Talk:Westchester County, New York

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Onel5969, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on March 31, 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

It Should be Noted[edit]

The X-Men live there. It probably seems too trivial a thing to mention, but I bet more people since 1963 would recognize Westchester, NY from that than from anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.77.90 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

Inaccuracies[edit]

Some of the places in the "Cities and Towns" section are villages. Some are not cities, towns or villages. Some are even misidentified as such in their Wikipedia pages, which presumably were culled from U.S. Census data. This map, from Westchester County's official site shows the cities, towns and villages: http://www.westchestergov.com/planning/research/Census2000/MunicipalProfiles/mun.htm.

Correct city, town and village info can be found here: http://www.westchestergov.com/planning/research/DataBookPDF01/Population.pdf. This shows certain errors, incuding the fact that Mount Kisco is a town/village in its own right, not a village divided between two towns and that Hartsdale is not a village of Greenburgh (it actually would fall unedr the "Greenburgh TOV" designation.)

:The two above, unsiged comments are mine. I have conformed the cities, town and villages to the referenced PDF file. I have added hamlet names from http://www.townlink.com/community_web/. I still need to go through the individual pages, as many hamlets are listed as towns, an error on the part of the the Census bureau or the bot programmer. Brooklyn Nellie (Nricardo) 17:47, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

I believe that I now have correct info. on this page and the individual articles about all towns, villages and CDPs (cities did not appear to have problems). I now feel that this info. is now complete and accurate (but feel free to correct if I am wrong). Nelson Ricardo 16:44, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

The article text implies that the towns of Harrison, Mt Kisco and Scarsdale have residents in the towns outside of the villages of the same name. ("With the exception of the towns of Rye and Pelham, all the towns contain area and residents which do not belong to any village.") But elsewhere in the text (and in the list of municipalities), the article states that these three towns are coterminous with their respective villages. One or the other of these statements must be wrong.--68.199.33.181 18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is the pic of Philipsburg Manor located under Long Island Sound when Sleepy Hollow is located on the Hudson? Rskurat (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statistics on diversity[edit]

I do believe that the stereotypical image of Westchester must be evaluated here; however, this cannot be done without facts and numbers. This article tells me that the county is demographically and economically diverse. These statements are hollow without statistics, preferably some that compare this diversity to other regions. I'm sure there have been some studies done on this. Of course, if nothing can be found then the section must be dropped, having no certain truth to offer. Omphaloscope » talk 07:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neighborhoods?[edit]

Is there a place in this article for something like neighborhoods? For example, Crestwood is a neighborhood of Tuckahoe, but it has its own stop on the Metro-North Harlem Line railroad. Just asking. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. People don't usually refer to neighborhoods of counties. --Nelson Ricardo 03:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very well. I actually never knew it was a neighborhood until last week; considering its size I had always thought it was a village. Anyway, maybe someday. :-) --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 03:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special Act Districts[edit]

Given the extensive nature of this article I think it would be worthwhile to include a section for Speical Act Districts. I know Greenburg Eleven (located on the Children's Village campus in Dobbs Ferry) is an example. I haven't added it however because I don't know if others exist.

Copyright violation[edit]

I reverted this article back to before this edit, as it appears to have introduced a large amount of text that was a copyright violation from http://www.westchestergov.com. -- Mwanner | Talk 02:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Law enforcement in Westchester County[edit]

Shouldn't we at least mention the Westchester County Department of Public Safety in the here? --Rayyung 02:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that goes in to too much specifics. If we mention the Department of Public Safety, why shouldn't we mention all of the police agencies? The current summary does mention that there are other county agencies that patrol the area. I feel if people want to learn more about the agencies they should click to the main article. The Westchester County article is already chock full of content. --24fan24 (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Westchester County Seal.gif[edit]

File:Westchester County Seal.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 17:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History[edit]

