Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force

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

Thanks[edit]

To The Ornamentalist for taking the iniative and doing the work of getting this up and running!

Ratings/priorities[edit]

In anticipation of tagging articles which come fall under the HCTF thought it would be an idea to get some sort of idea/consensus as how to rate them in terms of importance. Identified are some areas that should be considered though likly to be many more.

  • Municipalities: H
    • Neighborhoods: mid
    • Steets: low, w/ exceptions
  • Education:
    • higher
    • private
    • municipal systems
  • Sites:
    • National Historic sites: H
    • NJ Historic sites: M
    • Cemeteries: M
    • LSP:
    • Undesignated, should be or are noteworthy:?
  • Transportation
    • Is it an idean to do a template to reduce some repetition found in each article?
    • HBLR:H
    • hubs:M
    • sinlge stations:L
    • roads/streets:L w/ exceptions
  • Geography
    • waterways
    • landforms
    • parks/preserves
  • People:
    • Mayors:
    • politicians (dead or alive)
  • Politics:
    • current official
    • historical
    • districts
  • Economy
    • not really discussed in a any significant way
Is this ongoing? Perhaps National Register of Historic Places listings in Hudson County, New Jersey should be Mid or High importance for the Task force, and each of the specific NRHP-listed places would be Low importance by default, or higher for any specific special reason that applies. --doncram (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm kind of back[edit]

still no reliable internet, using wifi. I added new section for accomplishments related to this task force. In fact, any work I do under the scope of HC I will probably put here. I'll be back soon for good. Hope all has been well with you guys - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Nice work on Three Pigeons. I left some notes there. I have down lots of work on HOTH, but haven't yet float article, and needs some clean up. When a little more presetable, will let you know. (sooner than later)Djflem (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments[edit]

So I am trying to get a basis from Rhvanwinkles work and Djflems outline above, and I have some comments. Since this is just regarding Hudson County, I think it would be okay to bump up some importances, and remodify, an example being that I think municipalities, like UC or NB should become Top priority as opposed to the proposed High, mainly because the category Top exists as based on the project, and we should use it. I can't imagine Kearny being Top on other project (and maybe it doesn't belong here at that spot either) but I believe we should use the full spectrum of the scale, or else we'll end up with a ton of mid and low importance articles. Let me know what you think. And when are we gonna get together? - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firtly, thanks for getting the grid going. Something don't seem to show up and I wonder if there's something up with that. Is there a delay? for evalution? Do you know how evaluation numbers are determined? I agree that we should use full range, and had forgotten that TOP was a choice. JC, UC, Hob, and maybe Bynne should be top as largest towns as should Hoboken Terminal. No longer extant Railroad terminals in New York City? Believe Bergenline, JSQ, and Exchange Place are high as extremely important commerical districts as is Paulus Hook as earliest settlement and most significanltly transformed district. (Have moved Hamilton to mid are other historic disticts). What about bridges on List of crossings of the Hackensack River?. By the way is there a list choice in grid for non-featured lists for that and Historic districts in Hudson County, New Jersey? Some are as significant as tunnels, certainly Pulaski Skyway is is high? I will continue to tag to get stuff of the board, but my choices are flexible.Djflem (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you said about assessing. It can be done manually here, or a bot does roughly every day (I think). Regarding some of the lists and stuff, I'm not sure, since that river flows through all of north Jersey, it certainly is important and relevent (as it shaped the county), so I dont know... btw, I'm looking forward to HOTH. I can see it will take some cleanup, but you have a lot of great content and expanded by a ton. Let me know when (if) you'd like to go over it and if you'd like any help. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added 3 things to TOP list: HBLR, LSP, and Hob Term, all of which have county-and are national significance. Whaddya think? As I move around tagging, I realize that in order to accurately list HC articles we may need to bump things up as some stuff that would go in low or mid would be seriously diminished in importance when compared to other items in category. Two specific areas are Category:Neighborhoods in Hudson County, New Jersey and Category:People from Hudson County, New Jersey. Especially if we go into latter, we will get in trouble. Any suggested parameters? Should we do live people. How is there notability re:Hudson to be rated?Djflem (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Bob Menedez is senator and home grown, Corzine moved here.[reply]

I agree, they belong in the top. As far as the rest... I'm not sure. I feel that maybe someone who is born and/or raised in the area should maintain a higher priority, as that's something that cannot change, whereas someone like Corzine could potentially move. An example being Stephen Colbert, for a period on Wikipedia would have had his residence listed in Gutenberg. Maybe something like
  • Person of National Sig. born/raised here: H (cant think of anyone)
  • Sig Person born here: M (Menendez)
  • Move-ins (currently in): L (Corzine)
  • Move-ins (currently out): don't list (Colbert)


- Theornamentalist (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I relocated a number of the categories back on Novemeber 21 for the HCTF in order to fix the automatic assessment process. In order for the bot to update properly, the task force categories must be listed in the same way as the WikiProject category. Nobody commented on it, so I was just leaving a note to explain the change. It has fixed the problem where Hudson County cam first alphabetically, and was overriding the counts in the WPNJ assessment table. The tables are now correct. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JC rail embankments[edit]

