Talk:Riverdale, Bronx

Untitled

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

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:

Spuyten Duyvil, Bronx:[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9]

Fieldston, Bronx: [10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]

North Riverdale, Bronx Click here → [16]

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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge with North Riverdale, Bronx

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)

• The Central Riverdale, Bronx and South Riverdale, Bronx articles should also be considered, then, by your reasoning. Unfortunately, like North Riverdale, Bronx, they are mere directional parts of Riverdale that show that Riverdale is essentially split up into these sections (Fieldston is in North Riverdale, and Spuyten Duyvil is in South Riverdale, so we can consider a merge from N. Riverdale to Fieldston instead). Epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 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)

Orphaned references in Riverdale, Bronx

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Riverdale, Bronx's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "encnyc":

• From Spuyten Duyvil, Bronx: Wolfe, Gerald R. "Spuyten Duyvil neighborhood" in Jackson, Kenneth T., ed. (1995). The Encyclopedia of New York City. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300055366., p.1224
• From Fieldston, Bronx: Hermalyn, Gary D. "Fieldston" in Jackson, Kenneth T., ed. (2010). The Encyclopedia of New York City (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11465-2., p.441

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference the Nicknames in Infobox

Could someone please reference the nicknames for Riverdale in the infobox? I live in Riverdale and have never heard the nicknames being used. So could there be some references for those (or I'll take it out for being a hoax)? Gug01 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I've taken them out as exceedingly unlikely to be true. BMK (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Gug01 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

"The" Bronx?

Why is this article entitled "Riverdale, Bronx"? No one would say that; it would be "Riverdale, THE Bronx". The same question applies to many other articles. Is there a reason for the missing "the", or is it just a common error? Thanks for any answers. Zaslav (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we would *say* Riverdale is in the Bronx, but when it comes to the written version we call it "Riverdale, Bronx" as we would not likely address an envelope to "The Bronx, NY" (it would just be Bronx, NY). Although "The Bronx, NY" would be technically correct it's not widely used in that particular instance of written addresses/location.If we were speaking about the borough it would likely be different, but that's just a funny regionalism that makes a distinction between how we use Bronx and the Bronx depending on context and medium. Panopticondos (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Panopticondos

I think you are confusing postal addresses with standard written usage. The post office does not use "the" but in ordinary writing we would never say "Riverdale, Bronx" without "the".

I propose a move to "Riverdale, the Bronx". Zaslav (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"Affluent"

I've provided three reliable sources (including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times) which call Riverdale "affluent". This sourced information should not be removed from the article without a clear consensus on this talk page to do so. Discussion on other pages which took place some years ago and which were advertised as centralized discussions do not have the force of consensus for this page. It's also clear policy that WikiProjects do not have the authority to control the content of articles they claim to be under their purview.

Anyone wishing to remove the sourced information needs to get a consensus to do so on this page. Until they do, removal is a violation of both policy and Wikipedia norms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

That's balderdash. We do not list anything at WP:CENT unless it has major site-wide import. Your idea that an RfC that is old or wasn't on CENT "does not have the force of consensus" is not even on the same planet as how WP operates, and the view would invalidate 99.9999% of all consensus discussions we've ever had.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It can be removed per WP:IAR. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Not justifiably. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Move "affluent" from into to Demographics section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The lead section "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". I'm not convinced that "affluent" best summarizes this neighborhood.

The affluence of this community is mentioned two place in the article. The first mention states:

"As the 20th century progressed, upscale apartment buildings and smaller houses were added to the neighborhood. To this day, Riverdale continues to maintain its character as an affluent enclave in the city of New York."

Three sources were used to support this edit.

• The first source is behind a paywall, but the article's headline, "the leafy enclave in the Bronx is a popular market for people seeking more affordable housing without leaving the city" hardly indicates affluence.

• The second source says only "Riverdale, the affluent enclave in the northwestern Bronx."

• The last source, which goes all the way back to 1969 (the date entered on the Wikipedia article was incorrect), hardly supports that Riverdale is filled with wealth, describing Rivedale as "two communities", a rich one on top of the hill, and the other containing parts of the far-from-affluent communities of Kingsbridge, Bronx and Marble Hill, Manhattan. The article states that Riverdale is "intelligent and affluent", "1,500 acres of varying degrees of affluence", and that in Riverdale, "the more affluent send their children to...[private school]". These three statements suggest that only parts of Riverdale are affluent.

The second mention of this neighborhood's affluence states "Riverdale is one of the most expensive neighborhoods in New York City and is considered one of the most sought-after residential neighborhoods", and it was supported by a 2013 "Neighborhoodscout.com" article. The link to the 2013 data has long expired, but click on that link today and it lists Riverdale at #7 on a list of 10 "most expensive Bronx neighborhoods". Hardly the model of affluence. Dig deeper into that source here and the only thing truly notable about Riverdale is its commute times.

