Talk:Weehawken, New Jersey

Created

The revision history traces back to "22 October 2002" as the start of the article about "Weehawken Township, New Jersey" (later renamed as article "Weehawken"). It began, as typical, with just Geography & Demographics (no History). Since then, there have been over 295 edits to the article. No talk page existed, until today (18-Aug-2007), but perhaps, renaming from "Weehawken Township" lost any discussions under that article name. -Wikid77 05:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Tedious cleanup 2007

18-Aug-2007: I have completed multiple tedious edits for general cleanup of the "Weehawken" article with about 140 changes, adjusting grammar, spelling, wiki-links, and adding about 50 commas/hyphens, after the previous 290 edits. No re-phrasing of sentences was done. I think the article cleanup is finished, so no need to tag "{{cleanup}}" now. (Did I mention "tedious" cleanup?) The effort indicates how few people (the "skeleton crews") actually clean-up WP articles: when 140 copy-edit changes are needed for a famous suburb of New York. -Wikid77 05:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Should this section be scraped completely? It could become TV, or part of Film and TV, but is it worthwhile to keep all this "cute" mentions of Weehawken in this medium? Interesting, curious, and fun for those of us who love the little hamlet, but for an encyclopedia????? Other towns have such sections, but at some point they become unwieldly, don't they?Djflem 16:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Name

The name Weehawken is generally considered to have evolved from from the Lenape, but the two or three interpretations seem so different in essence, one a reference to the palisades or mouth of creek flowing from them, the other as

place of gulls. Is it possible that the name of the ship on which Peter Minuet, first governor of New Netherland, landed in the New World, named "Meeuwken", or "Seagull", may have spawned the latter interpretation?

Sisawehak meaning oysters; (now called e'sak (pl.) referring to the shells.

El Dorado

There's a lot of historic things that aren't note such as the El Dorado Casino, and the Worlds largest elevator designed by Eifel. (the railroad cut for which remains). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharaku (talk • contribs) 05:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

First Land Conveyances

• 1670 April 18. Confirmation to Maryn ADRIAENSEN of Bergen for a

parcel of land called Wiehacken in the jurisdiction of Bergen on Hobooken Creek, 50 morgen Dutch measure, first granted to Maryn ANDIAENSEN dec'd May 11, 1647. 93

• 1658 January 10. Indian Deed (copy of translation from the Dutch).

THERINQUES, WAPPAPPEN, SAGHKOW, KAGKENNIP, BOMOKAN, MEMEWOCKAN, SAMES, WEWENATOKWEE, to the Director General and Council of New Netherland for land on the Westside of the North River from the great Clip above Wiehacken to above the Island Sikakes, thence to the Kill van Col, so along to Constable's Hoeck, thence again to the Clip above Wiceacken (Bergen).

• 1668 May 12. Do. Same to Nicolas VERLETT for upland and

meadow, 138 Dutch morgen or 276 English acres, at Hoboocken betw. Hudson R., the creek of Hahassemes, the bay, the Wiehaeckese Creek and the highlands or woods on the N. W., maintaining there a free passage.

• 1669 June 10. Patent. Govr CARTERETT to Capt. John BERRY for land

toward the head of Pesawack Neck, now called New Barbados, from Sand- fords Spring six miles up into the country between the two rivers. 46

• 1669 June 10. Do. Same to same for land betw. Hudson R. and Overpeck's

Creek, from the Northern bounds of Nic. VERLETT and Samuel EDSALL, 1500 acres. 47

Is it possbilble that Verlett, (often associated w/ Hoboken) also owned lands that included The Heights and Uptown Weehawken, and perhaps farther north? The 05/12/68 deed does not define a northern boundary, while 06/10/69 patent mentions the northern bounds between the Hudson and Overpeck CreekDjflem (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Both list of ferries across the Hudson River in New York City and 1841 map in this article refer to Slough's Meadows, now the Weehawken Waterfront. Who was Slough, or does it just refer to the type of terrain?Djflem (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotes that lack source or credibility being taken out

I tend to have a quick eye for refuting information that isn't true, nor can't be proven. There are two quotes, I've found, in this page, that show this. THe first one lacks severe integrity, compared to the second.

Many Irish families (with roots in New York City's Hell's Kitchen) and Italian families (who had started out in Hoboken) made it their home. Weehawken saw its highest census numbers in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, approaching but never quite reaching 15,000.

Where is the evidence to support this statement? This message also gives the wrong message on Weehawken's population growth. In between 1930-1960, they lost 1,300 people, while America was having ridiculous growth, in the baby boom. There's also much more immigration in Weehawkin in this era, than the average American city (it's over 40% Latino), and there's barely any room to expand a population. Weekhawken's one of the rare places that actually has a higher population density than Manhattan, and the property taxes are also high, and it's very industrial, so there's not much incentives to outsider's living there. What this quote also does is respect the heritage of Hell's Kitchen, by saying that's where there roots are. Ironically, few people in Hell's Kitchen, who are American today, have roots to Hells Kitchen or New York period. It's what you'd call a professional American transplant zone. By saying Irish moved from Manhattan and Italians moved from Hoboken, without links, is not credible information. Weehawken's historically done a worst job at withholding their own population than Hoboken, so without a reasonable explanation, or an explanation at all, or evidence, this quote has to be taken out.

