Talk:Islip (hamlet), New York

Town name

• There's a problem with this article. Islip is a hamlet. All hamlets in New York State are "census-designated places". To refer to it as "Islip (CDP)" is incorrect. The fact that it's a CDP is in the lead. The listing should read "Islip Hamlet". |Greatsouthbay (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC).

On LI, that may (or quite possibly may not) be the case, but there are many, many hamlets upstate in NY that are not CDPs. Many upstate CDPs include several hamlets. It is worth noting which place names are also used for post offices & school districts. Such usage gives the name greater currency, that makes the "place" that much more well-known. There are also post office names (on LI, especially in Queens) that are not the name of any neighborhood. CDPs are temporary "entities" created by the Census Bureau. New CDPs get created & the boundaries can change from census to census. Hamlets have no official status of any kind - but the Fire, Water, School, & Library Districts do. "Islip", like many hamlet names, may refer to a nebulous hamlet, but it also refers to a CDP -- & ALL the statistical data is for the CDP - not for the hamlet. Hamlets do not even have official boundaries, just customary ones. While the Postal, Fire, Water, School, Library, hamlet, & CDP likely (in the case of Islip) have a core area in common, it appears that like most places, none of the boundaries of any 2 (of the areas or districts named Islip) are identical with each other. Just clicking on some of the refs will verify all of this.--JimWae (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

South Farmingdale, for example, has less of an identity. It has no school district & no post office of its own, and residents identify more with Farmingdale than with South Farmingdale - they have little reason to refer to South Farmingdale at all, much less to themselves as being part of it. Btw, the title of this section should not have the word "town" in it.--JimWae (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying "Islip's school system consists of five schools:" is completely misleading. The hamlet does not HAVE any schools, nor does the CDP, nor does the post office. The Islip School District has 5 schools. The article is not really about the hamlet, nor the CDP - but about an overlapping area of Long Island (why did you remove Long Island?!?) that uses that name for its post office, school district, fire, water... --JimWae (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no CDP named Manitou, NY search - but the people there say there is such a hamlet. See Philipstown, New York--JimWae (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

East Massapequa, New York is a CDP & hamlet - but not a school district, nor a fire district, nor a water district, nor anybody's mailing address, nor ...--JimWae (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 03:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Islip (CDP), New York → Islip (hamlet), New York — CDPs are temporary abstract "fictions" with little to no history, temporary boundaries and temporary names. In some cases the CDP name does not even overlap the hamlet from which the name is derived. The communities that give these CDPs their names have a history enhanced by the organizations (such as school districts, post offices, businesses, etc...) that people have developed in the communities. "(CDP)" as part of the name of this article serves to distinguish it from the Town of Islip, but more can be said about the "hamlet" than the CDP, and articles on most other communities with the same name as the Town use "hamlet" for disambiguation. |Relisting billinghurst sDrewth 16:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)|Relisted billinghurst sDrewth 02:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)|JimWae (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

CDPs and hamlets do not always overlap. For example, the North Bay Shore CDP contains the hamlet of Pine Aire and part of the hamlet of Brentwood, but none of the hamlet of North Bay Shore. People who live in the hamlet would get nothing at all about their community from the article on North Bay Shore, New York. Most probably do not care since they are more likely to identify with their mailing address (Bay Shore), or whatever school district they are in (probably also Bay Shore). --JimWae (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If it were not for the fact that the larger town has the same name (and that several nearby places also have Islip in their name), the name of this article would be, simply, Islip, New York. With that designation, there would be no fixed boundary to the area - instead there would be the many multiple boundaries that already exist for the postal district, school district, etc. Hamlets themselves have no official legal boundary, since they have no legal status. And though hamlets do have generally-recognized limits, there are many people with mailing addresses who do not recognize the same boundaries. There are also parents of school children who pay taxes to school districts, often with the same name as their post office name. These parents often have no reason to care that the name of the CDP they live in does not match where they say they live--JimWae (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are 5 CDPs (and one enclave) in Nassau that are not listed as hamlets by the Town of Hempstead

