User:Djflem/Route 17 BRT

St. John's Park was a 19th century city square and surrounding neighbourhood. what has become known as the Tribeca neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City. The square was bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place.

The land was part of a plantation owned by an early settler to New Netherland and was later owned by the English crown, which deeded it to Trinity Church. The church built St. John's Chapel and laid out "Hudson Square", creating New York City's first development of townhouses around a private park. By 1827 the neighborhood had become known as "St. John's Park" and remained fashionable until about 1850. In 1866 it was sold to the Cornelius Vanderbilt's Hudson River Railway Company and became the location of "St. John's Park Freight Depot", the railroad's southern terminus. The terminal was demolished in 1927 to allow construction of exits from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's Holland Tunnel.St. John's Park is the square block in the Tribeca neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place. Despite its name, it is no longer a park, and is inaccessible to the public.

The land was part of a plantation owned by an early settler to New Netherland and was later owned by the English crown, which deeded it to Trinity Church. The church built St. John's Chapel and laid out "Hudson Square", creating New York City's first development of townhouses around a private park. By 1827 the neighborhood had become known as "St. John's Park" and remained fashionable until about 1850. In 1866 it was sold to Hudson River Railway Company and became the location of "St. John's Park Freight Depot", the railroad's southern terminus. Since 1927 the square has been the site of the Holland Tunnel Exit Plaza, which like the tunnel itself is owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

St. John's Park was a 19th century city square and surrounding neighbourhood. what has become known as the Tribeca neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City. The square was bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place.

The land was part of a plantation owned by an early settler to New Netherland and was later owned by the English crown, which deeded it to Trinity Church. The church built St. John's Chapel and laid out "Hudson Square", creating New York City's first development of townhouses around a private park. By 1827 the neighborhood had become known as "St. John's Park" and remained fashionable until about 1850. In 1866 it was sold to the Hudson River Railway Company and became the location of "St. John's Park Freight Depot", the railroad's southern terminus, which was demolished in 1927.

The square block

The land was part of a plantation owned by an early settler to New Netherland and was later owned by the English crown, which deeded it to Trinity Church. The church built St. John's Chapel and laid out "Hudson Square", creating New York City's first development of townhouses around a private park. By 1827 the neighborhood had become known as "St. John's Park" and remained fashionable until about 1850. In 1866 it was sold to Hudson River Railway Company and became the location of "St. John's Park Freight Depot", the railroad's southern terminus. Since 1927 the square has been the site of the Holland Tunnel Exit Plaza, which like the Holland Tunnel, is owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The circular interior space of the rotary roadway is still known as St. John's Park. Entry is prohibited.

Let's review the comments from other editors:

• "The roads around the park/square may well be known as St. John's Rotary but the area within is St. John's Park. The "rotary" name seems to be uncommon, while the name of the park appears in many historical documents as well as on Google Maps (Bing and MapQuest don't name it). I think that the article should retain its current name as the most common name for this feature, but inclusion of the rotary name is fine." Pburka (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• "It doesn't matter that it's not a park today. It was a park in the past, and that name still appears to be used for the (now inaccessible) plot of land. I propose that if the plot had never been a park and public square it would not warrant an article. Were it only a series of roads leading to and from the Holland Tunnel we might include a mention of it in that article, but it's unlikely it would have its own page. The reason the plot is notable is because it was once a park (and notability is not temporary)." Pburka (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Most of the article, as it stands, talks about the historical use, which is a park. We could move it to "St. John's Rotary" if we have more details in the article about the rotary than about the site's historical use, and if the rotary, not the park, was the main use for the land. However, the plot has been used as a rotary only recently, and the rotary itself is not very notable, as any other entrance/exit plaza for a bridge or tunnel would be. By contrast, the land's use as a park is notable, which is why the article was created at that title in the first place." Epicgenius (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)]
• "Most of the article, as it stands, talks about the historical use, which is a park. We could move it to "St. John's Rotary" if we have more details in the article about the rotary than about the site's historical use, and if the rotary, not the park, was the main use for the land. However, the plot has been used as a rotary only recently, and the rotary itself is not very notable, as any other entrance/exit plaza for a bridge or tunnel would be. By contrast, the land's use as a park is notable, which is why the article was created at that title in the first place." Epicgenius (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)]
• "There is only one thing notable about the highway exit: its history as a park and a railway depot. Contemporary sources and maps continue to call the space St. John's Park, and the rotary isn't notable. That the park is no longer much of a park is irrelevant, as notability is not temporary." Pburka (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC).
• "[1] In the above section, there is a 3 to 1 consensus right now on keeping the article at this title. If you feel otherwise, open a WP:RFC about the page title." Epicgenius (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge? The consensus is that title of the article be based on the name of the (now inaccessible) plot of land within the rotary, and that the article should be a history of that land, which is notable because it was once park and rail depot.