In the 1970s, Cuban emigree families (many of whom had established themselves in North Hudson's "Havana on the Hudson") chose Weehawken as the place to live.

Cuban family's did move here, but most did so earlier. Most Cuban immigrant's who came to New Jersey, or the Northeast, did so before the Castro regime in 1959. Part of this is just common sense. Before 1959, you could take a plane into New York City, Newark, or a boat to New York, Bayonne or where ever if you wanted. Come July '59, the only way you were getting in was through South Florida, and by no coincidence, because many of those Cuban's who left were of the higher economic class having their wealth ceased, they decided to mostly live in the growing and affluent southern Florida. Because white's held disproportional amounts of wealth and education in Cuba prior to '59, that's why over ninety percent of Cuban-American's in Florida are white. Meanwhile, more reflective of the pre-1959 demography of Cuba, 67 percent of Cuban-American's in New Jersey, racially identify as white. So, most Cuban's who arrived to Jersey City, Hoboken, Weehawken, actually did so prior to '59, mostly during the late 40's and 50's, just like Puerto Rican immigrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.230.11 (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Tom72.73.230.11 (talk)

To imprint a statistical or stereotypical picture does not do justice to the article and obscures the real story of Weehawken's history. Weehawken has always remained a desirable place to live. Stable neighborhoods, good housing stock and schools have made it one of Hudson County's best residential districts: a place to move to, especially when other areas such as Hoboken, Jersey City, Hell's Kitchen were in decline. (Its industrial area was on the waterfront, and very separate from its neighborhoods). Irish and Italian immigrant families who had established themsleves in more urbanized tenement neighborhoods and had become Irish-American and Italian American did indeed move there in the mid-century in the typical American move up the socio-economic ladder. The construction of the Lincoln Tunnel to the Shades (mainly Irish) made Hell's Kitchen a quick bus ride away, and the ride up the hill to the Heights (heavily Italian) from Hoboken made Weehawken a attractive suburb. Simply put, Cuban families were not allowed to "buy into" Weehawken until the 1970's. Like many areas in Greater New York, neighbors did not sell to the "Spanish", the perception being it would lead to the decline of the area. It was not until the the Cuban population (who arrived in Union City in large numbers after the revolution) had "proved" themselves and could "afford" to move Weehawken, and then mostly Uptown in the numbered streets. It was also during this period that the children of German-language speaking vanguard who had established the area in the earlier in the century became greyer, older empty-nesters who remained in their large family homes leading in part to the population decline. That there are no quoteable sources for these facts does not make them them untrue.87.210.7.209 (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Where in the article is a stereotypical picture created, or are any of these ideas you mention touched upon? Nightscream (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to previous entry (above historical populations) to contextualize content.87.210.7.209 (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I read your post, obviously; that's why I responded. I'm asking you where in the article are these ideas touched upon. You didn't explain where a "stereotypical" image is implied, nor where the article contradicts your assertions about these populations. When talking about "buying into" and the "Spanish", you put those terms in quotation marks, leading me to understand that those things were possibly mentioned in the article, but a search of the article did not turn up those phrases. So what parts of the article are you referring to? Nightscream (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In =Quotes that lack source or credibility being taken out= (above on this discussion page) the writer explains why certain statements were removed from the article. =historical populatios= (also above on this page) was a response. The reasoning for the removal (which asks for references, but provides none) is based on standard, stereotypical, and statistical approaches to an understanding of urban/suburban transition, population shifts, and immigration patterns that are not applicable to Weehawken, a small mucipality in the midst of the metropolis. The Finns, the Delanceys, , McGortys, the Leahys came from Manhattan's West Side. The Siricos, the D'Agostinos, the Iaconos, and Macinis came from Hoboken, and the Fits, Betancourts, the Varcarcels, and the Castros, came from Cuba. The Reidels, the Heinbachs, Getmannoffs, and Schwartzs rattled around in their big almost-empty houses. That just the way it was in town in the sixties and seventies. The field research (which comes from living there) is not documented.87.210.7.209 (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If your post was made in response to a discussion in another section, then you should've restricted it to that section. Starting a new section to make a response to something said in a prior section, especially without making it clear that you're doing that, may make it difficult for readers to understand what you're referring to. I also see now that you did indeed respond in that section, but also made an identical post in a new one. There's no reason for this. Let's keep it together to preserve the discussion's continuity for all readers, both old ones privy to the prior discussion, and new ones coming in late.

