Talk:Irvington, New York/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

• The problem with that is that "Wolfert's Roost" is long out of print. unfutz 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• The book's readily available at several places, e.g., see https://www.goodreads.com/work/editions/10246228-wolfert-s-roost-and-miscellanies. Froid (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

-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)

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))

-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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Take a good look at yourself: you are a single purpose account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206091628/http://www.irvingtonnychamber.com:80/about_irvington_NY.html to http://www.irvingtonnychamber.com/about_irvington_NY.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090606145120/http://irvingtontheater.com:80/aboutus.html to http://www.irvingtontheater.com/aboutus.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080923054008/http://www.hudsonriver.com:80/rivertowns/irvington.htm to http://www.hudsonriver.com/rivertowns/irvington.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.tiffany.com/About/LouisComfort.aspx

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

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• All checked. Replaced Tiffany cite (which no longer has the relevant info) with another. BMK (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

• Agree Articles should be written, not stitched together. Prose is always preferred to lists. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Also created a "Notable past residents" subgrouping. The same issues apply. Froid (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

John from Idegon you're welcome to discuss it. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Agree with BigRoundCircle. 79.43.19.188 (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Just to be clear to anyone new to this discussion, I am not attempting to "move" an image. The image is where I put in some years ago (I haven;t looked up when I added it) and where it has remained with no problem. It is BrightRoundCircle who, mistakenly attempting to enforce MOS as if it were mandatory, is attempting to move it to a place where it disrupts the visual flow of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently I added the image in 2010. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I would also like to bring to your attention this language, which is the text box at the top of the WP:IM page:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

Please note the language: editors should attempt to follow the MOS (and it is therefore not mandatory, but a guideline), it is recommended that MOS is treated with common sense (because it is not always appropriate in all circumstances) and exceptions may apply. Please take this language to heart, and understand that nothing in MOS is an absolute rule. Acting as if it is a rule is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Please stop doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Please note also that WP:BRD calls for the article under discussion to remain in the status quo ante undtil a consensus is reached, yet another reason for you to please stop altering the article until there is a consensus. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Please note also that WP:BRD calls for the article under discussion to remain in the status quo ante undtil a consensus is reached No, you are once again mixing status quo with consensus. Status quo is not consensus. The MOS represents general consensus that should be followed unless a different consensus is established. Exceptions may apply Yes, with consensus, which your edit does not have, not on grounds of status quo and not on grounds of seniority. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Consensus has said that there should be a editing style guideline such as you quote. That is irrefutable. However, consensus on whether the actually usage in any particular article is appropriate or not is determined on the article talk page. If there is no consensus, then the article stays in the status quo ante. Since there is no consensus in the discussion here, than the article stays as it was. You are taking the consensus for the existence of a style editing guideline as meaning that every article must follow the guideline, but that is not the case, the appropriateness of the edits on any particular article are determined on the article talk page. Your failure to understand this has lead to this circular discussion we are having. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, then the article stays in the status quo ante. Once again this is simply wrong. BRD is not a method to enforce the status quo. Your repeated assertions of "status quo" are not part of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, nor are they even part of the BRD essay. The status quo does not determine consensus. "Status quo" is not a reason to revert, the MOS represents consensus unless other consensus is reached. While Wikipedia policies and guidelines reflect consensus, status quo does not. Neither status quo nor your seniority nor "better before" are valid reasons to revert. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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.) Other than that: I don't pursue discussions with people hiding behind IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Then, please, refrain from asking questions you don't want answered. Less wastage of time for you. Less wastage of time for me. 87.16.121.126 (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand, those two questions I want answered, I'm just not interested in talking to you about anything else as long as you remain anonymous, and most likely an editor with an account hiding behind an IP. Of the two, the more important one is the second, which boils down to "Who are you, really?". You're clearly not a drive-by editor, you clearly have an agenda (your second comment reeks with your discontent with my editing over a period of time, and your edit summaries show a significant history of editing Wikipedia), and you clearly do not want people to ascribe to you your actually account name, because anyone with knowledge of our previous disputes would then discount your opinion as simple knee-jerk prejudice - which is why the comments appear to be coming from IPs around San Marino, Italy.

