the American country.

Babieboy2786 17:24, 08 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Puerto Rico is not a territory, it enjoys Commonwealth status. There are no travel restrictions with the 50 states, no customs duties or quotas on shipments between P.R. and the mainland, and all products manufactured in P.R. state "Made in the USA". The U.S. Census for 2000 lists the population of Puerto Rico as 3,808,610, while the New York State is home to 2,867,758 people of Hispanic origin of all types. (The Census does not count areas not part of the U.S.) New York clearly does not have more Puerto Ricans than anywhere else in the country.

SGT141 15:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Borders

Does not New York State also share a water border with Rhode Island? --71.235.81.39 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all

Pawpawworld 08:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed

Semiprotected, I'm assuming for a recent rash of vandalism. Thus, this has issues with criterion 5 of WIAGA that i'm assuming will pass quickly. I'd like to see the sports section in a table, like what's at Arizona. The main issue, though, is the {{Citations broken}}, and overall lack of references. Also see WP:CITET concerning the proper formatting of references. Perhaps a further reading section could be provided as well, like at Texas. Article on hold until issues are at least examined. PhoenixTwo 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The article wasn't even edited since my above comment, perhaps because of the semi-protection...when some of the obvious issues are addressed feel free to renominate. PhoenixTwo 04:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sports in New York

Do we really need the ever-growing list of professional sports organizations when we have them already listed in Sports in New York?? I propose we remove the list in this article completely. Any objections? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection, I am going ahead with the change. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing article

Doesn't seem possible to edit this article at the moment.

Corrections are needed: the article claims that New York's subway is the world's largest of its type, but that is exactly what the Wikipedia London article says about the London Underground. Only one can be right.

Maybe they're of a different "type"? -Phoenix 16:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"New York State"

It should be pointed out that The term “New York State” in Parts of New Jersey , Pennsylvania and New England is intended to mean continental New York, as distinguished from the city. Much in the same way “Washington State” distinguishes the state in the North West from Washington DC. However, many people from Upstate New York and the New York islands prefer the Term “New York State” to mean the entire state of New York, Islands included, despite the fact that the word “State” becomes superfluous when following the name New York.

Some interesting points - do you have citable references that can be used to provide evidence of this? If so, then I think the article can have that added. As for the use of "State", from what I see it's a matter of perspective - people will add "State" or "City" in order to make sure that people know which "New York" they are talking about. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Having lived my entire life in the New York City area, I have never heard "New York State" used to mean everything but New York City. Besides, Bronx is part of "continental New York", whatever that means. There are ample sources to show usage of "Long Island" to mean Nassau and Suffolk, and exclude Queens and Brooklyn. But we would need a very clear source to show that "New York State" means "New York State minus New York City". Alansohn 21:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

_ _ You sure you aren't confusing "New York State" with "upstate", which i understand to mean "New York State beyond the NY metro area?"

_ _ Or perhaps you're confusing the meaning of the phrase (the whole state of NY) with circumstances that make the use of the phrase convenient. Just because i don't say "I've been rock climbing this year" when i've been rock climing this month doesn't make "this year" mean "January thru November". In the same way, just because i never use a long phrase like "he's from New York State" about someone from the Bronx or Queens doesn't make "New York State" mean something that excludes the Bronx and Queens.
--Jerzy•t 07:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Temperature Chart

User:Ariel Pontes's edit to the chart title adding "Fº" addresses an important issue. I am not sure that it is the best way of doing so. I added a longer footer:

Temperatures listed using the Fahrenheit scale

that I think might be more helpful for those unfamilar with the Fahrenheit scale used in this chart.--Dbiel 03:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in "Cities and Towns" section

Distinguish between counties and boroughs in NYC. Five boroughs and five counties make up New York City. The boroughs are named Manhattan, The Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island. The counties are named New York (Manhattan), Bronx (not “The Bronx”), Queens, Kings (Brooklyn), and Richmond (Staten Island). Jcav 17:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be bold and go ahead and correct. My understanding was the it was the USPS that got rid of the "The" in "The Bronx" but that the official name to everyone else was still with the "The", whether it was county or borough. Might be a good idea to cite some reliable source when making the change so that future discussions can be avoided. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Phonetic IPA Transcription, please