As to the content of the discussion, one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies is WP:Verifiability, which requires all information in articles to be supported by reliable, verifiable sources cited explicitly in the text. Material without such support cannot be included, and must be removed. Personal knowledge (also known as original research) cannot be used as a source, because it cannot verified for transparency's sake. One cannot include material because one "lives there" because this makes it impossible for third party readers who do not live there to know if this information is reliable or not. No one can make informed assessments of material's reliability when it comes from an anonymous editor who simply says that they live there. This is why all material must come from publicly verifiable sources, and labeled as such, regardless of whether the editor who wishes to add it insists that it is true. It is important to note that the opening line of the WP:V page is "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Reading up on WP:V and WP:NOR should clarify this. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's all well in good in theory. There are B-class articles, a good example being Wall Street, that have long passages which are not referenced but make statements that are generally assumed to be true. I'm not incline to purge that article of unreferenced material and I'm not sure it would be appreciated either.Djflem (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not well and good "in theory", it's our practice, and for reasons explained above. Material cannot be included because it is "assumed" to be true (Assumed by whom?), it must be supported by reliable, verifiable sources. Adding material because someone "assumes" it to be valid is obviously Original Research, and is prohibited by policy. Equally invalid an argument is pointing to other articles with similar policies. You seem to think pointing to another article establishes some type of precedent that justifies more of the same. In fact, all you're doing is pointing out another article that violates the same policy, which means that that article too, must be addressed. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and What about article X for more on this. (Although those pages emphasize deletion discussions because that isthe type of discussion in which this rationale is often used, in principle, it applies to any discussion in which it's used.) You cannot simply argue that "Oh, this article over there violates WP policy, so that means we can violate here in this one." If the material 87.210.7.209 favored was unsourced, then its removal was perfectly valid. As an editor of two and a half years with over 5,800 edits amassed, you should know this by now. Nightscream (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to your scolding: One assumes that the person who writes the information assumes it to be true. You seem to assume that I'm suggesting that unsourced material be kept (or restored), which I did not and am not, but simply pointing out how incidently, subjectively, erractically policy is applied (as in the de-listed good article Wall Street). Research, writing, and fact-checking is admirable work that will build a encyclopedia, and I wish I would see more of it from the disproportionate number of editors who've elected or elevated themselves to policy police rather than add necessary, valuable, verifiable content. If you really wanted to point out "what I do wrong" you should have asked me to confine my discussion to the article and not its subject, the policy outline at the top of this page which I completely disagree with.Djflem (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Weehawken has always remained a desirable place to live. Stable neighborhoods, good housing stock and schools have made it one of Hudson County's best residential districts: a place to move to, especially when other areas such as Hoboken, Jersey City, Hell's Kitchen were in decline.

Opinions are subjective. I don't think anyone would deny that. I'm not going to sit here and argue whether or not it's a desirable place or not just for that reason. What can't be denied though is that it doesn't have the glamour image of Hell's Kitchen. What also can't be denied is math - in that, demographics. They had virtually identical demographical patterns prewar, in that of European ethnic groups. The two places are very similar culturally. But as I stated, the high property taxes and even higher population density, along with severe overpopulation would well out-balance any pro of moving there. I'm not saying a few people didn't do something here and there. Who's to say some from Hudson Co. aren't apart of the flock of yuppies moving to New York City or those new high rises in Jersey City or Hoboken? It'd only be a few like that too. My point being, it's not worthy of mentioning in an already largely detailed article that lacks sufficient sources in much of it.

Hell's Kitchen were in decline.

There was equivalent to worst population decline in Weehawkin. There were similar patterns of postwar immigration. Weehawkin was very classic looking of the rustbelt prewar too. Hell's Kitchen had a bit more diversity in it's imagery prior to WWII. So what I'm saying is that both places were in decline. The difference is Hell's Kitchen's tenaments were knocked down and new high and mid-rises were built for what'd eventually be yuppies like Alicia Keys mom who is native to Detroit or Sylvester Stallone's mother, who's from Washington. D.C. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

To imprint a statistical or stereotypical picture does not do justice to the article and obscures the real story of Weehawken's history.

To make comments on a page without citation is misleading and is not reputable. That's simple fact. When in stating that many people in Weehawken have roots to Hells Kitchen without source, that's exactly what you're doing. I'm not coming on here posting my statistical data on the main page. I'm using that as a basic demographical reference in my explanation. You're the one who has something to prove since you don't have citation in your highly questionable and disputable quotes. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

Weehawken has always remained a desirable place to live.

Maybe now. But back in the 50's or 60's, it was Hell's Kitchen on the other side of the river. The only difference was less wealthy American's and foreigner's would eventually become interesting simply because it's not in Manhattan. Instead, more traditional immigrant groups (mostly Latinos) took up residency in the place. You will still find a decent amount of European-American families in the area with roots to the place. It's more common of a place with residential homes. That's not something Hells Kitchen really ever had and definitely doesn't now.

Irish and Italian immigrant families who had established themsleves in more urbanized tenement neighborhoods and had become Irish-American and Italian American did indeed move there in the mid-century in the typical American move up the socio-economic ladder.