I just finished uploading Media related to Former railway lines in New Jersey at Wikimedia Commons, a bunch of pix made on a cloudy afternoon in Jersey City two months ago (dreadful processing backlog). I hope someone who knows the place better will provide identifications and background information and insert some of them into appropriate articles. And, less urgently, will put some pictures of other NJ former rail lines into the category. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures look good, is your bike like Waldo? I ended up looking for it in pictures where it wasn't seen right away..
I saw this other amazing abandoned place on 1&9 south side in North Bergen, I pass it all the time and I believe its called "Pennsylvania Railroad 2" or something, I had tried researching it, but didn't come up with anything actually. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I unimaginatively call my Brompton Bicycle "Brommie" or "Black Brom" but "Waldo" would be a nice name. Then I'd have to figure how get it into more pictures, which would slow me down, which would improve my pictures, since haste is a main contributor to making my pix bad. From Google Earth your place looks like an abandoned trolley line, north of the existing Tonnelle Avenue station.

I spent that entire day in JC and Hoboken, and don't plan to return to the West Side this year and when I do, it will be on my hasty way to and from Secaucus, so someone else must get the fun of chasing your question. Thursday is to be a trip over GWB to Lookout Inn on the NY / NJ border, with a disciplined biker gang who will make me even more hasty than when I'm alone. So many interesting places to go; so few days in a lifetime. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I meant as in Where's Waldo? I will probably head over there sometime soon, if I can find anything notable about, or anything about it in general. In the very least, it looks cool, so I want to take some pictures anyway. Let me know when you're in the area; Nightscream and I have been trying to meet up, but I got hit these last week and this one with business. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was the one being too obscure about Waldo. The group bike trip to the State Line Inn was more grueling in the heat than photogenic. Tell us when anyone will get together; I can always make time to meet friends. And I hope more photographers will show up at the big two day Wikiparty in Long Island City (or possibly Greenwich Village) in late August. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Driving by Kennedy...[edit]

this weekend, I saw someone across the street from Scheutzen Park taking pictures... and I wonder "is that one of the Wikipedians?" haha - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was wondering if someone could go over an article I've been working on: User:Theornamentalist/Sandbox4 It's not done yet, but let me know :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pulaski Skyway FAR[edit]

User:Dream out loud has nominated Pulaski Skyway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JJ98 (Talk) 07:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoboken mayors[edit]

I have decided that I would like to bring the Hoboken mayor list up to Featured List quality. Having done this for the Jersey City mayors list, I think I have a pretty good handle on the list article itself. One of the requirements is to clear out the redlinks in Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey so that every member of the list has an article. There are currently 24 mayors without articles. I have a workshop page in my user space where I have been collecting information for creating the articles. I would love some help in completing these articles, and bringing another FL to the task force. There is also a requested move (over a redirect) to move List of mayors of Hoboken, New Jersey to Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. If anyone wishes to support or object to the move, please see the talk page. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 21:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of templates for federal, state and county representation[edit]

Is their an opinion or consensus regarding the use of these templates (or the like) in county or municipality articles under the heading Federal, state and county representation?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by djflem (talk • contribs) 13:17, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

