Jump to content

Talk:Ocean Grove, New Jersey

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

Photo

[edit]

A photo of the Great Auditorium would be nice, as would one of the tent homes.--Srleffler 05:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone provided one, but it's been removed, having no license. Rich Farmbrough 21:14 3 July 2006 (GMT).

Green tickY images added JGHowes talk - 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Census data

[edit]

Someone added updated info from 2002. I'm assuming that it's correct, but changing the wording to reflect that ost of the data is from 2000. Rich Farmbrough 21:14 3 July 2006 (GMT).

Actually the number of families looks way off (up 500 - pop only up by 50) so I'm treating it as unsourced. Rich Farmbrough 21:18 3 July 2006 (GMT).

Gay Marriage Controversy

[edit]

There is an article with considerable detail in the current edition of the tricity news. Unfortunately, I don't have it to hand (I left it on my porch in OG) and their website doesn't contain searchable archives ([1]) doesn't contain a searchable archive.

"Ralph the Fisherman"

[edit]

As far as adding this to the article is concerned, the part that really requires solid, reliable sources (that is, mainstream books or major newspapers such as the New York Times or Philadelphia Inquirer) is attributing Ocean Grove's resurgence in real estate values to him.

If the enthusiasm is trimmed to just state factually Ralph has become an unofficial mascot in recent years and was depicted on the beach badge by the OGCMA, or something along those lines, that probably would pass muster with the editors here. Also, is there a better image? The one uploaded is very grainy. JGHowes talk - 19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points. As to whether he exists, the fact that the governing body of the town placed him on their beach badge should answer that question.

I guess I also have some quesions:

In the “Today” section of thecurrent Ocean Grove article, it states:

“Beginning in the 1990s and continuing to the present, Ocean Grove has experienced a dramatic increase in property values.” This has not been the case since early last year. Anyone reading a newspaper is aware of real estate values declining. And they began declining in Ocean Grove around this time, also (as they did throughout much of NJ). Shouldn’t this be updated to reflect this?

In the same section it also states:

“There has been a considerable revival in the fortunes of the town, leading to a much less depressed community and the restoration of older hotel structures, many of which had deteriorated into Single Room Occupancy ("SRO") quarters.” Isn’t the phrase “a much less depressed community” opinion? I can find no article or reliable reference that makes or confirms that statement. It’s not in the article listed as a reference for the paragraph that follows this one on the Ocean Grove page (Michelle Sahn, "New life at old hotel site", Asbury Park Press, March 23, 2006). Therefore shouldn’t that statement be eliminated, as it’s opinion and not verifiable? Bilbobag (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Copy for Ocean Grove page

[edit]

I would like to add the following to the site, but would like your opinion first:Bilbobag (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To many “Grovers”, the destruction of the Ocean Grove Fishing Pier and boardwalk by the northeast winter storm of 1992, was devastating (Footnote to be added referencing A POINT OF PRIDE SWEPT OFF BY STORM - OCEAN GROVE LOST MORE THAN TIMBER. THE PIER WAS PART OF ITS LIFE. Source: William R. Macklin, Published December 14, 1992, Page S01, Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)) With the town's spirits at an all time low, late one night two friends, Carol and Bob, climbed a 20' high piling and erected a dummy of a fisherman. Named "Ralph", an acronym for Rising Above the Long Pier of Hope, he immediately became a local favorite as he smiled down at beachgoers, and helped buoy the town’s spirits. This was demonstrated later that summer, when his image was used on T-Shirts by The Ocean Grove Fishing Club to help raise funds to rebuild the town’s century old, landmark, fishing pier (photo of t-shirt to be included). When the pier was rebuilt the following year, Ralph was given a permanent perch upon which to sit...and to this day he can be seen sitting there (photo). As an indication of his inspiration and popularity, in 2002, ten years after he was erected, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association honored Ralph by making him the first fictional character to ever appear on the town’s summer beach badge (photo of beach badge). Bilbobag (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on an invitation to comment left on my talk page. I think that it would appear that Ralph the Fisherman is perhaps a significant landmark to locals in Ocean Grove, and there do appear to be reliable source that indicate not only that the monument exists, which would not necessarily be sufficient, but also that such a monument is notable to the point that it is worthy of mention. The monument is even the subject of a book: [2]. However, it should not be given undue weight in this article. I would say that a 3-4 sentance note under a section on notable landmarks would be appropriate. Such a section could also incorporate information on the Auditorium and the Historic District. However, the above copy seems a bit too "unencyclopedic" in its tone, and if added to the article as-is, would probably be giving undue weight to the landmark itself. Let me take a stab at rewriting it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph the Fisherman

[edit]

A landmark of local importance, Ralph the Fisherman was erected on the ruined remains of the Ocean Grove Fishing Pier by local residents. The pier had been destoyed by a winter storm in 1992, and two local residents climbed one of the remaining pylons to place a dummy of a fisherman. The dummy became a local attraction, and when the pier was rebuilt in 1993 the dummy became a permanent fixture on it. Today, Ralph—who's name is an acronym for "Rising Above the Long Pier of Hope"— is an important symbol of the community. Ralph has even become the subject of a children's book.