Djflem (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That: The roads around the park/square may well be known as St. John's Rotary but the area within is St. John's Park. It doesn't matter that it's not a park today. It was a park in the past, and that name still appears to be used for the (now inaccessible) plot of land. if the plot had never been a park and public square it would not warrant an article. Were it only a series of roads leading to and from the Holland Tunnel we might include a mention of it in that article, but it's unlikely it would have its own page. The reason the plot is notable is because it was once a park (and notability is not temporary).There is a 3 to 1 consensus right now on keeping the article at this title.

Yes, I agree, that a large part of what makes the Holland Tunnel Exit Plaza, the Holland Tunnel Rotary, and the circular wasteland still referred to as St John's Park, notable is having such an illustrious past. It's quite remarkable that the name (from which this article takes its title) persisted for so long considering the square itself only lasted for about 70 years and that the church was demolished almost a 100 years ago. The terminal of the same name located there for 50 years until 1927 naturally helped to perpetuate it. (Lot's old-timers still even use Bedloe's Island). And yes, I agree, that the article should focus on the history of the land. It pretty much does that, doesn't it? The overall structure and the basics are there, but there are some details that need looking at. Generally:

• Lead: Some decent Wikipedia:LEADFOLLOWSBODY options presented but Wikipedia:Synthesis still unresolved.
• Colonial era: No reference for Lispenard Meadows, chronology and other details a little off but mostly OK
• Trinity era: Basically there
• Neighborhood: Well not actually about the piece of land, but appropriate for a historical survey
• HRR era: name should be mentioned earlier if going to say the name was used for it successor terminal. Again not strictly about the land, but relevant background, economic, and cityscape info
• PANYNJ era; ref a bit unclear as to when exactly the rotary opened, language about "legally" needs to be fixed, and other POV issues. Best to use this version achieved through consensus through editing on Jan 10th since this is about consensus.

I will reiterate for those who have not been reading or listening, I completely support the consensus as stated above.

and I agree with the statement from the statements you've quoted from other editors:

this edit, Pburka says that "The reason the plot is notable is because it was once a park (and notability is not temporary)."  He reiterates that here.
	+	

• In this edit, Epicgenius says "The land's use as a park is notable, which is why the article was created at that title in the first place". Later, he says: ", there is a 3 to 1 consensus right now on keeping the article at this title".

 "The reason the plot is notable is because it was once a park (and notability is not temporary)."  He reiterates that here.
	+	

and what Epicgenius says "The land's use as a park is notable, which is why the article was created at that title in the first place" and "there is a 3 to 1 consensus right now on keeping the article at this title".

http://www.co.bergen.nj.us/planning/planning/Bergen%20Rapid%20Transit_Final%20_rev%209-11-06.pdf

Bergen BRT

Route 17-Bergen BRT Blue Line
proposed 2006
Ramapo College Ramsey Square/Interstate Shopping Center Ramsey Route 17 (NJT station) Ridgewood Park and Ride Paramus Park Fashion Center Garden State Parkway park & ride Bergen Regional Medical Center Garden State Plaza Bergen Town Center Hackensack-Prospect Ave-3 stops Hackensack University Medical Center Essex Street (NJT station) Secaucus Junction

Bergen BRT Orange Line
proposed 2006
Bergen Community College Century & College Rds. IKEA Garden State Plaza Bergen Town Center The Shops at Riverside Farleigh Dickenson University Hackensack Bus Terminal Bergen County Court House Essex Street (NJT station) Hackensack University Medical Center Hackensack-Summit/Pleasantview Hasbrouck Heights-Boulevard at Williams Wood-Ridge-Boulevard at Windsor Carlstadt-Hackensack St at Hoboken Rd Rutherford (NJT station) East Rutherford-Union at Murray Hill Pkway Meadowlands (NJT station) Secaucus Junction