The history section is disproportionately about the sections which became the Bronx. Someone should balance this out with information about the rest of the county, or else the section should be considerably shortened. SarahLawrence Scott (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not shorten the section. Instead, if it is missing material, provide that material. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I don't have the knowledge to expand the section, so I've put in a tag requesting expansion. SarahLawrence Scott (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed the tag. If you think the section is deficient, then do some research and expand it.Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The section is not deficient, so much as dramatically unbalanced, to the point that a user looking for information may be misled. The history section for Mexico, for instance, is not dominated by details on Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. Balance should be restored to the section, either by addition or subtraction. I choose not to make myself an expert in the history of Westchester County, so I won't personally do it by addition. SarahLawrence Scott (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There appears to be a difference in opinion between me and Ed Fitzgerald as to how to proceed in improving this section. I would appreciate any feedback that others have.SarahLawrence Scott (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My opinion is, rather than disfiguring the article with a tag that's almost entirely ineffective anyway, if you think that an article is deficient in some way, do some work and fix it, instead of trying to goad others into doing it for you (that's what the tag essentially does). You seem to have a sense of what's missing, so you must have some idea of what to look for -- use the Internet or your college library (I assume "Sarah Lawrence" is in your user name for some reason connecting you with that institution), do some research, and fix the section. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 19:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And BTW, unless you believe something is factually incorrect, please don't delete it to restore "balance" -- this is not an exercise in modern journalism, it's an encyclopedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 19:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there's a problem with a section and an editor can't fix it, either because of time or knowledge, the standard practice within the community is to tag it in order to flag it for attention. "Disfiguring" or not, that's the way we do things. Also, while it is an open admission to Wikipedia reader/users that something's less than perfect about the article, it also lets them know that what they're reading may not be totally reliable, or in this case, totally balanced. That's important information.
Ed, I'd say that if you have problems with the community's widespread use of tags, it's probably best to discuss it with the entire community rather than criticizing a newish editor who's just trying to do the right thing. The best place to start a discussion within the community on this broad a shift in practices is probably the Village Pump. --A. B. (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about anybody else, but my purpose here is to edit encyclopedia articles to make them more useful to the reader. Any time I spend chatting (like this) is time that I'm not editing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 14:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links deleted[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if I'm following common practice in discussion, but I received a message that a link I added was against editing protocol. I am a reporter with Home Town Media Group (www.hometwn.com), which publishes five print newspapers along the Sound Shore. The New Rochelle Public Information Officer emailed my boss and suggested we add links to our new sites here in the media section. I realize now that may have been a conflict of interest and I see a great deal of discussion goes into these, but we feel that we are five legitimate community publications that should be included here. Does anyone have any suggestions about where I should go from here? Thanks. Apr2003 (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The discussion below moved here from my talk page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I saw that you undid my revert of the links to westchestertowns.com on Westchester County, New York. I feel that these links are being used to promote this website. I have removed these links a number of time and a number of them always seem to reappear. Furthermore, the fact that multiple links to the same site are added at the same time indicate to me that they are added for promotion. Wikipedia's external link policy states that links should normally be avoided if they "mainly intended to promote a website." I am open to your input on this subject and I think the links should be removed. Please feel free to discuss this here. --24fan24 (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically all of the edits of 68.198.203.213 (talk · contribs) were to westchestertowns.com links to various pages. --24fan24 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Also all of these edits have been to add this site to Westchester County, New York: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] --24fan24 (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
We've repeatedly asked this person to stop adding his links and he won't stop. It looks like the only way we can stop him may be to blacklist his domains. --A. B. (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see what you have against the websites. I was unfamiliar with this editor's past history, or any conflict with him, but I found the sites to be informative and useful. I see no harm in allowing them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, I would prefer that this discussion take place on the discussion page for Westchester County rather than here. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, do you plan to do through Wikipedia and delete every link to IMDB? After all, that's a commercial website, which carries a great deal of advertising. The test should be about the usefullness of these sites, and in my perusal of them, I've found them to have useful information as well as a convenient set of links to town and village site, school districts, etc. There's demographic information as well, all rather conveniently available. In the absence of a compelling argument to keep the deleted (which I haven't seen yet -- spamming seems to be the only charge, and where would you expect a website about Westchester to put its links?), I will restore at least one link to this site, after I take a look and see which one is the most useful. If you hsve an argument to make against that course of action, please feel free to make it -- I'll hold off for a while. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 23:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I lean toward including at least some links to this site. There is considerable demographic information on the individual communities given there, which would seem to fall under the part of the external link policy that indicates "what should be linked":

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."

SarahLawrence Scott (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The problem I have is not with the site itself, but the fact that the owner of the site is using Wikipedia as a means of promotion. If the site were added to one or two articles, that would be fine. But adding a link to all Westchester town pages and repeatedly replacing removed links shows that this these links are being placed for promotion. --24fan24 (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"where would you expect a website about Westchester to put its links?" -- well, to be honest, I would expect them not to add their links since it's conflict of interest.
I've blacklisted the overall domain; if there's a specific page from that site that you have to have for this article, let me know and I can whitelist it. --A. B. (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blacklisting entry:
--A. B. (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What an absolutely silly conversation. These websites carry information about Westchester County and all the towns and villages in it, therefore, the Wikipedia articles covering the country and all those towns and villages are natural locations for the link to the website! That doesn't make it spam, that makes in an appropriate website being listed in appropriate articles. This blacklisting is absurd. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 08:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see you've acted as prosecutor, judge and jury all rolled into one. You brought the complaint, compiled the charges, and then instituted the blacklist yourself, all without benefit of discussion. How convenient -- things really do go much more smoothly that way, don't they? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 08:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I represent WestchesterTowns.com. Although we do have a few ads in order to cover our website expenses, WestchesterTowns.com is mostly a non-profit community based information resource for Westchester residents. More than 80% of our information is about community topics such as Town Libraries, Town websites, Colleges and Universities, School Districts, Health information, Post Offices and much more. This information is presented in a clear and consise format that is not readily available anywhere else. It has taken several years to compile this information and we update regularly to reflect changes such as a school closing.

Many Westchester residents have sent emails thanking us for the "extensive content" of our website. I apologize if I've re-added this information - but because of the nature and importance of links such as: Libraries, Colleges & Universities, Our special Interactive Map of Westchester County, Hospitals, Emergency information and more - I believed my links were deleted in error. I did not read or see any requests to not add our information - until tonight. Many websites referenced in Wikipedia have loud flashing ads - We do not. Our ads are quiet, subtle and confined to a small area of the page. Any pages we have added to Wikipedia have contained relevant and important information. We promote many important topics such as Local and Organic Farming, Pesticide Prevention, Children's Educational "approved" websites, Local Historic Sites, History of each town and much more. Our new Demographics Section contains important data regarding the Environment such as Air Pollution, Waste Sites, Clean Water ... We are currently writing extensive information on Environmental Issues and how to go "Green" in Westchester. We strongly promote working together to clean our environment. I hope that you will reconsider your removal of our links.

