Talk:Wyandanch, New York

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move history section to new page[edit]

Thread retitled from "Untitled". Heading edited for more description by czar · · 01:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history section of this page is excellent! Wonderful job, but I think it should probably be moved to it's own separate "History of Wyandanch" page, as it is dominating the current article. Anyone else agree? Also, I apologize if I'm using the "talk page" incorrectly this is my first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nymetropolitans (talk • contribs) 08:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history section definitely dominates the article and could use some paring down to make it more concise and useful to more casual readers. Additionally, although a source is included, the history section contains no inline citations (footnotes), so we don't know where in the source the information is from. Hopefully someone can get his/her hands on the source material and add the footnotes, preferably the individual(s) who added the information in the first place. --JBC3 (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and length concerns[edit]

Thread retitled from "Various Issues". Heading edited for more description by czar · · 01:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a number of serious issues that urgently require attention. Of utmost importance is the fact that nearly all of the article lacks footnotes or is unsourced. The references section has sources listed, but it is not at all clear what information came from those sources. Several chunks of information could constitute their own new articles, but the new articles would totally lack citation. The article itself is too long (and too big in file size), so moving information out into new articles would definitely help, but much of it appears to be overly detailed and could probably be removed. Certain non-neutral point of view words are sprinkled throughout the article such as unfortunately, pristine, and voracious. The article is highly unbalanced, providing substancial historical information but little present-day information. --JBC3 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JBC3 has altered the format of this article from a chronological flow to a topical flow. The problems with this approach is that it disjoints the historical flow of the development of the community and makes it more difficult to add more modern data. But, even if one accepts a topical format, the events within each topic should be presented in a chronological manner. This is not the case with Education. The proper sequence should be 5:1;5:7;5:3,5:4;5:5 and 5:6. JBC3 please use cut and paste or whatever tools you used to re-format the Education section of this article so it makes historical sense. I am working on including more detailed sources and providing post-1970 data. As far as being too long, perhaps this would be better placed on a format such as Google Page Creator. When I started this research, I was hoping to provide detailed historical data about a much misunderstood and greatly sterotyped community-which is one of the largest minority communities in Suffolk County, New York. I would like to see a great range of responses before I remove this from Wikipedia. — 24.184.230.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
It's easy enough to change back to a chronological flow, but the way the article was previously arranged, it had 80% of the content in a history section. Topically, content is easier to find, and I don't feel it is any more difficult to add contemporary information. I've rearranged the subsections in education, though you didn't include 5:2 in your list. Let me know if it looks right to you now. Thanks. --JBC3 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK with the Topical format. In education: 5:2 should be 5:4 and 5:3 should be 5:2 and 5:4 should be 5:3. I would appreciate your changing it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.230.106 (talk)
Done. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. --JBC3 (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it. More sources are coming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.230.106 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of length[edit]

Heading added for new topic by czar · · 01:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the "intricate" detail is concerned. The Wyandanch community has historically been a victim of social apathy, government neglect, and outright racism even on the pages of Wikipedia. This fact proves those most interested in Wyandanch have an interest in protecting its reputation from misinformation and lack of information which has been a real problem to which Wikipedia provides a solution. This page and other minority focused sites are cherished and protected by like minded people. I greatly appreciate the users who have contributed such a rich history about Wyandanch to this site. Thank you so very much. --Landerman56 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010 major edits[edit]