How exactly was it moving up the socio-economic ladder to move to a place with severe population decline among people who are descendants of the same groups in that area? You act like it's two totally different worlds on two sides of the river. It's not. It's very close. By postwar, Irish-American's had roughly had a good 3 to 4 generations in the U.S. and most Italians had been second or third generation, so I don't even know how your immigrant proposition is relavent there. You act as if Weehawken didn't have the same thing though. Suburbanization occurred after WWII from NJ cities (whether it be large or small - ex. Hoboken, Weehawken) to suburbs. There are no traditional suburbs in Hudson Co. that grew postwar due to one group of New Jerseyans or American's moving to there. Like I said, when you don't have evidence or source, it's a baseless statement. I'm not the one writing my opinion on history on Wikipedia articles.

The construction of the Lincoln Tunnel to the Shades (mainly Irish) made Hell's Kitchen a quick bus ride away, and the ride up the hill to the Heights (heavily Italian) from Hoboken made Weehawken a attractive suburb.

If it were an attractive suburb, why did the population decline? Why is it still in decline? Why is most of the real estate old? Why has the population gotten rapidly less European-American, not just in Weehawken, but all of Hudson Co., if white's (or Irish as you put it) were interested in moving there? A quick bus ride away? Sure. A lot of places are. Just because the bus gets you there doesn't mean you're moving there. Demographics speak for themselves. I respect your opinion. But I don't respect it as a source for knowledge. Sorry.

Simply put, Cuban families were not allowed to "buy into" Weehawken until the 1970's.

With all due respect, this theory is illogical, senseless and even immature. Not allowed? Like dogs or something, right? First of all, what ever bans there were on blacks (and exclusively only them via redlining) was banned around the time of the Civil Rights Act. Secondly, the majority of Cuban-American's (even in New Jersey) are European-American. They also came with more education and skill than the average immigrant (especially among Latin Americans) group of the time, so I don't think anyone was making the mean finger. We're talking about Weehawken. This isn't Mayberry. The reason it got less European-American (which started well below the 1970's) was because they didn't want to live in an extremely dense old industrial looking place. There standards in the 1950's and 1960's were more set on suburban landscape.

Like many areas in Greater New York, neighbors did not sell to the "Spanish", the perception being it would lead to the decline of the area.

Says who? And who exactly are the Spanish? What is your source? Are you some sort of Sociology Professor we should just respect for the sake you're speaking or are you just babbling your confusing opinion at us? I want sources. I was studies. Not your opinion. Your opinion only becomes valued on here once you're basing it off of that. Without that, we have no clue what you're thinking nor why you're thinking it.

It was not until the the Cuban population (who arrived in Union City in large numbers after the revolution) had "proved" themselves and could "afford" to move Weehawken, and then mostly Uptown in the numbered streets.

Where is that proof? Show me it. News articles? Census data? There's so much out there. Yet none for this? Believe it or not, there's not much disparity in terms of pricing between Weehawken and Union City.

It was also during this period that the children of German-language speaking vanguard who had established the area in the earlier in the century became greyer, older empty-nesters who remained in their large family homes leading in part to the population decline.

Who are you speaking of? German and Germanic language speaking immigrants from previous generations would have already been dead. German's were not historically the dominant European ethnic group in Weehawken or Hudson Co. in the 20th century. It's always been more Italian, Jewish and Irish.

That there are no quoteable sources for these facts does not make them them untrue.

Actually, it might do that. The point is these aren't facts because they can't be proven. They're your opinion - which like I said, I respect, but we can't rely on.

The Finns, the Delanceys, , McGortys, the Leahys came from Manhattan's West Side. The Siricos, the D'Agostinos, the Iaconos, and Macinis came from Hoboken, and the Fits, Betancourts, the Varcarcels, and the Castros, came from Cuba.

Says who? Don't you realize no one else has a clue what you're talking about? Did you just make up a bunch of random last names and try running along with that? You didn't provide an explanation as to why the population was decreasing (literally numerically) during this era. You think Weehawken is Howell, NJ, yet it's not. It has one of the highest population densities in the country and the amount of space is even more crammed in due to the amount of old homes.

The Reidels, the Heinbachs, Getmannoffs, and Schwartzs rattled around in their big almost-empty houses. That just the way it was in town in the sixties and seventies. The field research (which comes from living there) is not documented.

There is no field work. You're basing your opinion based off of an extremely small sample size which has no integrity. I'm not saying that to insult you. I'm saying that to be direct. You need evidence when it comes to field research. To all of us, your interpretation is as one person. It's not a sum of people. I've spoken to people in Weehawken and Hudson Co. about this, and even asked in reference to this question, to a variety of backgrounds, and they were all clueless. One person can think what ever he wants. It's his or her interpretation. That's not evidence though.

One cannot include material because one "lives there" because this makes it impossible for third party readers who do not live there to know if this information is reliable or not.

