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

Philadelphia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have again removed much of the promotional material from the article. Wikipedia aims to present NPOV articles based on material from independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPhd, I have made numerous revisions to this page. Initially, your comments were quite helpful, and while I didn't understand the changes right away, it made for a better article. I had modeled this page after Chestnut Hill, Mount Airy, and East Falls in terms of style. You comment on none of those pages, yet repeatedly pick on this one. Your comments have now highlighted that you clearly are holding a personal grudge, especially in your tone. Details that were totally fine in the entire time are now being attacked, despite me making numerous re-writes to appease you. As a neighborhood, we created this page. We were so happy to have finally made one, and we united behind it. With each of your attacks on the page, another neighbor writes me with sadness to notify me of your most recent caprices. You have singlehandedly killed all of our collective excitement and civic pride. Most neighbors think it's not even worth it anymore. You seem to have no other interest online than this site. I have faith though that you will take your interests elsewhere--perhaps to the neighborhood above--and leave us alone.

WmPorter (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)WmPorter[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia has other articles (millions of them, in fact). However, the state of another article (or other articles) is not binding on this article. (If there are problems with other articles, feel free to fix them).

I do not have a person grudge against you (I don't know who you are), this neighborhood (I've been through every neighborhood in the city numerous times, I don't have a clear picture of this neighborhood), etc. (I will get back to the disputed info in a moment.)

There are several problems with you, "as a neighborhood" creating this page. First, the article was written under one user account. A user account is for one individual user, not groups of people. Next there is the issue of conflict of interest. Wikipedia seeks to provide neutral articles on all topics it covers. Despite your "collective excitement and civic pride", Wikipedia is not for promoting your neighborhood. Perhaps your attention would be better directed toward building a website for your neighborhood; Wikipedia is not the place for that either.

As for the content disputes, Wikipedia has procedures for that as well. For openers, I will be requesting a third opinion. I will be basing the request for that opinion on the changes you made in mass reverting all of my edits.

For the moment, I am leaving the article as is. In our future interactions, however, please avoid making the assumption that I am attacking you or your neighborhood. Additionally, until you have a better understanding of what is considered vandalism on Wikipedia, please do no call my edits "vandalism' (content disputes, as here, are not vandalism). - SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I initially modeled this neighborhood page after the Wikipedia pages already in existence. I completely agree that the initial tone (while matching many pages already on here, yet not touched by you) was too promotional and could be perceived as being realtor-ism (despite the reality that I am not a realtor). I revised according. I have already stated in another spot that I did not comment on my edits because tech-wise I did not know how. You have repeatedly found something new to address, and while I have made many revisions, you are still not happy. Your editing notes also contradict each other at times, indicating there really is no way to please you. You state that me saying the ABC station is down the block is trivial and you remove it, and then later you want me to add that we have a McDonalds and Dunkin Dounts. Those places are everywhere, ABC is not. It is an interesting fact that ABC is down the street from us. You initially removed all of the Points of Interest and then recently added in a water treatment plant as one. No one pays admission to see a water treatment plant. It is not a point of interest. You added a Greek picnic event to the page that is absent 364 days of the year, yet if I added the breast cancer walk that goes right through the neighborhood each year, you would have surely removed that as being trivial too.

You even questioned the maps that I referenced. The maps show McClatchy building the homes and you actually stated these sources are unreliable because there's no way of knowing that the homes on 1927 map are still the same homes standing there today. What?!? With that flawed logic, we could never use a map to prove the existence of anything. If you lived in a Civil War era townhouse and showed me a map from 1830 when your block was farmland and then an 1870 map showing your block fully developed, would I question whether your block was torn down in the 1950s and then rebuilt as new homes? No. I would see the pictures you posted on your Wikipedia page and see old houses that matched what the map said. Look at the photos. The homes are from the 1920s. The homes along Conshohocken Ave. have plaques built right into them that say Built by John McClathy.

Lastly, we all have a personal interest in the pages we create. Who would create a Wikipedia page for a topic that had no interest to them? Wikipedia lives by people like me... and you... who have a personal interest in topics and want to then factually share this topic with the world. Your recent edits indicate not only contradictions in your previous edits but also display a personal interest in this page that makes it hard for me to assume good faith in you recently. I do appreciate that you have stopped the editing and sought a third party.

