Jump to content

Talk:Irvington, New York

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) at 02:13, 1 October 2016 (→MOS:IM). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wolfert's Roost

The article should mention something about "Wolfert's Roost," the authoritative book on the history of Irvington. (unsigned -- posted 23:40, January 3, 2006 by 151.204.159.136)

  • No, you are confusing the 19th century book Wolfert's Roost and Miscellanies by Washington Irving with the history of Irvington called Wolfert's Roost: Portrait of a Village, which was assembled in 1971 and privately published. It is the latter the IP was referring to. Since that comment was made, I have used the book extensively in the article. BMK (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irvington as "Orthodox Jewish Community"

Although Irvington may have a sizable and growing Orthodox Jewish population, it is not an "Orthodox Jewish Community." Please stop adding this as a category until you present some factual basis for it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 04:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a post on my talk page, the editor who's been adding this category says:

I myself know of at least 20 Orthodox Jewish families living in Irvington. Each family has an average of 5 people per unit. That's at least 100 Orthodox Jews--- that I know of!

The editor's estimate of 100 people would represent, at best, about 1.5% of the population, which, while it is certainly enough to be considered a "community", is not significant enough to consider Irvington, itself, an "Orthodox Jewish community".

In short, Irvington may contain a budding Orthodox Jewish community, but it itself is not one, and should not be categorized as such. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 08:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the discussion from my talk page:

I see you are quite persistent with editing the Irvington, NY page, removing the label "Orthodox Jewish Community." Let me take a wild guess, you are not an Orthodox Jew. You're most likely not even Jewish. If you are, I can see why the Jewish community is persecuted. If you're not, then thank G-d! As an Orthodox Jew myself, and as a resident of Irvington, New York, I can say that there has been a rather significant, and noticeable influx of Orthodox Jews into the Rivertowns. Why are Orthodox Jews coming to Irvington? First off, it is very close to the Chabad of the Rivertowns, located a little over a mile away in Dobbs Ferry. Now, Dobbs Ferry is not as nice as Irvington, which is more community-oriented and neighborhoody. I myself know of at least 20 Orthodox Jewish families living in Irvington. Each family has an average of 5 people per unit. That's at least 100 Orthodox Jews--- that I know of! Irvington's population is, as you should know- since you check this page apparently every five minutes (GET A LIFE!) , not large. However, it has a significant Jewish population. Let's say, and this is an underestimate, 1500. 100 of those Jews are Orthodox--- at least! That is not an Orthodox Jewish community? Maybe for places like Brooklyn, who have over a quarter million Jews, a large number of Jews is considered a "community." But for Irvington, we have our own "community" in this small town. Hopefully we'll establish some kosher stores--- we're planning a small Kosher deli. But we do not need to do that to prove that we are here, we are a community, and we are proud of it. For G-d's sake, stop editing the page. It's helpful for other Jews to know that Irvington's Orthodox community is expanding. If you're against it, then you are using wikipedia to advance some kind of anti-semitic agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.130.133 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I was born in Tarrytown (Phelps), and grew up and went to school in Irvington. My family still lives there. While there may be a growing Orthodox Jewish population in Irvington, Irvington, as a whole, is not an "Orthodox Jewish Community." Please stop in adding it as a category, which has no basis in fact. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 04:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. What gave you a clue that "Ed Fitzgerald" isn't an orthodox Jewish name?