Exactly. Plus, that interpretation may even vary among people within that community. I've lived in 3 different places and I can tell you that there are dozens of different ways people looked on history and the present in all these areas. That's just human nature. If someone has little to no exposure to a place though, they wouldn't even able to create a personal interpretation.

It's not well and good "in theory", it's our practice, and for reasons explained above. Material cannot be included because it is "assumed" to be true (Assumed by whom?), it must be supported by reliable, verifiable sources.

What he's saying is there's a place for articles without sourcing (which are B class articles). It's more of an editorial type setting. In subjects that typically have less explicitness, such as Wall Street, it's understandable why that'd be the appropriate setting. In the history of a place, it wouldn't be. That is explicit. General statements can be made on Weehawken or any place. Unfortunately, saying people come from such and such is detailed. And details require sources. The sad reality is that a lot of that gets overshadowed on Wikipedia because those who work for the site or edit articles can't get to every article.

The best way I can put it is you have to think of writing an article on this page as being a lawyer. You need evidence to support your arguments. You can have your hunch or intuition. But without quotation from published sources, it's not viable. If you want to post your opinion, intuition or small sample of personal encounters, there's blogs and chat rooms for that. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

Weehawken Public Library

Does anybody have any pictures of the Weehawken Public Library? It is an interesting building, both in its architecture, and that it is perched high on some rocks. Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I took several on June 10th. I just uploaded them here. Hope they help! Nightscream (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Film, television, music, and literature

Have removed entire section as unreferenced, misc, trivia list. Interesting stuff, but seems to have been edited for no apparent reason, the info kept rather arbitrary.Djflem (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Film

• In the 2009 film 27 Dresses, Weehawken is the hometown of the main character, played by Katherine Heigl.

Television

• Weehawken (though misspelled in a caption as "Weehauken") was humorously slighted in the TV series Futurama as being the prior location of the rather ramshackle Democratic Order Of Planets (DOOP) headquarters, which was shown after the new headquarters was destroyed.
• In "Mirror, Mirror", a 2007 episode of the TV series House, the town was cited humorously as a mundane place for a patient to have travelled.

Recording

• On Moby Grape's 1968 album Wow, the track "Just Like Gene Autry: A Foxtrot" (strangely, cut at 78 rpm) features Arthur Godfrey announcing: "And now, emanating from the Secaucus Lounge at the fabulous Fandango Hotel in Weehawken, New Jersey..."

Print

• In his 1918 Pulitzer Prize-winning Cornhuskers, Carl Sandburg mentions Weehawken and its railyards.
• John Erskine reflects on his childhood in the town in The Memory of Certain Persons.
• Weehawken is mentioned in many Dr. Seuss stories, including The Lorax.
• Wee Willie Weehawken is a character in Boys' Ranch, created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, and published by Harper Comics in the 1950s.

The material is not unreferenced. The source for the content, such as plot content, of any creative work, such as books, movies, TV episodes, etc, is the work itself; they are self-sourced. This is explicitly stated with respect to movies here, and the principle applies to other works. Since the titles of the works are mentioned above, it is sourced. The only items that were not sourced were the specific Futurama episode, and the date of the Pogo strip. I supplied the name of the episode, and removed the Pogo passage. Nightscream (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material in need of sourcing

I'm moving the following material here from the Geography section until it can be sourced:

Though small, Weehawken has very urban population density that is among the highest in the United States and comparable with that of nearby Jersey City. Weehawken is a residential community of primarily one- and two-family homes (many built during the Edwardian era) and low-rise apartment buildings.

Geographically, Weehawken has distinct neighborhoods: Downtown (or The Shades), The Heights, Uptown (which includes Kingswood Bluff), and The Waterfront, which since 1990s has been developed for transportaion, commercial, recreational and residential uses. Though some are long abandoned (e.g., Grauert Causeway), there are still several outdoor public staircases (e.g., Shippen Steps) throughout the town, and a number of dead-end streets.

Local zoning laws prohibit the construction of high-rise buildings that would obstruct sight-lines from higher points in town.

Nightscream (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Weehawken residence or nativity of the following notables is not sourced, so I've removed them from the article until they can be sourced:

• Ed Alberian,(1920–1997), entertainer, whose credits include early television's Clarabell the Clown on the Howdy Doody Show, The Beachcomber Bill Show, and Let's Have FunStancavish, Don (April 2), "Edwin Alberian was TV's Clarabell", The Record {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• Adele Astaire, (1896–1981), Fred Astaire's elder sister, dancer and entertainer in vaudeville, on Broadway and the West End, who retired in 1932 to become Lady Charles Cavendish.
• Fred Astaire, (1899–1987), Hollywood legend, lived in Weehawken as a teenager, and during vaudville and early Broadway years.
• John H. Bonn, founder of North Hudson County Railway
• John Erskine, (1879–1951), educator and author, who reflects on the town in The Memory of Certain Persons.
• Peter Fiordalisi, (1904–1988), modern artist whose work was inspired by the Palisades, Hudson, and skyline.
• Roscoe H. Hillenkoeter, director of the Central Intelligence Agency
• Lori Majewski, journalist, former contributor to Spin and US Weekly magazines, and current managing editor of Teen People magazine.
• William E. Ozzard (born 1915), New Jersey Senate president, 1963
• William Stelling, film actor 1930s-1980s
• Daniel Webster (1782–1852) American statesmen Nightscream (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

