Talk:New York (state)/FAQ

In the early days of Wikipedia, this article was simply titled "New York", like other U.S. states. Due to the potential confusion with New York City, there have been many debates over the appropriate titles. In July 2017, a widely-supported community consensus was reached to rename this article "New York (state)", and to make "New York" a disambiguation page which allows the reader to pick the article on the state, the city, or a related topic. Other arrangements had been proposed, e.g. calling this "New York State" or "State of New York", or having "New York" redirect to New York City. Before the move, more than 75,000 ambiguous links to "New York" were checked and pointed to the appropriate destination, mostly New York (state), New York City, and occasionally other uses such as New York (magazine). This situation had grown out of 15 years of ambiguity on the meaning of "New York", and is now fully resolved.

Historical discussions took place in Oct–Nov 2004, Feb 2005, Feb–Sep 2005, Mar–Aug 2008, Oct–Nov 2010, Aug 2011, Jan 2013 and Jul 2013. In June-July 2016, the article was moved to "New York (state)", but this decision was overturned at move review. Then a more detailed July 2016 move request was closed as no consensus. A subsequent August 2016 RFC reached consensus that the state of New York is not the primary topic for the term "New York", advising further discussions. In October 2016, the status quo outcome of the July discussion was endorsed at move review. Finally, after a drafting debate and a renewed move request, the state article was moved to "New York (state)" on July 19, 2017, and "New York" now holds the disambiguation page. An additional RM was held in Jan 2023 attempting to move the page to "New York State", but was closed unsuccessfully after near-unanimous opposition.

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." US$24 in 1880 would be worth $758 today, though Gehring states the rate of exchange was also incorrect.