WmPorter (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)WmPorter[reply]

Wow, that's a lot to address. Here are the issues, one by one.

You modeled this page after other pages that I have not edited. Other articles exist. Many of them have issues. I can't address all of them.

You've tried to address some of my concerns but I find other problems. There is no deadline. This article will never be "done". If you and I were to finally agree on everything, another editor or editors might come along today, next year or five years from now and find problems. Wikipedia is a project, not a product.

My comments involving McDonalds, et al was related to the inclusion of some chains (Target, Saks) while ignoring more pedestrian chains was selective in a way meant to paint a more flattering picture of the neighborhood.

The water treatment plant is a more significant neighbor than any TV studio. In addition to being far larger that both studios combined and employing more people it is far closer to the neighborhood.

The Greek Picnic is clearly a significant event for the area. The local civic association, in their limited discussion of events in the area, proudly discusses their working with the police regarding the Picnic. The Breast Cancer Walk is not mentioned. Further, you fault me based on your assumption that if you if you had added it, I surely would have removed it. Please assume good faith.

I stated that a class project talking making assumptions about houses built in the area is not a reliable source because it isn't.

I stated that the maps, showing that some houses existed in some locations by given dates, did not show that the houses there now were built before those dates. Maps of the area where my house is show a house here as early as the late 18th century. Our house was built shortly after WWI. The map does not determine the age of my house. We can determine the age of this house. The article on the neighborhood that I live in (which I have not edited) does not mention the age of my house or the houses on my block because it is trivial information. The ages of buildings that are mentioned are discussed in independent reliable sources, not extrapolated from various maps or determined by reading plaques of unknown origin. The age of Carpenters' Hall, Christ Church, Philadelphia, Gloria Dei (Old Swedes') Church, etc. are based on dates published by reliable sources.

Yes, I have a "personal interest in the pages (I) create". I do not create or edit articles on topics that I have a personal connection to. Their are articles on Wikipedia about my employer, organizations that have funded grants for projects I am/have been involved it, the neighborhood I live in, my high school, my undergrad school, my grad school schools, several of my colleagues, etc. I do not edit those articles. I have made a few small edits[1][2][3][4][5][6],etc.) to Philadelphia, where I live, and more significant edits to some of the events and locations in this city (though none that I have a personal connection to -- I'm not a Mummer's Parade, for example).

Now that we have a third opinion, let's see what we can do to make this a better (unbiased, verifiable, reliably sourced) article. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a third opinion helped. Good call. We still disagree on the matter of homes, however. You repeatedly label various details as trivial and indeed you are right with some. McDonalds is definitely trivial since they are everywhere. Saks is not as commonplace and could be important to note for a few readers. Ultimately though, while trumping McDonalds, it is not THAT important, and thus you are right. The age of one's home is important though to many people--many more than those who would be interested in Saks... or McDonalds. According to Wikipedia's policy on handling trivia, just because you find the age of your home unimportant doesn't mean you can judge the interests of all readers.

Additionally, as for the reliability of the Bryn Mawr site, let's be honest here. It does not take a rocket scientist to find Inquirer ads on microfilm. As two people with a few graduate degrees between us, we know that grad students surely must possess the intellectual capacity to accomplish the job correctly. If you read that 1927 ad for "Bala", you will see (1) that it's the same house from my photo and (2) the "motoring" directions take you BELOW City Ave on the Philly side. Seems like people were trying to upmarket these homes even back in 1927 as McClatchy called them a "suburban property" at "Bala". If you go to the 1910 map on the link, you can see no homes of present day Belmont Village existed. The 1927 map shows McClatchy having bought the southern side of Conshohocken Ave, and each of these homes have plaques saying John McClatchy built them. The deed to my house even has John McClatchy in it (but that would be original research). Lastly, he didn't build anything in the 1930s because the Depression wiped him out. So, I am undoing what you changed (because I need to see my words back in order to revise) and then revising the phrasing because you are right about some of it. I hope you find the new revision more direct.

