Talk:Herndon, Virginia

Source for William Henry Herndon confusion

The following paragraph was recently added:

The settlement was named Herndon in 1858. In the 1870s, many Northern soldiers and their families came to settle in the area, taking advantage of moderate climate and low land prices; some may have mistaken the town for being named for William Henry Herndon, Abraham Lincoln's law partner in Illinois.

Do we have a reliable source for this apparent confusion, or is this original research? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a source. I'll keep looking. In the meantime I've taken this out for now. Avt tor 07:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Political controversy edits

To the extent that people intend to use this page to discuss political controversy, I'm hoping that people will maintain NPOV and try not to make anonymous edits. (I think it's cheesy to order the list of references for political reasons, rather than chronologically by date of edit.)Avt tor 19:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The only way we can adequately maintain NPOV in the "Day labor controversy" section is to get some objective sources for this information. The current links to pro- and anti- sites are impossibly biased toward their individual positions. I've added at least one neutral source, a Herndon Observer article. (HO's editorials strike me as leaning toward Project Hope & Harmony and against the various day-labor site opponents, but the articles I've read are neutrally written. I'm sure there are other sources, too, without overt or hidden agendas.)

I would also remind fervent exponents of any position on this issue that this is an article about Herndon, Virginia, not a referendum on illegal immigration. If people feel that this local controversy is sufficient for substantial coverage, they should create an event article separate from this geographical article. This situation doesn't strike me as signficant as, say, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, but that's the approach to take when an event overwhelms the article containing it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have again removed attempts to bias the day-labor section by:

• Unnecessary duplication of the information about the Fairfax County report cited in the September suit in the introductory paragraph about the summer situation, which makes the text sound shrill and pedantic.
• Removal of the mention of day-labor site proponents' argument.
• Removal of the Herndon Minutemen paragraph, a very visible element of this controversy.

I worked the sole recent addition of sourced information, a ruling against the town's land-use argument, into the previous text to leave the focus of the final statement on the unresolved central issue. I notice also that no one has risen to my request for additional objective sources. This will only encourage editors to revert further changes, and possibly remove most of the material already here as unsourced. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Objective source for the funding of Judicial Watch is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch. Doesn't seem necessary to cite this separately. Using the name of this front group without an explanation of what it is seems to violate NPOV, IMO.

Not opposed to a separate article for the day laborer controversy. Avt tor 07:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

An article on Herndon, Virginia is not the place to do analyses of the supporters behind either party to the legal suit, the Minutemen, or Project Hope and Harmony. As it is, the current controversy overwhelms the entire history of the town, which is absurd. If we want to get into that kind of detail, it needs to go into a separate article. (I'm not even sure what to name it. I'd suggest that people who heard of this on the national level use a phrase taken from a news publication or telecast. "Herndon day-labor controversy" might be adequate, although I just read that the Minutemen are planning to patrol Maryland day-labor sites as well, so a broader term may be necessary. If it's really getting national attention, may "United States day-labor controversy" isn't too broad.) I'm not especially interested in creating this new article; I'll just offer to remove everything but a brief and balanced summary of the situation — whether or not the article is created. So day-labor editing combatants should get working on it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I restored the day labor controversy section. Not opposed to having a subordinate article, but this local issue is of national importance. It's one of the main reasons people would come to this page.

Re the Council on American-Islamic Relations: its headquarters is in Washington DC. The Virginia chapter is located in Herndon. I'm not sure this is really significant, so I'm not putting it back. Avt tor 18:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If it was "restored," it's gone now. While I have mixed feelings about including it, I was unable to find anyone who took "credit" for the deletion.

Hoya1 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Music in the city

Ther was a concernt in the city in 90's that attracted some major bands does that include mentioning. --AnthonygayraperCerbini 00:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC) --AnthonygayraperCerbini 00:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Education

I think this article is in need of information on elementary and middle schools; not just high schools.
--FLaRN2005 (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Council news reporting

I have removed a recent addition of a statement about the new Herndon Town Council because it strikes me as too parochial for the general readership. It's certainly of interest to us locals, but doesn't belong here unless it gets wider coverage (like in national news). Merely reporting the latest news from the Herndon Observer isn't especially illuminating, and is also likely to touch off more partisan editing that doesn't benefit the encyclopedia article. Please try to consider the overall article when adding new information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO JEFFq:

Sorry if I oversteppped my bounds, either in the information I added or in removing the day labor thread. In my opinion that entire thread, including the links to the Judicial Watch suit, and despite the careful wording,was biased and reflected poorly on the town in general and all the prior work that had taken place with various community groups. To present that information fairly and in an "unbiased" manner would take pages, not paragraphs.

My other edit--to reflect the fact that the council members are all part timers and that there is a full-time, paid professional staff was in the interest of clarity.