While my opinion is still that the use of the legislative and congressional district templates is appropriate for use in each article, prior consensus said otherwise. I tend to look at municipal articles as being the first point of research for someone who has just moved to a town, or may be considering it. I also consider the point of an encyclopedia to impart knowledge. How many times have the media reported about the number of people who do not know the names of the state and congressional representatives? It is important, and IMO essential, information. I also understand the opposing view that a link to the district provides ample opportunity for readers to get the same information. I also think that the use of the templates greatly simplifies maintenance of the articles by providing a central location for making changes that occur pretty often. I do think that the use of the Freeholders template is excessive in town articles, as each town does not need the complete list of freeholders included. The Governor template really doesn't need to be included in 566 municipal articles. I would no sooner include it than I would {{Template:Current New Jersey statewide political officials}} in every article. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed changes being made to municipal articles reflecting updates to council members following reorganization meetings held at the start of January and came to the realization that the 21 county templates have not been consistently update and now was the perfect time to get them up to date. Going through all 21 counties in alphabetic order, Template:NJ Atlantic County Freeholders was the first template updated, and there have been no issues with the inclusion of ward-based seats on the template included on all of that counties municipalities, nor has there been any issue with Template:NJ Essex County Freeholders, which also has wards and uses the freeholder template in all of its municipal articles. After making some revisions to the Template:NJ Hudson County Freeholders, I went back to the 12 articles for Hudson County's municipalities and applied the same set of templates there that have been applied in all 20 other counties, totaling 554 articles statewide where the templates appear to work effectively. While I would tend to agree that the Template:NJ Governor is debatable, I believe that the Template:NJ Congress 13, Template:NJ Legislative 33 (or 31, as appropriate) and the Template:NJ Hudson County Freeholders add information that is directly relevant to all 12 municipalities and that they provide useful information about those municipalities that should remain in the article. The corresponding templates have worked well in all 554 other municipalities in New Jersey, and the benefits of providing useful, comprehensive information in a standardized format across all municipal articles, should take precedence statewide. All the more so as the information is in a format that can be easily updated by changing templates, rather than manually updating each article to reflect changes. I first realized that User:Nightscream had reverted every one of the edits I had made to the 12 Hudson County when I received a note on my user page regarding this discussion. While I certainly understand that Nightscream has his own view on the subject, the choice to blindly revert the changes I had been making article by article, at the same time that I was editing other articles in Hudson County was not the most productive way of dealing with his concerns. I have notified Nightscream about this discussion on his talk page and I think that it would have been appropriate for Nightscream to have taken a step back and to contact me directly on my talk page if there was an issue, rather than simply following my tracks and reverting each article minutes after I had edited that article. Hopefully we can reach a solution here that puts Hudson County in line with all 566 municipal articles statewide. Alansohn (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had this discussion already. There is no reason to have it again. Information in a given article should restricted to material about that article's topic. Mentioning that a given city is part of a given district is fine. Going into detail about that district is not. That material belongs in articles devoted to those districts. Do what you want with those templates, but they don't belong in city articles. That's been decided. Nightscream (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the updates made over the past year to the templates made to address the previous discussion, it would appear that the passage of time has brought a potential change in consensus that would have Hudson County conform to the manner in which federal, state and county officials are listed via template, rather than arbitrarily standing off on its own. A solution that works well statewide should be standard in all counties and there still appears to be no reason to have made blind reverts to these articles without notification or discussion. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were not "blind", they were based on self-evident application of policy and common sense, which doesn't require before-the-fact notification or discussion. You certainly didn't notify or discuss your editing against consensus, so why should I notify or discuss reverting in accordance with it? It doesn't matter what changes have been made to the templates, as it does not alter the fact that material does not belong in articles if it is not about that article's subject. What works "statewide" or for "counties" has nothing to do with articles on individual cities. Mentioning which districts a city is in is reasonable. Going on a tangent by explaining details about that district is not. This was already discussed, and nothing you mentioned suggests any change to that consensus. Mentioning that Michigan is part of the United States is valid in the Michigan article. But then adding that Barack Obama is the President of the United States, using the rationale that hey, Michigan is part of the United States, and the people of Michigan voted for Obama is not. The same principle explains why entire paragraphs on the entire makeup of this district or that district are not appropriate for city articles. They are far more appropriate for articles on those districts. Nightscream (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the decision is "self-evident application of policy" or "common sense" in this case. Each of our town articles spends a great deal of text on history, demographics, and geography that may be completely meaningless to any given reader who seeks current information about the town in question. At the same time, some readers may find information about local, state, and federal government representation to be unimportant. I do know that there was consensus 16 months ago to not include these templates in every case. That is certainly a long enough time to revisit the conversation. As I said avove, I consider the names of (and links to) individuals who are the state and federal representatives to be vital information that clearly helps define a town. I am completely in favor of including the state and federal district templates in every article about every municipality in the state. I do question the usefulness of the Governor and Freeholder templates. The fact they they are used without objection on every article outside of Hudson County speaks far more to actual consensus than any stale discussion on the matter. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just came from the article on Hoboken, I am working on the list of mayors. I support Jim Miller in the use of the transclusion of representatives, and having it consistent throughout the cities. I can see how people can fall on either side of the debate, but I opt for inclusion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing a message I just left on Jim Miller's talk page in response to a message he left on mine, if a line (or lines) of reasoning or argument are given for a particular position, then those who oppose it should, in the interest of directness, transparency and intellectual honesty, explain why it is flawed, invalid, unpersuasive, etc. As I pointed out to Jim, no one in the 2009 discussion refuted (or even tried to refute) the reasoning I offered as to why material not about a given topic does not belong in an article about that topic. In my last message above, I pointed out why, including tangential material in city articles is inappropriate, and employed hypothetical example that employs the same city-district rationale on a state-country scale. I'd like to know in what way that reasoning is not valid.

Another point I mentioned to Jim is Alan's insistence that Hudson County conform to the manner in which cities of other NJ counties detail federal, state and county representation. This argument glosses over the fact that the 2009 consensus decided that those city articles in other counties aren't supposed to detail that information. That was the whole point of that discussion, which took place on the WikiProject New Jersey talk page, and not the "WikiProject Hudson County talk page". If those other articles are not in line with that consensus, then they need to be edited in order to brought into line with it. Pointing to those articles does not necessarily constitute evidence that of "change in consensus", as Alan and Jim argue, it may simply mean that those articles weren't brought into line with. You said that you noticed changes to articles, but the only things you linked to were templates, but not any of these articles. What articles? What changes? Who changed them?

If you want to provide evidence that consensus has changed, then by all means, do so. But let's not assume that it has, and point to articles that violate it as evidence of it. For all we know, those other articles may have contained those templates because the templates were in them prior to the 2009 consensus, or were placed there after it by editors not aware of it, or for all we know, placed in there by you, Alan. I have no idea what the case is. Let's at least establish this question, rather than assume it. Pointing to edits in violation of a consensus as evidence of a change to that consensus, without establishing that point to the exclusion of other possibilities, is fallacious argument.

