This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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?
Shouldn't some mention of the large Jewish comunity be made?
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)
"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.
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)
This source is considered to be a very good one because it appears in an internationally recognized and respected newspaper. Now, remember thatAt 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]
. 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
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)
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)
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'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)
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 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)
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)
Looks like we have consensus here to remove "affluent". Kendall-K1 ( talk) 04:34, 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)
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.
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)
[t]he word "affluent" is inexact, vacuous, subjective, and has little use in an encyclopedia. Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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?
Shouldn't some mention of the large Jewish comunity be made?
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)
"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.
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)
This source is considered to be a very good one because it appears in an internationally recognized and respected newspaper. Now, remember thatAt 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]
. 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
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)
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)
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'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)
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 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)
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)
Looks like we have consensus here to remove "affluent". Kendall-K1 ( talk) 04:34, 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)
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.
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)
[t]he word "affluent" is inexact, vacuous, subjective, and has little use in an encyclopedia. Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)