North Woodmere	enclave	-	Y
Baldwin Harbor	CDP	-	Y
East Garden City	CDP	-	Y
Lakeview	CDP	-	Y
Malverne Park Oaks	CDP	-	Y
North Lynbrook	CDP	-	Y
North Wantagh	CDP	-	Y

--JimWae (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Broader discussion required. Relisted billinghurst sDrewth 02:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't it be Islip, Long Island. That's the way it is commonly referred to as. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point there is no consensus for whether to move the article or not, or where to. If there is no consensus the status quo will be maintained. billinghurst sDrewth 16:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It cannot be simply Islip, New York, which is a disambiguation page. Islip is in the State of New York -- I doubt there is any article named XXXXX, Long Island that is about a place. Besides Islip, Long Island is no less ambiguous than Islip, New York. --JimWae (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Would Oppose Islip, Long Island. Unfortunately, the Town of Islip is also on Long Island and contains both the Hamlet and Census Designated Place of Islip. Although the opening paragraph states that the article is about the CDP, and the Demographics section derives its figures from the census figures for the CDP, the rest of the article is about the hamlet. Would suggest that the article title change to Islip Hamlet, New York, and that the opening paragraph be rewritten to explain that both the CDP and Hamlet are covered. In this particular case, there doesn't appear to be much difference between the CDP and Hamlet anyway, but an explanation of any difference would be a helpful addition. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I approve the proposal to rename the article "Islip (hamlet)", to distinguish it from the town. The fact that it's on Long Island isn't relevant to this discussion. Long Island is not a recognized subdivision of New York State. Islip is a hamlet within the state of New York and should be listed as such. Greatsouthbay (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lede

If you are so convinced that because the article is only about the "hamlet" that mention of the school district of the same name does not belong in the lede, then why did you make this edit? --JimWae (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please express an opinion on the proposed change to the name of the article --JimWae (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead section (also known as the introduction or the lead) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence. Greatsouthbay (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Article is not really JUST about the CDP, nor will it ever be JUST about the hamlet. It is about the place called Islip within the Town of Islip. What one considers to be the boundaries of that place depends on whether one wants to receive mail or has to pay school, library, water, etc.. taxes, or is doing demographic research, etc. People who live in Islip and come to this article need to know that the demographics are NOT really about either the town, school district, hamlet, nor mailing address. The varying understandings of the location need to be addressed up front to keep people from "correcting" things because they have only one understanding of the boundaries of "Islip". Hardly anyone cares what the CDP's boundaries are - and in some cases of nearby communities, the CDP boundary in NO way overlaps with the hamlet "boundary" or ANY other. If the article were only about the CDP, it would have a history of less than 20 years -- all the Town history and "hamlet" history would be off-topic. If it were only about the hamlet, then the demographics would need to be omitted. Additionally, "notable residents" sections often rely on mailing address and schools attended - in many cases the CDP either did not exist or had different boundaries/names during their residency--JimWae (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you place much more importance on these things than anyone else does. I'm not going to get into the details, most of which I disagree with. The question is whether or not it belongs in the lede, which clearly, it does not. Once again, if you believe that it does, please seek consensus for it on this page. Changing it repeatedly, as if by being persistent you're going to get your way, is not going to work. You're going to have to follow protocol, like everyone else. If you make an edit that another editor disagrees with, you MUST seek consensus. If you continue editing in a disruptive fashion I'll have no choice but to report you to WP:AN/EW. Please try to be more cooperative and reasonable about this issue. Thank you. Greatsouthbay (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC).

You have not addressed any of my points. You have merely asserted your own opinion. Please seek consensus before deleting relevant material - material that is included in many other ledes. JimWae (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It does not belong in the lede, and is not "included in many other ledes". If you make an edit that other editors disagree with, you MUST seek consensus for it. That's the way Wikipedia works. If you continue to make disruptive edits, rather than seek consensus, I'm going to report you to WP:AN/EW for edit warring, in which case you're likely to get blocked. Thank you. Greatsouthbay (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You still have not addressed a single point I made. It is relevant to the article, serves to disambiguate the place name, and similar sentences appear in the lede of a great many other articles (though I see you have tried to remove some of them too).