Here's the definitive proof, according to the leading Jewish synagogue directory online: Irvington NY has two Orthodox shteibls, which are close-knit synagogues that are strictly traditional. I attend services at Chabad, and forgot to mention the existence of these two synagogues, although this information is public and should have been considered a while ago. They are: Der Yiddisher Shul / Irvington Synagogue and Ohel Torah v'et Tzion HaAdamah. here's the "definitive proof" link- http://maven.co.il/synagogues/C3329Y42022RX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.130.133 (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First, this discussion should be taking place on the discussion page at "Irvington, NY", not here. Please put any further comments there. Second, please sign your comments -- use four tildes (~) to automatically generate your name and date. Third, and most important, your "definitive proof" is anything but. It once again goes to show that there is an Orthodox Jewish community within Irvington, not that Irvington itself is an Orthodox Jewish community. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For the reasons stated, that the evidence presented goes toward there being a small Orthodox Jewish community within Irvington, and not towards showing that Irvington itself is an Orthodox Jewish community, I've once again removed the category. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 20:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence in Irvington of three mainstream Christian churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopalian and Presbyterian) wouldn't justify categorizing Irvington as a "Christian community", despite the fact that, most probably, the majority of the population is Christian, nor would categorizing it as a "Caucasian community" be justified, despite the fact that the majority of the population is white. None of those categories -- Christian, white or Orthodox Jewish -- describe the character of the village as a whole, which is why they are unjustified. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 10:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same argument covers Dobbs Ferry and Westchester County, neither of which are "Orthodox Jewish communities" byt any stretch of the imagination. I've removed the category from them as well. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 12:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments transferred from my talk page:

What the fuck? Is Brooklyn considered an Orthodox Jewish community? Of course. Is Brooklyn ENTIRELY JEWISH? Of course not. But is there an Orthodox Jewish community WITHIN Brooklyn? Of course. The same can be said for Scarsdale NY, Merrick NY, Los Angeles, even Jerusalem! All these cities feature large Orthodox Jewish communities, but the cities themselves are not exclusively Orthodox. The Orthodox communities are thus WITHIN these cities. All "Communities" are part of a large community, the city itself. Up until your last comment, you seemed to be an anti-semitic bastard who had no basis for deleting the Orthodox label. Now you're a dumb anti-semitic bastard, as I have not in my entire life heard anything as stupid as your last statement. If people like you are proof reading and "fact"-checking Wikipedia, this site is in serious trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.33.89 (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please put your comments where they belong, on the "Irvington, NY" talk page. I will transfer your comment there, and no longer respond to them here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 10:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring your insults and provocations, the answer is that Brooklyn is not considered to be an Orthodox Jewish community, although it does contain Orthodox Jewish communities. The problem is that the category is not "Locales that have Orthodox Jewish communities" or "Places with sizable Orthodox Jewish populations" but "Orthodox Jewish communities", and as long as that is what it is called, it is not properly applicable to Irvington, Dobbs Ferry or Westchester -- or Brooklyn, for that matter. Change the name of the category to be properly descriptive of what you seem to want to categorize, and I'll have no problem with it, but as long as it remains as it is, I will have to continue removing it, as it is not appropriate. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 11:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to short-circuit another round of probably fruitless discussion, let me attempt to be totally clear: I have absolutely no objection to Irvington (or Dobbs Ferry, etc.) being labelled as a place that has a significant Orthodox Jewish population. (I don't know for a fact that this is the case, but I'm willing to accept the proffer that it is.) What I object to, and will continue to block, is the categorizing of Irvington and other places as "Orthodox Jewish communities", when that is not the case.

It seems to me, then, that the solution is to alter the category so that it properly describes what is being labelled. Once that is done, you'll get no more objection from me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 11:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the name of the category from "Orthodox Jewish communities in the United States" to "United States places with Orthodox Jewish communities" and have updated all links and retored the link here and in "Dobbs Ferry" and "Westchester" Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 08:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm increasingly amazed by the interaction that took place here. Although Ed seems to have (rightly) carried the day, I thought I might add additionally, since I now believe the rival poster may have really been (unfortunately, and astoundingly) a real person with ties to Los Angeles and not a troll, that: 1. regarding his supposed "proof" of the alleged Orthodox community in Irvington, one the two supposed traditional communities/synagogues (which to my mind at least do not necessarily mean the same thing) would by its very name appear to be a "Yiddish School," not a residential community/synagogue as implied; 2. after having investigated the addresses of this supposedly "infallible proof" I am furthermore convinced that neither of these institutions even exists within Irvington New York (possible confusion with NJ?); 3. even if they did exist that would not prove that Irvington had a sizable Orthodox community, much less that it was itself one; 4. I very much suspect his opening claim that he himself (I have throughout chosen to assume the writer is male, though I have of course no way to know that) personally knew over 20 Orthodox families in Irvington is a flat-out lie, since anyone with familiarity with the community would have recognized the total fallacy of the Yiddischer Schul claim, and furthermore, this person has led similar disputes in half a dozen other communities at least on both coasts of the country; 5. consequently, the base-line estimate of 100 Orthodox Jews and growing, which all commentators seem to have accepted, has no established basis in fact, and I propose it was entirely a hallucination produced by those misleading directory entries; 6. this is not to say that Irvington does not have a proportionally very sizable Jewish community of course, though, as far as I know, no synagogues, and nothing to warrant its being described in any way as an "Orthodox Community," since nothing has even definitely shown that there are, in fact, Orthodox inhabitants of the town, period. (68.175.69.32 (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Unverifiable information in "Religion" section