Route 17-Bergen BRT Blue Line
proposed 2010
Ridgewood Park and Ride Paramus Park Fashion Center Garden State Parkway park & ride Bergen Regional Medical Center Garden State Plaza Bergen Town Center Hackensack-Prospect Ave-3 stops Hackensack University Medical Center Essex Street (NJT station) Secaucus Junction

NENJmetromob Northeast New Jersey Metro-Mobility Study CONSULTANT ACTIVITY: This study will develop strategies to meet projected transit accessibility and mobility needs and patterns in the northeastern portion of the region and will assess trans-Hudson bus access and mobility issues. This study will recommend short-term transit mobility improvements and will develop a network of buses to serve the study area and increase intermodal connectivity. Both bus access improvement needs in the George Washington Bridge toll plaza vicinity and the need for increased transit options in central Bergen and Passaic counties are included as a place for potential study in Plan 2035, the Regional Transportation Plan. These needs were also identified through the Strategy Refinement effort completed in 2005 and by the subregions through at least four separate NJTPA-funded subregional studies. Each day, almost 100,000 travelers to and from Bergen and Passaic counties ride NJ TRANSIT or private carrier buses to get to work or to other destinations, representing almost 20 percent of the peak period travelers from these two counties. The Northeast New Jersey Metro-Mobility Study will analyze existing and projected study area needs, such as unmet weekend service demands and transit hub/park and ride needs for both bus service and existing and potential future rail service. Buses using the George Washington Bridge to access Manhattan experience significant delays due to difficult weaving patterns in the last quarter mile before the toll plaza. This study will not only recommend improvements needed immediately, it will also analyze the potential impacts of restructuring of bus access to the Port Authority Bus Terminal in midtown Manhattan. One potential recommendation may be for new bus service to other destinations on the east side or west side of Manhattan. Recommendations from this Study might include new park and ride locations, new or expanded bus service to suburban markets (such as to Morristown or Parsippany), or shuttle services for existing rail service. Recommendations will complement strategies emerging from the Northwest New Jersey Bus Study and could complement potential future rail service now being evaluated by NJ TRANSIT along the Lackawanna Cutoff rail line. This will be the final year for this effort, to be conducted in conjunction with NJ TRANSIT. This study was extended into FY 2012 so that the study team could address increased demand for trans-Hudson transit service following the cancellation of the Access to the Region's Core project in 2010. DESCRIPTION: PRODUCTS: Recommended bus service operational improvements and related capital improvements needed in order to meet projected future ridership and mobility needs and patterns. (June 2012)

Route 17-Bergen BRT Blue Line
proposed
Ramapo College Ramsey Square/Interstate Shopping Center Ramsey Route 17 (NJT station) Ridgewood Park and Ride Paramus Park Fashion Center Garden State Parkway park & ride Bergen Regional Medical Center Garden State Plaza Bergen Town Center Hackensack-Prospect Ave-3 stops Hackensack University Medical Center Essex Street (NJT station) Secaucus Junction

Bergen BRT Orange Line
proposed
Bergen Community College Century & College Rds. IKEA Garden State Plaza Bergen Town Center The Shops at Riverside Farleigh Dickenson University Hackensack Bus Terminal Bergen County Court House Essex Street (NJT station) Hackensack University Medical Center Hackensack-Summit/Pleasantview Hasbrouck Heights-Boulevard at Williams Wood-Ridge-Boulevard at Windsor Carlstadt-Hackensack St at Hoboken Rd Rutherford (NJT station) East Rutherford-Union at Murray Hill Pkway Meadowlands (NJT station) Secaucus Junction

Orange Line

• Bergen Community College
• Garden State Plaza
• Bergen Mall
• Shops at Riverside
• Fairleigh Dickenson Unviersity
• Hackensack Bus Terminal
• Bergen County Courthouse
• Essex Street (NJT station)
• Rthuerford (NjT station)
• Meadowlands Sports Complex
• Secaucus Junction

Blue Line

St. John's Park is a plot of land in the TriBeCa neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place. It is not longer a park and is inaccessible to the public.