Not true. I looked at 25-30 Hamlets in New York State yesterday, and only one had similar information in the lede, which was inserted by you. I deleted it for the same reason - because it doesn't belong in the lede. It does nothing to disambiguate the place name. Greatsouthbay (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There are only 2 of us in this conversation & you cannot claim consensus is on your side.

I never said that consensus is on my side. What I said is that if another editor disagrees with your edit, the burden is on you to seek consensus for the change. It's a matter of protocol. It's your refusal to do so that's been so disruptive. Greatsouthbay (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss this for months, but all you have done is revert - until you recently finally replied here only to restate your disagreement without replying to my points.

Nonsense. Your first post regarding this issue was 11 days ago, and most of it had nothing to do with the subject at hand - the LEDE. I only became aware of it a few days ago. Greatsouthbay (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not disruption, and you have not given a single reason other than your own personal preference.

It has nothing to do with personal preferences. I've said from the beginning that it doesn't belong in the lede and referred you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). That was my explanation. I'm sorry if you didn't understand that. Greatsouthbay (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You are edit warring more than I am, since you did the initial revert AND you have not been discussing our disagreement.

Jim, I was working on this article long before you. You were the one who inserted the info into the lede. I removed it and specified why in the notes. Greatsouthbay (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant material, can be sourced, & you need consensus to delete it.--JimWae (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's you who needs to get consensus. I'm simply following Wiki protocol. Greatsouthbay (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are working on a project for Islip, you also are in WP:COI--JimWae (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're grasping. I have nothing to do with the hamlet or town of Islip. Greatsouthbay (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote says:

This article is about the unincorporated community within the Town of Islip.

Understood is that it is about the community known as "Islip". There are people who are neither in the CDP (which is temporary and whose boundaries do not pay regard to other boundaries of "Islip") nor the hamlet (which has no legal nor administrative status) who, when asked where they live, will reply correctly that they live in "Islip" - because that is where their mailing address is, they pay taxes to the Islip School District and Islip Library District, and they shop at the Islip Shopping Mall, work on a committee trying to establish an Islip Community Center and an Islip Water District, belong to the Islip Chamber of Commerce, drop a family member off at the Islip LIRR Station five times a week, serves on the Islip Volunteer Fire Brigade, and was elected five times by Islip voters to be a trustee on the Islip Board of Education and its president twice by the other trustees. They identify as being from Islip, though they are neither in the hamlet nor CDP by that name -- and quite often do not even know that they are not, nor have reason to care. Ostracizing these people from "Islip" does not improve the article - in fact it leads people to make inaccurate "corrections". If some of the different understandings of the location named Islip were acknowledged in the lede earlier, perhaps you would not have inaccurately made the edit stating "Islip Hamlet has a school district", and the long go-round of reverts before you realized your error .--JimWae (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You start off by saying "There are people" and then go on to cite specifics that can only apply to an individual. You seem to be referring to yourself, or someone close to you, in which case you may be the one with a conflict of interest. Greatsouthbay (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No one is being "ostracized". This article is for all readers of wikipedia, not just the handful of people who are affected by the issues you've raised, and as you said, even they have no reason to care.

Again, I'm not saying that the information isn't relevant to the article. It just doesn't belong in the lead. It's not an important enough aspect of the article. If you disagree, please seek consensus for the change. Have a great day. Thank you. Greatsouthbay (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I began discussion of this topic here on June 6.

No you didn't. You started this topic on July 16th. Greatsouthbay (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your first reply was July 24 (3 days ago). Please specify for me the part of the manual of style about the lede that says information that distinguishes different applications of the place name is not lede material for an article about a place.

Of course it doesn't say anything specifically about place names. Information re postal services and schools are not place names. The name of the place is Islip Hamlet. Greatsouthbay (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please also specify how there can be any consensus one way or another when there are only 2 people involved.

You'll have to go and find consensus, like everyone else does. Greatsouthbay (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe we require WP:RFC.

I believe you need to get consensus. Consensus is the foundation of Wikipedia.