I've commented out the following paragraph from the "Religion" section:

In addition, there are two Orthodox Jewish shteibls, which are close-knit strictly traditional synagogues: Der Yiddisher Shul/Irvington Synagogue and Ohel Torah v'et Tzion HaAdamah.<:ref>Maven Search, List of Synagogues in Irvington<:/ref> The majority of Irvington residents are Christian, but the Jewish population is growing, with some estimates putting it at over 30%.<:ref>In the last decade, the Jewish population of Westchester County experienced a boom, with the total Jewish population growing by over 40%.<:/ref>

I've checked the citation given for this, the listing on MavenSearch, and found that the address for the first synagogue was an apartment building, and the phone number for it was disconnected. The address for the second synagogue doesn't specify whether it's at North Broadway or South Broadway, but neither address seems to exist. Also, it appears that the only thing required to put a listing on MavenSearch is an e-mail address, so it really cannot be considered to be a reliable source.

If someone has a reliable source to back up the existence of these two shteibls, please provide it and uncomments the material from the article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish population count... finally

Here's some definitive data to back up any past claims: http://www.fizber.com/ny/irvington/?sell_sold=rent# 

Faith/          Village   Nation (total in %)
Denomination       
Catholic 	50.86% 	21.92%
Protestant 	6.42% 	19.12%
LDS 	        0.21% 	1.57%
Baptist 	0.85% 	8.16%
Episcipalian 	1.61% 	8.12%
Pentacostal 	0.62% 	1.89%
Lutheran 	0.91% 	2.81%
Methodist 	1.23% 	3.84%
Presbyterian 	1.19% 	1.33%
Other Christian 2.13% 	4.66%
Jewish 	        10.18% 	2.16%
Eastern 	0.03% 	0.05%
Islam 	        0.63% 	0.54%

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.139.66 (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when I try to use the link provided, I get an error message saying that the Google API was registered to another website, and I get no data. Can you try to find a way to get to the data that's functional for other users, and then repost with that link? And a reminder that this is static data and says nothing whatsoever about the growth of the Jewish population. It also negates a claim made previously that the Jewish population was approaching 1/3.

Interesting data -- in all probability the 50% Catholic figure is the result of the Irish laborers who did quarry work in East Irvington (Little Dublin) and in the village as well. I'm very surprised that the figures for Presbyterians and Episcopalians are so small, considering there are churches for those denominations in the village. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link works fine: ignore the pop-up message from Google and click on Neighborhood to the lower right. Scroll down and you'll find the data. This site seems obscure, and I personally do not think this data is statistically correct or accurate... As you said, the three other Christian denomination seem to be under-represented from this data, as well as the Jewish population.