References

List of eponymous streets

• Bonn Place, for John H. Bonn, of the North Hudson County Railway
• Burr Place for Aaron Burr
• Carrol Place
• Cooper Place
• Denning and Duer Place, for Denning Duer, who built the estate Hauxhurst
• Edgar Street
• Grauert Place, former mayor whose wife took over job after he died in office
• Gregory Avenue, possibly for Dudley S. Gregory
• King Avenue for James G. King, whose estate on King's Bluff was called Highwood
• Hamilton Avenue for Alexander Hamilton, mortally wounded in Burr–Hamilton duel in 1804
• Louisa Place, longtime resident, daughter of Mr Cooper
• Lincoln Place
• Nesbit Street
• Shippen Street
• Pershing Road for John J. Pershing
• Potter Place, family name
• Zerman Place

Assessment comments

These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages.

I have assessed this article as C-class and identified the following areas for improvement:

• The article needs inline citations

shirulashem (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiehawken

Governor

01:05, 18 June 2010 Nightscream (talk | contribs) (45,562 bytes) (The article already makes clear that the city is in NJ, who the state's governor is has nothing to do with Weehawken, and the possessive is "its", not "it's".) (undo) Can you please clarify what you are saying in the above statement?Djflem (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not necessary to mention that the city is in New Jersey at that point in the article, since that is mentioned numerous times prior to that, as in the Lead; Who the governor of New Jersey is has nothing to do with an article on Weehawken; In any event, the proper phrase to refer to the state's governor would be "its governor", not "it's governor". Nightscream (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

3 reverts, no explanation

An administrator has recently reverted three edits stating {Revert.This has nothing to do with Weehawken}, (Revert per 2009 consensus. This material is not relevant to the subject of this article, (Revert. Prior consensus already determined this does not belong, and it is inappropriate to edit while a discussion is in progress on the material in question.) The first two appear to be based on his interpretations of [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Jersey/Archive_4#Regarding_municipality_articles, while the third based on same with reference to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force#Use of templates for federal, state and county representation. It would seem that after reverting material three times, a very very specifc interpretation the consensus mentioned and how it is being applied to this page as it is currently published with his last version would be appropriate since none has been made.Djflem (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've replied to the message you left me on my talk page by leaving one on yours. There is no "interpretation". The version of the information that gained support by the end of the 2009 discussion was one that bore relevance to the city in question, and not a two-paragraph digression of material explaining the make-up of this district or that district, which is not relevant to the city, but appropriate to articles on those districts. I did err, however, in removing the passage about the Freeholder, which I've now restored. Nightscream (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

After clearing stating that it is inappropriate to edit while a discussion is in progress on the material in question the above admisinstrator has given himself dispensatiion to do so, apparently applying his vague interpretation bore relevance to the city in question, with an added oops, for his sloppiness. He has not offered a SPECIFIC EXPLANATION as to how he is applying the 2009 COMPROMISE PROPOSAL, which sets no parameters for relevance to the city in question. He has here and on my my talk page refused to make a clear statement as to the DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS with regard to his edits on THIS page. He has not provided any RECONCILATION between the phrasing (cobbled for the Bayonne article) under the above compromise proposal and what he has now placed in this article under Weehawken, New Jersey#Federal, state and county representation. Now the precedent now established that it is OK is makes changes, I am restoring the removed material, links, and refs making use of tools available. Djflem (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly appropriate to revert material if the previous edit is an unambiguous policy violation, or was made against consensus. It's a matter of common sense, much in the same way that if Editor A is blocked for violating the 3RR rule, for example, Editor B will not be similarly blocked for reverting those edits if Editor's A's edits were unambiguous acts of vandalism or policy violations.

No definition or parameters are should be required for anyone who understands what the word "relevance" means, and who can read the supported version of the material shown at the end of the 2009 discussion. Explaining what districts or areas a given city is a part of is obviously reasonable. Digressing then into two or three paragraphs about those bodies is not. That is the criterion described in the current discussion, in the 2009 discussion, and is reflected in the exampled passage in that discussion (with the exception of the state senators, whose presence I missed when I gave my support to that example). If you're referring to the single sentence elaboration given for each district the city is mentioned to be a part of, then feel free to add that as part of the compromise. I thought whoever was in charge of those templates would do so following the 2009 discussion, but apparently they did not, and this includes A Stop at Willoughby and Alan, who have edited those templates following the 2009 discussion, despite the fact that they were among those who gave their support to that compromise. Nightscream (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And btw, please take the tone down a notch, as far as attacking others for "sloppiness", given that everyone exhibits occasional lapses in writing and editing, including mistakes in spelling, grammar, not signing talk page posts, ([3][4]), not signing in when posting messages, and repeatedly neglecting to include citation information when adding references ([5][6][7][8][9][10]). Should I pounce on you every time you do this, or simply let it go, while admitting my own errors, as I did above? Nightscream (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI;Wikitionary:relevence

