Talk:Rochelle Heights

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New York (state) Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It's okay to have some disagreements about what is the best way to describe the subject of an article, and to have some disagreements about what constitutes proper sourcing, in my view. For this article, there have been two passages with sources proposed, which i copy in here for discussion.

About the edit warring

Reverting to previous versions, whether 3 times in the same 24 hour period or not, probably constitutes an

Rochelle Heights was established starting in 1905 on the former estate of George G. Sickles, a Wall Street financier. Plans were developed by New York City architects Mann, MacNellie and Lindeberg, including lots and homes in a wide range of sizes.^[1]

This one is currently was recently appearing in the article. Having the direct link to the Panetta source is very helpful.

Alternative passage A

Rochelle Heights was laid out in a number of phases beginning in 1905 by New York architects Mann, MacNellie and Lindeberg. Its landscape design is more efficient than Rochelle Park, reflecting its later period of development. The architecture of Rochelle Heights does not have the same uniformity as Rochelle Park but rather,reflects the diversity of scale and style found in suburban architecture in the early twentieth century, including

suburban design since 1885 when the phenomenon first took hold in the United States.^[1]

The plan for Rochelle Heights is organized around a promontory in the northeastern part of the subdivision that was set aside for large houses with the status of water views. As the plan descended from this highpoint, a hierarchy of lots and architecture is shown in a secondary group encircling the hill. The properties at the outer limits of the development are more closely arranged in a tight pattern with detached houses intended for a middle-class clientele. [2] The latter properties provided a buffer against the more random development outside the district and protected the neighborhood's exclusive environment within.

About this, it was commented in an edit summary, by the editor removing this passage, that the editor "found one of the cited sources and the text here failed verification". I take it that the Penetta source does not support the full passage A, but perhaps whatever is not covered by the Panetta source is covered by the other one? And doesn't the map add a lot to the article, too? Perhaps the best of both versions B and A can be combined. :) I won't take a stab at doing that right away, hoping to hear more from the editors involved or others. doncram (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the editors involved have been questioning the sources intensely, could a scanned or other electronic version of the Tilly source be provided by email or otherwise, so that all parties can review that, please? doncram (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information that can be added-
In its early years, the area proved attractive to professional artists and illustrators including Edwin Windsor Kemble, the original illustrator of the Mark Twain book

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.223.174 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I read the Panetta material online. It did NOT support the content of the paragraph that the Jvolkblum puppet had attached the citation to. (This kind of experience has much to do with why I believe that Jvolkblum content needs to be deleted on sight, consistent with WP policy on contributions by banned users.) However, that source did have some worthwhile information, which I wrote in my own words and added to the article, after deleting all of the Jvolkblum content. I am restoring my insertion; I am a real person and I stand behind the content that I wrote.

The "additional information" proposed above by 69.86.223.174 is NOT supported by the cited page in the Panetta book. --Orlady (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Orlady's eyes are sharper than mine and are detecting some fault I do not notice. The supporting passage from the page in the Panetta book is: "Rochelle Park soon proved to be a success, attracting not only commuters but also prominent local citizens, including Walter Otto, at one time mayor.... Like the rest of New Rochelle, Rochelle Park was the home of several commercial artists and illustrators, who did not have to go to the city every day but who enjoyed the convenient access to the book and magazine publishers who were their main clients. Perhaps the best-known artist among the park residents was Edwin Windsor (E. W.) Kemble, the original illustrator of Mark Twain’s ‘’Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’’." To me, the "additional information" looks like a fair restatement of some of that. I don't know if this IP editor is the same as the IP editor who wrote Alternative A, but whoever you are I appreciate that you are trying to build on Orlady's Alternative B, here on the Talk page, and I appreciate that Orlady is talking here too. doncram (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That particular quotation talks about Rochelle Park. This article is about Rochelle Heights. --Orlady (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Obviously no one wants to say that Kemble lived in Rochelle Park if he actually lived in Rochelle Heights, which i take it is different. doncram (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Rochelle Park and Rochelle Heights have has articles created for them, and sources do discuss them as separate and distinct residential subdivisions. --Orlady (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the content, I think that getting copies of the other source cited, which may adequately support the original and additional IP editor suggestions, to me and Orlady is necessary before its accuracy can be judged. doncram (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can the IP editor respond about this? I wonder if the Tilly source is something that might be deemed by some to be "not reliable", so he/she is hesitating. In my opinion, even local, self-published writings can be taken as accurate for some matters, while on other matters they can not be fully trusted. I think it would be helpful, on balance, if the IP editor could share that source. I wonder if the New Rochelle public library, or the college library, would have that source? (Does the IP editor or anyone else know?) I could possibly use some connections i have to put in an inter-library loan request and obtain a copy, but I would need more precise information about it in order to put in that request. doncram (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editors alternative A version also mentioned that Rochelle Heights is part of a joint historic district with Rochelle Park. I would like to develop that. It's not stated in the passage whether the historic district is local or an NRHP, but i see elsewhere that it is an NRHP. I see a red-link for it in