Something to consider, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.139.66 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the instructions, I see the data now. Unfortunately, I can't figure out a link which will get to the data directly, which I think would be necessary to use it in the article, and, more importantly, I have the same concerns that you do about the validity of the data. Without know where it came from and the methoodology used, I have doubts whether it would pass muster as a reliable source. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link that gets you to the data, more or less (you still have to scroll down and hit the link for "More detailed information"): http://www.fizber.com/sale-by-owner-home-services/new-york-city-irvington-profile.html?more=neigh Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several other real estate sites carry the same data, and none of them seem to indicate where it came from. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forget about this site: I checked out the population by religion for Tarrytown, and the break-down is 100% the same for both communities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.139.66 (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can believe that Irvington and Tarrytown would have similar breakdowns, but not exactly the same. I have to believe that this data is from some larger political division (Westchester County, or New York State) and is being inserted into every town or village in that area. In any event, without knowing where it came from, I don't see it as reliable information. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may clear some things up: After doing a little research on the fizber site, I see that all of the towns/villages in Westchester have the same population statistics, which seem to be on par to other data I've come across over the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.139.66 (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm amazed that the guy keeps trying to label Irvington and Dobbs Ferry as Orthodox Jewish communities, and that he labels Ed Fitzgerald an anti-Semite because he offers an alternative view. Let me add my own: Even if one were to look at the 10% of Irvington that is Jewish, there is no way that anywhere close to half of the 10% would call themselves Orthodox. Most belong to Reform or Conservative synagogues like Temple Beth Abraham in Tarrytown, Greenburgh Hebrew Center in Dobbs Ferry, or Temple Beth Shalom in Hastings-on-Hudson. ---- Rob B.

Rob B, Irvington's Jewish population significantly exceeds 25-30% of the village's total population. Your 10% statistic comes from the proven-false table which had been discussed at length and dismissed above. Westchester's Jewish population is perhaps 10% of the total population - though in Irvington it is at least 30%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.139.40 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

significantly exceeds 25-30% Any factual backing for this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-Anyone parent/student in the district could tell you this. Count school district figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.139.40 (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Irvington and attended the public schools there. Of the town's 6000 inhabitants I'm probably connected to a good half of them one way or another. In my experience, Irvington does have a very sizable Jewish community (I'd imagine much larger than the 10% listed above, I'd guess somewhere around 30%), but I'm sure that any of the town's inhabitants would be puzzled an attempt to label it as an "Orthodox Community." To begin with, there are no synagogues there at all, as far as I know, and my family is partly Jewish (admittedly not Orthodox). All those statistics seem rather off in fact: they would have to include a larger Protestant population, a smaller Catholic one, and I'd imagine marginally larger numbers on Muslim and Eastern Orthodox. But more to the point, the only sort of religious community I know of in town is the Unification Church estate, but that's widely known of and discussed, and very much visible despite its apparent isolation and regard for privacy. It's not a big town, I really think we'd have noticed if there were also traditional Orthodox communities hiding out somewhere, let alone "two synagogues" like someone claimed above. Honestly I almost suspect those comments were a troll, even an anti-Semitic one, as they certainly they aren't very flattering to Jews. Finally, the "Best of Westchester" quotation is definitely valid, though you have to wonder who makes up these things. (68.175.69.32 (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

-Ha yeah that was some kind of a joke or something right? I looked at the addresses listed of the supposed "Orthodox synagogues" and one is like the pizzeria across from where I went to middle school, the other seems to be clearly residential. Just look at google maps for proof. What a jackass, and he was so sure he was right he called Ed Fitzgerald a dumb anti-Semite and much worse. Way to go Ed for hanging in there. (68.175.69.32 (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Best in Westchester?

An editor added the following information to the article:

In the 2010 edition of the Westchester Magazine rankings, Irvington was ranked #1 most desirable town to live in out of the 40 in Westchester County.

I have been through the Westchester Magazine website, and I cannot find a source to support this contention. The closest I came was this September 2009 article, which listed Irvington as "Best for Foodies (West)", one of 12 listed "best place" in Westchester in various categories. However, I could not find a ranking of Irvington as #1 out of 40 communities on the site, nor was there anything like that on Google News. I have therefore removed the information until a citation can be provided to support it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the citation, and re-added the material with a cite and a quote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That information should not be in the lead, and possibly not even in the article in its current form. It's fine to include a short blurb along the lines of, "this magazine said it's a nice place to live" – but when you create a large blockquote praising the town, and put it at the top of the page, it borders on advertising. It doesn't even summarize any part of the article, and the lead would be better served with a large paragraph paraphrasing the history section. I'm removing the text.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The information is sourced, and balanced -- it provides the factors that Irvington dis not do well in as well. Please do not remove it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Area Error?