  • Now, I think the above version carries a much more encyclopedic tone. I don't have access to the specific articles that Bilbobag does, but it would appear from the title of the Inquirer article that it discusses the destruction of the pier and not the fisherman per se, but I could be wrong about that. Before we add anything, we need reliable sources that:
    • a) tell the story about Ralph and
    • b) clearly show that he is a symbol of the community
  • What think you all? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph The Fisherman sources

[edit]

Thanks for the help and the re-write. I believe a photo of the 2002 beach badge, the first ever in the 100+ year history of this town to include the image of a fictional character, which was issued by a quasi-Governamental organization (The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Assoc.) "clearly shows that he is a symbol of the community." The badge shows his image, The words "Ralph", and the words "Ocean Grove". I'm attaching a copy of the photo here

I have other photos that show him sitting on the fishing pier, as he has for over 17 years, and others showing him numerous of the town's 4th of July parades. In the parades, he is on the float of The Ocean Grove Fishing Club.

Bilbobag (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! The pic will accompany the section well, but it doesn't really count as a source. What we are looking for here is things like newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, that sort of thing. See what you can dig up in that vein, they are vital! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tent City

[edit]

Tent city should get more coverage as it is unique, interesting, and a possibly useful style of architecture. It should be expanded by a native who can get interior shots too. Winter and Summer shots of the same house. I really think people might find inspiration for their own houses. —Preceding unsigned comment added byGeo8rge (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil union controversy

[edit]

I think this portion is too long and not that historically important to Ocean Grove, to the US or NJ but it really is a store unfolding all over not just Ocean Grove. If it is important maybe it should be combined with an article on gay civil unions, or even get it's own article.Geo8rge (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies about federal funds being used for a religious establishment

[edit]

It goes beyond the civil union controversy. Recently the Neptune school graduation ceremony almost didn't happen because of all the religious iconography present inside and outside the auditorium: see http://www.app.com/article/20110525/NJNEWS/305250114/Neptune-ACLU-compromise-high-school-graduation-Great-Auditorium. While looking at the pictures from the Auditorium I felt that the cross outside was aesthetically and architecturally out of place, and wondered whether it was a late addition. The article mentions that the **illuminated** cross was added after the end of 2nd world war. Did a normal cross exist before that date? I was able to find a postcard from 1903 that shows that the cross in the front was originally not there, around the same time when the owners got tax exemption for the boardwalk and beachfront as public venues: see two post cards at middle of page at http://www.cardcow.com/viewall/66106/. There are also several post cards that proof that until around 1945 there was no cross there. My understanding is that with the development of the beachfront into a neighborhood, there was a need for a new church so the auditorium was “adapted” to that use after 50 years of mixed religious/secular use. There is no problem with this history as long as the owners recognize that it is now a church, and refuse doing civil/secular ceremonies in there to avoid going against the Constitution. 75.50.59.26 (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been ignored for a few years, but it shouldn't be. The lesbian pavilion thing is clearly just one part of the story. MilesMoney (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Davidson, Ocean Grove resident and English Channel

[edit]

Michelle Davidson is an English Channel swimmer. See http://www.dover.uk.com/channelswimming/swimmers which lists Channel Swimmers. As to meeting Wiki requirements, as stated on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LISTPEOPLE#Lists_of_people, "A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met''Italic text. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E. The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

Based on this Ms. Davidson is famous for not just a single specific event, (being one of only 1341 people in the history of the world, who has swam the English Channel). She is also notable for being one of only 84 swimmers to have accomplished the Triple Crown of swimming 1) swimming the 21 miles across the English Channel, 2) swimming 20.2 miles across the Cataline Channel in southern CA, and 3) swimming 28.5 miles around the island of Manhattan (see http://www.triplecrownofopenwaterswimming.com/2010/08/triple-crown-of-open-water-swimming.html and http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/OpenWater/30346.asp). These are 3 notable accomplishments, the most well known being the English Channel swim. Each of these is linked to an article or reliable source. Thus she meets Wiki's exception. Second since she is being included in a list of Notable People, does not need an article about them.