By looking at a map, I do know that there are people who live in Islip School District, have an Islip mailing address, and are in the Islip Fire District who are neither in the hamlet (which has no legal nor administrative function) nor in the CDP (which is a temporary statistical fiction and in some cases does not overlap the hamlet in any way), whether or not they ever hypothetically become President of the School Board. As far as I know, I know nobody who lives in any place named Islip.

These sort of anomalies exist around the borders of towns, villages and cdp's across the nation. Greatsouthbay (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so when you said "work on a committee trying to establish an Islip Community Center and an Islip Water District, belong to the Islip Chamber of Commerce, drop a family member off at the Islip LIRR Station five times a week, serves on the Islip Volunteer Fire Brigade, and was elected five times by Islip voters to be a trustee on the Islip Board of Education", you were speaking hypothetically? Greatsouthbay (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Though obviously nobody could be employed by the hamlet (nor by the CDP), for some reason, you want to capitalize "hamlet" in the article - so it is not unreasonable to surmise that you might have some stake in the area. --JimWae (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The name of the place is "Islip Hamlet", so yes, I capitalized hamlet, as does the Chamber of Commerce: http://www.islipchamberofcommerce.com/pages/presidents-1980-present.html.

Please also note that there has been a tag at the top of the article since Feb 2009 asking that the lede be expanded. Apparently I already have someone who agrees with me, even if it is an IP --JimWae (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Jim, the tag was posted on 2/09 and has nothing whatsoever to do with this conversation. Anyway, it says "please consider expanding the lead "to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points", not "add extraneous information to it".

One more thing. Why are you just doing this with the Islip article? I see from your contribution history that you've worked on articles about other places, none of which say anything about discrepancies between hamlets, cdp's, school systems or postal services in their ledes.

I think we've said as much as can be said on this subject. You've exhausted me. Please seek consensus if you still want to make this change. Please bear in mind though, that consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. :) Greatsouthbay (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I started this DISCUSSION (without the same heading) on JUNE 6. Please stop breaking up my posts!!! There is no place named Islip Hamlet - hamlets have no legal nor administrative function, and "hamlet of Islip" is not a proper name nor is "hamlet" part of the name of Islip. "Islip" has no legal nor administrative status (unless one is talking of the Town of Islip), has no "official" boundaries, and does not legally exist -- except for the legally constituted entities such as the "Islip School Board", "Islip Fire Department", and, maybe, the "Islip Chamber of Commerce". "Islip" (not the Town) cannot sign contracts, but the others can. You have not denied you have a stake in something here, and it is noteworthy that you mention the ICoC also wants to capitalize "hamlet". All you have really said is, that in your opinion, the material does not belong in the lede, and you are simply repeating yourself. You have not pointed to anything within the style guidde that specifically supports your contention. One person's personal opinion is not consensus to block changes to an article. You have already agreed the material is not EXTRANEOUS to the article - so, absent anything from the relevant guideline, it is only your personal opinion that it is "extraneous" to the lede. Establish a Village of Islip & you can capitalize "village" all you want - and there will no longer be an Islip CDP & the Census Bureau will use the village boundaries - but there will still be people who live in an area still known as Islip who do not live in the Village of Islip --JimWae (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think that people from Islip would be proud to have it known that there is both a school district and a fire district by that name. The more official entities there are with the name, the greater currency the name has & the more people identify with it. I know people who live in South Farmingdale, New York. They, like their neighbors, never say they live in South Farmingdale. They say they live in Farmingdale, because Farmingdale is their mailing address & their school district. They are not wrong when they say they live in Farmingdale. Look at the Farmingdale, New York article to see a way to handle this.--JimWae (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

1) I started a discussion on APRIL 17TH. You first REPLIED to my post on JUNE 6. That was another discussion. You started the discussion of the lede on JULY 16.

2) The name of the place is "Islip Hamlet" (both capitalized), according to the Chamber of Commerce http://www.islipchamberofcommerce.com/pages/presidents-1980-present.html., the Historical Society of Islip Hamlet http://www.isliphamlethistory.org/, and the Islip Hamlet PTA http://www.islipptacouncil.org/ as well as the sign at the "fictional" border of the hamlet which says "Welcome to Islip Hamlet".