"The village has a total area of 4.0 square miles (10 km2),[22] or about 1,850 acres": This does not square with that there are 640 acres in a square mile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.29.110 (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two facts came from different sources, but the real problem is the the 1,850 acres is referring to the 2.8 square miles of landm not to the total area including water. I've rearranged the sentence to clear up that problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Points of interest

Excluding references, this article is currently at 8386 words, right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. Points of interest should have its own article. --Abel (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine. You just want to spin off points of interest so you can put back in promotional material that was removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So a policy based argument is met with instant aggression in the form of a baseless accusation. Editors should interact with each other in a disrespectful and uncivil manner, right?--Abel (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have no "policy-based argument", and my policy-based argument is that point-of-view-pushing single purpose accounts with a conflict of interest have no business editing articles in the area of their conflict. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. More aggressive name-calling, with accusations filled with nothing that is in any way true. Wikipedia, the land of inviting people who welcome other volunteers to participate, or not. --Abel (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)--Abel (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your replies are content-free. Suffice it to say that if you attempt to split off the content, you will be reverted, and, per WP:BRD, it will end up back here. If it continues past that, admins will be alerted to your special status as a conflicted POV-pushing SPA, a claim that can be easily documented by your ownership of the FEE article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one owns Wikipedia articles, the content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. I don't know what an "SPA" is, but are you sure you don't want to make a wild accusation about my sexual preferences or lack of religion while you are at it? --Abel (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take a good look at yourself: you are a single purpose account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So only people who have seemingly endless free time and are able edit a vast array of articles, not the pitiful handful that I have attempted to help with, can have useful suggestions. Good to know. I will be sure to keep my useless suggestions to myself. --Abel (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Irvington, New York. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turning prose into a list

An editor is attempting to turn the "Notable persons" section from prose into a list, despite this guideline at WP:PROSE, which reflects the consensus opinion, widespread throughout en.wiki, that prose is preferable to a list whenever it is possible:

Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Lists of links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists for detail. In an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed.

The editor involved has reverted myself and one other editor, with no explanation of why a list is preferable in this specific instance. Without such an explanation, and a consensus to change it, the section should remain in prose. BMK (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Froide's response(s)

  • Firstly, be truthful here, BMK. I did Italic textprovide an explanation, noting this is not an essay and, not only is a bulletted "notables" list more reader-friendly [in this instance], that format is more editor-friendly (as it's easier to order the entries logically, maintain such order, and appropriately cite each entry or grouping of entries) and for readers to find specific notable people.
  • Secondly, there's no reason why presentation of details and clarification of context cannot be effected in a bulletted list (e.g., see Irvington,_New_York#Points_of_interest), and if certain logical groupings make sense, then that's possible to implement as well, via separate paragraphs for such groupings or separate lists with introductory statements for such subgroupings (e.g., see Irvington,_New_York#In_popular_culture).
  • Thirdly, the unedited paragraphs in question here were "stitched together" (to use BMK's term), so choosing paragraphs over bullets doesn't prevent that problem.

Despite the presence of the Wiki guideline BMK cited, Wikipedia also advises editors to "be bold" and to use good judgment. That latter includes adhering to guidelines for writers of (professional) encyclopedias, of journalism, and of online text, all of which should be followed here. I exhort you to see for yourself, by comparing how the above-cited sections read to the edited/bulletted version of the "Notable residents section that BMK reverted, and the unorganized, poorly cited, in-need-of-editing, and difficult-to-read "Notable residents" section that BMK wants to retain.