I would therefore include her in the list. If you find this objectionable, I would then offer to include her as a nationaly known US swimmer, whose accomplishments (in addition to the 3 mentioned above) include more than 23 wins in swimming events, winning the US Lifeguard Association's "Iron Woman" competition, and numerous other swimming and/or surf kayaking awards over the past 18 years. I'll await comments before making any changes. Bilbobag (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civil union controversy

[edit]

9 paragraphs for one court case is too much. This section needs to be considerably tightened up. It is written like a full newspaper article, covering every detail. We need to have an overview with the core facts. I think that can reasonably be accomplished in less than 9 paragraphs. My edits have been reverted. Would someone else like to suggest a compromise edit? Safehaven86 (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are harmful to the article. They change a section that is clear and readable into an abbreviated, uninformative mess. The fact that you're edit-warring against QG shows that you're ignoring consensus and attempting to own the article.
Fundamentally, the idea that this is just one court case so it shouldn't get much mention here is completely wrong. This case is the only reason I've ever heard of Ocean Grove. It got international coverage and has been an important part of how the town is seen by outsiders. There's so much material that it could easily fill an article of its own while leaving a summary here. But cutting the section down to a summary by throwing away material is a step backwards. Please stop! MilesMoney (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring? I made an edit, it was reverted, and I opened a talk page discussion. I think that's what they call BRD. If this case is so notable, perhaps it should have its own article. As it is, the OGCMA doesn't even have its own article. I think 9 paragraphs for one court case in an article about a city clearly violates WP:UNDUE. The court case wasn't even against the city, but against a group located in the city. This isn't a newpaper or law textbook. The fact that you as an individual have heard of this town because of this case cannot be universalized. Could you provide a policy reason why this court case warrants 9 paragraphs of coverage? Could you also try to be more civil, and not refer to my good faith edits as a "mess?" Also not sure what consensus you think I've violated, or why you think I'm "owning" the article. I'm trying to work things out on the talk page. If you have any points or policy interpretations that aren't simply a string of personal attacks, I'd like to hear them.Safehaven86 (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Facts are important.
  • The reason OGCMA doesn't have its own article and takes up so much space in this one is that it is not "a group located in the city". The city is founded and owned by OGCMA. How you can miss this detail is unclear to me. If you won't do the basic research, I do not recommend editing this article.
  • The court case is being given due space because it's one of the biggest things that's happened in this otherwise sleepy resort town. Show me something that deserves more space and doesn't have it now.
  • Being made in good faith is a matter of motive. Being a mess is a matter of results.
  • Accusing someone of personal attacks without diffs is a personal attack.
The facts do not support stripping this material from the article. MilesMoney (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't edit-war. This violates BRD. MilesMoney (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not just violating BRD, you're at 3RR:

I will be forced to report you if you revert again. MilesMoney (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want to comment on my rewrite, which features much improved sourcing, chronological flow, and a clean, straightforward overview? I was under the impression "discuss" was part of BRD. But alas, it seems you have your own version, and "sneering condescension" is a part of all three steps. Alas. But I digress. I've posted at the third opinion board–hopefully another editor or two will come along and decide which content they find preferable. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My initial response in this section was a good example of discussion, but you got angry and edit-warred. MilesMoney (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did get angry, and I should have stayed cool. I was (and remain) tired of your continued condescension [3], [4], etc. And I do interpret your frequent usage of the term "The Conservative Cloud," [5] as a violation of WP:NPA, specifically: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors."
As for the content at hand:
  • I'm not arguing, and at no point have argued, that we shouldn't give thorough coverage to this court case in the article. But 9 paragraphs? Is that a magic number? Do you not think it possible that we could do readers and English professors the world over a favor by providing a clear overview, rather than a non-chronological laundry list of micro-events within one main event?
  • I do believe OGCMA should have its own article (and thanks for your condescension–again, but yes, I realize the relation between the town & group). They overlap, but are not entirely synonymous. The town is more than the group. I think the group, with a long history and lots of media coverage, certainly warrants its own page.
  • The idea that this town is a "sleepy resort town" that's had one notable event in its history is a matter of personal opinion. Something missing from this article that has received significant attention in the press is FEMA's denial of hurricane funding to the town. [6]
  • "Being a mess is a matter of results." Based on your subjective assessment. Even if you think I did make a "mess" of the article, do you think perhaps there could have been a more WP:CIVIL way to address your grievances?
  • "The facts do not support stripping the material from the article..." Stripping? I think what I did can rightly be construed as editing–for clarity, grammar, ease of readership, chronology, addition of sources, etc. I'm clearly not trying to strip this section away, but to make it a cohesive, well-written, well-sourced, overview & summary of this court case, rather that what it was: an accumulation of years of cherrypicked stories, which were out of order, and some of which had deadlinks.
  • You claim this [7] is edit-warring. Actually, I removed an unsourced paragraph that featured a "quote" from a living person. Such edits are a matter of complying with WP:BLP. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In no particular order.
  • You claimed that the quote was unsourced, but it's directly from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/03/nyregion/03ocean.html?pagewanted=print, which is cited in the article. Since you no longer have a reason to remove it, you need to put it back immediately.
  • I was correct in pointing out that you mischaracterized OGCMA. Also, even if it's broken out into its own article, a summary should remain here, and that summary should have at least one line about the court case.
  • Falsely accusing me of violating WP:NPA is itself a violation. The quote was about "epithets", and "conservative" is not an epithet, it's their preferred term. Purely for contrast, "backwards rednecks" would be an epithet, although you'll note that I don't endorse it.
  • You say you're just trying to tighten up the section, not whitewash it. I'll WP:AGF and let you finish. If the result looks like whitewashing, I'll revert and we can start all over again.
MilesMoney (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This [8] is the last version of the article before I began editing it. Do you see [9] cited there? No, because I'm the one who added it [10]. I added it to support a different fact, and didn't know it supported the quote in question until you pointed it out. If you want the quote, with citation, to be in the article, why don't you add it yourself? Why are you demanding that I do it? Safehaven86 (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given a quote of that length, Google has no trouble returning the source. You removed it without even checking. And, no, I'm not going to touch that section until you say you're done. Only then can I compare it fairly against the original to see if it's whitewashed or just more compact. If that quote is missing, though, then that would be an example of whitewashing. MilesMoney (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOCITE, you can remove unsourced material at your discretion. There isn't a part of the policy that says "but you can only remove it if you've done a Google search and haven't found anything." Also, what do you mean by "whitewashing?" Is that a policy? If so, I am not familiar. Whether or not this particular quote ends up in the article, it's silly to think the article is "whitewashed" absent one particular quote. What if there's a better quote? A different speaker? Two quotes? Who knows what we'll find out there. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whitewashing comes down to finding things which you think are embarrassing and removing them. That quote that you removed without bothering to source is an example of something that might be considered embarrassing, as it's berating the town for taking money on false pretenses.
There are, as I'm sure you can imagine, many whitewashing techniques. One of them is to "tighten up" a section by coincidentally removing the embarrassing parts. A related one is to be very critical of embarrassing material and quick to remove it, while being more gentle elsewhere. It's a form of bias, and WP:NPOV requires us to be neutral.
As I said earlier, I'm expected to WP:AGF, so I'm not making any final judgments until you're done trimming. Then my assumption can be tested against the data. If it really is whitewashing, we do a BRD cycle. MilesMoney (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two stories way more important: 1. OGCMA did get millions from FEMA in July 2014 for Sandy damage (after they raised money for this in 2013). 2. There have been 4 major fires since 2010, destroying several buildings "under renovation" and homes and condos nearby, literally leaving dozens of people homeless. I suspect that some people with a gay agenda (who probably don't even live in town) want to over-emphasize the civil union issue and want people to believe that there is a huge gay-lesbian population in Ocean Grove (really quite small). Sufferingsurfer (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]
Response to third opinion request:
I personally agree with Safehaven86's edits. The section as it was before was a tad too long, not to mention that all the extra statements were unsourced. Also, the fact that that case had so much information while the other cases mentioned didn't have nearly as much info kind of wanders into WP:UNDUE territory. If anyone really thinks the information about the latter case needs to be expanded, try creating a separate article about it. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 07:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember you. You're not neutral. MilesMoney (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erpert and SafeHaven are correct, despite your ad hominem attack.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to be fair, MM, although I might have commented in the past about a situation that you were involved in, I have never had a dispute with you specifically. But since that aspect appears to be iffy, I'll recuse myself from such situations in the future. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 18:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. MilesMoney (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fires

[edit]

I added information about 4 major fires since 2010. Why did you cut it out alan? surfer Sufferingsurfer (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fires and fema

[edit]

Alansohn eliminated all my CORRECT info on how og GOT FEMA money in 2014 and how 4 fires that I dated and gave details are MUCH worse to homeowners than what Sandy did to boardwalk. Everyone who lives in og knows this. This fool apparently has no clue. Sufferingsurfer (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people

[edit]

Perdita Buchan? David Spelman? Are they notable? Did they live in OG for more than 5 minutes? Are they living in OG now? Sufferingsurfer (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ocean Grove, 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) 11:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday beach closure

[edit]

I'm still learning the ropes of editing, so wanted to go here first

From the Governance section:

The Camp Meeting Association currently keeps its beach closed on Sunday mornings between 8:30 am and noon, and Ocean Grove is still "dry", that is, the sale of all alcoholic beverages is prohibited.

The beach closure is seemingly no longer the case as of this May. Worth changing the sentence at this point? Everything I'm looking at seems speculative even from reliable sources.

Other sources I could find: [11] [2] [3] Finitestory (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey&oldid=1256683113"