So, go ahead, please answer those questions - and attempt not to insult the intelligence of Wikipedia editors with lame untruthful "explanations", just take a deep breath and own up to who you are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

To answer your questions: #1) I'm using an Italian IP because I'm an Italian editor. You don't like it, it's no concern of mine. #2) I don't find particularly useful or necessary to open a wikipedia account, and, as you said, I managed to accumulate some editing experience. I am not going to open an account just because you don't like IPs; unfortunately for you, unregistered users are a fact of your life, and you'll simply have to accept them. 87.16.121.126 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I see, you opted for the fairy tale. Not having the honesty to admit that you're an editor with an account, hiding behind an IP. Fine, you have to live with that, not me. It's still irrelevant: the views of a drive-by editor, whether one with an account hiding behind an IP, or an actual drive-by IP, carry little weight, especially when they're expressed as "I agree with Editor A" (eom). Consensus is determined by numbers 'and quality of argument, of which you have provided none. Your comment can therefore be ignored, especially as it's likely to be bogus, and could very well be an attempt to establish a false consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

May I remind you that your argument is "I put the image there and it's status quo and I'm a senior editor" which is not a valid argument, while MOS represents consensus and three editors agreeing that the image doesn't belong there is in line with the MOS. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you may not misstate my argument, which is actually that the visual flow of the article works best with the image in the place where I put it, and that putting it where you insist it must go (because MOS requires it) leaves a big hole in the article with no images. In short, the article "works" better, looks better, and is better where I put it in the course of expanding the article from 19K with the addition of 96.5K to the article in 880 edits over 10 years and 10 months.

It may not be of any significance to you, because the subject of the article is clearly not of interest to you, but I actually care about the article, whereas you seem only to care about enforcing MOS as if it were mandatory policy, an editing stance which has been characterized by ArbCom as disruptive to the smooth functioning of the community.

I'd also like to point your attention to WP:SOCKPUPPET, specifically to the part which forbids the use by editors with accounts of IP-based edits to create the illusion of WP:False consensus. I do this out of an abundance of caution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you may not misstate my argument - have I misstated your argument? Since 2006, when I first began to edit this article, the result of careful editing over the course of 10 years - appeal to tenure; and of course the numerous appeals to "status quo" that I don't need to quote. MOS represents consensus, your 10-year tenure of editing the article and maintaining a status quo does not, it represents your preferred version of the article and placement of images. The onus for reverting an edit that complies with a Wikipedia policy or guideline is on the person breaking away from consensus. You are gaming the BRD essay method by appealing to status quo instead of consensus. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

A very relevant essay, Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#How_to_avoid_status_quo_stonewalling: "If the status quo cannot be defended with strong arguments based in policy, guidelines, consensus and actual practice, don't try to defend it." Your reasons are not based on policy, guideline, or consensus—only status quo and your personal preference. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you have indeed egregiously misstated my argument, which is not allowed in talk page discussion; my argument is as I stated it above, please do not recycle it into your own words again, as by doing so you completely mischaracterize it. As for the essay you quote, is it almost entirely the opinion of a single editor "Born2Cycle", whose opinion (and editing behavior) are not generally accepted, as you can see by the comments on his Editor Review [1], his entries in the AN/ANI/AN3 index [2], this ArbitrationEnforcement discussion where he narrowly avoided being topic banned from Move Request discussions because of his "problematic behavior", this arbitration finding of fact that his "editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD" and was warned by ArbCom that "his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors". (BTW, one of that same arbitration case's principles was one that said:

Style guides are used as a means of creating a consistent end result. They do not affect content, but rather how that content is presented. The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of "best practices" supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules.[3] (emphasis added)

Please take these words to heart.) In other words, Born2cycle's essay about how to get around the status quo is not coming from a trustworthy source that you should place credence in.

In any case, here ends our discussion, as there has been no change in its status and no new opinions from additional editors: there is no consensus in this discussion one way or the other, in which case no change (i.e. keeping the status quo) is the correct outcome (just as it is on XfD: if there is no consensus to keep or delete, the result is "No consensus" and the item under discussion remains in the encyclopedia). If you change this article to your preferred version again, you will be editing against the status of the talk page discussion, which you may not do, as it is disruptive. As I said, if you want to make this change, go find a consensus that agrees that your version is an improvement over the original version. First, though, please read WP:CONSENSUS to bring your understanding of consensus up to date.

