Talk:Irvington, New York

cite/quotebombing the word "affluent" in the lede

The lede shouldn't say anything that isn't in the article, really, and the article says it's one of the 100 richest places in the country with a median income of somewhere around $145k, with cites.

I think that adequately supports "affluent" without having five different citations, three with quotes, in the middle of the first sentence. It's pretty overboard for just one word. If nothing else, the quotes are pointless, nuke those and then bundle them. Jarnsax (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It took five cites to convince people to stop removing "affluent", so five cites need to stay there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken Fair enough, though the end result is still a bit silly, just for "readability", IMO. We shouldn't need to belabor each other or readers over something that's honestly pretty trivial. Jarnsax (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That you were able to dig up five different sources using the term to describe the town (probably without much effort) is fairly strong 'evidence' that the applicability of the word is generally considered obvious. Jarnsax (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"Affluent" is a rather vague term, easily misinterpreted by our readers. I also wonder whether it's really one of the very most significant facts about Irvington such that it should go way up top. 2022 America just in a mood that we must know whether a town is well-to-do? In context, if we look at the suburbs of major coastal US cities, it's economic profile is not unusual. Certainly there are NYC suburbs and inner city zipcodes that are at least as "affluent". I would favor removing that fromt the top and handling it in the section that deals with the population and the profile of the residents and commerce. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

In the cited Bloomberg list of 100 most affluent, I see 14 other NY suburbs above ~190,000 and I do not see Irvington on the list. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO Looking at the cited 2017 list (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-hundred-richest-places/) Irvington is indeed #54 on the list, hidden down in the "click to expand" between Tiburon, Calif. and Long Grove, Ill.

I really wasn't trying to start or rekindle some old argument tho... my point was just that such piles of cites in the lede are usually undesirable for readability reasons, and everything said there should be supported by the body of the article anyhow. It's just not the right place to cite it, the point should be made in the body (in order to even belong in the lede), and the cites are 'better' down there.

The piles of cites in the first sentence of an article, for something that isn't an actual determinable fact (it's opinion if "affluent" applies) is just evidence to readers that editors have argued about it, something they are unlikely to even remotely care about when reading this.

It's also just generally better, instead of 'arguing' about such things by citebombing them (usually evidence of past edit warring), to just have a discussion about it on the talk page.. that's the place where people can actually come to consensus about such stuff that's 'a matter of opinion', like if a term is "generally used" enough in secondary sources.

Citebombing (especially in the lede) invites later editors, who just think it looks "messy", to 'clean it up' just out of a desire to be generally helpful, and drags them into other people's drama....whoever "won" is basically going to end up edit warring over it with random people. Jarnsax (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That's specifically why I just "cleaned it up" (bundling and folding the cites) and brought it up here.... most people would probably have just though "5 cites? Must be obvious enough", left the word, and nuked the cites as pointless and contrary to our general style. Jarnsax (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken It you read what I just wrote, it should be clear I really don't personally care if the term is used, that's not my point, and I'm not going to jump into some past fight about a matter of opinion.

Piles of citations shoved into the lede (or anywhere) are simply not the way to win a content debate with other editors (it just doesn't work, it evidences stubbornness on one side or the other, not a consensus) and it looks like crap.

If it's been something that was "fought" about in the past, then everyone involved was wrong, by not bringing it here.

Since people love to "cite policy" around these places, MOS:LEADCITE says

"Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus."

If nothing else, call the town "affluent" again later, and citebomb it there if it's needed. (added) If editors have fought about it, then it's rather by definition controversial here, and probably shouldn't even be mentioned in the lede. Jarnsax (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear how Bloomberg would get 2017 income data for towns, or why there would be such large year-to-year variation in some of the town figures. This feels a bit like Forbes" rich list or other crowd pleasers. Anyway, I think it should be dealt with in pertinent detail farther down in the article text, if at all. But that's all I am likely to say on the question. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I did mention that actually calling them "affluent" or not is pretty trivial, IMO. It's just wrong to citebomb the lede about something like that. Jarnsax (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The cites are in the lede, because that's were it attracted attention, probably because many people don't read anything but the lede. If the word was naked in the lede, without cites to support it, it would likely be deleted by one of those readers.