Yes, the articles on all cities on Wikipedia should be consistent--by not including material not about those cities. Nightscream (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should this discussion be relocated to the WPNJ talk page? It is discussing something that was formerly discussed there, and this kind of decision should be consistent across all state articles. This page may not be as widely watched as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Jersey, and such decisions should be made by the broadest audience possible (not that the activity over there has been overwhelming at any time in recent history either). Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears that the issue is being being re-visited, as is appropriate to the nature of Wikipedia as it evolves. Reviewing it, I would characterize the result of the previous discussion as a fragile compromise about the wording of the Bayonne article given lukewarm consent by three of nine people who particpated, not consensus. The changes that have taken place since then are reason to consider the way poltical representation is presented in NJ articles, and perhaps in Hudson County specifically.

Templates deal with the practical matter of housekeeping since updating articles with poltical representation is of utmost importance. They also addresses consistency. While some article may have a guardians, many don't, leaving them with incorrect information. Relying on the hope that someday someone will get to making the changes is not an effective way to handle the problem. A quick scan of Hudson County reveals a hodgepodge of approaches, and in many cases (including Union City) no links to districts, plus spam. A consistent professional across the board syle as seen in most NJ municpality articles should be applied. That templates include information that some consider non-specific (though not irrelevent, as some would suggest) to the municipality certainly is significantly lesser evil than (the chance of) old news, no links, and no coherence. Their use does not preclude the inclusion of other information that one might find valuable if (s)he feels compelled to tailor it to the town.

It appears that there is no strong feeling about keeping the governor, nor do I have any. The header federal, state, county should be included in each article, since a reader should not be required to fish for it. Inclusion only of the congressional rep, w/o mention of senators, leaves a gap which raises the question: Who are they? Easily dispatched in 15 words, inclusion is LESS distracting and offers the click. The district for State Senate and the Assembly, and the representive should be stated clearly in the same sentence, w/ appropriate links, as the template does.

T Bd of F'hldrs template is a series, and the re-direct Hudson County Board of Chosen Freeholders a list. I would suggest the template be amended to include the municpalities in each district (w/refs) and then adding directly to the Hudson County section since prose is preferred. I require more investigation to understand the system (ie how it and the other two counties like it are organized), but my leanings would be toward amended template in municpality articles since the housekeeping would be taken care and the coupling of neighborhoods is an intersting reflection how urban Hudson works.Djflem (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made changes at Weehawken, where there was serious undercoverage, making use of the templates Djflem (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making changes while a discussion is in progress is inappropriate. Please wait until the discussion is concluded before making any changes.
As for relocating this discussion to the WPNJ page, yes, it should be. Nightscream (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could bring this to WT:NJ for further discussion, but the only issue is Hudson County. As of now, the other 550-plus municipalities in the state all use the federal / state / county templates with the 12 municipalities in Hudson County as the lone standouts. It appears that there is strong evidence here supporting the position that consensus has changed based on the participation here. As long as we can come to an agreement here that Hudson County should use the same templating technique used statewide, there should be no reason to raise the issue statewide, where the articles have used the templates for years. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both this and the previous discussion demonstrate a preference for an inclusive standard (ie templates) with regard to Federal, state and county representation. As it seems the Hudson County articles are the only ones which do not follow the format, I see no compelling reason to bring this to WPNJ. Djflem (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue is not Hudson County. The previous discussion pertained to all of New Jersey, and therefore, it would seem possible that the amount of information given support by the end of that discussion was simply not implemented in other NJ articles. You can say "Let's be consistent by changing the NJ articles to bring them in line with that consensus", or "Let's be consistent by changing Hudson County articles". One can arbitrarily portray either statement as reasonable, based solely on their own personal preference. But if you're going to argue that consensus among New Jersey article editors has changed, then we should ask those editors. Saying that consensus across all NJ article edtiors has changed based on participating in this discussion is a non sequitur. The fact that the articles have used the templates for years does not change this, nor does the fact that those articles were not brought in line with that consensus. Nightscream (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to come in late to the discussion, but I can give my opinion FWIW on some of the issues. I think that if we are looking for consistency within Hudson County, we should keep just as that. To look statewide is to look countrywide, and I suppose worldwide. I think we can come to an agreement between those of us who maintain these articles (ie. each of you, who are virtually the best and most dedicated to, if I may say so, some of the best city articles in WP) As far as the inclusion, yes, this information is important, however, I feel like it is extraneous. I am in support of simply linking and not listing. Whatever this may say about me, I can admit that one of the last things I would consider before moving into a town would be the Freeholders. I also believe that listing these officials gives the feel of some city website (when is the Union City City Hall open?) Ha, I apologize if this is not what anyone wants to hear. I would support providing a proper and visible link to an article with a concise listing, but not inclusion in each individual article. Anyway, I intended to take a break as of recent, and here I am spending likely more time in WM than I was before... - Theornamentalist (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some checking through city articles for other counties, beginning alphabetically with Atlantic County, and its constituent cities. This is what I found:

Now perhaps I'm missing the precise wisdom of your arguments, but I'm failing to see how the existence of the templates in other NJ articles constitutes evidence of a "change to consensus". Assuming this as an accurate indicator of articles on cities of other counties, it's not a change to consensus on two counts: It's not a consensus, because it's just Alan, and it's not a change since the 2009 discussion, since the templates were added almost four years prior to it. The templates were not removed or reduce in terms of the material relevant to each city for reasons that are unclear. Alan stated at the end of the 2009 discussion that he supported the version of the material that was proposed, which mostly eliminated information not about the individual cities in question. Whether he did not do this because he didn't feel like it, thought someone else would or whatever, the fact remains that stating that the current placement of those templates indicates consensus change is specious. Since many articles on Wikipedia may have a small number of editors, or even one editor, who makes most edits to them, the only viewpoint that those templates currently seem to represent is Alan's, and not anyone elses. Nightscream (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was the one who created these legislative templates in 2005. That same year, they were added them to the articles for all 566 municipalities in the state of New Jersey in 2005, including all municipalities in Hudson County, as in this edit to Bayonne, New Jersey. These templates have remained in all the municipality articles, until their removal in March 2009, as in this edit, which was described by User:Nightscream in its edit summary as having "removed unsourced or irrelevant Trivia and other material". Since then, there have been a number of efforts to reinstate use of these standard templates, as in this edit in August 2009 by User:A Stop at Willoughby, only to be removed, twice, by User:Nightscream. After updating these templates, I made another stab at this edit to add these templates, followed elsewhere by User:Djflem at this edit, who added these templates to the article for Weehawken, New Jersey. All of these edits have been removed by Nightscream. User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), an editor who has worked on many Hudson County articles, has also registered his support for the use of these templates. The only person standing in opposition is Nightscream. It appears that consensus is that these templates be included here. To confirm that I am reading consensus correctly, I ask all those participating and interested in the issue to register their support for the following proposition - "Resolved, that the standard set of federal, state and county legislative templates used in the 20 other counties of New Jersey should be used as well in articles for the municipalities in Hudson County".

You just evaded the point of my last message, and the questions that I asked you. You are ignoring the August-October 2009 consensus discussion, which resolved a version of the material that contains far less material not about the cities in question. You point out an August 2009 edit by A Stop at Willoughby, while ignoring the fact that A Stop at Willoughby was one of those people who supported the reduced material at the end of the 2009 discussion, which was in October of that year.

Strangely enough, you were one of the people who supported it to. But now you're pretending that you don't seem to recall that discussion, even though I've referenced it repeatedly.

You're also ignoring the fact that I apparently debunked your argument that there's been a "change" to consensus since that 2009 discussion, when those templates were added four years prior to it, and by you." I'll ask you again: How can there have been a change to the 2009 consensus when the templates were added to all those other NJ city articles by you, rather than by a group of others, and when you added them four years prior to the prior discussion?

There is no appearance of any consensus here. Four editors: Jim Miller, Arthur Norton, Djflem and you, Alan, support including these templates, not having once addressed my arguments against including material in city articles that isn't about those cities. Two editors, myself and Theornamentalist, are against that level of digressional material, and prefer linking to articles about those districts. That is not a "consensus", and you have been dishonest in attempting to portray one, by claiming that actions taken four years prior to a previous discussion represent a change since that discussion, by not doing your part to remove or edit those templates in other city articles to bring it in line with that consensus, by refusing to answer the evidence I presented above to that effect, by refusing to address the arguments against including irrelevant material, by trying to argue against taking this to the NJ Project, where you know more editors may discover your behavior and rule against it, and now by pretending that four editors against two is a "consensus". I'm very disappointed in you, Alan, because I've never known you to exhibit this type of manipulative behavior.

You want to hold another consensus, fine. But it'll involve the entire NJ project, including those privvy to the previous consensus discussion. You're not going to assemble three other editors away from the eyes of the NJ project, and then pretend that this gives you the power to override a decision the NJ project reached. If you attempt this, I will bring this matter, including your behavior, to the attention of the NJ project, as well as other administrators, and show them how you've attempted to game the system in order to undermine a consensus that you simply didn't like. Nightscream (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was initiated by an inquiry regarding the use of templates. They are nowhere mentioned in the compromise agreement, which offered a model for the information that should be included. That information includes the US senators, US representatives, state senators, and state assemblymen, and their electoral districts, and freeholder. The templates for federal and state offices conform completely to the sample text offered in the compromise agreement, and reflects the consensus to include that information. I fully support the inclusion of that information, and fully support use of templates to present it in articles as the most effective way to update changes which take place on a regular basis. They offer the best opportunity for the municipality to remain current.
Unfortunately, the compromise agreement regarding the Board of Freeholders is flawed, and thus a source of contention here. Clarifying which information should be included and how it should be presented needs to be discussed. Therefore, the following:
Proposal

That it is acknowledged that the information regarding US representatives, US senators, state senators, and state assemblymen, and their electoral districts, has satisfactorly been resolved in the previous compromise agreement and that the use of the appropriate templates (sample:Template:NJ Congress 13, Template:NJ Senate, Template:NJ Legislative 33) satisfies and supports that agreement.