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop screwing around with the indenting. You don't seem to understand how it works, and you're messing up the chronology of the page. Responses should be indented one more tab, and outdenting should happen only on change of subject, or when indenting has gotten too small, not on the editor's whim. Please see WP:TPO if you are confused about this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop screwing around with the indenting. Once again you have it backwards - you are screwing around with the indenting, editing my comments. That is against Wikipedia policies and guidelines as well. You also have "no consensus" backwards. There is no consensus to deviate from the MOS. MOS represents existing consensus. Your edits represents a deviation from consensus that requires discussion. Since there is no new consensus, the existing MOS consensus remains. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

In your hurry to discard guidelines, you're ignoring that "policies and guidelines are intended to reflect the consensus of the community", and if there is no consensus for your edit, then the consensus of the community, as reflected by the MOS, remains. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

there is no consensus in this discussion one way or the other - except policies and guidelines reflect established consensus. There is no consensus for your edit; there is general Wikipedia-wide consensus reflected in the MOS to not place images immediately above the section heading and each image should be inside the major section to which it relates. This is the consensus. Note that nowhere does consensus mean "status quo", and the status quo might very well be against consensus, as is the case with your edit. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Your propensity for disregarding facts is noted, otherwise, this discussion is serving no purpose until other, legitimate, editors weigh in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll weigh in: BMK, I'm tired of your continued ownership of this article. You keep blocking every attempt from other editors to change anything at all. Policies and guidelines are essential to follow unless there's a significant reason not to; not "I think it looks better". All of BrightRoundCircle's arguments make sense here. Give it up already. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, a comment from a editor who accepts payment for their editing, very good. I will continue my stewardship of this article for as long as it seems worthwhile to me, Mj, and, given our past disputes, I'm not inclined to take your !vote as anything but what it clearly is, sour grapes. No, I'm afraid we'll need comments from neutral editors to determine consensus here, but thanks for dropping by. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

propensity for disregarding facts You keep questioning people's motives and credentials, instead of looking at the arguments.

• You provide no facts, no consensus, and no guidelines to back your edit.
• You appeal to your 10-year tenure editing this article. Tenure is not consensus.
• You appeal to a status quo you created. Status quo is not consensus.
• You don't actually give any valid reasons why your edit supersedes the guidelines which represent general consensus.
• You keep making personal appeals against editors, accusations of sock-puppeting, meat-puppeting, threats of WP:POINT.

You took a very clear-cut layout issue (not breaking through headings, putting images next to the paragraph that describes them) and deteriorated it to insinuations and accusations, personal insults, and threats of disrupting Wikipedia in order to make a point. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20160602200744/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111029062627/http://www.josephpelllombardi.com/5homes/newoctagon.html to http://www.josephpelllombardi.com/5homes/newoctagon.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501205048/http://users.rcn.com/scndempr/dave/school.html to http://users.rcn.com/scndempr/dave/school.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505043630/http://www.adpulp.com/archives/2009/01/i_dont_know_wha.php to http://www.adpulp.com/archives/2009/01/i_dont_know_wha.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090412031110/http://ny.citysquares.com/irvington/computers-and-internet/internet-services/the-student-center-inc to http://ny.citysquares.com/irvington/computers-and-internet/internet-services/the-student-center-inc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100604035335/http://www.irvingtonny.gov/index.aspx?NID=8 to http://www.irvingtonny.gov/index.aspx?NID=8
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111222115216/http://rivertowns.patch.com/listings/john-cardinal-oconnor-school to http://rivertowns.patch.com/listings/john-cardinal-oconnor-school
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711124516/http://gis.greenburghny.com/greenburgh/currtax.jsp?parcelID=2442681 to http://gis.greenburghny.com/greenburgh/currtax.jsp?parcelID=2442681
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100810004125/http://www.ardsleycc.org/club/scripts/library/view_document.asp?GRP=12359&NS=PUBLIC&APP=80&DN=HISTORY to http://www.ardsleycc.org/club/scripts/library/view_document.asp?GRP=12359&NS=PUBLIC&APP=80&DN=HISTORY
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090403042146/http://www.josephpelllombardi.com/5homes/octagon.html to http://www.josephpelllombardi.com/5homes/octagon.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509145609/http://www.stbarnabaschurch.org/parish_history to http://www.stbarnabaschurch.org/parish_history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708001247/http://www.billboeckelman.com/content/article.html?id=916921 to http://www.billboeckelman.com/content/article.html?id=916921
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nyspacesmagazine.com/pages.asp?id=541
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002091955/http://www.hudsonriver.com/halfmoonpress/stories/0898trol.htm to http://www.hudsonriver.com/halfmoonpress/stories/0898trol.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223222423/http://www.hudsonvalley.org/education/Background/abt_sunny/abt_sunny.html to http://www.hudsonvalley.org/education/Background/abt_sunny/abt_sunny.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224045950/http://www.hudsonvalley.org/content/view/308/133/ to http://www.hudsonvalley.org/content/view/308/133/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060718195603/http://www.billboeckelman.com/content/article.html?id=6258 to http://www.billboeckelman.com/content/article.html?id=6258
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907165705/http://www.cameraguild.com/interviews/chat_pfister/pfister_bio.htm to http://www.cameraguild.com/interviews/chat_pfister/pfister_bio.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070618103703/http://www.calvarychapelwestchester.org/index.htm to http://www.calvarychapelwestchester.org/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090704085025/http://www.billboeckelman.com/files/129288/Irvington%20Trail%20Map.pdf to http://www.billboeckelman.com/files/129288/Irvington%20Trail%20Map.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706150025/http://www.therealestateshow.biz/towns/towns.irvington.html to http://www.therealestateshow.biz/towns/towns.irvington.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630032153/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcosmopolitan.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcosmopolitan.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090618193826/http://www.irvingtonlibrary.org/history.html to http://www.irvingtonlibrary.org/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213233151/http://www.irvingtonlibrary.org/index.html to http://www.irvingtonlibrary.org/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208164213/http://www.theknot.com/wedding/Aryeh-and-Kehlila/view/9571078417713768/36833845 to http://www.theknot.com/wedding/Aryeh-and-Kehlila/view/9571078417713768/36833845