I assert that if the consensus reached here is to retain paragraph form, then at least order the entries in a logical fashion (not willy-nilly as they are now), correct the grammar/mechanics (and use parallelism), properly cite each entry or group of entries (if they share a common source), including properly formatting the references given and adding citations for unreferenced entries (as I did for many other sections in this article which, by the way, a wise editor - not I - also listed in the more reader-friendly bulletted fashion)? Froid (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created a "Notable current residents" subgrouping to show the problems with not using bullets in this instance, even after grammar/parallelism, logical ordering (alphabetical), and references have been improved. The problem here is identifying exactly which sources document the entries which lack specific individual references, and it will snowball if/when other editors add names to this list and don't cite them. Froid (talk) 08:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also created a "Notable past residents" subgrouping. The same issues apply. Froid (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RoadSnacks

I respectfully don't think you should mention RoadSnacks on the Irvington article. RoadSnacks is an entertaining popular blog, not a reliable statistical analysis organization. It even states "This article is an opinion based on facts and is meant as infotainment." The comments in the RoadSnacks article also detail how poor the methodology behind those ratings was, and age of residents and percent married in no way has a causation with any perception that a municipality is boring. I would not consider RoadSnacks a reliable source. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 22:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a disclaimer. BMK (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IM

Unless there's some consensus or a more concrete reason than "this is better", there's no reason to go against MOS:IM and cut through headings with images as this edit does. The reasoning behind the MOS:IM guideline:

  • "Each image should be inside the major section to which it relates" - self-explanatory
  • "not immediately above the section heading." - so it doesn't cut through the heading, interrupting the horizontal division between sections.