Heading added for new topic by czar · · 01:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verno Whitney: Please do not vandalize or make major changes to this site without discussing them first. That is elementary due process of la.wThe editor: ldoughist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.230.106 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not vandalize the page, and if you feel the change was inappropriate you may replace the content here and we can talk about it. It was, and still is, far too long and needs to have some major sections separated out leaving short summaries here in the main article. I do apologize for not adding a summary of the History yet, but I am less familiar with this subject and figured the split was an important first step. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me this. If a reader types in Wyandanch, will History of Wyandanch come up as a choice or does the person have to type in History of Wyandanch? If there is no choice, won't few people, if any people, know where the History section is? Also, please tell me what a "summary of the History" is? I have replaced the History section pended convincing arguments that historians, sociologists, political scientists and the general reader will have easy access to it. ldoughist — Ldoughist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC).
If a reader types in Wyandanch and clicks "Go" they will come to this page as they do currently, if they click on "Search" then as far as I know it should come up in the first few hits as it has that word in the title (it doesn't yet since the page was just made today and is at present unsearchable). The History section would remain on this page with a link at the top pointing the reader to History of Wyandanch for further detail (as I had set up with my edit). Below that link should be a few paragraphs providing a broad overview and highlighting the most important pieces of history. See for comparison New York and the History of New York articles or India and History of India. I hope that helps better explain what I was trying to do. Are there any other issues that I haven't cleared up for you? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the imput. But it all sounds too complicated. I'd like to leave this as it is. There is very little additional material to be added. Thank you: User talk Ldoughist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.230.106 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sheer size of the article, I'm going to have to disagree with you about leaving it as it is (and I haven't looked over the other sections in detail yet, but again, considering the length and scope of the article, I feel that there are probably a few more that need to be split out). If there are any other interested parties who want to voice their opinions maybe we can form a consensus on the article, so I'll probably ask for a third opinion or start a requests for comments from other editors if nobody else chimes in here. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ldoughist should probably read WP:SUMMARY; summary style is not complicated at all, and it's the only practical way to preserve the extensive history information he/she has written. Powers T 20:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ldoughist thanks one and all for their positive edites. proofreading, and attempts to make this conform to accepted Wikipedia practices. I don't have a problem with splits/separations or summaries as long as the general reader has reasonable access. 24.184.230.106 (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.230.106 (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article length[edit]

Thread retitled from "Current state". Heading edited for more description by czar · · 01:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article, at almost 264000 bytes, is not an encyclopedic article--it's a collection of newspaper clippings. I don't even know where to start. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I broke out the general History section to its own article again per the conversation above. I'm going to start going through it and work up a summary for it to put back in the main article here. It seems like as decent a place to start as any. The same could probably be done for most of the other sections. Then I figure the smaller and more manageable subsection articles could be gone through for converting sources into footnotes and whatever rewriting needs to be done to make them more encyclopedic. Some, like notable natives are probably small enough to work with all on their own in the existing article. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well put; agreed. It was very frightening when I first came upon this article. And the article is still growing at a rate of 10 KB a week or so. Gary King (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, I see ~ 4 IP edits a day on average. Either someone really likes his hometown or doesn't understand the term "summary style", no offense. And please pardon the comparison, but... This article reads like Bulbasaur when it was FA'd. That's bad. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 04:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm afraid I'm at a loss for how to write a summary for the history section. I'm having trouble even picking out general trends to talk about. I've been trying to figure out when Wyandanch itself was founded and what few hard facts are in the new article I split out appear to be contradicted by Deer Park, New York#History. If someone can make heads or tails of it, please help. For now, I've just put in what there was for history from 2 years ago, when it was an actual (if unsourced) summary. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ldoughist responds: What is now Wyandanch, NY evolved. Originally it was part of Half Way Hollow Hills, later as my history clearly indicates: it was named: West Deer Park, Wyandance and finally Wyandanch (1903) by the Long Island Railroad. Don't waste your time using Wikipedia's Deer Park, New York article as a source. It is rife with errors and is worthless. As I said in my history: Deer Park (1853) and West Deer Park (1875 evolved out of Half Way Hollow Hills. I have no problem with you professionals altering the form of this badly needed article, but if you are going to significantly edit the substance (i.e. the facts of this much misunderstood community-the poorest and most oppressed on Long Island-then all my material added over the past two years should beremoved and I'll look for another website such as Google Page Creator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.230.106 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that the other article is inaccurate, and I don't wish to remove your well-sourced encyclopedic information. I apologize if I gave any impression to that effect. What I wish to do is make it readable so that the included information is readily accessible. What I was attempting to say above is simply that I am unable to figure out a way to summarize the information. You say that the history clearly indicates the name changes; i say that it does not clearly indicate them to me, and so I have done what I could and copied an old History section in as the summary. If you or anyone else can provide a better summary than I have, then I request and encourage that it be done. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Actually, the old history summary concisely suumarizes the evolution of the names Wyandanch has had. You can leave it as you placed it. You do seem like a reasonable person. Ldoughist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.230.106 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ldoughist: I know this is a long article but it is 96% completed. Most of the recent additions have been sources which have repeatedly been requested. — 24.184.230.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