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban proposed at WP:ANI

All those who have been impeded on improving this article by the obstructive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of User:Beyond My Ken, I have proposed this user be topic-banned from the article at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Propose topic ban for User:Beyond My Ken on article Irvington, New York. Skyerise (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Note ANI filed by Skyerise in January 2022, closed by Black Kite as "Well, that was a waste of everyone's time." Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Logical fallacy 1: smear the messenger. Bye! Skyerise (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Logical fallacy 2: this case is the same as a previous case. Skyerise (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Ordinarily these sorts of things don't get placed on article talk pages, particularly so when they are placed with non-neutral notices. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Units

Per WP:UNIT:

In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary units are US customary (pounds, miles, feet, inches, etc.)

This is a non-scientific article with strong ties to the US -- it's about a village in New York state -- so customary US unit are the primary ones to be used. In the US customary system, the standard unit for wind speed is "miles per hour" or "MPH". The SI unit equivalent to MPH is "kilometers per hour", or "KPH". An editor wants the SI equivalent to be "meters per second", but meters per second is the equivalent used not for MPH but for "feet per second". This is inappropriate as "feet per second" is not used in the article, and is not a US customary unit for wind speed.

Given this, I am reverting once again to the proper unit, which is KPH.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If you read Wind speed#Units (and its associated sources) you'll find you're incorrect. ɱ (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That is a Wikipedia article about scientific units, and not pertinent to a question about Wikipedia style. The colloquial (not scientific) unit of choice for wind speed in the US customary system is miles per hour, and the SI equivalent for MPH is KPH, not M/S. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. You're reading WP:MOS to the letter, which is unhealthy. It's pretty obvious that m/s is a common unit to use, and the Wikipedia article confirms that. Do you want to use colloquial boundaries too? Irvington is 400 blocks wide, about 2,000 foot-steps across, and has 15 cow-paths per square mile? ɱ (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Just curious - have you ever watched an American weather report on TV? Or looked at the how hurricane categories are defined? Or the Enhanced Fujita scale?

Obviously not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I live in the Hudson Valley and have been writing meteorology articles for 14 years, so I'll chime in. Meters per second has extensive use in scientific and academic realms, but it's well out of place in common usage. Being that we aren't beholden to the WMO on Wikipedia, weather articles, except for those on a small handful of technical subjects, ordinarily use km/h as the SI unit for windspeeds. In a location article, it would be highly unconventional, and frankly a little bizarre, to use m/s. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