As for Bloomberg's specific methodology, it's not terribly relevant here. All we requires is that they are a reliable source, which Bloomberg is, in spades. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah... what you've detailed is pretty much exactly why it doesn't belong in the lede, which is basically a "definition". We shouldn't need cites (which are basically our arguments "why" we say that) for stuff there, unless that it's 'controversial' is the point (we are citing the existence of the controversy, that we discuss below). Whether our not someone else falls into the definition of "affluent" (or other such general descriptors) is a matter of a person's opinion (basically, how "affluent" they feel they are in comparison to "those people") ... we should only say stuff that 'everyone' would agree is true (points of fact, or that 'everyone' would agree with, "Earth is big") in the lede.

All that other stuff belongs farther down, because it's "bad there" and because, like you said, it attracts attention (it's an opinion), and people fight in the edit log. I haven't looked in the log, don't really care "how" it came to be (I can guess, don't care who, or if people said mean stuff). It's just not "good". Jarnsax (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd describe Bloomberg (for something like that) as what "everyone" (not us) agrees is one of the sources with a reliable and consistent methodology for estimating something you can't know for a fact without people's tax records, that is generally cited for it by sources we trust. We should probably listen to "their consensus" about "who to listen to" for stuff like that (and actually cite the source). The specifics of 'why' they (other sources) seem to think that is kinda irrelevant to us making the decision. Jarnsax (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken Wow. Is that really just your "response", to just completely revert everything I did to the article over what, half a dozen edits, none of which had anything to do with this other than that I'd bundled the 5 different cites in the lede? That you could have individually reverted if you actually had a problem with what they did, since they were unrelated?

Just explicitly ignoring that there is an open discussion here, and throwing in a bunch of other stuff as "etc."

It just comes across as hostility and "ownership". It's not ok. Jarnsax (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't even the only person you reverted doing it like this. Doing it manually like that just hides it in the UI. Jarnsax (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Since you ignored me pinging you about it, it's pretty apparent you're just trying ignore this discussion, confuse the issue by rolling back a bunch of other stuff as well, and drag me into an edit war. No thanks. Have fun with that. This is why people quit. Jarnsax (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Apparently you're willing to edit war with 'the community', over time.... it's basically what you said, and ignore attempts to develop a consensus here. I have no interest in engaging with some random person's long-term behavior problem. Eventually you'll get blocked ot hit by a bus, and won't be around to edit war when someone else fixes it. So, have fun. Jarnsax (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't have to repeat everything published by an RS in the lead. Every RS has some content that's UNDUE or based on data that does not meet the standard of encyclopedic content. This richest districts list is typical. Another is the Forbes list of rich people, which is full of demonstrable error and speculation. Same as the list of "net worth" of US presidents that is used as a source on a list article of ours. The way the wording is situated in the lead makes it sound promotional, which is an odd thing to find in a mundane topic like the page on a typical historic suburb. SPECIFICO talk 12:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and that's a clearer explanation of why it's "bad"...all the other stuff I changed, that he reverted to unbundle the citebomb, was just basic 'line editing': like not separating a quote from the paragraph that lead into it with more whitespace than you put between paragraphs, not flowing a sub-section header around an image, and not actually forcing columns to display lopsided by using the wrong template.

It's also considered 'generally useful' to do things like make shortened footnotes formatted consistently, and actually link to the 'bibliographic description' of the book like they are supposed to... that's mainly what he reverted to put it back, basic cleanup. Someone will have to redo all that crap if they ever want to try to make this an "A"-class article, and it was a pain in the ass. Jarnsax (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The whole thing is just wasting people's time, and seemingly more about having "his version" on top than improving the article.

I have zero interest in trying to deal with what is, IMO, clearly disruptive behavior (ignoring a ongoing talk page discussion and trying to drag the argument back into the edit history is just an attempt to "game the system" and get people to edit war, or to ignore consensus and try to hide it in "stealth" reverts). We can just come to a consensus here, and let someone fix it in future as an "open talk page issue" after he goes away, lol.

We were told above, essentially, that the "citebomb", which is longer than the word itself, is just a stockpile of "ammunition" for an edit war. Jarnsax (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Description of Irvington in lede sentence

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 Irvington be described as "affluent" in the lede sentence of the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: The article should remain in the status quo ante in respect to this question until this RfC is closed, per WP:BRD.

