Talk:Irvington, New York

message: Should Irvington be described as "affluent" in the lede sentence of the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it is a fact doesn't mean we automatically add it to the lead sentence. There are 1,000s of facts about the article subject, do they all belong in the lead? --Malerooster (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

text: *I just want to point out that SMcCandlish's vote was "yes",, not "no". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

text: *: qualifies that "yes" by saying that it belongs in the . They also note that the word  and argue that it is more appropriate in . As such, 's comment makes sense; this is not a vote where only the bolded word matters, but rather is a discussion. And, as discussions are evaluated for consensus by looking at  rather than a simple headcount of bolded words, people are allowed to make nuanced arguments about where/how/if to include this information. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

text: *The objective measure is the same one we always use: reliable sources say it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's simply not adequate for something that is quantifiable. Skyerise (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *Policy, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *Same. Show me the policy that says that if it's citable to reliable sources, it has to be in the lede sentence. Skyerise (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

text: *That somebody or other said it in some context or the other does not pass WP:ONUS even if the mentions were in RS, which is in dispute here. But in addition to "objective measure" there is the larger question of a consistent measure among all of our articles about places and in particular places similar in size, location, population, etc. to Irvington. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Description of Irvington in lede sentence

message: *Yes. That Irvington is an affluent community is well sourced, as shown by the multiple citations from reliable sources supporting it.  This makes it a fact as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and not an opinion, which means it can be expressed in WikiVoice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it is a fact doesn't mean we automatically add it to the lead sentence. There are 1,000s of facts about the article subject, do they all belong in the lead? --Malerooster (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

text: *I just want to point out that SMcCandlish's vote was "yes",, not "no". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

text: *: qualifies that "yes" by saying that it belongs in the . They also note that the word  and argue that it is more appropriate in . As such, 's comment makes sense; this is not a vote where only the bolded word matters, but rather is a discussion. And, as discussions are evaluated for consensus by looking at  rather than a simple headcount of bolded words, people are allowed to make nuanced arguments about where/how/if to include this information. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

text: *The objective measure is the same one we always use: reliable sources say it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's simply not adequate for something that is quantifiable. Skyerise (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *Policy, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *Same. Show me the policy that says that if it's citable to reliable sources, it has to be in the lede sentence. Skyerise (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

text: *That somebody or other said it in some context or the other does not pass WP:ONUS even if the mentions were in RS, which is in dispute here. But in addition to "objective measure" there is the larger question of a consistent measure among all of our articles about places and in particular places similar in size, location, population, etc. to Irvington. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The following references have been questioned as not being RS:
*Hamad, Moona (May 1, 2016) "Irvington: A town of history and affluence" Prezi
*"Irvington New York 10533 Community Profile" William Ravelis Legends Realty Group.
Comments? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Raveis real estate brokler's website is certainly not RS.  The other one, Prezi: What is it? Looks like a blogging software platform. Is there any argument in favor of either? SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hosting what appears to be projects for a writing seminar at Georgetown. At least for that user. If you click the name, their other presentation includes a slide documenting their choice to tell the history of their town for the exercise. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 10:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Literally anybody can make a Prezi; it's a WP:SPS. This is a platform that is commonly used as an alternative to PowerPoint for the presentations of secondary school or undergraduate class projects, and my assumption is that the Prezi is a non-expert WP:SPS. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

text: I really don't know what you're talking about.  The Tappan Zee Bridge lands in Tarrytown, not Irvington, and has been in existence since 1955.   The replacement bridge did not change Irvington in the least, and the path of I-87 did not change with the nes bridge.  It did not, and does not, pass through Irvington.  It is still a very affluent village, replete with estates and very large houses. The Times reference is still very much a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this list, Irvington's zip code, 10533, was the 9th richest zip code in New York state in 2016. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not clear that is RS, but at any rate. that list is only Upstate NY, excluding far wealthier zipcodes in NYC and Long Island. And it's just the average prices of whatever happened to be sold in 2016. So "affluent" would be entirely WP:OR. As you may not be aware, most of the open sylvan area of Irvington was developed with ordinary tract houses after the interstate was built jut north of town. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Looking at their 2022 list for NYCity, Irvington's 2016 value wouldn't even make it into the top 50. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Irvington is #20 on this list of the highest household incomes in all of New York state, certainly an indication of affluence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is like Whack-a-Mole. Each time a source is rejected, a different one pops up. But we need to convey the central narrative of mainstream RS. We may wish to discuss various parameters and metrics, but nothing so far produced justifies a generalized label such as "affluent" up top in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's rather odd to me to see a discussion about which sources are reliable and which are not characterized as "Whack-a-Mole", a description most often used on en.wiki in connection with serial sockpuppetry.  After all, reliable sources are what we base our information on, and discussion is how we reach consensus, so denigrating a discussion about reliable sources in that manner does not really seem appropriate.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The wack-a-mole is about WEIGHT, Verification and NOR. As Hawk said, the Alpine NJ article, among many others, is a good coverage of demographics and real estate values and notable residents, etc. This article could no doubt add more fact, a more detailed profile, etc. SPECIFICO talk 13:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Are you implying that I am a tool of real estate agents? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: BMK, I didn't read their comment that way. I think they were saying that this kind of vacuous and inessential description of a town -- with all its natural features, history, governance, residents, etc. etc. -- is most often seen in the facile blurbs of the real estate industry, property owners, and others with a vested interest in polishing the apple. Most of the sources long cited in the openening sentence are consistent with that observation and inconsistent with NPOV and V. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm not implying anything about you, I'm just telling readers here that a clear majority of the many attempts to add "affluent" to the lede of articles about U.S. towns and neighbourhoods do seem to be made by people connected to property developers and/or real estate agents. But to be honest I don't really understand why you seem to be so fond of adding "affluent" to the lead of articles about places/neighbourhoods in New York state. In spite of the opposition you've met, such as this discussion and RfC where a clear majority said no to your attempts to add "affluent" to the lede of Riverdale, Bronx. - Tom | Thomas.W  talk 22:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's even sillier, because while Riverdale is somewhat upscale, certainly relative to the Bronx, it is not pricy or inhabited by the rich and famous of 2022 compared to most of Manhattan and much of Brookly and Queens. SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources?