In the Nordic countries, meters per second is used exclusively for wind speed. I have never heard km/h being used for wind speeds except in Australia.Sauer202 (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I was speaking to the US, since that's where Irvington, New York, is located. But while you're right that m/s is often used in metric countries, it's not exclusive by any means. Off the top of my head, km/h is used in Mexico, Canada, the US, Antigua and Barbuda, Ireland, France, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, the Philippines... you get the idea. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems that we have reached a conclusion to include all three units. I'm also comfortable with km/h being mentioned before m/s in this article since the neighbouring countries Mexico and Canada seem to use km/h. I was not saying that m/s was used exclusively in all "metric" countries (is that even a thing? Metric is used extensively in the U.S., too), but it is at least exclusively used in the Nordic countries (and it is the unit recommended by WMO). Here in the Nordics, wind speed in m/s is used across all sectors except commercial aviation, which still uses knots. Even maritime forecasts are given in m/s here. I was not aware that km/h is still used in that many countries. To me, wind speed in km/h sounds bizarre, and "highly unconventional". :) If we want to be very nitpicky, kilometers per hour is not even an SI unit. It is a non-SI metric unit. Anyway, I think we have cleared some confusion up and reached a conclusion. Thanks. Sauer202 (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

MOS:LISTGAP problem with "spacing" comments

The hidden "spacing" HTML comments appear to violate MOS:LISTGAP and should probably be fixed in some way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The best way would be to remove the bullets. The spacing is only needed because bullets are being used rather than paragraphs - which should be used for longer text. This is not a list.

In fact, I fixed it once but I was reverted. Skyerise (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The spacing comments do not render, and therefore do not violate LISTGAP. They are included for ease of editing only. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, remove the spacing or remove the bullets. ɱ (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I was wrong. I copied the first few bulleted paragraphs of text to Special:ExpandTemplates, and it renders as a single list somehow. I have seen similar markup cause whitespace in templates, but that does not appear to be the case here. Interesting. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:BULLETS says "Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs." This one is a "do not". Skyerise (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, MOS is not mandatory. Never has been, most likely never will be. The current formatting works well for the section, You've already been chastised by @Black Kite: for your previous WP:POINTy edits here. This is simply a continuation of the same. I would suggest you stop before you recieve a block, consider that you're already on thin ice for violating WP:NPA by saying I have OCD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: You know, some years ago I left a whole topic area, classic film, because of your obstructive attitude against following the MoS. I'm not going to do that again. I've called the copyediting team here, and you've lost consensus. I'll let them revert you this time. Skyerise (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. You seem to have forgotten, talk pages are for discussing the content, not dissing the contributors. Skyerise (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

{ec} Talk pages for are discussing what's going on in an article's editing. In this case, you followed up an AN/I complaint -- in which you were shot down by admins Black Kite and User:Cullen328 -- with retaliatory editing on this article, which I've contributed a great deal to. You seem to have conveniently forgotten the (incorrect) argument you made at AN/I that "regular editors of an article get to decide about the article's formatting". Well, let's see: I am by far the #1 editor of this article by total edits and text added, and I am listed as having 74.3% authorship. I think that qualifies me as a "regular editor" here by the standards you attempted to use to get me sanctioned. You? Not so much. You have 12 edits here, the first of which was yesterday, when you wanted to lash out at me. So by your own standards, you don't have a say in the way the article is formatted. As I said, that argument is totally incorrect and not supported in any way by policy, but you're the one who made it, not me.

I'm sorry that you cannot come to terms with the plain fact that MOS is not policy, and is not mandatory, and that editors have some leeway in determining what's best under the specific circumstances of each article, but that's the way it is and you'd probably be better off if you just accepted it and not get your gut in an uproar about it. You'll live longer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

LoL! I'm an accomplished meditation master. I can assure you, I have close to zero emotion invested in this and my guts are not in an uproar. Quite the opposite. By the way, how are your guts? Maybe it would be best if you just accepted the MoS. Skyerise (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

HORSE
(Crowd sourced)

And I can assure you that your actions totally belie your words.