Those are pretty good reasons to follow the MOS. Putting an image further away from the text that describes it, or interrupting the flow of headings, should have a clear reason. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon you're welcome to discuss it. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MOS is not mandatory, it's a consensus view about what should be done in most situations. It is almost never acceptable to give as a reason for an edit "Because MOS says so" - each edit needs to be evaluated according to the needs of each individual article. No general consensus is possible for every circumstance.
In this case, putting the maps up at the top leaves a large area of the article where there are no images whatsoever. In comparison, the original placement of the maps balances the article visually, spreading the images out in a visually effective way. Since 2006, when I first began to edit this article – adding 100K bytes of text in 860 edits to what was an 9K article – I have been very careful to make sure that the article was not only factually correct, but also visually balanced, adding most (if not all) of the images, and doing so in such a way that they helped the reader's eyes move along the article in a smooth and undisturbed way, at the same time providing visual information that was not otherwise presented textually. That is the root of what "Better before" means, that the article is the result of careful editing over the course of 10 years, and that most "drive by" edits which are made only to satisfy a "rule" (which is really a guideline or suggestion and not a rule because MOS is not mandatory) are not improvements. When they are improvements, so much the better for the article. When they are not, then the article was "Better before".
It should be mentioned that your restoration of your preferred version is not in line with WP:BRD, which calls for the article to stay in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing. Until there is a consensus in this discussion, the article should be left in the state it was in previously. If you wish to get a third opinion, please see WP:3o.Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines is wrong, an edit that supports an existing consensus (such as a Wikipedia guideline) is not a bold edit. In this case, your reason for not following the guideline (which represents consensus) is based on your own personal preference for the article that you cultivated for years. Moving the image does not add visual balance to the article; there are still very large swaths of text without images. Regardless of that, there is no guideline or policy that suggests uniform distribution of images, while there is a guideline that suggests images be positioned next to the text discussing them, and that they do not interrupt headings. Your interpretation is awfully close to gaming the BRD cycle through "seniority" and the disregard of guidelines.
Your preference of your own style (uniform image distribution) over Wikipedia style (images next to text that describes them, avoiding images hanging over headings) is actually what needs to be discussed, while the default style should be the Wikipedia style unless a different consensus is reached. There's no consensus through editing when it's your edit that's being disputed, no matter how long you've been editing the article. There is, however, general consensus through Wikipedia guidelines that should be followed unless there's a good reason to break from it. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BigRoundCircle. 79.43.19.188 (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does your visual balance work on other devices, such as large monitors, tablets and mobile phones? — Safety Cap (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine on every platform I've checked it on: laptops, Chromebook, IOS phone, Android phone, 21" monitor. In any even, the qiestion of how are pages are rendered is not a Wikipedia concern, it's a concern of those who write the implementations of HTML for those devices. We're the source material, it's their job to make the source material render properly. Once we get in to the game of second-guessing the rendering implementations, it's a never ending spiral, since they will change constantly over time as the hardware changes, while our source material will (more or less, relative to the hardware) remain static. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the device I use, at least one of the images cuts a section header in Big Round Circle's preferred version, the exact thing he states should be avoided. We need to be cognizant of the fact that according to a recent issue of the Signpost, the majority of page views on Wikipedia are viewed from mobile devices such as cell phones and tablets. Unless there is a compelling reason to add a size parameter, images should be autosized. That allows them to render correctly relative to the device they are being viewed on, irregardless of its aspect ratio. -John from Idegon (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By putting images directly over headings, more images cut through headings, not less. Additionally, there is a guideline that directly says not to do that, and says images should be near the text which relates to them. I agree with BMK that we shouldn't be second-guessing the layout, and the best way to do that is not to put images directly over headings, as the MOS says. What's more, BMK's reason to move the image (uniform distribution of images and his 10-year tenure of editing this article) are not based on Wikipedia guidelines or policies nor do they represent consensus. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus here for the changes you wish to make to the status quo version of the article based on MOS, a non-mandatory guideline to editors, and not a mandatory policy. Looking at your user page, I see that you have misunderstood and misapplied fundamental Wikipedia concepts in the past (and subsequently apologized for doing so) and you are doing so here again.
When an article exists in an accepted version for a long period of time, and a single editor makes a change based on MOS, supported only by a drive-by IP editor (whose comment really ought to be discounted), and a valid reason is given for the status quo version, with resulting discussion providing no consensus view (we have here you and the drive-by IP for your version, two for the status quo, and an editor who asked a question - that adds up to no consensus however you look at it), the status quo version remains in effect until a consensus decides one way or the other. This is so because, unlike policy, MOS is not mandatory, and edits to enforce it as if it is mandatory have been recognized by ArbCom as disruptive.
So, if you want to make this change, please find a consensus that supports your view, you cannot simply cite MOS and a non-existent talk page consensus. Please stop restoring your preferred version until you have a consensus to change the status quo version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo is not consensus. The MOS represents general Wikipedia consensus. You rely on some idea that since you created some long-standing status-quo because you guard your edits on this article, the status-quo represents consensus. This is simply not true. The MOS represents consensus. Your edits, despite being "status quo", are not consensus edits. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, status quo is not consensus. We discuss things here in order to arrive at a consensus, but that has not happened yet, as I patiently explained to you above, so, absent a consensus, the very long-standing version of the article (that's what "staus quo" means) remains in place, until a consensus determines what should be done with it. The consensus you cite at MOS was a consensus to establish a guideline, not a consensus to change every article to bring it into line with that guideline. If that were the case, MOS would be mandatory, and we know that it's not, it's a consensus guideline to editors, which can be broken whenever there is a good reason to do so. Whether the reasons I've given here are good enough is determined by a consensus discussion on this article talk page, and there is no consensus here, as I've explained.
So yes, to sum up, there is a consensus that there is a guideline such as you suggest, but since a guideline is advisory and not mandatory, attempting to enforce it in the way you have chosen to do, as if it were mandatory, is, as ArbCom has ruled a number of times, disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So should User Beyond My Ken, if his self-absorbed attitude allows him. Though by his editing history there's to imagine that this attitude will bring him down. Hope he still enjoys it when it happens.
A drive-by IP 82.51.70.110 (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A coupla quick questions: what are you using to re-route your comments so that they appear to be coming from Italy, and what is your regular Wikipedia account, the one you usually edit under? I think it's only fair that everyone involved in this discussion knows who you actually are. (No, no, please don't bother to try to convince me that you just happened to come across this discussion with no backstory involvement, I'm afraid I stopped believing in fairy tales like that many, many years ago.)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irvington, New York. 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:

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) 06:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irvington,_New_York&oldid=742004907"