Proposal

That this discussion confine itself to the content and its presentation with regard to various aspects of relationship between and amongst the municipalites in Hudson County and the Hudson County Board of Freedholders. Djflem (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has not been resolved. I will be taking this to the NJ project. I will also be reporting to the proper administrative authorities the aspects of your behavior and Alan's behavior that have constituted violations of policy, and/or its spirit, including reverting during discussion, stonewalling on arguments that apparently refute your claims, refusal to respond to observations about mendacious statements, use of logical fallacies or intellectually dishonest arguments, and so forth. Nightscream (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am extremely disappointed by your response to an effort to find consensus here on an approach that has been stably accepted for more than five years in all of the more than 550 articles for municipalities in the 20 other New Jersey counties outside of Hudson County. With the start of the New Year, I updated the templates for all 21 counties and reinserted the modified versions in the articles for the 14 municipalities in Hudson County, and it is clear from discussion here and by edits at the articles themselves that consensus is rather strong for using them in Hudson County articles. I can assure you that I have not contacted any of the editors who support use of these templates. The consensus that has developed is one that is supported broadly by those who participate in editing the Hudson County articles and is a representative cross section of such editors. I and others have patiently tried to reach consensus on this issue and I have tried to reach a resolution through discussion rather than trying to impose a solution or engage in an edit war. Those participating in this discussion here, on your talk page and the talk pages of the articles in question, have addressed your position and the arguments made to support it. I have seen none of the "logical fallacies or intellectually dishonest arguments" that you see, nor have I seen any "mendacious statements" or "violations of policy". I encourage you in the strongest way possible to take this discussion to any venue for which you will accept the result, as unfortunately it is clear that you will not accept the consensus that has developed here that contradicts your position. Given the scope and severity of your allegations of inappropriate actions by me and the other editors who I all see as acting in good faith here, I hope that you will bring your claims to the "proper administrative authorities" as soon as possible so that other, neutral observers can vindicate my actions and those of other editors that you disagree with and believe to have acted inappropriately. Alansohn (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are only compounding your previous mendacity by repeating it, and by ignoring the information I pointed out that showed it to be false. If there is a consensus, and/or a change to the consensus since the 2009 discussion, then please explain the following:

  • The fact that, by your own admission, those templates were added not by a consensus of editors, but you, and not since the 2009 discussion, but prior to it. You have not addressed this.
  • The fact that you, by your own indication, have not contacted those supporting the templates, yet claim there there is a consensus on them other than the one indicated by the prior discussion. If you haven't spoken to them, then how do you know there's a consensus? You claim a reference to "those who participate in editing the Hudson County articles and is a representative cross section of such editors." Which editors are these? How many editors are there who edit them regularly, and/or who do so as often or more often than say, myself? What edits are these that you can point to as relevant evidence of this consensus?
  • Why won't you discuss the widsom of having material in a city article not about that city, despite my attempts to do so? Consistency can mean that they belong in all articles, or none, yet you arbitrarily assume that the only valid interpretation of consistency is the former, without explaining why the latter is not also a possibility, even though you won't address the obvious arguments against including information that isn't about a given municipality in an article about that municipality. Why is this?

There is no consensus on their use in HudCo articles, and that is a fact. In order for their to be a consensus, a sufficient number of editors need to be alerted to discuss the matter, and weigh in on it. Your and Djflem's attempt to portray four editors supporting them versus two who do not as a "consensus", and your other behaviors, such as Djflem's reverting during a discussion, which is indeed a violation of WP guidelines, is highly inappropriate, to put it mildly. You have not acted in good faith. You simply insist on a consensus, without providing proof of it, and without explaining evidence to the contrary, even trying to squelch transparency by arguing against bringing it to the attention of the entire NJ project. Nightscream (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in the wisdom of these templates and that they provide useful information for readers that is directly relevant to the articles for each of the municipalities in New Jersey. I believed that in October 2005 when I created the templates for all 21 counties, all 40 state legislative districts and all 13 Congressional districts, and undertook the task of adding them to articles for each of New Jersey's 566 municipalities, and I still believe in their wisdom five years later. I have made no effort to contact anyone; User:Djflem brought this issue here for discussion because you reverted a series of changes to a series of 14 articles where both he and I have attempted to make changes. I have made no effort to contact anyone to participate here and the consensus reached here has been based on the conclusions reached by the six editors who have chosen to participate. In compliance with Wikipedia policy, you are free to invite any other editors or choose any other venue to address this issue, preferably one where you will agree to accept the result as it is clear that you are unsatisfied with the consensus reached here. Again, you repeat allegations of wrongdoing, including a rather strong claim of "mendacity", that is entirely unjustified. I again encourage you to pick a place to raise your allegations of "mendacity" and various and sundry violations of Wikipedia policy at WP:ANI or any other page where your claims can be addressed by neutral observers. I can assure you that the actions that I and other editors have taken to reach consensus here are in full compliance with relevant Wikipedia policy and I hope that you will attribute good faith motives to me and to those other editors who disagree with you and have reached a consensus that conflicts with your position. Alansohn (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are only perpetuating the very behaviors I have pointed out.