The reason there are multiple links to www.WestchesterTowns.com is that our information is organized by community and town; each town having its own Home Page. We therefore provided links to the appropriate areas. We have over 1000 pages of research and information. We added a very small percentage that we believe has added value to the Wikipedia sections as they relate to Westchester.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to a favorable reply. Gail JonChuckles (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm not familiar with all of the Wikipedia mechanisms for this, but it seems to me like what should happen, voluntarily if possible, is that all users associated with the sites should refrain from adding their links, but that their sites should be removed from the blacklist. I have no connection with the westchestertowns.com site, but I do think it is the kind of thing that can and should be provided as a link from the various town pages. So, Gail, would you agree to not repost your links yourselves if they are unblacklisted? Do you have a mechanism where you can ask others associated with your website to also refrain? If so, I'd happily start adding links that I thought were appropriate to some of the articles, and I suspect others not connected to your site would do the same. This would then be consistent with Wikipedia's external link policy...in essence, I think that it is appropriate to have links to your site, but it is not appropriate for someone connected to your site to place them. The same would be true, by the way, for a site like IMDB. SarahLawrence Scott (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not think that the website above should be given a second chance. Even if the user did not see the warnings to stop posting the links, they should have realized that their links are constantly being removed and are therefore unwelcome. Furthermore, if the site's intentions are as innocent as they seem, why was it necessary to add the site using a number of different user names? --24fan24 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed the combined edit histories for some of the westchestertowns.com accounts below. Multiple editors, not just myself, complained about these links. After a blacklisting request was made, I spent several hours going through the histories of the affected articles and stepping through all the diffs. Comments:
  1. Other than Ed Fitzgerald's reversion of 24fan24's link deletion, I could find no situation where any regular editors had added these links to articles.
  2. The three westchestertowns.com accounts that I have identified added links well over 100 times.
  3. I removed only 18 links added by these accounts. The vast majority of links were instead removed by a variety of regular editors over time as inappropriate.
--A. B. (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Spam" apparently, is somewhat like "terrorism" -- so horrible that any action is justified in fighting it. And like "terrorism", "spam" is in the eye of the beholder. So be it. I think these actions are ridiculous, but it's no skin off my nose -- I'll add the links to my own favorite places where I can use it when I need to, and the hell with the functionality of those Wikipedia articles to their users -- it's much more important to fight "spam" than it is to make articles useful. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, Ed, I'm sorry you don't like the actions I took but it's pretty normal to have disagreements around here. I'm certainly not perfect. I do wish, however, that you could understand that I work really, really hard to do the right thing. Maybe I don't always get it right but I do think I deserve some minimum degree of courtesy the same as other editors around here.
Based on the concerns raised here, I will ask for a second opinion on this blacklisting. --A. B. (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To my eye, the westchesterTowns.com seem to have to much Ad to be a reference for an encyclopedia. I support this blacklisting. RayYung (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Combined edit history[edit]

westchestertowns.com single purpose accounts:

Combined edit history:

  1. 1/10/08 8:27 (hist) (diff) Talk:Westchester County, New York (External links deleted)
  2. 1/10/08 8:24 (hist) (diff) Talk:Westchester County, New York (External links deleted)
  3. 1/10/08 8:14 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ed Fitzgerald (Links on Westchester County, New York) (top)
  4. 1/9/08 19:35 (hist) (diff) Armonk, New York (External links)
  5. 1/9/08 19:22 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  6. 1/9/08 19:18 (hist) (diff) Westchester Library System (External links)
  7. 1/9/08 19:17 (hist) (diff) Westchester Library System (External links)
  8. 1/9/08 19:03 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links - Added Interactive Map of Westchester County and Town Information)
  9. 1/9/08 18:57 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  10. 1/9/08 18:56 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  11. 1/9/08 18:53 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links - List of Demographics by Westchester County Town and Zip Code.)
  12. 12/18/07 7:41 (hist) (diff) Rye (city), New York (External links)
  13. 12/18/07 7:37 (hist) (diff) Peekskill, New York (External links)
  14. 12/18/07 7:26 (hist) (diff) White Plains, New York (Public schools)
  15. 12/18/07 7:21 (hist) (diff) White Plains, New York (External links)
  16. 12/18/07 7:15 (hist) (diff) New Rochelle, New York (External links)
  17. 12/18/07 7:12 (hist) (diff) Mount Vernon, New York (External links)
  18. 12/17/07 23:57 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (Media In Westchester)
  19. 12/17/07 23:52 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (Media In Westchester)
  20. 12/17/07 23:51 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (Media In Westchester)
  21. 12/17/07 23:00 (hist) (diff) Yonkers, New York (External links)
  22. 10/23/07 20:47 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  23. 10/23/07 20:43 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (Education)
  24. 10/23/07 20:42 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (Education)
  25. 10/23/07 20:40 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (Education)
  26. 10/23/07 20:37 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  27. 10/23/07 20:28 (hist) (diff) Armonk, New York (External links)
  28. 10/23/07 20:17 (hist) (diff) Yorktown, New York (External links)
  29. 10/23/07 20:07 (hist) (diff) Tarrytown, New York (External links)
  30. 10/23/07 20:02 (hist) (diff) White Plains, New York (External links)
  31. 10/23/07 19:54 (hist) (diff) Somers, New York (External links)
  32. 10/23/07 19:39 (hist) (diff) Croton-on-Hudson, New York (External links)
  33. 10/23/07 19:36 (hist) (diff) Croton-on-Hudson, New York (External links)
  34. 10/23/07 19:32 (hist) (diff) Buchanan, New York (External links)
  35. 10/23/07 19:31 (hist) (diff) Buchanan, New York (External links)
  36. 10/23/07 19:25 (hist) (diff) Katonah, New York (External links)
  37. 10/23/07 19:17 (hist) (diff) Pound Ridge, New York (External links)
  38. 9/29/07 2:32 (hist) (diff) Tuckahoe, Westchester County, New York (External links)
  39. 9/29/07 2:26 (hist) (diff) Bronxville, New York (External links)
  40. 9/29/07 2:19 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  41. 8/23/07 3:27 (hist) (diff) Hudson Valley (External links)
  42. 8/23/07 3:20 (hist) (diff) Hudson Valley (External links)
  43. 8/20/07 16:55 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  44. 8/20/07 16:47 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  45. 8/17/07 1:49 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (Education)
  46. 8/17/07 1:43 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  47. 8/17/07 1:34 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  48. 8/17/07 1:26 (hist) (diff) Hudson Valley (External links)
  49. 2/20/07 3:39 (hist) (diff) Ossining (town), New York (External links)
  50. 2/20/07 3:33 (hist) (diff) Briarcliff Manor, New York (External links)
  51. 10/24/06 5:19 (hist) (diff) Pound Ridge, New York (External links)
  52. 10/24/06 5:11 (hist) (diff) Pound Ridge, New York (External links)
  53. 6/14/06 16:47 (hist) (diff) Cortlandt Manor, New York (External Links)
  54. 6/14/06 16:43 (hist) (diff) Croton-on-Hudson, New York (External links)
  55. 6/14/06 16:40 (hist) (diff) Buchanan, New York (External links)
  56. 6/14/06 16:32 (hist) (diff) Hastings-on-Hudson, New York (External links)
  57. 6/14/06 16:25 (hist) (diff) Sleepy Hollow, New York (External links)
  58. 6/14/06 16:19 (hist) (diff) Sleepy Hollow, New York (External links)
  59. 6/1/06 16:03 (hist) (diff) Armonk, New York (External links)
  60. 6/1/06 16:02 (hist) (diff) Armonk, New York (External links)
  61. 6/1/06 15:58 (hist) (diff) Ardsley, New York (External links)
  62. 6/1/06 15:54 (hist) (diff) Irvington, New York (External links)
  63. 6/1/06 3:58 (hist) (diff) Dobbs Ferry, New York (External links)
  64. 6/1/06 3:54 (hist) (diff) Bronxville, New York (External links)
  65. 6/1/06 3:53 (hist) (diff) Bronxville, New York (External links)
  66. 6/1/06 3:53 (hist) (diff) Bronxville, New York (External links)
  67. 6/1/06 3:52 (hist) (diff) Bronxville, New York (External links)
  68. 6/1/06 3:50 (hist) (diff) Cortlandt, New York (External links)
  69. 6/1/06 3:47 (hist) (diff) Cortlandt, New York (External links)
  70. 6/1/06 3:43 (hist) (diff) Bedford (town), New York (External links)
  71. 6/1/06 3:42 (hist) (diff) Bedford (town), New York (External links)
  72. 6/1/06 3:38 (hist) (diff) Peekskill, New York (External links)
  73. 6/1/06 3:32 (hist) (diff) Tarrytown, New York (External links)
  74. 6/1/06 3:26 (hist) (diff) Somers, New York (External links)
  75. 6/1/06 3:26 (hist) (diff) Somers, New York (External links)
  76. 6/1/06 3:24 (hist) (diff) Somers, New York (External links)
  77. 6/1/06 3:16 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  78. 6/1/06 3:12 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  79. 6/1/06 3:08 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  80. 3/24/06 8:45 (hist) (diff) Cortlandt, New York (External links)
  81. 3/23/06 8:06 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  82. 3/23/06 7:58 (hist) (diff) Tarrytown, New York (External links)
  83. 3/23/06 7:55 (hist) (diff) Tarrytown, New York (External links)
  84. 3/23/06 7:33 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  85. 3/23/06 7:30 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  86. 12/27/05 3:29 (hist) (diff) Bronxville, New York (External links)
  87. 12/27/05 3:29 (hist) (diff) Bronxville, New York (External links)
  88. 12/27/05 3:17 (hist) (diff) Buchanan, New York (External links)
  89. 12/27/05 3:12 (hist) (diff) Cortlandt Manor, New York (External links)
  90. 12/27/05 3:11 (hist) (diff) Cortlandt Manor, New York (External links)
  91. 12/25/05 1:58 (hist) (diff) Dobbs Ferry, New York (External links)
  92. 12/25/05 1:51 (hist) (diff) Somers, New York (External links)
  93. 12/25/05 1:48 (hist) (diff) Croton-on-Hudson, New York (External links)
  94. 12/25/05 1:47 (hist) (diff) Croton-on-Hudson, New York (External links)
  95. 12/25/05 1:47 (hist) (diff) Croton-on-Hudson, New York (External links)
  96. 12/25/05 1:44 (hist) (diff) Buchanan, New York (External links)
  97. 12/25/05 1:42 (hist) (diff) Bedford (town), New York (External links)
  98. 12/19/05 0:26 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  99. 12/19/05 0:04 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  100. 12/19/05 0:03 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  101. 12/19/05 0:02 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  102. 12/18/05 23:58 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  103. 12/18/05 23:51 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  104. 12/18/05 23:50 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  105. 12/18/05 23:43 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  106. 12/18/05 23:39 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  107. 12/18/05 23:37 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  108. 12/18/05 23:33 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  109. 12/18/05 23:30 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  110. 10/26/05 3:22 (hist) (diff) Katonah, New York (External links)
  111. 10/26/05 3:19 (hist) (diff) Bedford (CDP), New York (External links)
  112. 10/26/05 3:15 (hist) (diff) Bedford (CDP), New York (External links)
  113. 10/26/05 3:13 (hist) (diff) Bedford (CDP), New York (External links)
  114. 10/26/05 3:10 (hist) (diff) Westchester County, New York (External links)
  115. 10/26/05 2:48 (hist) (diff) Katonah, New York