This edit was first added here last March by an editor who had made just 15 edits. It was quickly reverted by an experienced editor, only to be added back here, where it remained until I deleted it.

No doubt a determined editor could cherry-pick sources to support that Riverdale is "the best", a "great place", "iconic", "outstanding", a "landmark community", an "extraordinary neighborhood", or any other bit of puffery "used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". Wikipedia's readers would be better served by keeping unencyclopedic subjective wording out of articles, and by keeping real-estate spammers away from city articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the sources. Based on what you found, I think we should delete this, or at least adjust it to match what the more recent sources say (I wouldn't use a 1969 source). Unless someone wants to invoke IAR to keep it in. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but IAR is not necessary. The 1969 source may be somewhat dated, but the others are recent and 'Riverdale remains what it was at the time, a very affluent neighborhood. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree, remove, because of WP:PEACOCK. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"Affluent" is not a PEACOCK word, it's a description. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This issue was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 19#Request for comment. The involved editors were @DGG, The Gnome, Arthur Rubin, SMcCandlish, First Light, BeenAroundAWhile, Thomas.W, Comatmebro, John from Idegon, and Junkyardsparkle:. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Pardon...also User:Onel5969. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• (1) That has no bearing about this discussion about this community.
• (2) An RfC that is so lightly attended (because not announced on Centralized Discussions) bears very little weight. If this is going to be decided on a Wikipedia-wide basis, it must be done with proper announcement, not in a WikiProject space very few people were aware of.
• (3) It is settled policy (by ArbCom) that WikiProjects cannot force editors to follow their protocols on articles they claim in their purview.
• (4) WP:Consensus can change.
  Given these factors, this instance must be decided in this discussion, or, alternately, a properly advertised, centralized RfC needs to be held to establish community-wide consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• (First, an apology if the formatting isn't correct). Okay, so I'm going to throw in a little bit of Original research. I've lived in Riverdale twice in my life. Once in the early 60s, and again in the late 70s, early 80s, while attending Manhattan college. I love the area. It's the end of the "1" train (at 242nd St & Van Cortlandt), lightly rolling hills, Van Cortlandt Park. There are parts which are very affluent, rivaling the most affluent in all of the 5 boroughs, except for the fact its based on those who wish to live in houses rather than apartments. In all those boroughs, only Forest Hills, Queens is of the same stature (which btw, and noting this is an OSE argument, does not denote that neighborhood as "affluent"). The difficult part is that not all of it is affluent. On the whole, I'm opposed to peacock words like affluent, and even though I might personally agree with that assessment, it is still an assessment and as such should not be part of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• When The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal use it, it's not a "peacock" word, it's a straight-forward description of the neighhborhood as a whole. There are less ritzy areas in Beverly Hills as well, but that doesn't make the city not one of the richer ones in the country. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Copying my comment from 2 years 9 months ago. Remove because "affluent" is a fluff (peacock) word that is NOT easily defined. At what dollar amount is the line, and how do you define it for every little part of the USA, because affluent in one area is NOT affluent in another area. Other financial descriptions like, "poor", "working class", "wealthy", "lower-class", "middle-class", "upper-class" should be avoided too. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

We don't have to define it, its use by (very) reliable sources is sufficient for us to use it. We don't create information, we report what reliable sources say, and if reliable sources say that Riverdale is "affluent", and we refuse to report that, then we are, in effect, violating WP:OR by substituting our own judgment ("'Affluent' can't be well-defined, therefore it is a PEACOCK word, therefore it can't be used") for the judgment of those sources ("This place is affluent"). This is unacceptable. PEACOCK words are verboten when they are used in Wikipedia's voice without being supported by sourcing, but that is not the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we have consensus here to remove "affluent". Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove cited information from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

When we reach consensus, the consensus version will be implemented and I expect you to leave it alone. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• In the earlier discussion, I said in this and almost all cases. The term is imprecise--it could mean , "more affluent than the average", or "among the richest". This is especially tricky in the lede, where things much be stated briefly, (this was about another neighborhood, but the argument applies to all. But on the other hand, if as a New Yorker I personally had to pick one word, that's the one I would use. But the problem is more the correct definition of the area. The map in our articles uses a very broad definition from the AIA guide; The US Census tracts for Riverdale and North Riverdale are somewhat narrower, and getting the geographic information right for the various designations in enormously more important than arguing over this word. For demographic data, there are obvious advantages in using the census tracts. It should be possible to say something like the WSJ in 20XX described the neighborhood as... DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The following is the first edit of this article in 2003, which summarizes why some people may want affluent or similar words as a description in this article: • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Riverdale is a well-to-do neighborhood in the northwest Bronx in New York City. Most Riverdalians are reluctant to admit that they live in the Bronx, and use "Riverdale" as an address.