I see the article already has a phonological/phonemic IPA transcription for "New York". However, since the actual pronounciation is so different (due to the complexity of the vowels), that is of as little help as the spelling, in this case. I think we should add an IPA phonetic transcription as well, or rather replace the current transcription with one.201.21.209.155 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, perhaps that we should give the proper pronunciation as "Noo Yawk"? This is a regional accent in a part of the state (NYC metro), but it would never be used in formal circumstances (not consciously anyway). And it has nothing to do with the particular pronunciation of the state's name, it's just a general trend affecting those vowels in all words.--Pharos 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No. You really didn't uderstand what I said. Look, there are two ways to represent a sound system and pronounciation in a language. First, you can transcribe phonemes, that is, only the minimal distinguishing sounds in that language. This transcription is usually rendered as "/***/". But you can also transcribe the specific sounds in detail with a phonetic transcription, rendered as "[***]". The article apparently uses a phonemic transcription. However, the standard phonetic realization of /nu:/, for instance, is definitely [nju:] - though maybe not in NY itself. So, in this case, the phonemic transcription is somewhat distant from the phonetic realization for most AE speakers. Note that this does not relate to "accent", as you assumed: all major AE dialetcs would pronounce it as [nju:]. The current transcription is not necessarily wrong, it just serves a different linguistic purpose. So I think that we should add another IPA, phonetic transcription (or two others, if you really want to get into dialectal differences). That's it.201.21.209.155 20:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No major American English dialects pronounce new as [nju:]--indeed Merriam-Webster calls that pronunciation "Chiefly British" [2]. Nohat 23:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Maybe Americans in Uruguay retain the yod... ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Goyle, I'm troyin' 'ere!

New York is named after the Duke of York

Surely this is wrong. New York was named after the English city of York which the Duke was the Duke of and not the Duke himself. New England is named after the country England and not the King of England. This part isn't referenced so can't someone rewrite it and reference it?

You are more than welcome to research the topic and make the corrections. The text as written is believable, but hasn't been verified. I agree that a reliable source is needed. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• New York State Facts: New York State History from the New York State Department of State states that "It was conquered by the English in 1664 and was then named New York in honor of the Duke of York." This source has been added to the article. I had always heard the Duke of York as the source. Is there a reliable source that shows that it is named for the city of York? Alansohn 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Same question asked on Talk:New York City. Here's my response.

James, the Duke of York and Albany was the brother of King Charles II. The King granted the his brother the colony, which was named for the Duke. Here are some sources I found:

• New York, named for the Duke of York, the original grantee. - The Origin of Certain Place Names in the United States by Henry Gannett [3]
• It was named in 1664 in honor of the Duke of York and Albany - [4] --Aude (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• In further searching cam this source about Yorks of the World, from theCity of York (England) Tourism Bureau, listing places named "York" around the world. "The most famous of York’s descendants, New York state and city were both renamed when the British captured what was then a Dutch colony known as New Netherland (and its city New Amsterdam) in 1664. James Duke of York, brother of King Charles II, became the proprietor of the colony and so it was that the state and the city become called New York." It seems that even York doesn't think it's named for York. Alansohn 14:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that seems to settle it, then  :-) -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the City of York quote shows that York in the UK believes that New York wasn't named after it and even if it did it wouldn't be important. The Duke of York's name was not Mr. York he simply had a title concerning the city of York in the UK. So though it was named York for the Duke of York since the York in question is the city of York and not the person himself it was named after the city of York in the UK. It wouldn't need to be "New" York if it wasn't named after the city as many places share the same name, it was only named New York to reference "old" York. Since York was not the Duke of York's name it wasn't named after him it was named after his title and therefore only for him and not after him.

Alansohn says that, "It seems that even York doesn't think it's named for York." - exactly! It was named for the Duke of York but after the City of York. If York was named after the Duke of York's father rather than the city of York you would say it was named after the Duke of York's father in honour of the Duke of York and not just completely disregard what the city was actually named after.

I think "for" the Duke of York but "after" the city that he was Duke of. 125.231.34.240 10:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiffany Pollard?

Does anyone else think Tiffany Pollard for Flavor of Love doesn't deserve a special mention and can simply be noted in the disambiguation page? Djdickmutt 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I thoroughly agree! I didn't know what you were talking about, until I looked at the article and saw the link to Tiffany Pollard prominently featured on the top of the page. Horrified, I removed {{For|''New York'' from ''Flavor of Love''|Tiffany Pollard}} from the page.--orlady 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

State Fossil wrong...