message: Subsequent to the closing of the RfC above, and heeding the message of the close, I removed "affluent" from the lede and moved it to the "Economy" section.  An editor deleted it from there, with the edit summary: "That's really not better. We need descriptive text. Incomes, housing values, tax rolls, upscale institutions, etc. can be detailed and their significance framed in the article text. The sourcing is still weak for the single-word label "affluent" and ample data is available to describe the associated profile in a way that will be specific and detailed -- avoiding mi.sunderstanding"  However, this is mistaken.  If reliable sources use a description of a person or place, then it is perfectly acceptable to use that description in Wikipedia's voice. The sourcing is far from "weak", it's very robust: articles from The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.  While above the editor ascribes base motivations to those sources (without proof), the NYT and the WSJ nevertheless remain among the very best and most reliable of sources.  In point of fact, the editor has removed the information simply they do not agree with it, because it doesn't fit their personal view of Irvngton, a point they have made repeatedly -- but incorrecty -- in the discussions above.I have called -- in the edit summary of my reversion of their deletion -- for the editor to get a consensus for the removal of "affluent" from the article, either through normal discussion here or by an RfC specifically covering that option.  As things stand now, there is not consensus for the removal of "affluent" from the article entirely, and none was found in the closing of the RfC.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for copying my edit summary here. The weakness of the sourcing was demonstrated in the discussion during the RfC. A one-dimensional label is not encyclopedic. The ONUS is on whoever advocates inclusion, not reversion, of challenged content. SPECIFICO talk 07:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Afterthought, BMK, if you feel like pinging the participants of the RfC, it might help us to close the book on this. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

text: *I think SPECIFICO just helped establish "affluent" as an appropriate description when he added Bloomberg's 2018 list of "America's Richest Places".  Being #67, of all locations in the United States very much means that the place is affluent, i.e. "having a great deal of money; wealthy."  67th out of over 6,200 places (according to the Bloomberg article) is significant, it's just out of the top 1% of places surveyed (1.08%). Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

text: *:Please, that's just silly. The ranking is based on statistical data, not subjective adjectives. I do hope you'll ping the previous participants if you want to continue to advocate for this. Also, if you or anyone has access to Bloomberg's paywall, we should try to get their 2022 version of this list. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you don't think that being in the top 1.08% of the "Richest Places in America" is an indication of affluence, then I'm afraid this can never be settled, as you don't seem to understand what "affluent" means. If Bloomberg reported that Irvington was in the top 1.08% of the "Most Densely Populated Places in America", we would certainly say that is is a "crowded" village -- it's not, that's purely a hypothetical -- because "crowded" means "full of people, leaving little or no room for movement; packed."  With Irvington in the top 1.08% of the "Richest Places in America" in 2018, "affluent" is absolutely an appropriate adjective, because it means "having a great deal of money; wealthy."It seems to me that your opposition to "affluent" is totally a WP:IDONTLIKEIT one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *:Bloomberg did not "report that Irvington was in the top 1.08%" - that is your WP:OR calculation from the data in the Bloomberg table. It is editorial framing that undermines NPOV.  Unlike the subjective adjective "affluent", the article text can give our readers encyclopedic description relating to the underlying demographics and statistical detail of wealth-related factors. It would be constructive to add such encyclopedic detail.  Please share your views as to the use of "affluent", cited to a 2011 real estate profile, in the article text.  SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

text: *::Basic arithmetic isn't OR.  I agree that "the article text can give our readers encyclopedic description relating to the underlying demographics and statistical detail of wealth-related factors", and that doing so would be constructive, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the word "affluent" can appear here; you're setting up a false dichotomy. If you want to make "affluent" some kind of  word on Wikipedia, take that up at WT:MOSWTW.  We emphatically do not need to re-re-re-argue this at article after article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

text: *:::No, basic arithmetic is not OR, and has never been considered to be, but, as a gesture of compromise, I have taken out the "1.08%", leaving the data for the reader to do the math if they wish to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of material without consensus 

message: *No. It's subjective, not objective. And the source is not reliable, as realtors always have ulterior motives. I also note that we cannot assume current affluence after the date of the most recent supporting reference, which is over a decade old. Skyerise (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Should "affluent" be used in the article text?