Talk:Riverdale, Bronx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject New York City (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Wasn't one of the houses in the Estate Section used in the film The Godfather? 68.173.11.219 (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The subway stop in the Kerouac quote is actually in Kingsbridge. There are no subway stops in Riverdale.68.40.61.55 (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Riverdale in the south Bronx?

No, it's in the northwest corner of the borough. Rhobite 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right. Sorry.

Shouldn't some mention of the large Jewish comunity be made?

It already does mention the Jewish community, but feel free to expand. Rhobite 00:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Hudson Hill, Bronx[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge Hudson Hill, Bronx into Riverdale, Bronx. -- Scytheml (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The article Hudson Hill, Bronx provides no sources, let alone any that show it to be an independent neighborhood. I know exactly what area is intended, but no source seems to use "Hudson Hill" or "Riverdale Estates" to define a neighborhood. Searches in Google News / Archive and in The New York Times turn up nothing. I strongly suggest that the Hudson Hill article be merged into the article for Riverdale, unless appropriate reliable and verifiable sources exist and can be added to support the existence of the neighborhood with that name and of the claims made in the article. Alansohn (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern. The truth is that I couldn't find any reliable sources either. Therefore, I merely went door to door and documented a couple of first hand accounts from the neighborhood. There are many subsections of many neighborhoods that are only referred to as such by the neighborhood's residents, c.f. North Riverdale. My only objection to the proposed "merger" is that all the other subsections of Riverdale have their own pages. I have e-mailed Robert E. Hill Real Estate and I can cite the return e-mail when it comes. I understand your concern, but be patient. In addition, the term "Riverdale Estates" can be found on the Robert E. Hill website; if you prefer "Estates Area." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.154.143 (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the merge; I just went through the entire LexisNexis database and found nothing for either "hudson hill" bronx or "hudson hill" riverdale that did not refer to either Hudson Hills Press[1] or the Hudson Hills Golf Course[2] (neither of which are near the area in question). If 0 results on LexisNexis isn't good evidence of a lack of evidence, I don't know what is.
Other neighborhoods DO have good sources for them. I'll take your example, "North Riverdale". Over 175 hits on LexisNexis. Example link? Second one; a New York Times article from February 4th, 2007 entitled: Going Kosher and Signaling a Change. First sentence? "On the east side of the street, North Riverdale seems as solidly Irish Catholic as it has for generations."[3]
Until You can find something like that for Hudson Hills, it must go under Riverdale. Scytheml (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
A listing of sources for other regions within Riverdale:
Scytheml (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You also cannot cite the email from the Robert E. Hill website as it is still original research Scytheml (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


Confronted with both your abundant counterevidence and your arguments, I must agree that Hudson Hill should merge into the Riverdale article. I will do my best to facilitate that process - and welcome any help. Once I can persuade Hudson Hill residents to support their claims - perhaps a letter the community board etc.. - I will separate the article.

mturkel (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, before I do anything, one quick question. I can unquestionably provide sources that "Hudson Hill" is called the "Estate Area." Might I not merely change every instance of the name "Hudson Hill" to "Estate Area?" mturkel (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember that not only do you need to provide sources--you need to provide reliable sources. Consider this quote from a New York Times article

At three square miles, Riverdale is a sort of miniborough, comprising several neighborhoods within a strip of the Bronx stretching from the Harlem River to Westchester County, wedged between the Hudson River and Van Cortlandt Park. From north to south, they are: North Riverdale, Fieldston, Central Riverdale, South Riverdale and Spuyten Duyvil. [17]

This source is considered to be a very good one because it appears in an internationally recognized and respected newspaper. Now, remember that

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. (from Wikipedia:Verifiability)

. If you think your sources are reliable enough (and thus can appropriately be said to update new changes in the Riverdale neighborhood since at least 2006), then create a new article for "Riverdale Estates". Scytheml (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, since (I'm pretty sure) all parties agree, I think the information should in the meantime be moved into Riverdale for now. Scytheml (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Proposed merge with North Riverdale, Bronx[edit]

It is a short, basically unreferenced, and barely notable stub that should not be its own article, as it stands now.

Additionally, a brief synopsis of each separate sub-neighborhood should preferably be in the "geography" section. Epicgenius (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't merge articles without discussion first, your judgment on these matters is very, very poor. BMK (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I realize that, thank you. That is why I have opened a discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A merge makes sense to me (not that I can see much that's worth merging). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Whether Spuyten Duyvil, Fieldston and North Riverdale are sub-neighborhoods of Riverdale or not is an open question, but even if they are, that's not necessarily a reason for merging them into the main article. The focus should, instead, be on expanding this article, not eliminating it. BMK (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The question is whether N. Riverdale is part of Riverdale, or a separate neighborhood altogether, so that if it's in the same neighborhood, it can be merged and summarized in a few paragraphs, even if such an expansion were to happen (which I'd say is very unlikely given recent article activity). Up until your expansion today, the article was about 1,000 bytes and had about 15 edits in 5 years. Epicgenius (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That's an extremely simplistic way of looking at it - and in fact, quite wrong, I think. We can say that these neighborhoods -- from north to south North Riverdale, Fieldston, Central Riverdale, South Riverdale and Spuytin Duyvil are part of Riverdale, and they can still be "neighborhoods" in their own right, and worthy of articles if there is sufficient information about them to support one. The question of whether to merge doesn't hinge on their status in relation to Riverdale, it hinges on whether an independent article is warranted or not. We can -- and do -- mention those neighborhoods in this article, but that doesn't mean that they all have to be swooped up into it as if it was a huge vacuum cleaner.

    My judgment would be that Fieldston and Spuytin Duyvil are quite clearly stand-alone articles (and even you, in your eagerness to subsume them, didn't try to merge them in), North Riverdale was not clearly so at the time, but I think I've shown that it should be one. Although it may appear at the moment to still be on the bubble, a closer look will indicate that there's a lot there that can be fleshed out, specifically the points of interest, schools and churches. Now they're just lists, but the information is out there to expand the article.

    In the future, as I've mentioned before, you should not be so eager to merge. Instead, do a little research first and learn something about the subject matter. BMK (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop with the freaking merges, for crying out loud. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. BMK (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, it is broke, so I am trying to fix it. (Just kidding...) Epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Ain't nothing broke, kid. Leave it all alone. BMK (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • OK then. Let's allow other people to comment for a while, and see if they agree with the merge; I've heard your part about why you don't want it merged, BMK, but this isn't going to be closed just yet.. Epicgenius (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think merging was a reasonable idea prior to the recent expansion of the North Riverdale page, but now it seems sufficiently large to warrant keeping it's own page. There certainly is no reason to merge the other sub-neighborhoods--if they are in fact that, folks often debate what is in fact Riverdale or not--into the main Riverdale page. (5 August 2014). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.43.69 (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)