Survey

• Yes. That Irvington is an affluent community is well sourced, as shown by the multiple citations from reliable sources supporting it. This makes it a fact as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and not an opinion, which means it can be expressed in WikiVoice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Just because it is a fact doesn't mean we automatically add it to the lead sentence. There are 1,000s of facts about the article subject, do they all belong in the lead? --Malerooster (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes in the lead section per BMK, but without "quotebombing" the lead, per Jarnsax in the thread above. However, it need not be in the lead sentence; the second paragraph of the lead would be a better location since it already discusses income levels.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC); revised 03:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• No per the discussion thread above, this use of "affluent" in the lead, as if it were a defining characteristic of Irvington, will be misleading to many or most of our readers. Irvington is not among the most affluent suburbs of New York City or the West Coast, and using that word up top in the lead will lead readers to think it's like Bel Air, Los Angeles or Scarsdale, neither of which is described as "affluent". SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Then some other places need their leads adjusted, too. The fact that some articles have insufficient lead sections isn't an argument to have another one. PS: New York is not part of the West Coast.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the dumb snark. My the two coasts are where most of the US' affluent suburbs are located. Well maybe you could look at the ranking of US suburbs by income or some other metric and suggest some way to convey that information in all of our articles that ensures no misinterpretation. For example we could cite an authoritative ranking and put a number or a range on it. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes Multiple reliable sources mention affluence in the same sentence they introduce the town. This shows that other publications view affluence as a distinctive feature of the village, and it is appropriate for our article to follow suit. (Summoned by bot) — Wug·a·po·des​ 17:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes: Have you seen sources that do that? I see a 30-year old NYTimes quote of the former mayor saying it's the last vestige of Americana on the East Coast USA, which is self-promoting and ridiculous on its face.The other source, WSJ, calls it "picturesque" in the first sentence -- picturesque being at least orthogonal and perhaps contrary to "affluent". SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, they're cited right after the word. "Irvington, an affluent community of around 6,500 that is part of the Westchester town of Greenburgh, is named for the writer Washington Irving, whose nearby former home, Sunnyside, is now operated as a museum." -Wall Street Journal 2011. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply. Per your !vote, however, the sentence in which they introduce the town is "Situated along the Hudson River, the picturesque village of Irvington, N.Y., offers both an easy commute to New York City and a small-town feel." The affluent bit is in the next paragraph. But this WSJ piece is, as from their real estate section that is a sop to advertisers so that the ad salespeople can go out and pump whatever locality they feature in the editorial content. Not really something that would establish encyclopedic WEIGHT per NPOV. And it's from 11 years ago, since which time lots has change in the distribution of wealth, incomes, and asset values for real estate in the USA. SPECIFICO talk 23:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• No. I agree with SMcCandlish. It's important enough to be in the lead section, but it doesn't belong in the first sentence as it isn't a defining characteristic of the city. The second paragraph would be more appropriate, like in Upper West Side. I should also note that one of the five citations points to a Prezi by a random person. (Summoned by bot) — Clarysandy (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• No - it's WP:PEACOCK. "Affluence" here seems to have been used without any objective measure of comparison. Also, affluence can change at any time if a major corporate employer should decide to move out of the area, which means it is not a defining characteristic and the article would have to be monitored for changes in affluence. Also, I was there in June and July. It seemed less affluent than say Cooperstown, New York to me, which shows this term to be a personal prejudice and not an objective fact. Just take it out of the lead. Skyerise (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• The objective measure is the same one we always use: reliable sources say it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• That's simply not adequate for something that is quantifiable. Skyerise (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Policy, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Same. Show me the policy that says that if it's citable to reliable sources, it has to be in the lede sentence. Skyerise (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

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

• Comment. With respect to the use of the term "affluent", it's quite clearly well-sourced. But is that something the town is particularly known for (i.e. something that is the focus on a lot of the coverage on the town) or is this something that's a bit of an aside? I'd find it odd to put this term in the first sentence of the lead if it's the latter, though if the town's affluence is a defining characteristic then it might make sense in the first sentence. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  Giving this more thought, No. The RfC asks if we should include "affluent" in the first sentence of the article. While the town appears to be wealthier than typical for New York, I don't see any reason based on a survey of sources that this is so prominent in the importance of the municipality that it warrants inclusion in that first sentence. Should the wealth of the town's residents be mentioned in the lead? Probably yes, alongside a short summary of the town's demographics (think something along the lines of how we handle this sort of stuff in the lead of Alpine, New Jersey and Mantoloking, New Jersey).

  (For what it's worth, I think the arguments about "affluent" being an opinion are silly inasmuch as a town with its median income is clearly affluent, but ultimately the reason I oppose including it in the first sentence is totally agnostic towards that question.)

  — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• No - Unless, however, the town is notable for being affluent and has been widely discussed as such for example. If its just "another" affluent town, then leave it out of the LEAD, not LEDE, and cover that fact in the body. --Malerooster (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• No. As I wrote when the same peacock word was discussed on the talk page of another "affluent" town a few years ago: the ones who constantly add the word "affluent" to the lede of articles, and are also the only ones who care if the word is there or not, are property developers and real estate agents trying to increase the value of homes in the community in question. If properly sourced it could be added to the body of the article, but it does definitely not belong in the lede. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:04, 14 November 2022 (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.

Reliable sources?

The following references have been questioned as not being RS:

• Hamad, Moona (May 1, 2016) "Irvington: A town of history and affluence" Prezi

• "Irvington New York 10533 Community Profile" William Ravelis Legends Realty Group.

Comments? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Raveis real estate brokler's website is certainly not RS. The other one, Prezi: What is it? Looks like a blogging software platform. Is there any argument in favor of either? SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It's hosting what appears to be projects for a writing seminar at Georgetown. At least for that user. If you click the name, their other presentation includes a slide documenting their choice to tell the history of their town for the exercise. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 10:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

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

At least 3 of the references are no good. SPECIFICO talk 11:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I removed the 3 bad references, two self-published and the third does not say "affluent". Now we're left with two Real Estate section puff pieces from newspapers that use those articles to attract and support broker advertising. The NYT piece is from 1992, so I don't think it would be relevant for current description. It's more about the history of the town anyway -- including from before the interstate multi-lane bridge changed the character of the area away from "affluent". SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know what you're talking about. The Tappan Zee Bridge lands in Tarrytown, not Irvington, and has been in existence since 1955. The replacement bridge did not change Irvington in the least, and the path of I-87 did not change with the nes bridge. It did not, and does not, pass through Irvington. It is still a very affluent village, replete with estates and very large houses. The Times reference is still very much a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

According to this list, Irvington's zip code, 10533, was the 9th richest zip code in New York state in 2016. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Not clear that is RS, but at any rate. that list is only Upstate NY, excluding far wealthier zipcodes in NYC and Long Island. And it's just the average prices of whatever happened to be sold in 2016. So "affluent" would be entirely WP:OR. As you may not be aware, most of the open sylvan area of Irvington was developed with ordinary tract houses after the interstate was built jut north of town. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking at their 2022 list for NYCity, Irvington's 2016 value wouldn't even make it into the top 50. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Irvington is #20 on this list of the highest household incomes in all of New York state, certainly an indication of affluence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

This is like Whack-a-Mole. Each time a source is rejected, a different one pops up. But we need to convey the central narrative of mainstream RS. We may wish to discuss various parameters and metrics, but nothing so far produced justifies a generalized label such as "affluent" up top in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It's rather odd to me to see a discussion about which sources are reliable and which are not characterized as "Whack-a-Mole", a description most often used on en.wiki in connection with serial sockpuppetry. After all, reliable sources are what we base our information on, and discussion is how we reach consensus, so denigrating a discussion about reliable sources in that manner does not really seem appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The wack-a-mole is about WEIGHT, Verification and NOR. As Hawk said, the Alpine NJ article, among many others, is a good coverage of demographics and real estate values and notable residents, etc. This article could no doubt add more fact, a more detailed profile, etc. SPECIFICO talk 13:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• See my comment in the section above: "the ones who constantly add the word "affluent" to the lede of articles, and are also the only ones who care if the word is there or not, are property developers and real estate agents trying to increase the value of homes in the community in question". As can be seen from the fact that the "reliable sources" for Irvington being "affluent" seem to have strong connections to real estate agents. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you implying that I am a tool of real estate agents? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

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

I'm not implying anything about you, I'm just telling readers here that a clear majority of the many attempts to add "affluent" to the lede of articles about U.S. towns and neighbourhoods do seem to be made by people connected to property developers and/or real estate agents. But to be honest I don't really understand why you seem to be so fond of adding "affluent" to the lead of articles about places/neighbourhoods in New York state. In spite of the opposition you've met, such as this discussion and RfC where a clear majority said no to your attempts to add "affluent" to the lede of Riverdale, Bronx. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That's even sillier, because while Riverdale is somewhat upscale, certainly relative to the Bronx, it is not pricy or inhabited by the rich and famous of 2022 compared to most of Manhattan and much of Brookly and Queens. SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of material without consensus