The defintion is open to interpretation, hence the request for clarification of the one being used, which is so slow in coming. If there are indeed GUIDELINES, they should be stated CLEARLY, which they are not in the COMPROMISE PROPOSAL, the (as noted, muddled) conclusion and only part of the above mentioned discusssions which established an agreement by editors that is of import here . The opportunity to apply the AGREEMENT in the last 4 edits by Nigtscream were wasted by not doing so, as is the opportunity to respond in a staightfoward SPECIFIC way to the material he has been reverting.

PLEASE NOTE: The above banner states This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Weehawken, New Jersey article. Djflem (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the definition of relevance provides for two or three paragraphs detailing the makeup of districts in an article that isn't about those districts, regardless of whether you're too obtuse to acknowledge this. Those districts are relevant enough to mention in the city articles. That has nothing to do with digressing into entire paragraphs about them, which are appropriate for articles about those districts, to which the city article can simply be linked, a point I've made numerous times, without any direct refutation of this point by you that I know of.

The fact remains that you have violated Wikipedia policy by reverting both against consensus, and during during dispute discussion, for which I have notified another administrator. Comparison of the different versions to the one supported at the end of the 2009 discussion makes this clear enough, as have my repeated explanations to you: Mentioning entities of which a given city is a part is valid in an article on that city. Going into detail on those bodies' make-up is not. The 2009 discussion concluded with a compromise that provided a version of that material that specified how much of that material would go into a given article. That is the clear guideline. If you have some question or objection about it or have trouble understanding it, then you should specify what that objection or question is, instead of just alluding to problems with the passage in a vague manner, as you tend to do, or saying ad nauseum, "It's not clear." Nightscream (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Are the edits made by NIghtscream an application of the agreement to which he portends to be so well versed, or just indiscriminate removal of text, links, and references? It is confusing, unproductive work not supported by his ramblings. To ask that he be specific and clear as to his edits on this page with regard to a flawed (by his admission) compromise agreement (about the phrasing in the Bayonne article), and his application of it is appropriate. Below is phrasing from the Bayonne article and his edit to the Weehawken article. Will he please reconcile them, and the version now published by being specific? Since intellectual capacity to understand what is so obvious for him seems to be in question,, an extremely detailed explanation would seem to be in order. As this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Weehawken, New Jersey article the content should be the focus, which he as adminstrator should demonstrate, and thus far has not done Djflem (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bayonne article phrasing:

Bayonne is split between the 10th and 13th Congressional districts. The 10th district is represented by Donald Payne (D, Newark). The 13th district is represented by Albio Sires (D, West New York). New Jersey is represented in the United States Senate by Frank Lautenberg (D, Cliffside Park) and Bob Menendez (D, Hoboken).

Bayonne is also part of New Jersey's 31st legislative district, which is represented in the New Jersey Senate by Sandra Bolden Cunningham (D, Jersey City), and in the New Jersey General Assembly by Anthony Chiappone (D, Bayonne) and L. Harvey Smith (D, Jersey City).

Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico (D, Bayonne) currently represents Bayonne on the Hudson County Board of Chosen Freeholders.

Nightscream's Weehawken edit:

Weehawken is in the Thirteenth Congressional District and is part of New Jersey's 33rd Legislative District

Given the above, a justification for what Nightscream has published would seem necessaryDjflem (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Those who favored adding information to city articles not about those cities could've modified the templates, which is what I thought they were going to do following the 2009 discussion. They didn't. That is their fault, not mine, as templates are not something I focus on in my editing. Nightscream (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So the reason Nightscream made three reverts and published his version above is because those who favored adding information to city articles not about those cities could've modified the templates, which is what he thought they were going to do following the 2009 discussion, but they didn't. And it is their fault, not his, as templates are not something he focuses on in his editing.

The Bayonne article text mentions several political divisons and their representatives. The Weehawken version mentions two political divisions. What this discussion is about is why while offering a model, Nightscream does not apply it to his edits on this page. Why does Nightscream's treatment of the text under the heading Federal, state and county representation in the Weehawken article NOT conform to the example to which he refers? Is the application at one's discretion? (as has also made reverts at other pages). Since it is now clear(?) why he did, the question is if Nightscream supports his version of his published edits to this page? If so why, can he explain? If there are changes he would like to make to it, this would be the time and place to do so. Djflem (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I already answered your question. I did not apply those edits because I'm not the one who insisted on including material that isn't about the city in question. Others did. They can address that by changing the templates, and then adding those templates to the sections in question. Those who edit those templates chose not to do so for reasons that are unclear (They forgot, they each thought someone else would do it, they lost interest, they thought they could get away with not doing so because they thought no one would notice, etc.). No one added those templates back to the Hudson County articles until you and Alan began doing so recently. Since you two have ignored the prior consensus, why should I include material in those sections that I only conceded to as a compromise with others? You ignore the 2009 discussion, and even claim a possible "change to consensus", even though the only ones who added the templates to articles on other counties' cities was Alan himself, and four years before that discussion, and neither he nor others like A Stop at Willoughby followed up by changing them, but now I'm supposed to adhere strictly to a compromised version of the info that you show nothing but contempt for? No. I'm not. You don't get to ignore a consensus solution that met in the middle, and then hypocritically complain when someone else hasn't adhered to that same proposal to your liking. Nightscream (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The questions, misread by Nightscreaam, remain unanswered. They are:

• 1. How do his edits correspond to the Bayonne article model found in the compromise agreement?
• 2. Does he support the version he has published on this page?
• 3. Does he wish to make any changes to his contributions to this page, and if so, what are they?

The smoke and mirrors above does not address those questions, now a very simply break-down of the first request made under this heading that after reverting material three times, a very very specifc interpretation of the consensus mentioned and how it is being applied to this page as it is currently published with his last version would be appropriate. Reading through the rattle above, one gleens that Nightscream feels that others are not following his interpretation of how the flawed model text for the compromise agreement should be applied, and subsequently is under no obligation to do so himself. This "they don't, so I won't" stance is unconstructive at best, and from an administrator is abuse which should be brought to the attention of the wider community. Contibutions made in good faith are first and foremost, the frontline and most important, representations of a contributor's efforts to improve aricles. Nightscream has been given sufficient opportunity to explain his edits on this "discussion/talk page for the Weehawken article" and to elaborate how they have made an improvement to the content of the reader page. When is he going to a) do that, b) make a another suggestion for an improvement of this ariticle c) exclude himself from editing on this point? Djflem (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Webster?

I see that Daniel Webster is listed as having been a notable resident, but the citations provided only prove that he owned property in town. Even these proofs are lacking in that they are not primary sources. I am adding a note to that effect until actually proof can be found that he lived in town. (Property ownership isn't the same. I might as well cite the Duke of York as having lived in Weehawken.) Johndgrossi (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)johndgrossi

This is certainly a valid point of discussion, but please do not add notes to articles, as they are inappropriate. Personally, I think that sources for owning residential property qualifies for inclusion on this list, but it might be a good idea to hear from others on this point. Nightscream (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I added Mountain Pavilion article and made mention of Webster's visit. The article needs help for notability. --Wikipietime (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Broken Reference

There are several references to Demontreux, 2004, but the original reference doesn't seem to be listed any longer. Please fix. BillMcGonigle (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Eldorado or The Eldorado Amusement Park as the earliest or one of the earliest in the country.

I created Eldorado Amusement Park and unable to establish inclusion into the Amusement Park article. Also, I would like a more experienced editor of this article to consider changing or modifying the mention of The Eldorado as The Eldorado Amusement Park so as to provide linkage to the Park's article and more resources. Also, on a side note, why was the park so short lived?--Wikipietime (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture

Per this RfC, content in IPC sections should include sourcing that indicates not only that the reference exists, but that it is significant to the topic of the article. Of the items included in this revert, one is entirely unsourced and the other two are cited only to Amazon, which does not accomplish that requirement. Unless appropriate sourcing can be added, these items should not be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Annual Kite Event

As a reoccurring event, a mention might be appropriate in the article or even a new section!

http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_story/27473123/article-Fly-em--high---Weehawken-holds-annual-kite-festival-on-waterfront-?instance=latest_story

--Wikipietime (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Casing of the definite article re: MOS:THEBAND

Per MOS:THEBAND Mid-sentence, per the MoS main page, the word the should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.

The examples given are for The Beatles and The Moody Blues and The Edge, and one will notice that it's the not The in situations such as cited above and would seem to be for Barooshion being a member of the Cake. Djflem (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

So why have you capitalized the word above?

Also: Is the word part of Cake's name, or not? Nightscream (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

To draw your attention to the fact that your edit summary (The examples given by MOS:THEBAND are those in which the word "the" is not a part of the band's name. But in cases where it is, the word is therefore part of a proper noun, https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/sep/19/eleanor-barooshian-obituary. Otherwise, it shouldn't be wikilinked.which appears to be the case with The Cake, given its Wikipedia article, and one of the sources cited in it:) is wrong.

Yes, indeed the Beatles, the Moody Blues and the Edge are proper nouns, yet as MOS clearly states and offers in its example, the the becomes lower case in continuous prose (regardless of how The Guardian does it). Pretty straightforward, no?Djflem (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is and the same MOS guideline applies to the Cake. Djflem (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Well no, the fact that The Guardian does it that way is precisely what muddies the clarity of the issue --- that is, making it less straightforward. But this does seem somewhat in line with the way the article is dropped when incorporated into prose (e.g.: I read about it 'the Times interview.) So I'll take your word for it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)