The plot once on part of a plantation owned by an early settler to New Netherland. It was later owned by the English crown, which deeded it to Trinity Church. The church built St. John's Chapel and laid out Hudson Square and created New York City's first development of townhouses around a private park. By 1827 the neighborhood had become known as "St. John's Park" and remained fashionable until about 1850. In 1866 it was sold to the Hudson River Railway Company and became the location of "St. John's Park Freight Depot", the railroad's southern terminus. The terminal was demolished in 1927 and replaced with by Holland Tunnel Rotary, a roadway with exits for traffic leaving the Holland Tunnel, both of which are owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

The above goes a good way to following Wikipedia:LEADFOLLOWSBODY as had suggested above on January and is quite similar to the the lead I suggested on January but still has problems.

• There is no grammatical sense for a paragraph break.
• It's roadway with exits, not a "cluster of exists", which is plan lousy English that is is non descriptive and a misnomer
• it's impossible for "cutters of exists" to sort traffic
• It's a lie. The terminal was demolished to built the Holland Tunnel, it was demo;listed to build the Holland Tunnel Rotary
• The bridge is irrelevant to an essential understanding of the plot of land

St. John's Park is a plot of land in the TriBeCa neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place. It is not longer a park and is inaccessible to the public.

The plot once on part of a plantation owned by an early settler to New Netherland. It was later owned by the English crown, which deeded it to Trinity Church. The church built St. John's Chapel and laid out Hudson Square and created New York City's first development of townhouses around a private park. By 1827 the neighborhood had become known as "St. John's Park" and remained fashionable until about 1850. In 1866 it was sold to the Hudson River Railway Company and became the location of "St. John's Park Freight Depot", the railroad's southern terminus. The terminal was demolished in 1927 to allow construction of the Holland Tunnel Rotary, a roadway with exits for traffic leaving the Holland Tunnel, both of which are owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Myth

I don't know what I need to say to dissuade you of the mistaken impression that I believe that the article should focus on the rotary. It's mischaracterisation used in tactic of repetition trying to perpetuate a falsehood. That's far from the truth, and I'd ask to stop doing so. My editing has conformed to the oft-repeated consensus to keep the name of the article St. John's Park and that it should focus on the history of the (plot of) land. I think you or unbiased person reviewing the talk page would see that my concerns have been about and would be hard pressed to find the claim that I believe that the article should focus on the rotary (or the Holland Tunnel Exit Plaza) except when being made by BMK.

Original rationale and agreement with consensus

That I had suggested a month ago that I thought the article would be better named Holland Tunnel Rotary springs from the fact that it is standard practice to define something from the "present-day" situation and then describe how the current state was arrived at by presenting a chronological history. That's why, for example the article about New York City. says "is the most populous city in the United States and the center of the New York metropolitan area" and not "formed by a consolidation of existing City of New York and the City of Brooklyn" in its opening sentence. If you will take the time to look at the history of the first published draft of the Holland Tunnel Rotary [2] you will notice that it's table of contents/structure is the one adopted by BMK in a re-write the St.Johns's Park article. Since the name St. John's Park existed for such long time and is still used for a plot of land that is remnant of the original park, (as I have repeatedly re-iterated) I can and do agree with the consensus to keep the page name. I believe the structure of the article and the content satisfies the consensus that be about the "history of the plot of land, history of the land.", but that the article needs work to bring it up to standard.

Work

A smart reader will distinguish the chest beating gobbledygook trying to perpetuate a falsehood and discredit my work, which has been about improving the article.

• 1. Talk: St .John's Park#Poorly structured article
• 2. Talk: St. John's Park#Poor punctuation, which led to what IMO is BMK's retalitory scrubbing the article of the word "rotary" when wasn't allowed to use editorialising quotes around it.
• 3. Talk:St. John's Park#Cherrypicking from unreliable references which led to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikimedia Commons which led to clarifications about "legally inaccessible".(Actually the plot is accessible, but the term we're looking for here is entry is prohibited
• 4. Talk: St. John's Park#Bad Lead and
• 5. Talk: St. John's Park#Which is the better lead for a Wikipedia article? One that follows Wikipedia:Writing better articles or one rife with "editorial judgement"? which led to removal of the stupid phrase "St. John's Park is the name of" and other corrections and later for proposals for a better more concise lead without glaring omissions. trivia, poor wording, and lousy punctuation. (while some would characterize that as compromising, others will it as better writing.