  • You have not established that a consensus has been reached here. You are only asserting that it has, and have refused to even respond to my point that a pool of six editors is not sufficient for a consensus. You simply refer to a consensus it over and over and over, as if not hearing disagreement with that. This is intellectual dishonest, or mendacious.
  • You have not explained how there could have been a "change to consensus" since the 2009 discussion, if the templates were added four years prior to it, and by you, rather than a collection of various different editors. You don't even acknowledge that this point has been made. This is dishonest.
  • For some reason, you keep mentioning how you haven't contacted anyone, when I have not, IIRC, brought up the notion that you have, and when I don't know what point to which you think it relates. If anything, it would seem to support my point about the lack of a consensus, since it raises the question of how you know there is a "wide" consensus if you haven't consulted other editors. Contacting other editors is a good thing, not a bad thing.
  • You have refused to respond to my point that consistency does not automatically lead to adding the templates to the Hudson County articles, since it can just as easily lead to removing them from the other counties. You speak as if consistency denotes the former and only the former, and when I have pointed out that this is a fallacious assumption, you do not respond to it. The correct solution is for NJ editors to discuss whether the information in question belongs in city articles, and then deciding to add them to all NJ city articles or to remove them from all NJ city articles. You assume, a priori, the former as the only conclusion, rather than acknowledging that both are possibilities, and that deciding which one to implement is something for editors on the NJ project to decide. This is not intellectually honest.
  • Because of the point immediately above, you insist on hiding this issue from a wide pool of NJ-related editors, and relegating it here. This is not a fulfillment of transparency and open discussion.
  • DJflem has continued to revert during this discussion ([1][2]), even nine days after I informed him about WP:TALKDONTREVERT, which says (rather self-explanitorily from the shortcut link) that this is considered inappropriate, and a form of edit warring. This is a direct and knowing violation of Wikipedia policy.
  • Compounding this the rather obnoxious comments made by you and Djflem during this matter, such as his remarks about my "sloppiness", and your own decision to open your last message above with a remark about a simple misspelling on my part. (I guess that means that the two of you never make these types of errors.) While not dishonest per se, it certainly doesn't represent adherence to WP:CIV or WP:NPA. By contrast, any assertions I have made about your behavior, which you see as "rude", are those made by pointing out the actual reference in question. It is not "rude" to conclude that someone is dishonest if you actually illustrate that charge with evidence of it.

The fact is that you have been trying to push your own personal aesthetics onto NJ articles, using Astroturf Logic to argue for this, and have refused to respond when I provide arguments, questions or evidence that refute your position. Nightscream (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Again, I understand your argument and appreciate your frustration, but it appears that the consensus reached here differs from your position. Calling efforts to reach such consensus "intellectual dishonest, or mendacious" only perpetuates the bad faith arguments that those who disagree with you are lying to advance their position. I and other editors have addressed your concerns on multiple occasions and there is no justification for personal attacks of this kind. I want to thank User:Djflem, who has worked steadfastly on improving and expanding articles related to Hudson County, for taking the time and effort to restructure the templates for Hudson County freeholders to make them more concisely relevant to the 12 municipality articles for the county. I hope you see this effort as a way to address your concerns. Alansohn (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not called "efforts to reach consensus" intellectually dishonest. I have called certain behaviors on your part intellectually dishonest, which I have detailed above. For your part, you have again refused to respond by explaining how they are not dishonest, have again referred matter-of-factly to this alleged consensus without addressing my my point that the pool of editors and venue used to reach it is not sufficient (contrary to your assertion that you have addressed my concerns), and now you continue your distortions by claiming that my statements about dishonest refer to efforts to reach consensus, when I never said anything remotely resembling this. But if I'm wrong, and you really have "addressed" my points, then please tell me where and when you did this:

  • In what post did you address my point about how the Atlantic County edits disprove your assertion of a change to consensus since the 2009 discussion?
  • In what post did you respond to my point that a pool of six editors is not sufficient for a consensus, and that very existence of one is something I dispute?
  • In what post did you respond to my point that consistency does not automatically mean adding the templates to the Hudson County articles, when it can just as easily lead to the conclusion that they should be removed from the rest of the NJ articles?

If you can show me where you addressed this points, then do so. As it appears now, you have not. You and Djflem have deliberately and persistently refused to answer my questions directly, preferring instead to engage in knee-jerk repetition of the same assertion over and over, without illustrating it via evidence, or acknowledging counterarguments or evidence against it, while simultaneously accusing me of this, and going so far as to revert during a discussion, and engage in petty remarks about spelling errors on my part (while apparently oblivious to your own). This is a fact that is unambiguously illustrated by a reading of this discussion. But I'm more than willing to be proven wrong if you can do so. Nightscream (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would first like to apologize for making light of a typographical error, and I had previously refactored my comments above. I and other editors have responded directly to all of the issues you have raised. Consensus here favors the inclusion of information about legislators representing the 12 Hudson County municipalities, and my change of position since 2009 is but one small factor in showing that a new consensus has emerged. If you believe that consensus here is inadequate to justify a change in the article in question, I encourage you to indicate how you would like this new consensus to be confirmed. You are still repeating claims that I am being "intellectually dishonest", when I and other editors have been patiently trying to respond to your concerns. If you believe that my actions, or those of others, have improperly affected this change in consensus, I implore you to raise this issue at WP:RFC or WP:ANI (or any other appropriate venue) where neutral parties can provide their input on the subject. I hope that you have reviewed the edits that User:Djflem has made to create templates that are more specific and relevant for Hudson County's Freeholder districts and that the changes he has made successfully deal with the concerns you have raised. Alansohn (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I and other editors have responded directly to all of the issues you have raised." And I'm asking you to show me where. Why do you continue to refuse to do so?