I Happened to stumble across the split out page during New Page Patrolling. This article clearly needs a lot of work and an editor to do the task of removing unnecessary content and making this article streamlined and readable. (A good place to start: the notable people section. Generally the people should only be there if they have a WP article.) If combined, these two articles would be the 8th largest non-list article on Wikipedia. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting statistic however I do not see the relevance. To argue that material should be deleted and/or made unavailable simply because people would actually have to read it is misguided. --Landerman56 (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is good, and very detailed, but the sheer amount of information was not appealing. One can read what this article is saying in a newspaper archive, and the only main difference is the accessibility. Try to broaden things a bit, and "wikify" your citations. Serafino bueti (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good source for a future article, but it is not an article at all as it stands. Almost 1000 words about a 5-person protest of sand pits in 1957? Notability issues apply to almost every item here (not to mention the dozens of local "notables" who have no WP article and properly so). It's a wonderful enjoyable collection of clippings but should be published as a blog and a booklet for local interest. It would also make a fine section of a Wyandanch.com site, but simply is not an encyclopedia article. People are being very circumspect about making the radical edits required--despite the creation of the redundant History of Wyandanch page--and I'm afraid that if I start on the vast amount of work required to turn this into useable information, it will just be reverted to this mulligan stew again. All I've done is to move the three actually summary sections to the top, so a reader can find them. Can somebody with some authority solve this ongoing problem? 208.46.159.170 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Cleanup[edit]

For my own reference (or anyone else should they happen to feel like taking a stab at it):

  • This was a version from early '08 which was very stub-like: concise, but not very informative.
  • This is the first version where it was rearranged topically. The catch is that all of the topical information is still historical.

The article should be examined from a modern perspective and revised under Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Take a look at examples from Category:FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles (or even the recently delisted New York City). VernoWhitney (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So much of the detail could be moved to other articles, though. A lot of the railroad history could be moved to the Wyandanch (LIRR station) article. The stuff on Conklin Road could be added to New York State Route 24. As for chapters on industry within Wyandanch, one notable business is the Weld-Built Wrecker and Carrier company. If this company was mentioned in the article, I missed it. ----DanTD (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent positive suggestions,Dan TD. The Weldbuit omission is a very good point. The Town of Babylon is working on purchasing the Weldbuilt property as part of its $500 million "Wyandanch Rising" effort to uplift downtown Wyandanch with a regional parking center and innovative stores and abovestore condos. This is one of the greatest community redevelopment programs underway in the entire United States. An understanding of much of this detailed history is necessary if we are to understand why the "Wyandanch Rising" program is vital-not only to Wyandanch but also to the Town of Babylon, Suffolk County and the State of New York. Also, new shorter articles could be developed-especially for many of the "Notable Natives." Rev. Dr. Sherman Hicks, a bishop in the Lutheran Church of America, who grew up in Wyandanch and attended its much maligned and underfunded public schools, should surely have a Wikipedia article. ldoughist74.89.79.46 (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC) — 74.89.79.46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Dan TD-I took your valid suggestion and added an item on WELD BUILT Wrecker & Carrier. Thanks again. Thanks also to the many fine people who have made constructive edits. — 74.89.66.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Footnote citations[edit]

Heading added for new topic by czar · · 01:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate whoever took the time to work on the footnote citations. Thank you: Ldoughist — 24.184.230.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Re: "History of Wyandanch" deletion[edit]