WmPorter (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)WmPorter[reply]

Here's a solid, simple shortcut on the trivia issue. Information that is not discussed in independent reliable sources in relation to the topic of the article is trivial. Yes, we can certainly find numerous sources that mention McDonalds or Saks on City Line Ave. However, we are unlikely to find substantial coverage in reliable sources discussing either in relation to Belmont Village. As a test case, consider the issue of the McDonalds that opened in Chestnut Hill roughly 7-8 years ago. There was sufficient controversy and challenge to such a "vulgar" business in an exclusive area that it received significant coverage in the Inquy and a few other sources. Without checking, I'm willing to bet it isn't in our article on Chestnut Hill because it is not of enduring significance to Chestnut Hill. Ditto the McDonalds and Saks for Belmont Villiage.

Now, onto the age of the houses. Comparing various ads and maps to current houses and making deductions about locations are the very heart of synthesis. If you have reliable sources directly discussing the ages of houses in Belmont Village, you might have something. At present, you do not. I have yet to see individual sources discussing this. Rather, we have ads for houses with a description of their location and maps of the purported location over the years from which we are extrapolating dates for the current houses there. As for the plaques on the houses, we do not know who placed them there or how they determined the information on them. In any event, they are neither independent nor reliable sources Take a look at Clara Bow. The article provides a reliable source for her birth date. Later in the article is her grave marker with a different date. The talk page speculates about the contradiction while the article -- as it should -- sticks to what the independent reliable sources say. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit claims "Inquirer ads referenced are 100% reliable" in support of "The original homes of the neighborhood date back to 1924 and were built by John H. McClatchy, a popular builder of fine homes during the 1920s.cite"

Whether or not a student class project (the webpage) citing ads is a reliable source is not a rational question. It is not. Ignoring that, the page cited shows one image, apparently an ad, perhaps from the Inquirer, undated. Are ads reliable sources? For very limited information, yes. We could possibly cite an ad for "Joe's says their macaroni and cheese is the tastiest". Citing an ad would not prove that "Joe's macaroni and cheese is the tastiest."

In any case, the image does not say: 1) these were the first homes of Belmont Villiage 2) they were built in 1924 3) McClatchy was a "popular" builder in the 1920s 4) McClatchy built "fine" homes

Incidentally, they are "houses". Real estate agents call them "homes". - SummerPhD (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit equates the editor's personal observations with simple facts. Yes, Paris is the capital of France and that is a meaningful fact about France. However, we have "In Belmont Village one can find stone twins, stucco twins, stone row homes, brick row homes, Tudor-inspired row homes, and Spanish-inspired row homes. Most homes have access to a garage behind it via a network of private alleyways." Belmont Village also has sidewalks, roads, mentally ill people, garbage, air, piles of dirty laundry and millions of other things. Yes, someone selling houses in the area might wish to expound upon some of the houses, ignoring others and, of course, focusing on housing. As for "most" houses having garages and alleyways, it is unsupported by any reliable source having done a count and, more importantly, trivial. The reason we don't discuss Belmont Villages piles of dirty laundry or supposed "Tudor-inspired" houses is that it is a trivial matter. We establish that facts are not trivial (and, of course, factual) is by citing reliable sources, not by visiting an area. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of two editors involved in a dispute over the content of this article. (Please note I have indicated the other editor seems to have a conflict of interest and claims to be editing on behalf of a number of people from one account.) As an opening to the disputed content, please review the changes mass reverted by the other editor here. (All of the changes reverted were edits I made, save a minor bot edit dating a template.) Each edit was individually reverted with the edit summary, "Undid revision 394685565 by SummerPhD (talk) Vandalized by SummerPhD--She has personal grudge". The edits I made included edit summaries descriptive of the changes, along with two more in-depth comments on this talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Hi! I'm here to offer a third opinion. Let's all keep cool; I think it's very exaggerated to label SummerPhD's edits as "vandalism", I highly doubt any user can have a "personal grudge" over something as minor as a middle class neighborhood. While there are conflict of interest issues, User:WmPorter's actions (excluding the editing summary) don't look to be overtly malicious, but they do contain weasel words and unreliable sources, which rightfully should be removed. Some of the paragraphs are harmless (such as the Demographics section), but sentences like "A few blocks to the east, one will find... Saks Fifth Avenue, Target, and several dining options" make like content sound like a brochure. A fair compromise would be to keep some of the content, but remove anything that is unreferenced with reliable sources or promotional in tone, as according to Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and original research. Hope that helps!—hkr Laozi speak 22:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Third Party:

Thanks for the input. I will edit accordingly. WmPorter (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)WmPorter[reply]

The boundaries for Belmont Village are currently unsourced. One source, a map with few street names, has been offered as a source. Searching for a source, I am confounded by the numerous sources that consider the area in question to be part of wynnefield. The article, as written, will have none of this, insisting that "Belmont Village is isolated from West Philadelphia due to the natural and man-made barriers surrounding it. Belmont Village is separated from its closest neighbor to the west, Wynnefield, by the grounds of the Bala Golf Club and SEPTA’s Cynwyd Line (formerly the R6)..." (unsourced).