(The rest of the talk page is the gobbledygook posturing.) Can you show me where I am trying to make the article focus on the rotary? I'm sorry that you don't find any OR in the piece and were unable to address.

Definition and Verifiability

You will note the editor who keeps claiming that he knows something about consensus can't even seem to make up his mind even about what St. John's Park IS, not was, but IS. In his contorted attempts to avoid telling the truth he convolutes language. Once convoluting the language he attempts to, and fails, to find any references to support the statements he is trying sell in the first sentence, which defines the title of the article., Using disparate references (most of which make mention the oh so scary words "rotary" and "exit plaza") he reports to Wikipedia:Synthesis to back up his Wikipedia:Original Research.

BMK writes:

• on January 4th……. St. .John's Park is a square [3]
• on January 6th…… St. .John's Park is the name for a tract of land [4]
• on January 11th…… St. John's Park is a plot of land [5]

(then, lo and behold, after the article is unblocked)

• on January 26th . St. John's Park is the square block[6]

I would have thought that anyone who has any respect for Wikipedia:Five Pillars would say, "Hey, what's going on here?" As seen above when asked a straightforward question about the real work on the the response is usual tactic to avoid the question and accuse the asker. I'm sorry that if you have really considered the question (and noticed the MO) you don't find it fishy, cause It stinks.

Article including lead, should be free of original research/syntheisis

The above proposed lead is getting there and as one can see is nearly identical to the one I proposed and BMK reverted 4x on January 14th. But unfortunately still contains original research specifically Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS since it does not accurately cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. As seen below the article is in direct contradiction to itself leading one to wonder, which is true and devoid of manipulation of facts?

St. John's Park is a plot of land owned in the TriBeCa neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place.

OR

The inner portion of the plaza, inside the rotary, is still referred to as "St. John's Park" and appears on Google Maps as such, but it is not legally accessible to pedestrians.

As one sees the description of the "plot" in the first paragraph describes St. John's Park as the city block, which is the site of the rotary, while the lower paragraph clearly states that the "plot" is bounded by the rotary itself. Obviously this is a serious problem. As BMK stated the AIA is "a highly authoritative". In fact s/he bases the whole premise of the article on it and since it is only truly reliable one to support the the unusual claim that "St John's Park is a plot of land" it is best to stay strictly close to the source which states: "The circular wasteland with the Holland Tunnel Exit Rotary is still called "St. John's Park".

(For the moment we can leave aside the issue here that could also raise questions about reliability since (at least partly, if not completely Usergenerated) Google Maps reference contains contradictions, labelling the interior of the rotary as St. John's Park as an outdoor sports and play plus rec area, which is yet again in contradiction to the Wikimedia Commons reference of a picture produced by BMK of a No Tresspassing sign.)

St. John's Park is a plot of land within the Holland Tunnel Exit Rotary in the TriBeCa neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City. it is no longer a park, and is legally inaccesible to the public.The land was part of a plantation owned by an early settler to New Netherland and was later owned by the English crown, which deeded it to Trinity Church. The church built St. John's Chapel and laid out Hudson Square, creating New York City's first development of townhouses around a private park. By 1827 the neighborhood had become known as "St. John's Park" and remained fashionable until about 1850. In 1866 it was sold to the Hudson River Railway Company and became the location of "St. John's Park Freight Depot", the railroad's southern terminus. The terminal was demolished in 1927 to allow construction of an exit plaza for traffic leaving the Holland Tunnel. The plaza is bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Ericsson Place, and like the tunnel, is owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Above is most straightforward NPOV, no OR, verifiable choice for lead, solidly supported by references. Despite is a weasel word. Quibbles about Beach Street and Ericsson Place in the "block bounded" section part can be better dealt with rotary section since it is a non-essetntial detail. Djflem (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