Heading added for new topic by czar · · 01:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the History of Wyandanch? Where can I find it? Why was it removed? Who removed it? A little help please. — 24.186.54.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC) (UTC). Where is the very informative History of Wyandanch? Who removed it? Why? It had important information about so many interesting topics and families. How can I access it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.222.22 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong but it seems as if an Englishman living in Dubai has removed access to the History of Wyandanch and "protected" it so it cannot be edited or even read by the general public. It is said to have been "redirected" to Wyandanch, New York but when one clicks on the History or History of Wyandanch links nothing appears. I know hundreds, if not thousands of people have looked at this History of Wyandanch over the past three years. I would appreciate feedback as to if objective/concerned readers believe this removal is justified and the article should be restored. Ldoughist (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Ldoughist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Almost all those people looked at this page because comedy websites link here. It's funny because an insignificant hamlet has one of the longest articles on wikipedia.90% of this article should be erased. Wikipedia is not a book. It should be a concise summary of a subject with sources, and maybe links to more reading. This goes into every little thing that ever happened.98.229.58.193 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What comedy website link here? We would like to know. Significanse is in the eye of the beholder. Ldoughist24.186.54.232 (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one. Powers T 14:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I have begun cleaning this up a bit. The sheer amount of trivia was overwhelming, and it's a shame--whatever really happened in this town is invisible, hidden behind extended paragraphs on schoolchildren planting flowers and lengthy descriptions of fires. There is no excuse for the amount of poorly sourced and only locally relevant information here, and a few shortcuts come to mind: WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL (the 1971 death of a police officer, which isn't notable in the first place, took up 2507 characters). Drmies (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies-who are you to say that the death of a Suffolk County Police officer is "not notable"? Please do not remove this. We value and honor our police officers. Ldoughist24.186.54.232 (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC) — 24.186.54.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I am a Wikipedia editor who has read WP:NOTMEMORIAL, which I linked above. You should have a look at it. As sad as a death is, Wikipedia articles are not memorials. Imagine if we memorialized every dead policeman. And why are dead policemen more notable than dead ordinary humans? Drmies (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lady of Shalott- Thanks for doing a fine job with the endnotes. Drmies and Lady of Shallot should understand that it is a grave disservice to have totally wiped out all reference to the remarkable "Wyandanch Rising" program. This is an up to $500 million community development program, which has been evolving since 2003. It is one of the most innovative and exciting community development programs in the entire United States. I don't know where you live but this is an unusual bipartisan effort by federal, state, county and town governemts and private business in the USA to revitalize one of the poorest and most afflicted communities on otherwise affluent Long Island. I understand your stress on brevity but totally eliminating all reference to it is quite inexplicable. 24.186.54.232 (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Ldoughist24.186.54.232 (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who are condensing this admittedly long article have overreacted by completely removing the Business and Industry section. While this community is perhaps the poorest in Suffolk County; sat one time major corporations (Fairchild, Grumman, Atlantic & Pacific Tea, Geneovese Drugs and other)had tax paying, job producing businesses in this community. They deserve some mention. 24.186.54.232 (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Need for some acknowledgement of Business and Industry in Wyandanch24.186.54.232 (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Ldoughist[reply]

Perhaps you could say here what seems most relevant. The problem is the article is so overdone, it can make it difficult to tell just what should stay. We should not list every company that has ever existed in the town. LadyofShalott 17:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the many problems with the article, is that it seems to be written for insiders with the idea that every little factoid is notable. I had to discover, mid-paragraph, that the hamlet started with a station on the LIRR, and the article didn't even explain that this abbreviation meant the Long Island Rail Road. The article doesn't even give a physical description of the hamlet. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lady of Shalott-I have added a brief description of industry in Wyandanch since 1929 24.186.54.232 (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Ldoughist24.186.54.232 (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on your talk page, please see WP:CITE... Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC

Vandalism[edit]

Heading added for new topic by czar · · 01:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert my edits. They are only removing minor details, repetition or facts that are off target. This is constructive editing, not vandalism. Ldoughist — 24.186.54.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This is a serious historical site. It is not the place for racist remarks (an example was recently cleaned up) Posting bigoted statements is entirely unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Ldoughist — 24.228.33.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Demographics and income[edit]

Thread retitled from "History". Heading edited for more description by czar · · 01:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough information about demographics and income which are normally included on town entries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.85.110 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MLK Anachronism??[edit]

It is customary to name buildings and things for dead people. There are exceptions, but MLK was alive in 1967. "On the first three nights of August 1967, racial disturbances broke out in Wyandanch as small groups of young African-American adults reportedly smashed windows in three stores, overturned two cars, set fire to the auditorium of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School on Mount Avenue,"--Wlmg (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wyandanch,_New_York&oldid=1216213161"