However, our article Wynnefield, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania includes this area. Also lumping them in is InfoResources at UPenn[7]. For its part, the City of Philadelphia' Department of Records[8] recognizes the Wynnefield name for the area, starting in the 1920s[9]. The City is unaware of historic usage of the name "Belmont Village"[10].

Of all the sources cited in the article (census.gov, various historic maps, Bryn Mawr College, City Ave. Business District, etc.) only two mention the neighborhood. The Preservation Alliance gives the name in passing[11], but with no content to justify the material attributed to it. The only source that specify says anything about "Belmont Village" is the Belmont Village Community Association.

Wikipedia articles must be based on independent reliable sources discussing the topic in question. At present, this article does not meet that standard and is not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belmont Village is referenced on Page 5 of the OFFICIAL PHILADELPHIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAP that I referenced earlier. SummerPhD unacceptably removed this official reference and then cited the lack of any official government agencies recognizing Belmont Village. There is none because she removed it. I have added it back. WmPorter (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)WmPorter[reply]

The map in question does mention the neighborhood on the map. However, it does not verify the boundaries it is used as a cite for. I am moving the map to an "External links" section so that it will remain attached to the article. From where I'm sitting, the boundaries the map shows do not include the golf club and park. Rather, the boundaries are all roads. As such, the neighborhood includes the houses discussed as well as a gas station and a motel, which have not been mentioned. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, SummerPhD quotes a map (the InfoResources at UPenn map) where it says directly on the page "The neighborhood boundaries presented here are tentative and only for mapping purposes. InfoR needs users' assistance to redefine these boundaries. Please send your comments to InfoR." And, the directory of city neighborhoods she references fails to include numerous neighborhoods, Graduate Hospital and Fitler Square being two of them. SummerPhD has also repeatedly referenced the inaccuracy of other Wiki sites, yet now she is using one (Wynnefield) to prove her point. She is contradicting her very own principles of good research in an effort to tear down this site. WmPorter (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)WmPorter[reply]

None of the sources are perfect, of course. Wiki pages are not valid as sources. I point to the Wynnefield page in the interest of avoiding conflicting information. This page says the area in question is not part of Wynnefield and separated from it by the park. The Wynnefield article says it is part of Wynnefield. Additionally Wynnefield Heights, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania lists Belmont Ave. as its western boundary. This article, however, says the two neighborhoods are separated by the water treatment facility. I'll add "conflict" tags. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. See Page 2 of the map referenced. It identifies all of the Recreational Land bordering the west and south of Belmont Village. The area identified on Page 2 and 5 are exactly the same. That is the golf club and the park. 2. Wynnefield Heights is not in conflict with the Belmont Village page. Belmont Avenue is our eastern border and their western border. Please re-read their page and you will see you misread. 3. The Wynnefield page is no longer in conflict. It has been updated to reflect a city map. The Wynnefield page is already cited for missing numerous references, so perhaps you can help them improve their page since they are already factually incorrect.

Thus, I am undoing your conflict note and restoring the reference since Page 2 and Page 5 support that sentence in the article

WmPorter (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)WmPorter[reply]

"Belmont Village is separated from its closest neighbor to the east, Wynnefield Heights, by the Belmont Water Treatment Facility..." The sources, however, do not support this. Per the sources, the water treatment facility (which you have tended to cal the res) is part of Wynnefield Heights, much as the gas station and motel are part of Belmont Village.

The boundaries of the surrounding neighborhoods are on "incorrect" to the extent that they are at varience with the boundaries used in this article. As other, equally reliable sources confirm the boundaries those pages use, the problem is that the various pages fail to spell out the facts. Some sources consider "Belmont Village" to be a neighborhood. Some sources consider it to be a part of Wynnefield. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]