Again, if I have overstepped my bounds I apologize. SusieQue 18:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)SQ

Please don't consider this "overstepping bounds". Every Wikipedian can and should feel free to add information they feel is relevant. This is simply a content dispute, in which two editors disagree as to the usefulness of the information. Don't take it personally or be overly concerned when someone disagrees with your initial assessment; this is a very common and expected situation. If you feel you can justify the inclusion of something deleted, feel free to post counterarguments, which interested editors can then examine, discuss, and eventually come to some agreeement on how to handle the material. I obviously felt your information was unnecessary, but I am just as obligated to justify my position to remove it as you are in adding it (which is why I stated my case up front). Don't be too intimidated by an experienced wikian; I can assure you I make mistakes and have lost my share of disputes. ☺

As far as the day-labor section goes, I have plenty of concerns about this myself, as I've noted above. I suspect it is possible to spin off this material into a larger article that can more fully address the situation, leaving only a short blurb here that would keep this political situation of only a couple of years from overwhelming an article on a town nearly 1-1/2 centuries old. By removing the section, you have essentially announced a belief that this material doesn't belong here. I'm sure others will object. (I don't care one way or another, as long as the information is reliably sourced, neutrally written, and germane to the general article.) Some editors will probably restore the material, or even rewrite it to support their own points of view. At that point, it becomes a content dispute that should be discussed here as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• As an outsider, could y'all at least agree to have SOME political information, like who the "part-time mayor" is or who runs the show when he's off the job? I know plenty of town articles don't even have that much, but it's a pretty intriguing statement, and it seems like you two Q's know a bit about it. 14:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mareino (talk • contribs) .

Sorry; I have been too busy to do much justice to this article. The bee in my bonnet is sourcing statements, so lately, I've mainly been tagging and sourcing info. In this regard, I don't have any info on the mayor being part-time, nor is there any source for the specific info given in the "Government" section, so I've {{fact}}-tagged it. As far as "running" the show, Herndon's pretty small; I imagine the staff manages day-to-day problems. But I have no concrete info at this time, so I'll wait until I or someone else dig some up. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Herndon "South of the tollroad"

I recall reading a while back that Herndon's agreement with Fairfax County regarding Worldgate was to not incorporate any area south of the toll road until 2010. It would be nice to have a source for that (with details corrected as necessary), incorporated into the article. Tedickey (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Herndon - Incorporated vs Unincorporated

The southern incorporation boundary of Herndon is at the Dulles Toll Road, yet there are parts of this article that talk about places with a Herndon address that are not in incorporated Herndon. My impression is that the article is about the incorporated town; if this is the case, I don't believe these items about unincorporated Herndon belong. What do others think? --Tim Sabin (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the article content should generally only cover places and events within the town limits, not the broader Herndon mailing address — unless the place or event directly affects the town. Some examples are a reference to school or a future Metro stop that serves the town even though it is outside the town limits. In those cases the fact that the place is outside the town limits should be noted. --hulmem (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The same issue comes up in other contexts - the Post Office doesn't pay a lot of attention to town boundaries in any location that I'm familiar with (and occasionally it gets city boundaries wrong ;-). Adding the clarification that the place is outside town limits is something that we should do however, to make the topic accurate. Tedickey (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

official name

The town's website says "Town of Herndon", and uses this consistently. Is there some more official source of names for Virginia which overrides the town's usage?

Copyright violations/removals

There are large sections from this article that I have removed, due to the fact that they are directly copied and pasted off of various sources. As per WP:COPYOTHERS:

If you want to import media (including text) that you have found elsewhere, and it does not meet the non-free content policy and guideline, you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license... You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain.

I see no such license or disclaimer on the text I've removed, and thus it needs to go. This is an important element of Wikipedia. Sections removed include:

• The entire "Downtown Master Plan" section.
• The entire "Metro Area Station Plan" section.
• The entire "Brand Identity" section.

All three of these sections were copied and pasted from press releases here, here, and here. It's worth noting that citing the source isn't the issue here; rather, it's because the source has been copied, rather than paraphrased. If someone wants to paraphrase these releases in an encyclopedic tone, they can feel free, but for now all this stuff had to go. – Runfellow (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"Patch" as source

A reliable source is something which can be referred to "later". Patch is ephermeral, not reliable. TEDickey (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Herndon, Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160113212202/http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2005/jan/18/project-hope-and-harmony-moves-forward// to http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2005/jan/18/project-hope-and-harmony-moves-forward//

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

need RS for Greater Herndon term

A recent edit asserted that USPS had a particular viewpoint regarding Greater Herndon. Without a WP:RS, that part of the edit should be removed, since USPS treatment of unincorporated areas does not appear to be particular about Herndon or other places which have a main post office. TEDickey (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I think that whole paragraph ("The actual dimensions of the town of Herndon..") should be removed. This concept of USPS boundaries extending beyond actual geopolitical boundaries is true for thousands of local jurisdictions across the US; there is nothing distinctive about this for Herndon. I can't imagine we would need this disclaimer in the introduction for each local jurisdiction article. The Herndon article as it currently exists makes a good distinction throughout between things in the town boundary and things outside the town boundary. --hulmem (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. While yes, many locations share the issue, what is the point of this project if not education? I actually live here and see how average people have no concept for how the distinction works, but as an educational product, this encyclopedia should. Famartin (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

However, the entire paragraph (like similar edits you've made today in several topics) is unsourced, and introduces a term which hasn't gotten into common usage (and in context, has to be sourced back to USPS). TEDickey (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)