According to the NYS Regents Earth Science Reference Tables the Eurypterus remipes is the NYS Fossil. I have never heard of this athropod being nicknamed "Sea Scorpion" in any GSci or Biology course (even at the high school level), so I think it should be cited by its Latin name rather than Sea Scorpion (which is an inaccurate way of referring to an athropod as specific as Eurypterus remipes.) I'll just go ahead and make the edit now since I know that none of you can rest easy knowing about this grave injustice towards our fossilized little friends from the ocean. 24.148.118.190 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Navy Vessel Namesakes

I think that LDP-21 was named for New York city not New York state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbaaker (talk • contribs) 16:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

LPD 21 was, in fact, named for the State of New York. While this is out of step with current convention in the naming of US Navy ships, this special request was made by Govenor Pataki and granted by the Secretary of the Navy. --SGT141 15:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

With the constant vandalism isn't it time for this article to become "Semi-protected". BradMajors 02:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

History of New York

The history of New York should be reorganized. Currently, there exists summaries of the history of New Netherland and of the history of the Province of New York in both the New York and History of New York articles.

The proposal is for the New York article to contain summaries of the history of New Netherland and the history of the Province of New York. The History of New York article will then become the history of New York State (ie. 1776 and after). BradMajors (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The alternative to avoid having two summaries of the same content is to move all history information in the New York article to the History of New York article, which I believe is an inferior solution. BradMajors (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I paid no attention to this activity in my watchlist, since the appearance of the name of User:BradMajors assured me that the situation was well in hand. Well, even the most thoughtful editors can go wrong, and I think this is one of those cases. In the current situation, the History section of the present long article says too much about quarrels among the Dutch authorities and other Dutch questions, and perhaps too much about their English successors. Better, I think to follow the multilayer summary style method, by which the present article would have only one colonial subsection, consisting of one short paragraph on New Netherland one on Province of New York, and perhaps a sentence or two about the revolution.

Then History of New York should have approximately the contents of the present article's New Netherland section, and its Province section, perhaps beefed up with another paragraph's worth of text. Similar setups are used in other State history articles (true, the neighboring colonies didn't go through the same interesting 17th century complexities of conquest) and I think that method works well. If the current arrangement didn't have such a well respected name on it (thank you, incidentally, for excellent work on various 18th century local and biographical articles) I'd be tempted just to plunge in and make the changes myself, but I'd rather see such revisions carried out by more skillful hands than mine. Jim.henderson 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jim.henderson. It seems a bit odd to have events and periods of the history of New York, whether as a colony or as a state, discussed in the New York article, but not to have the colonial events mentioned in the History of New York, where, if anything, all historical periods should be given more time. Nearly every other "History of..." article I've seen, whether they are about states or nations, deals with events before and after statehood, independence, etc. I think the History of New York should discuss all of the history, and then, of course, have a summary version on the New York article. On the section thing, I also agree that we could probably cut down the information a bit in the New York article, and have only one section called something like 'Colonial history'. AlexiusHoratius 03:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the current structure either.

There are many problems with how history content is currently structured on Wikipedia in general. Authors have been adding history content to articles which are outside the scope of the article and this is creating a problem because many versions of the same content exist in different places.

The immediate problem we had with New York history was we had two summaries of equal size and content for the Province of New York and for New Netherland. Having multiple summaries makes updating content difficult because it involves updating multiple articles. (I am aware of at least six summaries in Wikipedia of the history of New Netherland.) We now only have one summary of New Netherland and one summary for the Province of New York. I think is better. The history of New York was logically divide into three periods:

• summary of History of New Netherland -> main article, New Netherland (1609-1664)
• summary of History of Province of New York -> main article, Province of New York (1664-1776)
• summary of History of New York State -> main article, History of New York State (1776-present)

It seems the objection is the history of New York prior to 1776 has been given too much emphasis in the New York article. I am all for reducing the pre-1776 content in the New York article to one or two sentences (preferable one), since I think the New York article should only be about New York State. The pre-1776 content can then all be moved to the New York History article.

And, yes the current summaries do need work. However, the Province of New York and New Netherland articles also need restructuring. Currently, these articles only contain history. Instead, these articles should have similar sections to a State article with such sections as Economy, Transportation, Government, etc.. The history section should then be reduced to a summary with a separate history article. This may mean that the history summary in the New Netherland article may be not be much different in size to an enlarged history section in the History of New York article. BradMajors 09:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So, it seems we pretty much agree. The wrong article was cut. In a few days if nobody beats me to it, I'll move the current colonial sections to History of New York and write a summary of a paragraph or maybe just a couple sentences to replace them. And of course our learned friend Brad is quite right about several other matters, but some of those will take a lot more time. Incidentally a good model of the multilayer summary style can be seen in the sequence France, History of France, Early Modern France, French wars of religion, Hugenot, and Edict of Nantes. Article by article it drills deeper, and what was unnoticed at the highest stage comes into view as a mote, fills the landscape, and reveals motes inside that in turn grow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 10:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't agree, but I am willing to give in and work on something else. BradMajors (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Pics

Hi. Out of nine pictures, 4 are NYC. Surely we can get a more balanced view of the state than this.--Loodog (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"New York City is home to more than two-fifths of the state's population": that is a balanced view —Preceding unsigned comment added by A plague of rainbows (talk • contribs) 21:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Statistics about Race / Ancestry /...