BTW, I do accept the MOS. In the vast majority of instances it provides good common sense guidelines which I follow. Sometimes, though, it's a crowd-sourced horse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

But in this case, the MoS is right. That section is not a list. It's long paragraphs. Adding bullets to it makes it look like the horse depicted to the right. Skyerise (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

P.P.S. I'm amused at the fact that you keep bringing that up. I struck it and haven't mentioned it again, but I'm glad you're letting everyone know what I think about you. Saves me the trouble. Skyerise (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

What, the PA you posted saying I had OCD? No, I don't mind repeating false allegations when they're so obviously wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've submitted a request for dispute resolution since you give no appearance of being willing to compromise to end the dispute. Cheers! Skyerise (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus =/= Compromise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If you say so, but once the consensus turns, it's you who'll need to compromise. Skyerise (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Before this becomes a battle- why not try a WP:RFC. I would say third opinion - but there alread was a third opinion that the hidden spaces should be removed- so an RFC is more appropriate at this time. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

cite/quotebombing the word "affluent" in the lede

The lede shouldn't say anything that isn't in the article, really, and the article says it's one of the 100 richest places in the country with a median income of somewhere around $145k, with cites.

I think that adequately supports "affluent" without having five different citations, three with quotes, in the middle of the first sentence. It's pretty overboard for just one word. If nothing else, the quotes are pointless, nuke those and then bundle them. Jarnsax (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It took five cites to convince people to stop removing "affluent", so five cites need to stay there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken Fair enough, though the end result is still a bit silly, just for "readability", IMO. We shouldn't need to belabor each other or readers over something that's honestly pretty trivial. Jarnsax (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That you were able to dig up five different sources using the term to describe the town (probably without much effort) is fairly strong 'evidence' that the applicability of the word is generally considered obvious. Jarnsax (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"Affluent" is a rather vague term, easily misinterpreted by our readers. I also wonder whether it's really one of the very most significant facts about Irvington such that it should go way up top. 2022 America just in a mood that we must know whether a town is well-to-do? In context, if we look at the suburbs of major coastal US cities, it's economic profile is not unusual. Certainly there are NYC suburbs and inner city zipcodes that are at least as "affluent". I would favor removing that fromt the top and handling it in the section that deals with the population and the profile of the residents and commerce. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

In the cited Bloomberg list of 100 most affluent, I see 14 other NY suburbs above ~190,000 and I do not see Irvington on the list. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO Looking at the cited 2017 list (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-hundred-richest-places/) Irvington is indeed #54 on the list, hidden down in the "click to expand" between Tiburon, Calif. and Long Grove, Ill.

I really wasn't trying to start or rekindle some old argument tho... my point was just that such piles of cites in the lede are usually undesirable for readability reasons, and everything said there should be supported by the body of the article anyhow. It's just not the right place to cite it, the point should be made in the body (in order to even belong in the lede), and the cites are 'better' down there.

The piles of cites in the first sentence of an article, for something that isn't an actual determinable fact (it's opinion if "affluent" applies) is just evidence to readers that editors have argued about it, something they are unlikely to even remotely care about when reading this.

It's also just generally better, instead of 'arguing' about such things by citebombing them (usually evidence of past edit warring), to just have a discussion about it on the talk page.. that's the place where people can actually come to consensus about such stuff that's 'a matter of opinion', like if a term is "generally used" enough in secondary sources.

Citebombing (especially in the lede) invites later editors, who just think it looks "messy", to 'clean it up' just out of a desire to be generally helpful, and drags them into other people's drama....whoever "won" is basically going to end up edit warring over it with random people. Jarnsax (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That's specifically why I just "cleaned it up" (bundling and folding the cites) and brought it up here.... most people would probably have just though "5 cites? Must be obvious enough", left the word, and nuked the cites as pointless and contrary to our general style. Jarnsax (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken It you read what I just wrote, it should be clear I really don't personally care if the term is used, that's not my point, and I'm not going to jump into some past fight about a matter of opinion.

Piles of citations shoved into the lede (or anywhere) are simply not the way to win a content debate with other editors (it just doesn't work, it evidences stubbornness on one side or the other, not a consensus) and it looks like crap.

If it's been something that was "fought" about in the past, then everyone involved was wrong, by not bringing it here.

Since people love to "cite policy" around these places, MOS:LEADCITE says

"Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus."

If nothing else, call the town "affluent" again later, and citebomb it there if it's needed. (added) If editors have fought about it, then it's rather by definition controversial here, and probably shouldn't even be mentioned in the lede. Jarnsax (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear how Bloomberg would get 2017 income data for towns, or why there would be such large year-to-year variation in some of the town figures. This feels a bit like Forbes" rich list or other crowd pleasers. Anyway, I think it should be dealt with in pertinent detail farther down in the article text, if at all. But that's all I am likely to say on the question. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I did mention that actually calling them "affluent" or not is pretty trivial, IMO. It's just wrong to citebomb the lede about something like that. Jarnsax (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The cites are in the lede, because that's were it attracted attention, probably because many people don't read anything but the lede. If the word was naked in the lede, without cites to support it, it would likely be deleted by one of those readers.