" If you believe that consensus here is inadequate...." Why do you continue to refuse to respond to my point that there isn't one? Why do you continue to refuse to respond to the issue that a pool of six editors is not sufficient to do this?

Why do you keep speaking as if your point is a matter of established fact, when I have repeatedly asked you to discuss the point that it's not? Why do you not even acknowledge that the existence of a consensus has been challenged? Why won't you say, "Nightscream, the fact of a consensus is established by the following evidence/reasoning...." and/or "Nightscream, the reason a pool of six editors sufficient for this is...." or "Nightscream, the reason I refuse to answer these questions is...." or "Nightscream, here are the posts where I addressed these questions/challenges of yours..."? You have been, and are continuing, to stonewall on these questions. This is dishonest, and a violation of Wikipedia guidelines are dispute resolution. But if you can falsify this statement, then do so. Nightscream (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested reading[edit]

While the whole article Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is very interesting below is a a section that worth printing on this page, especially for those who would use it to promote conspiracy theories, moan about being cheated on, make rude personal comments, or insinuate that his version of justice will prevail once the proper authorites have been informed.

Refusal to "get the point" [edit]

Shortcuts
See also: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors continue to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point is accepted by the community when you have been told that is not accepted.Djflem (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not asserted or mentioned anything about "conspiracy theories" or being "cheated on". I have pointed out that you and Alan have violated Wikipedia guidelines, which you have. If there were any "conspiracy" to include the templates--particularly if it were a wide one involving many editors who discussed it, then that would represented a consensus, in which case that would be a correct fulfillment of policy. What you two have done is the opposite, claiming that a pool of six people (four against two) is enough for a consensus. It isn't. The ones who have acted as if their point of view has been accepted by the community, who repeat flat assertions ad nauseam without end, are you and Alan. You're the ones who keep flatly asserting a consensus, while refusing to respond when I argue otherwise. You're the one who continues to revert during a dispute. I haven't.
As for "rude" comments, you have not pointed to any in question. By contrast, I have provided one example from both you and Alan above, plus some elaboration on this.
Again, matters of fact and reason are determined by evidence which is used to confirm one idea and/or falsify an opposing one. If you're right, and I'm the one who has exhibited this behavior, then why are you and Alan so reluctant to directly answer my arguments? In what way does your repeated assertion of a consensus ("wide" or otherwise) supported by evidence? Why won't you respond to the Altantic County edits I provided that show how the assertion of a change to consensus since the 2009 discussion is clearly false? How do my statements qualify as repetition ad nauseam, but yours don't? What are the criteria by which one is and one isn't? Why are minor spelling errors on my part valid enough to emphasize in your talk page messages, when you both commit the same errors, just as any other human being?
These are the questions whose answers help determine a proper conclusion, and not flat assertions. Nightscream (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
70% of those who participated in the previous discussion and 2/3 of those who took part in the above favored inclusion and use of templates.Djflem (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But not the amount of information currently displayed in the Hudson County articles. A compromise was reached in which the amount of information displayed was reduced, and Alan himself supported that compromise. Nightscream (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article and hunting down links[edit]

I have moved a new article into mainspace for Lincoln Park (Jersey City, New Jersey) and am trying to find wikilinks in other articles that are more appropriate to the park than to the neighborhood. I would appreciate if anyone else could look at the articles they watch and link to the new article where it is a better link. Thanks. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Liberty depictions[edit]

An editor has determined that Hudson County Community College does not warrant inclusion in the regional section of Statue of Liberty#Depictions, as seen in Talk:Statue of Liberty#Hudson County Community College. i believe inclusion is appropriate for paragragh. Thoughts? Djflem (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Hudson County, New Jersey[edit]

To draw attention to above, which has been speedily deleted. One expects (hopes) in error: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#List of cemeteries in Hudson County, New Jersey Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cemeteries in Hudson County, New Jersey earlier deleted, but now restored, though waiting on talkpage.Djflem (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marion section[edit]

Marion section is an interesting and informative article about New Jersey. I made two minor edits and was about to make a third when I realized it would violate the three-revert rule. Could someone please read the article (including text in Infoboxes) and decide what to do? Thank you. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pulaski Skyway listed at FAR[edit]

I have nominated Pulaski Skyway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Imzadi 1979 → 01:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Jersey/Hudson_County_Task_Force&oldid=1087828869"