List of RHPs in Westchester. I think it is likely that article has been started and deleted before, but I will go now and start it up again. It can be supported by its NRHP nomination document, which should be available and which should provide more information about Rochelle Park for this discussion, too. doncram (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I re-started up

Rochelle Park-Rochelle Heights Historic District, an article which has been created and deleted three times previously. I added a reference link to its 130 page NRHP Registration document, which contains extensive material which would be relevant to this article on Rochelle Heights, too. Offhand, I am currently inclined to develop the historic district article to have a big section on Rochelle Heights, and perhaps to keep this neighborhood article very small, with a link to that section and to any short coverage of this neighborhood in List of New Rochelle neighborhoods. Or, perhaps per the still-posted, not-yet-much-discussed merger proposal, this neighborhood article should be a redirect to the neighborhoods article. (Please discuss the merger proposal at Talk page for the neighborhoods article.) Anyhow, it is clear to me that there is plenty of valid material to provide fairly extensive coverage of the Rochelle Heights neighborhood in some place or another. doncram (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

What's to discuss?--Orlady (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing your preferred passage for the article on this Talk page. I see no objection to including that in the article now, and see that you have added it. About the other passage, I don't think it is necessary or helpful for you to be dismissive of that content. You did find a fault in one sentence, which implies that content should be included in a different New Rochelle article than this one. Congratulations!  :) I'll go add that sentence to a different article. But, in terms of silliness, I guess i wonder why you are spending your time on articles about New Rochelle neighborhoods. You have stated a lot of really strong antipathy towards the City of New Rochelle and its people in various forums, previously, and at the wp:ANI discussion about this very article you stated that you would prefer for this article to be deleted. It sort of seems to me that you are not here to build content related to New Rochelle. Would you be willing to explain why you are contributing here? I don't mean to be facetious in this question; I really am seriously wondering and seriously asking you to explain here, if you would be willing to do so. doncram (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now i see that a non-logged in editor deleted Orlady's addition with edit summary "Undid revision 270731585 by Orlady (talk) Reverting Orlady's Vadalism". Now i think that is wrong and unhelpful. It does not appear to me to be vandalism; it appears rather more like vandalism to be tearing out a sentence that was discussed here at the Talk page. I in fact agreed, here, after the fact of Orlady's addition, with the addition, as I felt it was discussed well enough. I thought both parties would agree that at least as much as she wrote would be okay. In particular, by one IP editor's suggesting an extension of Orlady's version, I thought that IP editor was accepting Orlady's version as a base to build upon. Now, is this the same IP editor or a different IP editor terming that version to be vandalism?