--A. B. (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see, representatives of a website crammed full of information about Westchester towns and villages uses its account to post links to the website on Wikipedia articles dealing with those towns and villages -- the very places where such links would be useful -- and you have a problem with that? Bizarre. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll add my support for the blacklisting of this domain. First off, note that Wikipedia is not a web directory; it does not list external links unless those links are references to reliable sources or would add information value to a thorough encyclopedia article. That website does not qualify on either criterion. Furthermore, I happen to be a volunteer editor at a web directory that does list external links, the Open Directory Project. The ODP has different content standards from Wikipedia, but it does have standards. In that directory, the subject domain is one of 6 websites listed in the Regional/North America/United States/New York/Counties/Westchester/Guides and Directories category.[9] As a senior ODP editor, I've evaluated many websites, and to my eye the westchestertowns site has no more worthwhile content (and possibly less) than any other website in that category. It marginally qualifies for listing in ODP and definitely does not qualify for more than one ODP listing. Considering all that, I think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to ban external links to it. --Orlady (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also fully and strongly support the blacklisting of this domain. The site may be useful, but thát is not what we understand with spam (Monty Python may very well have wanted spam to eat, but the problem is that there is NO choice whatsoever). Apparently there are some accounts that do nothing but pushing their link. If blocking these accounts and extensive warning of these accounts does not help, and there is no previous use of the link, then blacklisting, even of useful links, may be the only solution! These accounts could have chosen the way of discussing (especially when there are concerns!), as strongly suggested by the guidelines and policies here: see our 'what wikipedia is not' and neutral point of view policies, and our external link, conflict of interest, and our spam guidelines (in the latter, also see the section How not to be a spammer). I am sure that we are willing to remove the link from the blacklist if a) these accounts promise not to push their link directly to the pages, but instead engage in discussion on relevant talkpages, b) they do not create sock accounts to do that, c) start performing also constructive edits (content, not links only, something that has not been done at all by these accounts, and since they are maintaining a homepage about the information, they must be specialists in that), d) if editors express concerns by posts on their talkpage, they discuss and wait for consensus about those concerns, and e) the request to remove it from the blacklist is done by non-involved, established editors. When the link is removed from the blacklist, I am sure they can also use the link as a reference to the content they have added to the documents (see our reliable sources guideline!!). We are writing an encyclopedia here, Not a linkfarm! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is yet another reason why I find Wikipedia to be such a fascinating (if sometimes frustrating) place. "Canvassing" is not allowed, but it's perfectly legitimate to post a message to "WikiProject Spam" about a spam controversy, soliciting opinions "positive or negative", knowing that the people there are certain to share one's basic opinion and reinforce it. Ah, well, as I said above, I know when I'm licked. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 13:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well Ed, the only regular WikiProject Spam contributor (Dirk) to have expressed an opinion has been Dirk Beetstra. You've had a couple of Westchester regulars support blacklisting. Significantly, regular Westchester editors have removed something like 90 of these links since the site-owners started adding them using their accounts.
Canvassing applies to people pushing for a particular result. I just posted a neutral notice[10][11]. I thought the goal here was to make the right decision. It seems to me you believe Wikiproject Spam participants will not approach this dispute with good faith. I disagree with your assumptions about their motivations but let's not argue. Why don't you leave a similarly neutral note at:
Better yet, just open a request for comment here.
I only ask that we keep the discussion in one place going forward, preferably here. --A. B. (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, I stopped in here to read the discussion and comment because Westchester County is on my watchlist (apparently it's been there ever since December 2006, when I made a couple of edits to the article). --Orlady (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, who made an allegation of canvassing? Not me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Justifiably Blacklisted, supported by evidence and facts. Arguments being made such as"WP:USEFUL" do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy as outlined above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising". Wikipedia policy is quite clear here; External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. This blacklisting is a clear result of WP:SPA (WP:SOCK) accounts and a WP:COI IP's being employed for the sole purpose to Spam WestchesterTowns.com and to self-promote SmartCard Consultancy, Inc. . SmartCard Consultancy, Inc. has clearly illustrated a situation where a single company is using Wikipedia to promote for their own interests (Adsense pub-9665591883320014). Perhaps Whitelisting on a "case by case" basis is best for Wikipedia at this point, However, whitelisting should only be implemented where it is demonstrated as a source, in an appropriate context. Which in this case, WestchesterTowns.com probably fails WP:RS --Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not quite clear on how the Wikipedia policies interact in this area. It's crystal clear to me that the accounts that have been adding the westchestertowns links should stop doing that. But it seems odd to jump from that to blacklisting the site. There are a lot of ads on it, and perhaps it's valid to blacklist it for that reason, but that's a separate issue, related to the site and not to spamming. As far as appropriateness to Wikipedia, it's pages like westchestertowns.com/htm/zip/Zip10570.html that I think are highly appropriate to be linked to an encyclopedia article. If someone can suggest somewhere else where all that demographic information is gathered in one place I'd be happy to link to that instead. But if they assembled that data from different sources, that seems like exactly the kind of information that people accessing the Wikipedia article might want, but that would be too extensive to include in the article itself. So a hypothetical: suppose someone at a major commercial site like IMDB was dumb enough to start spamming Wikipedia. Would that mean we blacklist IMDB? Who's the loser in that case, the site or the Wikipedia users? (I don't mean to be picking on IMDB; they just seem to have been the running example in this discussion.) SarahLawrence Scott (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That westchestertowns.com/htm/zip/Zip10570.html webpage is a replica of U.S. Census data available for free on the U.S. Census website. Essentially all of the non-advertising content on westchestertowns appears to be scraped from free sources. As a result, there's no value lost by its blacklisting. --Orlady (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The page is not a replica of U.S. Census data. Here's a few of the many statistics found there that I don't think are from the Census: Superfund site index, inches of annual rainfall, sales tax rate, unemployment rate, violent crime risk index. They are all scraped from free sources, sure, but the same can be said of sites with athletic statistics. SarahLawrence Scott (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fast Forward Inc.[12][13] compiles this data for their "Sperling's Best Places" site at bestplaces.net. They also provide it for licensed use on realtor web sites in a partnership[14] with BIRDVIEW Technologies, a major software provider to American real estate firms. This Westchester realtor is an example of someone buying this data for their website. There are multiple ways to slice and dice this data depending on the tabs and options you select. Different agencies are releasing environmental data, census data, etc. at various times and some of the value added by Fast Forward is keeping the database up-to-date. From their "How we get this information" link:
"Our website provider, BIRDVIEW Technologies has teamed up with Fast Forward, Inc to integrate community and school data with our listings and to provide a Zip Code based set of information tools. The information is compiled from nearly 100 public and private sources which are regularly analyzed, on a year-round basis. Some sources are free, and we pay for a number of others. Even the best data available has errors and omissions. Fast Forward works diligently to find and correct using standard demographic and internally developed methodologies."
I think westchestertowns.com is likely getting its data from this or a similar site but I'm not sure how often they're updating their pages.
A problem with scraper sites is that you often don't know where or how they're getting their data and how up to date it is. Some scraper sites are legitimate; About.com scrapes Wikipedia and it's owned by The Grey Lady herself. The majority of scraper sites, however, are pretty spammy and add little value; wander through the list of 700 other sites known to be scraping Wikipedia and you'll see what I mean.
Another question with some of westchestertowns.com's pages -- are we linking to a copyright violator? I don't know. Compare the content on these two Armonk history pages, owned by competing website owners:[15][16]
Is one of these violating the other's copyright? Then there's this other page with the same text which raises still more questions.
Finally, how do we know the Armonk history, for example, is correct? Where are they getting it from? What sort of editorial review is there? Is it just self-published stuff (as that term's defined by the Reliable Sources Guideline)? I couldn't figure this out from looking at the site, but maybe someone else knows better. --A. B. (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found what I think is the original source for the Armonk history text.[17][18][19][20][21][22] Here is where it was copied into our article.[23] I have deleted that material from out article. --A. B. (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello.