Subsequent to the closing of the RfC above, and heeding the message of the close, I removed "affluent" from the lede and moved it to the "Economy" section. An editor deleted it from there, with the edit summary: "That's really not better. We need descriptive text. Incomes, housing values, tax rolls, upscale institutions, etc. can be detailed and their significance framed in the article text. The sourcing is still weak for the single-word label "affluent" and ample data is available to describe the associated profile in a way that will be specific and detailed -- avoiding mi.sunderstanding" However, this is mistaken. If reliable sources use a description of a person or place, then it is perfectly acceptable to use that description in Wikipedia's voice. The sourcing is far from "weak", it's very robust: articles from The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. While above the editor ascribes base motivations to those sources (without proof), the NYT and the WSJ nevertheless remain among the very best and most reliable of sources. In point of fact, the editor has removed the information simply they do not agree with it, because it doesn't fit their personal view of Irvngton, a point they have made repeatedly -- but incorrecty -- in the discussions above.

I have called -- in the edit summary of my reversion of their deletion -- for the editor to get a consensus for the removal of "affluent" from the article, either through normal discussion here or by an RfC specifically covering that option. As things stand now, there is not consensus for the removal of "affluent" from the article entirely, and none was found in the closing of the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for copying my edit summary here. The weakness of the sourcing was demonstrated in the discussion during the RfC. A one-dimensional label is not encyclopedic. The ONUS is on whoever advocates inclusion, not reversion, of challenged content. SPECIFICO talk 07:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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

• I have no intention of joining this fight since I don't know enough about average income etc in New York state, I'm just allergic to having the word "affluent" in the very first sentence of articles, as if it's the most defining characteristic of the place (which might be the case in Bel Air in LA but very few other neighbourhoods or places...). - Tom  | Thomas.W ^talk 15:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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

  Please, that's just silly. The ranking is based on statistical data, not subjective adjectives. I do hope you'll ping the previous participants if you want to continue to advocate for this. Also, if you or anyone has access to Bloomberg's paywall, we should try to get their 2022 version of this list. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• If you don't think that being in the top 1.08% of the "Richest Places in America" is an indication of affluence, then I'm afraid this can never be settled, as you don't seem to understand what "affluent" means. If Bloomberg reported that Irvington was in the top 1.08% of the "Most Densely Populated Places in America", we would certainly say that is is a "crowded" village -- it's not, that's purely a hypothetical -- because "crowded" means "full of people, leaving little or no room for movement; packed." With Irvington in the top 1.08% of the "Richest Places in America" in 2018, "affluent" is absolutely an appropriate adjective, because it means "having a great deal of money; wealthy."
  It seems to me that your opposition to "affluent" is totally a WP:IDONTLIKEIT one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  Bloomberg did not "report that Irvington was in the top 1.08%" - that is your WP:OR calculation from the data in the Bloomberg table. It is editorial framing that undermines NPOV. Unlike the subjective adjective "affluent", the article text can give our readers encyclopedic description relating to the underlying demographics and statistical detail of wealth-related factors. It would be constructive to add such encyclopedic detail. @Jarnsax, ONUnicorn, Malerooster, SMcCandlish, Wugapodes, Clarysandy, Red-tailed hawk, Skyerise, and Thomas.W: Please share your views as to the use of "affluent", cited to a 2011 real estate profile, in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

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

  No, basic arithmetic is not OR, and has never been considered to be, but, as a gesture of compromise, I have taken out the "1.08%", leaving the data for the reader to do the math if they wish to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Should "affluent" be used in the article text?

• No. It's subjective, not objective. And the source is not reliable, as realtors always have ulterior motives. I also note that we cannot assume current affluence after the date of the most recent supporting reference, which is over a decade old. Skyerise (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, at least in theory. We are instructed by policy to summarize-in-our-own-words, not plagiarize, the sources. The sources indicate this is an affluent village, nearing the top 1% of income levels, so the term affluent is clearly an apt descriptor. That said, the sourcing can be better, and SPECIFICO is correct above that we should also be adding information "relating to the underlying demographics and statistical detail of wealth-related factors". I.e., we should be showing not just saying affluent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, of course, if it is supported by reliable sources (which it is) and also supported by demographic data (which it is). A note - if this is intended to be an RfC, it is malformed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)