Given this reversion, I guess there is not a consensus for either alternative put forward so far, so I guess I am okay with the short, relatively non-controversial version to be back in place. Orlady has stated that she would prefer for this article to be deleted, so I don't know if she really cares whether her sentence is included or not. There is a proposal on the table to merge this article to the New Rochelle neighborhoods article. Does the IP editor wish for there to be nothing here but a redirect, if having more would mean including Orlady's sentence? doncram (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have now been several questions posed to the IP editor(s), and no responses given. I repeat my offer to assist any IP editors in getting protected accounts from which to edit, too. doncram (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor who summarized their edit as "Undid revision 270731585 by Orlady (talk) Reverting Orlady's Vadalism" is

Template:Current Speakers of U.S. state Houses of Representatives), where there was much contention regarding how to characterize the party affiliation of the current speaker of the state house (the question of his party affiliation still isn't settled, but for the time being, there's general agreement on saying that his affiliation is "Carter County Republican"). I interpret the edit here as an attack directed at me; it's rather unlikely that this particular anonymous user has any interest in New Rochelle residential real estate. --Orlady (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

(section title inserted later by doncram doncram (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've asked at

wp:ANI for administrators to block both of you for some time for edit warring, per my warning above and in more than one edit summary. I disagree with Orlady on procedure for dealing with alleged Jvolkblum sockpuppets. It was just earlier today established by a checkuser that one account which Orlady had asserted was Jvolkblum is not in fact associated. And Orlady's assertion in another instance that an Orlady-labelled Jvolkblum associate was fabricating material was proven wrong. It could be that some editors caught up in Jvolkblum-labelling have in fact added unjustified material at times, perhaps even plagiarized, but Orlady has only allowed for there to exist one person and I think erroneously holds every past instance against other editors who a more careful wikipedia editors. I have argued previously that the Jvolkblum case has swept up other users erroneously. It is not established that this IP editor has been banned, as it is not established (to my satisfaction, at least) that this editor is Jvolkblum. Other editors swept up by false accusations into the Jvolkblum mess have not had any due process and are not allowed even to appeal their case: they have been blocked on sight and their contributions have been deleted. It is therefore inappropriate, in my view, to give much credit to Orlady that she is at least a real person while the other is not. Orlady does have a good track record, observable in her history of edits in many areas. But it is Orlady and relatively few others who have prosecuted the IP editor, I believe unfairly, and prevented that editor from being able to edit and have a history of equally constructive edits. doncram (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You are correct that checkuser did not find a technical connection between "Erin cali70" and Jvolkblum. I did think that this user looked like a

WP:DUCK, but this is an instance where it would be nice to be wrong. --Orlady (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for acknowledging that you appear to have been wrong on the one occasion of Erin cali70 account, out of 300+ accounts that have been linked by accusations to Jvolkblum. I note you are not here conceding that you could have been wrong on other occasions, too, and that more others may have been caught up into the Jvolkblum case by false accusations. This does not clear the IP editor who was edit warring here (in my opinion) from asscoiation with other accounts already labelled Jvolkblum, but I happen to believe it is not likely this one is the original Jvolkblum, either. Personally, I rather think it doubtful that one person would have persisted through 300+ accounts to keep adding material and starting articles, given the enforcement arrayed against him/her.

Also, Orlady does have a point, however unfair it is to persons whose accounts have been blocked due to false accusations, that her account has a track record and hence her past mistakes can be linked clearly to her, while the temporarily warring IP editor does not have a wikipedia history hence is not linked to his/her past mistakes. We all do make mistakes, too. It seems unfair to me to treat, as Orlady has, the current editor as always wrong, because some or many past edits of accounts labelled Jvolkblum have proven to be unsupported factually. It also seems unfair to me that I and others should have to treat each arriving IP editor as a brand new person with no past history and with no responsibility to get facts straight, no need to protect their own reputation going forward. Relatedly, I would very much like to support the person behind the IP editor in getting a new, protected account to edit freely from, but the person has to want that, too. The person might not want my help or may believe that I could not actually help, or may have other objections, whatever. doncram (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]