The staff at www.WestchesterTowns.com has been advised to refrain from adding any additional links or information to any Wiki site.

I do not know how a warning turned into a blacklist of www.WestchesterTowns.com? In any event, please take the time to read the following:

School District Section. We received several requests from our user base for information about the Westchester School Districts. I myself spent extensive time and effort in researching and compiling our School District Section. We present our School District information in a format that is much needed by the Westchester Community. There are many towns and communities in which the schools are part of various districts. I am not aware of another source that presents this information in our format. Our data is organized and readily accessible and was tailored to requests made by our Westchester visitors. We have had many emails thanking us for this section. It is one of the sections that was added to Wikipedia - and subsequently removed from Wikipedia?

Another area that I myself researched and compiled is our "History And Antiquities" (bottom of page) www.westchestertowns.com/htm/lnk/Link0513.html. This section covers a general collection of interesting facts, traditions, biographical sketches, and anecdotes about Westchester County and its towns. Population statistics and events have not been revised to reflect current events and perspective. We think this adds to the historical flavor and interest of the writings, giving a different perspective on much of this information and written in an "older world" writing style. This information was sourced from a book: "Historical Collections" written approximately 200 years ago and published 50 years later.

Regarding data that is sourced from other research websites - we credit the website from which this data is compiled and also provide a link to the original website.

During the past three years I have compiled, researched, and verified much of the content in www.WestchesterTowns.com. We are in control of our data and take responsibility for its content. If there are errors, we encourage our visitors to let us know and we promptly correct the page.

Gail JonChuckles (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,spcover here. My comment has nothing to do with WestchesterTowns.com, with which I am familiar. But I do represent Westchester.com and added it to the list of Media several months ago, only to stop by today and see it had been removed. I'm not smart enough to see how or why it was removed, but I just wanted to let you know that I added it back today. If you consider that spamming, then please go right ahead and delete the link. I understand these philosophical debates. On the other hand, before you do, I'd ask you to visit our site. Westchester.com publishes over 100 news articles every month, all from press release submissions sent to us by local non-profit organizations, small businesses, and county/local government offices. Our business directory contains over 1,300 free listings, half of which were reader-submitted and the other half collected by myself years ago before we went online in our current format in May 2004. Our event calendar system is user-generated and contains many local events. We have an email newsletter subscription of over 2,100 local readers. A lot of work goes into the site and we take ourselves and our editorial integrity very seriously. Online news publications are often overlooked as fly-by-night operations. In our case, we have a small part-time staff and have been around for several years. I've been doing it in different forms since 1998. We consider ourselves a news organization and so do our readers. I hope you won't confuse us with the likes of WestchesterTowns.com. Our content is completely user-generated or submitted to us by approved sources. Our link is not to spam the Wiki, but to allow us equal footing with more traditional media outlets. If you delete us, I'll understand. I would only ask that you post the reason here, so I can understand why. Thanks much.

Spcover (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All those densely populated villages in southern Westchester are high income areas but Mount Kisco and Peekskill in northern Westchester are less wealthy. But this paints an erroneous picture of the northern part of the county as less wealthy. Look at the average income in 10506 or 10576. They are full of large lots and many grand estates. The north is famous in fact for that countryside, and to characterize it by the few villages isn't very representative. Speaking of southern Westchester, what about Yonkers, a poor city? 72.89.83.11 (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I put File:WestchesterGov logo.gif back here since it is the actual logo of Westchester County Government. --RayYung (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about photo for arrivals and departures at Grand Central Terminal[edit]

This article is about Westchester County, NY, and I'm a little confused about the photograph of Grand Central Terminal in the Transportation Section. Grand Central Terminal does not pertain to Westchester County, and the photo should be deleted and replaced with a photo of arrivals and departures at a train station like White Plains, which is the geographic hub of Westchester County.

Anthony22 (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addition of June 3, 2009[edit]

Just a quick note--I updated the page to reflect that Hillary Clinton was now the Secretary of State, not a Senator, and to clarify some relations amongst various people sharing the same last name. Not sure why this was tagged as vandalism. Any issues, please discuss here. Thanks! 66.208.17.254 (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't the one who tagged that as vandalism. In general, it's always wise to edit using a logged-in Wikipedia account rather than edit anonymously with just an anonymous IP address. When you're editing information about someone like Hillary Clinton, it's doubly wise to be logged in. Anonymous edits tend to be viewed with suspicion. TimBRoy (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)\Reply[reply]

Meaning?[edit]

I'm not sure what this sentence means: "Westchester became the first large scale suburban area in the world to develop." Is there an objective definition of "large scale"? Or indeed "develop"? Think we may need a source from this - again, an objective one as it sounds like the sort of banal, vacuous crap that local authorities publish to encourage investment. Tsuguya (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.238.18 (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Westchester County Correctional Facility[edit]

Here is a source about it Callahan, Tom. "On Prison's Little Acre, Time Is Well Spent." The New York Times. July 11, 1993 WhisperToMe (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First use of the name?[edit]

Does anyone know when the name Westchester first appeared in writing in reference to the areas now known as the Bronx and Westchester? What did the Dutch call the area, especially north of Bronck's farm? DCDuring (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popular Culture[edit]