Racial and ancestral makeup

To have only one category for those of African ancestry (African American) whilst having several for those of European ancestry (Italian, German etc) is offensive. Africa is not just one huge amorphous blob, no more than Europe is. If you mean Kenyan, say Kenyan; if you mean Nigerian, say Nigerian. If we are going to simply categorise people by their ancestral continent, that's fine, but we should do so uniformly; replace all mention of Italian, German, Irish and so forth with simply "European".

As the article currently stands, it offensively implies that European countries are more important than African ones.

Furthermore to suggest that Irish, German and so forth are racially pure is insane. Europe is an easily navigated area which has had numerous small and large population movements. There is no such thing as a purely Irish or purely German bloodline; what you're talking about isn't ancestry so much as "the name of the parent country at the moment of emigration". Yet further, the borders of these countries has shifted massively over the decades, especially after the first and second world wars. Prior to Irish independence in 1926, going back as long as the USA has existed, for example, emigrants from southern Ireland weren't Irish, they were British. Prior to the holocaust of the second world war, for example, Germany had massive numbers of Turks, Jews, Romany Gypsies and other races- are we counting them as just German? These categories make no historical sense, and attempting to quantify these whilst ignoring the multitudes of African demographic categories is frankly racist.

This whole section is riddled with offensive assumptions and misguided (and more importantly, historically incorrect) attempts at Euro-centricism.

Andrew Oakley 10:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, I assumed that these numbers came from Census data, and that the divisions they used in that survey were just used here. Right now the US Census data is the best source we have, until we find something better. Upon further review, I actually looked up the 2000 Census data and don't see a racial breakdown as this, so have added a "fact" tag to the data. We need a source for this. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

11.1% German population? Pure ignorance.

When the article refers to German-American or German in population and such, it should be changed to Jewish as 11.1% are not German. As far as I know there are more Jews than Germans in New York so this needs editting. Goldbergs, Weinsteins, Steinbergs...they may be German names, but are almost always Ashkenazic Jewish names. Spitzer and Schumer aren't Germans they're Jews. Like I said, this stuff needs changing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bboy2000 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 June 2007

Like I said before, find a reliable source that can be used and cited, and things can be changed.
-- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jews ARE Germans. Just because they have a religion that they have imported from the middle0east does not change the fact that they are Germans. I have never heard of a Muhammad Steinberg in history...--71.235.81.39 03:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What kind of ridiculous statement is this? Do you think Sephardi jews are Germans? Jews from Poland and Russian? This statement is utterly absurd.
--RandomHumanoid 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jews ARE NOT German. Jews are a group of people. In other words a different race. I'm not talking about Judaism as a religion but as a race. The jews you are talking about are the Mizrahi Jews while the 'Steinbergs' are the Ashkenazic Jews. Just because it developed in the middle east doesn't mean that the Ashkenazic jews are German. Ashkenazic Jews come from all over eastern Europe and while many have come from Germany, that was a long long time ago. These Ashkenazic jews bred with other Ashkenazic Jews and today we see a different race, that being of jews, not Germans. How else do races form? How else do you define a race? Ashkenazi Jews have visible traits and beliefs that distinguish themselves from other races just like every other race. If you don't look at it in this way then that'd be the same as defining all Americans, Australians, New Zealanders as British because that's where they originated from. Or calling someone from a Germanic country like Austria, a German. That or you could just say everyone in the world is of the same race. It's just ignorance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bboy2000 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 8 June 2007

I don't think anyone sat down and typed this article going "haha, I'm really going to get under those Germans' skins now! Finally, I will have my revenge for when Klaus Steiner beat me up on the school bus as a child!!". 24.148.118.190 22:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if 11.1% of people in New York State would/could claim German ancestry. This has nothing to do with the Jewish population of New York State. Aren't there more people of German decent in the United States than anything else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.109.18 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

_ _ 69... has it right (and has avoided feeding the troll to boot). One of the extlks in the accompanying article is to a US Census page, and probing around brings you to their definition of ancestry, which is specifically intended not to capture "race". It appears to me that it's the answer to a fill-in-the-blank question, perhaps with some examples offered for guidance. Most of the "ancestry groups" broken out correspond to either existing countries or groups of them: "Israeli", "German", "Arab/Arabian" (and "Egyptian", which is also included in that), and "Sub-Saharan African (and "Nigerian", which is also included in that) are each broken out, but (for whatever reason) "Jewish", "Christian", and "Gentile" are not. The UK ends up being a special case (never mind), but most of the exceptions are things like "Canadian French", "Cajun", "Pennsylvania German", and several groups of Indian tribes, and the closest to a parallel to "Jewish" that is broken out is "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" (per my memory), which is probably one to three very distinct ethnic groups (much more so than, say, Jews or Persians of the last 1500 or so years, or ancient Greeks or Egyptians), not restricted to any national boundaries in the last 1500 or so years, and each extremely closely coinciding with a corresponding Christian church/denomination.

