Jump to content

Talk:Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey

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

Ethnocentric statement of "discovery" of gold

[edit]

How can you discovery something the existence of which has already been established although those that proclaim it discovered were mistaken. Gold was found in California w/early explorers along Colorado River & near Mexican era Los Angeles in 1832 so existence of gold only confirmed not discovered in 1848 although the find was reason for the 1849 Rush, the latter the unique part of incident. To say that gold was discovered in California in 1848 is an ethnocentric statement as well as an example of ignorance by those that either do not want to acknowledge that gold had already been verified as being in California therefore it cannot be a discovery. Finding more gold is not a discovery but a re-confirmation of the existence of gold in the area.

If the description of the find as "discovery" is based on the text of "From Mexican Days to Gold Rush: Memoirs of...Who Grew Up with California" (Edited by Doyce B. Nunis, Jr by Marshall, James Wilson & Edward Gould Buffum]. "Marshall was born at Hopewell, NJ, went to California in 1845, participated in the 1846 Bear Flag Revolt, and discovered gold at Sutter's Mill in 1848.") all the more substantiate the ethnocentricity of the word "discovery" discounting the period of history and activities that occurred in California during its Mexican, Spanish and indigenous peoples periods. You cannot discovery that which already has been proven to exist; just confirm. Buffum et al were not aware of the history of California when they wrote their book so for them to describe it as a discovery is appropriate for their time but not in the spectrum of history. Just like Troy and Schliemann. We know better now than then. W rests with those facts that represent the long term not short-sighted ignorance.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Whatever. Tired of arguing about it. You win. PS - Next time you want to make minor wording tweaks, don't make a soap box speech about it, just do it. Soap box speeches invoke knee-jerk reactions especially when they come form anonymous ip's. Oh, and get a regular username, for crying out out. Famartin (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your actions are based on knee jerk judgment then it might be best to understand the issue than detrimental to WP long range intent. as for the other statement, which I am not at all surprised, please read the following: == IP user identification ==

PLEASE refrain from appearing prejudicial about my continued WP participant with an IP. Yes, I know about user names and do not have one. That is explanation far more than what the question is worth. Nothing against those that do have a user name. AGAIN -- PLEASE, refrain from appearing prejudicial especially by those that seem to take great pleasure toward those with which they disagree about WP content and attack the IP user for being identified as such.66.74.176.59 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)66.74.176.59 (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you blame me, or anyone, when 80% of vandalism on Wikipedia is from unregistered users, as stated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_addresses_are_not_people Famartin (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Recent edit warring

[edit]

Starting a discussion section for editor who has been continually reverting sourced, status quo content on one former council member out of the article. Bbbshell, please discuss your objections and concerns here rather than continue to edit war. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Sir, why are you insisting that a former member of the Hopewell Township Committee's personal views about changing parties remain on our Township wiki page? by leaving him on our page, you are disrespecting all former members of the Township Committee who are NOT airing themselves on this page. If you insist on reversing our posts to delete him entirely from the site (as he is no longer on the Committee), then you need to add ALL former members on the site as well, and all of their reasons for changing parties to suit their own personal agendas. Why should this former member be treated differently than all the other former members? This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It doesn't make sense to add leave this one sentence about one committee person when that person is no longer even on the committee, and there's no other reference to this person in the article.

Besides that one single, out of context, sentence, there is nothing about Lester anywhere else. It no longer applies to the township because he is no longer on the township committee.

If you're talking about coverage in the press, you can look up any of the other current members of the township committee (Kuchinski, Sandom, Blake, Hart and Brant) and you'll find many more articles about them than exist on Lester. Don't those count? Blake took Lester's place on the committee in a very heated political race last year, and there is much more information about her and that race than there is about a one-term committeeman like Lester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbbshell (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Considering your repeated use of "our" in regard to this article, I think there's a conflict of interest issue here. If you are on the council or involved directly in some way with the city's government, you should declare it here per Wikipedia's policy on WP:COI.
(2) I see nothing reasonable in your argument that supports taking sourced information out of the article. It's apparent that at least two other editors feel the same.
(3) Because you have chosen to edit war rather than truly discuss and/or allow for consensus to form here, I have reported you to the WP:AN3 edit warring noticeboard. Continuing to edit war in the manner you have will very possibly lead to a block where you will no longer be able to edit for a period of time. Better to discuss and seek consensus than try to force your version of the article to stay in place. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hopewell_Township,_Mercer_County,_New_Jersey&oldid=1202791446"