3) The Islip Hamlet Chamber of Commerce doesn't "want to capitalize hamlet", they already do, and always have.

4) I know that Islip Hamlet is unincorporated. That has been well-established.

5) I already said "I have nothing to do with the hamlet or town of Islip" - not that I have to deny any of your unfounded, paranoid accusations. I think it's clear from your last post that you're the one with a conflict of interest.

6) No, I am not repeating myself, except to say that the info doesn't meet Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion in the lede. Yes, I have pointed out some of the passages that apply to this situation, at the beginning of this discussion.

7) Our opinions are of equal weight. My dissenting opinion is all that's needed to require you to seek consensus. I'm not "blocking" anything.

Perhaps you should review this:

From Wikipedia: Consensus:

Someone makes a change to a page (any page other than a talk page), then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on talk pages.

This is the simplest form of consensus, and it is used in everyday editing on the vast majority of Wikipedia's non-talk pages. It begins with an editor boldly changing an article or other page. In response, the viewers of the page have three options:

• accepting the change,
• trying to improve the change, or
• reverting the change.

If your changes have been edited or removed, you may wish to try to improve on them. If other editors do not immediately accept your ideas, think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with other editors' ideas, and make an edit. You can also discuss the changes at the talk page, in an edit summary, or as a note to others at a user talk page or other widely read pages, such as the Village Pump or a relevant WikiProject.

Articles normally go through many iterations of this form of consensus editing to achieve a neutral and readable :product.

If other editors accept your changes, then this silent acceptance is, itself, sufficient proof that your changes have consensus at this time. Consensus does not require either that you get prior "permission" to make changes or that the acceptance of your changes afterwards be formally documented. Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them. Consequently, you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it.

I have two reasons: A) the Wiki manual of style doesn't allow for it and B) It's common sense that it not be in the lede. My reason is based upon policy AND common sense.

9) Again, the information is pertinent to the article, but not the LEDE. Please try to remain focused on the issue at hand.

10) I guess you know better than the Chamber of Commerce and the dozens of other sources that capitalize "hamlet". However, I'm not going to accompany you on this digression. This discussion is about the lede.

11) I'm sure that the people of Islip already know that there's a fire district and school district by that name. People identify with the place they live, not the Fire Department. However, this article is not written for the people of Islip or those who mysteriously identify with it so strongly. It's for everyone who reads Wikipedia. This is not about "pride" on the part of the good people of Islip Hamlet.

12) Thanks for bringing my attention to the South Farmingdale article, but don't you think it's disingenuous to refer me to something in another article that YOU WROTE, to bolster your claim? It should not be there either. The article is about the Village of Farmingdale. You inserted it to bolster your argument to change this one. This is completely contrary to the wiki spirit.

13) I've said all that I can say on the subject. If you want to make this change so badly, you'll have to seek consensus for it. If you continue edit-warring and making contentious edits that other Wiki editors have challenged, I will definitely report you. Good day. Greatsouthbay (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My post on June 6 was all about the CDP & hamlet & postal district & school district... and it followed your repeated removal of that info from the lede. It did not carry a separate heading, but it was clearly about our disagreement. You did not respond until the last few days. "When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on talk pages." I made the attempt long ago & for whatever reason, you did not reply until a few days ago. Through it all, you have not addressed the reasons I gave for including the info in the lede, except to pronounce your disagreement on its importance -- and now you are starting with personal attacks. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Discussion is not just voting one's personal preference; please address the points I made. --JimWae (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your post of June 6 had nothing to do with the issue at hand. It was a reply to a very general post I made about the article name. I didn't even know it was there until quite recently. You could have brought it to my attention, as most do when they post something for a specific editor.

I've told you repeatedly that it doesn't meet the criterion for inclusion in the lede. I also don't believe there's good reason for it to be there. I've addressed this repeatedly. I've made my point. Now you need to get consensus.

Exactly what personal attacks are you referring to? Greatsouthbay (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Louis Dejoy

Shouldn’t Louis Dejoy, the Postmaster General be included in the notable people section ? He grew up in Islip. 144.62.232.230 (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)