Do things like "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" count as popular culture? If so, Sleepy Hollow is in Westchester and should be mentioned. (2 Jan 2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.185.193 (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it does count. It's mentioned on the articles for Sleepy Hollow, and a bit more thoroughly on the article for Tarrytown, but could be placed on this article as well. Feel free to.--ɱ (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead section[edit]

This section needs quite a bit of work. It really doesn't meet most of the standards as set forth in MOS:BEGIN in MOS:LEAD. I've copy-edited what is there, but it still needs act as a stand-alone summary of the subsequent article.Onel5969 (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus required regarding infobox[edit]

Do you prefer the infobox like this or like this? I support the second one, which is the standard for most counties across the U.S. and looks sleeker, and has a map at the top instead of a big gray bar. The edit to that was reverted on the grounds of needing consensus, so please discuss the change below. Rcsprinter123 (rap) @ 22:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I much prefer the first one, using {{Geobox}}, as {{Infobox}} uses too big of a font size and is too spacious. In addition, some content was removed on the second version, some of which is likely not supported using that template ({{Infobox}}). In addition, the second version has a map of NY's location in the US, which takes up plenty of space and isn't very relevant in the county article, and thus shouldn't be in the infobox regardless of the template used. Other information only present in the first version is much more relevant.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 22:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ɱ makes some very valid points. At first glance I prefer the second, but that US map really throws me. The other problem I have with the second infobox is the lack of the chief executive of the entity. That said, I think there's quite a bit of information in the first which I think shouldn't be in the infobox (lowest point, zip codes, area codes, FIPS, GNIS, Commons link). If we could get rid of the US map and add the county exec I think I like the look of the second more. Onel5969 (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except that's where FIPS and GNIS belong; nowhere else in the article. So given that this is a location with FIPS and GNIS codes and information, it should be linked and in the proper place. As for lowest point, that's a geographical item that is commonly in location infoboxes and is of interest to many, along with highest point (which I should also list). Zip and area codes relate to the county specifically, and people commonly search for this information, and thus they should have Wikipedia as a good encyclopedic source to back that up. In short, the second infobox looks like it belongs at the Simple English Wikipedia, while the first infobox has a detailed and technical overview of certain county aspects, worthy of the high standard that Wikipedia is trying to achieve.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 01:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the Commons link, as a photographer I believe images have as much usefulness in portraying a location as text, if not more. So it's not right to only have a link at the very bottom of the page, even after the references, essentially in a place that few if any readers will scroll to. Let's keep a link in the infobox. They placed that parameter there for a reason.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 01:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not edit the infobox template to include parameters for the things you'd like included: commons link, chief exec etc. Getting consensus there for those changes would prove that your viewpoint is the way to go in the article. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 15:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox Photomontage[edit]

City of White Plains
previously used photo of White Plains
montage of several places
new montage
the photos in discussion

I recently uploaded the photomontage of various locations throughout the county to the infobox, replacing the previous photo of a street in White Plains (I am not sure which one). It has been brought to my attention by ɱ that at least one user prefers the former photo. I, myself, greatly prefer a montage, whether it be the one I created or another, because Westchester is a tremendously diverse county. As residents surely are aware, each city, town, village, and hamlet has its own unique and noticeable identity. It is of course recognized that no montage of a reasonable size could possibly accommodate each of these municipalities nor give a comprehensive depiction of Westchester County. That, however, is not the function of a montage. It is to exhibit an array of eclectic examples that are notable in their own rights and, in aggregate, give a flavor for the county. Therefore, I would like to lay out my justification of each of the photos I selected for inclusion in the montage:

  • Lyndhurst mansion - almost always listed as one of the top visitor attractions of Westchester County for its historic and aesthetic significance
  • Saw Mill River in Getty Square, Yonkers - shows the downtown of the largest city in the county in addition to one of the major waterways
  • Kensico Dam - arguably one of the most significant (and functional) instances of engineering in New York as well as lauded architcture
  • Battle of White Plains memorial - depicts Westchester's rich historical roots while also including a photo from the county seat, White Plains
  • Rye Playland - another site frequently listed on Westchester attractions; listed on the National Register of Historic Places; very storied history; one of the few amusement parks of its kind in the United States