RfC: The use of "affluent"

There is a clear consensus that Riverdale, Bronx, should not be described as "affluent" in Wikipedia's voice. Some editors suggested attributing "affluent" to specific sources. Some editors suggested describing the economics of the area instead of using a subjective term that could have different meanings for different audiences. There is no consensus on these suggestions, and there is no prejudice against discussing them further.

Cunard (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "affluent" be used as a description of places if it is properly supported by reliable sources ("YES"), or is "affluent" always a WP:PEACOCK word ("NO")? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Neutral notices of this RfC have been placed on WP:Centralized discussion and the talk pages of WikiProject Cities, WikiProject NYC, Wikiproject Demographics, and WP:PEACOCK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Note: This survey is invalid as currently worded. See my comment in the threaded discussion section. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey (no threaded discussion, please)

• Yes - As long as it is supported by citation(s) from reliable sources, the word "affluent" is no different from any other adjective. It is not necessarily a flattering word -- many of the most vibrant and intersting places in the world are far from affluent -- and is therefore not always a peacock word, although it can be if used in Wikipedia's voice with citational support. We report what is said by reliable sources, we do not create information ourselves, which is WP:OR and not allowed. If reliable sources say that a car is brown, we report that the car is brown, even if we happen to think it's a particularly terrible shade of brown. If they say that a person is brillant, we report that the person is brilliant, even if we cannot ourselves quite nail down the definition of what, exactly, "brilliant" is. There is no difference here: we cannot substitute our own judgment for that stated by reliable sources. If one of our guidelines (and remember, a guideline is just that, not a policy, and not mandatory) conflicts with what a reliable source says, then the reliable source prevails, or else Wikipedia would be creating original research by refusing to report something the reliable sources say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• No, clearly, per the excellent arguments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 19#Request for comment. Quoting Magnolia677 from the linked discussion: [t]he word "affluent" is inexact, vacuous, subjective, and has little use in an encyclopedia. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• (Invited) No, per previous arguments. I would add "is described as affluent" is even worse. We could conceivably say "Sources X and Y describe Riverdale as affluent", but, even then, we would have to be sure that the sources are not chamber-of-commerce or real estate agent advertisements or advertorials, and that the sources are referring to the same location as the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• No, basically for the reasons Arthur Rubin indicates. While we can use descriptions and claims that might normally be questionably encyclopedic (e.g., "fringe science" or "neo-Nazi") we only do so when highly reliable sources are near-universally in agreement on the matter – when a real-world consensus exists about it. Some marketing language and random journalism comments that suggest something don't rise to that level of sourcing. If we have reliable data on the demographics and economics of the area, WP include that information, it doesn't just make hand-waving implications. This is a poor one to make anyway, since the term carries a very different weight with different audiences. To an upper-middle-class person, it's probably a positive description, while to someone in the struggling working class, they observe the term being used as a euphemism for "most brown people, and pale ones who can't afford at least a Lexus need not apply and are likely to get 'profiled' by the renta-cops if they come here".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC) 11:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• No. In my opinion "affluent", a word that I have seen being added to countless articles about neighbourhoods, towns and what have you in the US, is nothing but promotional fluff, usually added by property developers, real estate agents and house sellers wanting to increase real estate values in their neighbourhood/town. Since there's no clear definition of what affluent means (affluent compared to what?) it is also very subjective, and should be avoided, particularly in the lead of articles. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• No. For the same reason why "Riverdale is a ghetto residential neighborhood in the northwest portion of the Bronx" would NOT be acceptable if Riverdale had different demographics. Some circles of society use "affluent" to mean "white", such as "affluent neighborhood" would be 'code' for "white neighborhood" or "mostly white neighborhood". See my other comments on the talk page. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• No. I went to sleep thinking I'd try to say something clever here, but everyone else has beat me to it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Dank: Serves you right for slacking when someone on the Internet is still clearly wrong!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• No I've edited this article many times and I've removed the word "affluent" as a description of this and many other neighborhoods and municipalities, as I have "working class" and "middle class" for other places. Riverdale, like many places where the term has been used, is not monolithic. Nor does the term adequately describe affluence within any context. The sources are a positive, as they are rarely added to support the claim, but the presence of the sources is not sufficient for the blanket characterization of Riverdale as "an affluent neighborhood". This should be included in the Demographics section, where appropriate context can be added. Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• No Seems like something that could/should be elaborated on in the bulk of the article but does not belong in the first sentence of the lead. Reywas92^Talk 20:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• No - mainly echoing everybody above, but please note: for every source produced that calls this (or any other) community "affluent", at least as many (probably more like 10x as many) can be produced that DON'T. In fact, the term has been added (and removed) from numerous articles on settlements that are much less clearly wealthy than this one, and most times for the sole purpose of promotion. Remember, realtors know where Wikipedia is too. Promotional abuse far outweighs whatever (IMO none) informative value an entirely subjective term such as this (also including wealthy, upper middle-class, or even poor) has. They mean different things to different people, hence are a factual observation that reasonable people can disagree over, hence an opinion. Minimum, this should never be in Wikipedia's voice. Also should never be in the lede. Very dubious that it should be anywhere. Just leave the readers the numbers and let them decide what to call it. Aside, I endorse this being centrally listed, even in its convoluted wording, as I am tired of re-fighting this battle over and over. John from Idegon (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - for this article, it's widely described as such and amply supported by sources (below in discussion). And I think the 1969 source bolsters the argument for inclusion, because it gives a historical perspective that aligns with current sources, in that it's consistently been referred to as affluent. So in this case, for this article, I'll have to go against the flow of no and say yes. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• No Such a subjective term does not belong isolated in the lead as it is misleading without an explanation. There is plenty of room in the demographics or other areas to describe the community and use the term from sources. It is misleading to label any community as "having a great deal of money; wealthy" without explanation. Does it mean other people are excluded? Even though house prices have risen, are there people of modest means who have aged in place? What kind of community is it where the main things that makes it special is just money, there must be more depth. Why not describe something physical such as the mansions or large lots or hotels with a high daily rate. This subjective term does not belong in the lead of any place. Fettlemap (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• No - This article in AM New York offers an excellent history of Riverdale, and Wikipedia readers would benefit if it were used to make additions to the article. What Wikipedia readers would not benefit from are the unencyclopedic descriptions of Riverdale used in that source, such as "upscale" and "well-to-do", which would be both subjective and without context if added to the lead section. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• No - we don't write "X is a fast submarine" or "X is a tall building"; we state the speed of the submarine or height of the building later on. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I've de-listed this from WP:CENT; despite the wording this is very clearly a content dispute, and not one that needs to be on WP:CENT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I've re-listed it, as it is a sincere attempt to get a broader response about the general issue, instead of having it decided by a handful of people in an unadvertised RfC. I've listed it in a number of place, and CD is an approprate one. Please don't revert again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I followed the link from CENT, and I really don't care about this. I thought CENT was for discussions that would have more far reaching implications for the development of policy or whatever. Benjamin (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I've re-removed the CENT link, because this is in fact a single-article content dispute with no indication that a large number of articles or editors are affected. Sandstein 08:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If it shows up again at CENT, I'll remove it as well. We do not list anything at WP:CENT unless it has major site-wide import. Your idea that an RfC that is old or wasn't on CENT "does not have the force of consensus" (which you said in the thread above the RfC proper) is not even on the same planet as how WP operates, and the view would invalidate 99.9999% of all consensus discussions we've ever had. And you can't brow-beat the community into paying attention to your utterly minuscule topical pet-peeve. That said, this is a procedural objection to grandstanding and to an invalid rationale, and doesn't affect my take on any other rationales that might be offered pro or con.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The rfc description is misleading and non-neutral. It implies that the only reason to oppose use of the word "affluent" is WP:PEACOCK. If someone wants to re-word it I'll be happy to participate, but I can't contribute to the survey as it is currently stated. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move massive Notable People list to a new article

The notable people section of this article is out of control. The list should be moved to a new article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agree ...Was generally a good read till you hit a huge list of people with articles that give almost zero info on the topic at hand and a trivia section that again leads to no value.--Moxy (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  But you think that about almopst all "Notable people" and "In popular culture" sections, don't you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  That is not a substantive comment. Whether someone favors a particular way of organizing information has nothing to do with whether that way is good or not. Please do not inappropriately personalize discussions like this (cf. WP:BATTLEGROUND).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is just fine in its present columnar state and isn't actually very large at all as such things go, and it's right near the bottom, so I don't buy this "was a good read until" argument, above. The last thing we need is 10,000 additional micro-articles to maintain, split off from every major city, town, neighborhood, etc., page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  In our FA articles they are split Boston, Washington, D.C....in fact some are FA list. --Moxy (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  This short list isn't WP:FL material, and I wasn't suggesting they can never be split. Anything can be, if it's independently notable, or if WP:SPLIT / WP:SUMMARY conditions are met. Doesn't apply in this case, at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds logical......was going to edit the article a bit but I see lots of things going on...or should I say lack there of 😓--Moxy (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 2 - Digital Futures

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raina623 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zmuhl (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)