_ _ FWIW -- very little, of course -- if i were doing the definitions, i might argue that most of the religions mentioned here are too much about belief and conformance (as is evidenced by conversion and disownment) rather than about ancestry, and/or too heterogenous (Sephardim, and Orthodox Ashkenazim, and Reform, secular, and Ethiopian Jews, all usually as much and more distinct, within the term "Jewish", than "Cajun" from "French Canadian"), in contrast with what i would guess are the very isolated, very strictly inheritance-defined Assyrians and so on. But for now the only ancestry data other than biased-sample surveys, extrapolations, and (usually invidious) opinions is precisely what we are using. In 10 or 50 years, we may have more thoro DNA evidence, based on massive comparisons of all genes -- not just mitochrondrial and Y-chromosome -- and with adequate samplings from many more ethnic groups, and be able to describe ancestry in terms of separations and hybridizations. At present, the census methods are only the substitute for "race" superstitions that correspond to the blindness of the dog breeders Darwin interviewed, who believed they were "breeding back" to the "pure breeds" of the past, when in fact study of museums' portraits previous generations of upper-class dog owners showed clearly that the breeders simply were constantly setting new styles by creating new breeds via artificial selection.

_ _ The only defect in the article in this regard is that it does not link to a United States Census Bureau/United States Census-related discussion of the theory and practice of the ancestry datum. That does deserve attention, to find or develop titles that may be, AFAIK, yet to be created.
--Jerzy•t 20:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"The major ancestry groups in New York state are African American (15.8%), Italian (14.4%), Irish (12.9%), and German (11.1%)."

African American is a broad category whereas the other three are more specific; that bit is like comparing apples to oranges. The proper analogous comparison would be to add Italian, Irish & German together as European American at 38.4%. Maybe if they could break down the slave trade origins as west ivory coast African or some such, it would be a more straight across comparison. 70.59.148.229 (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The utility of these numbers is questionable, but the interest in them is not. I have no idea what kind of "comparison" you think is being made, nor why you want it to be "more straight across". In fact the article makes no comparison, but presents numbers that are available (see my contrib, a week before yours, at the end of section # 11.1% German population? Pure ignorance., which has just become (for now at least) the section preceding this one). We don't throw away data for which there is wide demand by lumping it, nor do we do original research to try and generate data -- let alone data that nation-scale organizations find it impractical to generate.

And just for the record, to "break down the slave trade origins as west ivory coast African or some such" sounds like it would be a step away from comparable data: the census data is comparable across its range, because, it seems, it asks the same question of everyone -- something along the lines of "how do you describe your ancestry?", probably with implicit or explicit guidance that that's not meant to capture your own race, language, or religion. A person who answers "African American" without trying to refine it further is probably giving as accurate an account of their family tree as is knowable, because of the situation of most of their hundreds or a thousand of ancestors from a few generations after the slave trade became less significant than internal population growth of African Americans: they either never heard or didn't remember all of the African tribes their own ancestors came from. And few of those bits of genealogy would have gotten passed down through the next 8 to 12 generations. The presumably inextricably diverse ancestry of African Americans, and the homogenized present-day "ancestral" identity, substantially reflect the conditions of oppression. I don't know whether demographers' comfort with measuring ancestry, despite that greater homogenization, reflects current racism, or race-tinged tinged demographic traditions, or a scientific commitment to getting the most useful data available, but there it is.

I don't think i've ever met such a questionnaire, and if i did i think i'd probably insist on "North European" for fear they'd insist on the one country that i think accounted for a culturally diverse 3/4 of my grandparents, if i tried to get them to put down both it and the 1/4 country. But i know someone with a nationality-specific surname, who would surely answer with their mother's nationality, apparently because she'd done so much more to deserve their loyalty. Their data and mine aren't alike, but they're comparable because they were similarly elicited. An ancestry questionnaire measures what it measures, and there's some use in that even if it's not as clear as something we can fantasize about measuring.
--Jerzy•t 10:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)