I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks of the matter. Ergo Sum (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefer montages myself. Especially in County articles, which usually cover such a large variety of underlying communities. Only in the case where there is a single unique entity within a county (such as the Grand Canyon in Coconino County), would I think a single picture is better. I also like your choices for the montage. The one issue I have with it, is that the pictures need to be bordered within the montage, to have them "pop" better, right now they are difficult to distinguish and run into each other. Onel5969 (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, I prefer montages; I just said it would be simpler and easier to keep the White Plains image and not go through discussions on forming a good montage. As for Ergo Sum's montage, I also think borders or gaps between the images will help. As for the images themselves:
For representing Westchester's historic sites, I dislike using Lyndhurst. Sure, it's touristy and looks nice, but there are far older buildings of much greater historical and architectural importance. Lyndhurst was just the home of a few rich people and dates to 1838. Conversely, the Philipsburg Manor House and estate was an industrial center of Philipsburg Manor and dates to 1693; the Manor's Old Dutch Church of Sleepy Hollow dates to 1685 and is featured in "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow". The 1825 Elephant Hotel also has more historical and architectural significance.
As for the Saw Mill picture, I would say the Hudson River has a much greater impact and significance on Yonkers as well as the county than the Saw Mill ever had. And there are many photos of Yonkers that show much more of the city.
As for the Kensico Dam, it's a pretty small dam and it's and not very unique in design or appearance. I'd say the Bear Mountain Bridge, which was the longest suspension bridge in the world by span, the Tappan Zee Bridge (longest bridge in New York), or the Croton Aqueduct or Croton Dam are much more unique, influential, and interesting.
The Battle of White Plains memorial is very small and memorializes a battle that hardly anyone knows much about contemporarily, and that's true not only for the general populace but also among Westchester residents. Replacing that photograph with one of Teatown, Stone Barns, Croton Point Park, the Westchester County Center, or a White Plains skyline would probably be better.
Playland is okay to include, though I prefer some above-mentioned sites, however I'd suggest using File:Playland Beach.jpg or another photo. If I had time, I would attempt to take a more representative and crisp photo of Playland. I don't know if I'll be able, however I can recommend that others do so.
Nonetheless, thanks for your work so far. I look forward to more comments from all.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 18:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the montage could use a bit of cleaning up. I'll work on adding proper borders within a couple days as this discussion continues.
With respect to the Kensico Dam and the Battle of White Plains, neither of those are minor incidents. The Kensico Dam was a major engineering accomplishment in its day, was and is an essential source of potable water for NYC, and is still cited in architecture as a well-designed public and infrastructural work. As for the Battle, whether it is known by the average resident of Westchester, I cannot say. However, it is undoubtedly of objective historical significance as an important battle of the Revolutionary War.Ergo Sum (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be moderately important in the context of the Revolutionary War, but it isn't very important when considering Westchester history and culture, which is what we want to depict here. There are many much better options; consider some I list above. The Kensico Dam certainly wasn't more major of an engineering project than either bridge, and is certainly less major than the Croton Aqueduct, which also still provides water for New York City. I also think that the dam isn't any more architecturally notable for being 'well designed' than the Bear Mountain Bridge is for once having the longest suspension span in the world or than the Croton Dam for including a natural and artificial spillway.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 19:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, if you think that "no montage of a reasonable size could possibly accommodate each of [Westchester's] municipalities", I would suggest you remove the municipality names from the caption as being largely irrelevant and highlighting some municipalities and not others.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 19:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do raise a good point; the Battle of White Plains memorial may be more important in the context of the American Revolution than in that of Westchester, making it unwarranted to appear in the infobox montage of Westchester. I do believe that there ought to be a photo of White Plains, considering it is the county seat. Unfortunately, the number of photos that capture an important aspect of White Plains is rather limited. Perhaps, you might agree that the previous infobox photo might be a good replacement. As for Playland, I cannot find any photos on the Commons of Playland that are significantly worthy of replacing the present one. Ergo Sum (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know a few residents of Westchester County who may be able to take better photos of White Plains or Playland, some of whom are Wikipedians and may comment, and some of whom aren't and I can ask them. However I do like File:City of White Plains, Jul 2012.jpg and I had recommended File:Playland Beach.jpg, which isn't on Commons and isn't great full-size, but it still is good in a small size as it would be in the montage.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the photo of White Plains that ɱ posted. The Rye Beach picture is kind of blurry though. This picture, File:Rye Beach Boardwalk.jpg, is a picture I took with my cellphone camera a while back and could be used, although it is kind of blurry too. In addition, I was thinking that we should try to put pictures from throughout the county in the montage. The White Plains image is important and should be there. A Yonkers image, perhaps of Getty Square, is important. The Saw Mill River picture is a good option, but there are plenty of other options, perhaps a picture of Yonkers from across the Hudson River at Palisades State Park in NJ or on a boat in the middle of the river. File:Daylighted_Saw_Mill_River_Downtown_Yonkers.jpg is a good option too. File:Yonkers NY Waterfront.JPG is a picture of the waterfront, from NJ presumably. The Tappan Zee Bridge is a good option, but maybe File:PocanticoRiver3.jpg (Philipsburg Manor) would be a better option for an old building along the Hudson River. For eastern Westchester, a picture of Glen Island or another picture of New Rochelle would be a good idea. That leaves the need for a picture from Northern Westchester. File:New Croton Dam from below.jpg is an option. A picture from North Central Westchester is necessary to give an overall picture of the town, perhaps a picture giving a picture of the rural nature of Northern Westchester. In sum, there a lot of choices to choose from. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ergo Sum: Please reply to the above two comments so we can reach some consensus here.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 17:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree in general that the montage could be bettered by introducing images of a higher quality. The offer to take additional photographs of various locations is surely appreciated. Undoubtedly, though, I believe that a photo ought not be included simply for the sake of the importance of the subject it depicts if the photo is of an inferior quality thereby diminishing both the accurate depiction of the subject and the aesthetic properties of the montage itself. On the issue of geographic diversity, I do believe the montage is rather geographically eclectic, though I recognize that is just my opinion. I think it should be noted that there are areas of Westchester that are disproportionately impactful in both the history of the county and its present state and do deserve their outsized representation. One example that was mentioned and is not currently included is New Rochelle. A picture of Glen Island or, to get two birds with one stone (the other being a historical site), a picture of the Thomas Paine cottage would be excellent examples. I find it difficult to justify the displacement of some very meaningful, in terms of history, population, commerce, and notable events, parts of Westchester by a location in a municipality of the northeastern corner of Westchester, for example.Ergo Sum (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I added the pictures here for context. The montage is better. Many cities on Wikipedia are portrayed with montages. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:RS deleted on 1 July 2018[edit]

The following material was deleted on 1 July 2018 by Ɱ: 

Westchester County ranks #8 among the top 10 counties with the wealthiest people in the United States.[1]

The ostensible reason for the arbitrary deletion of material of excellent provenance (CNBC) was: "Income ranking already listed. Keep it to the US Census, update as needed, provide dates," as if there were space constraints or as if different ways of looking at data were not useful. XavierItzm (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kathleen Elkins (2 February 2017). "The 10 counties where the richest people in America are concentrated". CNBC. Retrieved 1 July 2018. 8. Westchester, New York Average annual income of the top one percent: $4,326,049

COVID-19[edit]

Recently, a new section called Health was created. Currently, the only thing in it is a paragraph about the COVID-19 pandemic. As it stands, it is unreferenced. I think we should develop some consensus on how to treat COVID-19 in this article. I don't think it deserves its own section, since this is an overview article of the county, and that strikes me as recentism. Do others have thoughts on what should and should not be included? Ergo Sum 00:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Westchester Borough, New York" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Westchester Borough, New York. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 27#Westchester Borough, New York until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Westchester_County,_New_York&oldid=1136224303"