As for Bloomberg's specific methodology, it's not terribly relevant here. All we requires is that they are a reliable source, which Bloomberg is, in spades. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah... what you've detailed is pretty much exactly why it doesn't belong in the lede, which is basically a "definition". We shouldn't need cites (which are basically our arguments "why" we say that) for stuff there, unless that it's 'controversial' is the point (we are citing the existence of the controversy, that we discuss below). Whether our not someone else falls into the definition of "affluent" (or other such general descriptors) is a matter of a person's opinion (basically, how "affluent" they feel they are in comparison to "those people") ... we should only say stuff that 'everyone' would agree is true (points of fact, or that 'everyone' would agree with, "Earth is big") in the lede.

All that other stuff belongs farther down, because it's "bad there" and because, like you said, it attracts attention (it's an opinion), and people fight in the edit log. I haven't looked in the log, don't really care "how" it came to be (I can guess, don't care who, or if people said mean stuff). It's just not "good". Jarnsax (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd describe Bloomberg (for something like that) as what "everyone" (not us) agrees is one of the sources with a reliable and consistent methodology for estimating something you can't know for a fact without people's tax records, that is generally cited for it by sources we trust. We should probably listen to "their consensus" about "who to listen to" for stuff like that (and actually cite the source). The specifics of 'why' they (other sources) seem to think that is kinda irrelevant to us making the decision. Jarnsax (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken Wow. Is that really just your "response", to just completely revert everything I did to the article over what, half a dozen edits, none of which had anything to do with this other than that I'd bundled the 5 different cites in the lede? That you could have individually reverted if you actually had a problem with what they did, since they were unrelated?

Just explicitly ignoring that there is an open discussion here, and throwing in a bunch of other stuff as "etc."

It just comes across as hostility and "ownership". It's not ok. Jarnsax (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't even the only person you reverted doing it like this. Doing it manually like that just hides it in the UI. Jarnsax (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Since you ignored me pinging you about it, it's pretty apparent you're just trying ignore this discussion, confuse the issue by rolling back a bunch of other stuff as well, and drag me into an edit war. No thanks. Have fun with that. This is why people quit. Jarnsax (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Apparently you're willing to edit war with 'the community', over time.... it's basically what you said, and ignore attempts to develop a consensus here. I have no interest in engaging with some random person's long-term behavior problem. Eventually you'll get blocked ot hit by a bus, and won't be around to edit war when someone else fixes it. So, have fun. Jarnsax (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't have to repeat everything published by an RS in the lead. Every RS has some content that's UNDUE or based on data that does not meet the standard of encyclopedic content. This richest districts list is typical. Another is the Forbes list of rich people, which is full of demonstrable error and speculation. Same as the list of "net worth" of US presidents that is used as a source on a list article of ours. The way the wording is situated in the lead makes it sound promotional, which is an odd thing to find in a mundane topic like the page on a typical historic suburb. SPECIFICO talk 12:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and that's a clearer explanation of why it's "bad"...all the other stuff I changed, that he reverted to unbundle the citebomb, was just basic 'line editing': like not separating a quote from the paragraph that lead into it with more whitespace than you put between paragraphs, not flowing a sub-section header around an image, and not actually forcing columns to display lopsided by using the wrong template.

It's also considered 'generally useful' to do things like make shortened footnotes formatted consistently, and actually link to the 'bibliographic description' of the book like they are supposed to... that's mainly what he reverted to put it back, basic cleanup. Someone will have to redo all that crap if they ever want to try to make this an "A"-class article, and it was a pain in the ass. Jarnsax (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The whole thing is just wasting people's time, and seemingly more about having "his version" on top than improving the article.

I have zero interest in trying to deal with what is, IMO, clearly disruptive behavior (ignoring a ongoing talk page discussion and trying to drag the argument back into the edit history is just an attempt to "game the system" and get people to edit war, or to ignore consensus and try to hide it in "stealth" reverts). We can just come to a consensus here, and let someone fix it in future as an "open talk page issue" after he goes away, lol.

We were told above, essentially, that the "citebomb", which is longer than the word itself, is just a stockpile of "ammunition" for an edit war. Jarnsax (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)