References

response

• 1. Have you carefully read the problem presented above? It addresses the issue: "What do the references say?" and "Do they support the claims made?" as well as contradictions in the lead and body
• 2. Unfortunately, while you prefer the lede that Epicgenius and you agreed on, it contains Wikipedia:Synthesis makes is unverifiable claims, i.e. interpretations
• 3. There is no consensus to ignore Wikipedia policies and there can be no consensus made to ignore Wikipedia policies. This is not discussable, so let's not bother…...
• 4 I suggest contacting Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads to clarify any doubts you may have, but it's irrelevant here since the "plot of land" known as St; James Park is owned by the PANYNJ.
• 5. I've inquired as to whether the use Wikipedia Commons in this case is considered by the community to be a reliable reference.
• 6. I understand the guidelines Wikipedia:LEDE with regards to citations. I've included them here for the benefit of the discussion. Why did you include them in the namespace lead?

Myth

I don't know what I need to say to dissuade you of the mistaken impression that I believe that the article should focus on the rotary. It's mischaracterisation used in tactic of repetition trying to perpetuate a falsehood. That's far from the truth, and I'd ask to stop doing so. My editing has conformed to the oft-repeated consensus to keep the name of the article St. John's Park and that it should focus on the history of the (plot of) land. I think you or unbiased person reviewing the talk page would see that my concerns have been about and would be hard pressed to find the claim that I believe that the article should focus on the rotary (or the Holland Tunnel Exit Plaza) except when being made by BMK.

Original rationale and agreement with consensus

That I had suggested a month ago that I thought the article would be better named Holland Tunnel Rotary springs from the fact that it is standard practice to define something from the "present-day" situation and then describe how the current state was arrived at by presenting a chronological history. That's why, for example the article about New York City. says "is the most populous city in the United States and the center of the New York metropolitan area" and not "formed by a consolidation of existing City of New York and the City of Brooklyn" in its opening sentence. If you will take the time to look at the history of the first published draft of the Holland Tunnel Rotary [7] you will notice that it's table of contents/structure is the one adopted by BMK in a re-write the St.Johns's Park article. Since the name St. John's Park existed for such long time and is still used for a plot of land that is remnant of the original park, (as I have repeatedly re-iterated) I can and do agree with the consensus to keep the page name. I believe the structure of the article and the content satisfies the consensus that be about the "history of the plot of land, history of the land.", but that the article needs work to bring it up to standard.

Work

A smart reader will distinguish the chest beating gobbledygook trying to perpetuate a falsehood and discredit my work, which has been about improving the article.

• 1. Talk: St .John's Park#Poorly structured article
• 2. Talk: St. John's Park#Poor punctuation, which led to what IMO is BMK's retalitory scrubbing the article of the word "rotary" when wasn't allowed to use editorialising quotes around it.
• 3. Talk:St. John's Park#Cherrypicking from unreliable references which led to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikimedia Commons which led to clarifications about "legally inaccessible".(Actually the plot is accessible, but the term we're looking for here is entry is prohibited
• 4. Talk: St. John's Park#Bad Lead and
• 5. Talk: St. John's Park#Which is the better lead for a Wikipedia article? One that follows Wikipedia:Writing better articles or one rife with "editorial judgement"? which led to removal of the stupid phrase "St. John's Park is the name of" and other corrections and later for proposals for a better more concise lead without glaring omissions. trivia, poor wording, and lousy punctuation. (while some would characterize that as compromising, others will it as better writing.

(The rest of the talk page is the gobbledygook posturing.) Can you show me where I am trying to make the article focus on the rotary? I'm sorry that you don't find any OR in the piece and were unable to address.

Definition and Verifiability

You will note the editor who keeps claiming that he knows something about consensus can't even seem to make up his mind even about what St. John's Park IS, not was, but IS. In his contorted attempts to avoid telling the truth he convolutes language. Once convoluting the language he attempts to, and fails, to find any references to support the statements he is trying sell in the first sentence, which defines the title of the article., Using disparate references (most of which make mention the oh so scary words "rotary" and "exit plaza") he reports to Wikipedia:Synthesis to back up his Wikipedia:Original Research.

BMK writes:

• on January 4th……. St. .John's Park is a square [8]
• on January 6th…… St. .John's Park is the name for a tract of land [9]
• on January 11th…… St. John's Park is a plot of land [10]

(then, lo and behold, after the article is unblocked)

• on January 26th . St. John's Park is the square block[11]

I would have thought that anyone who has any respect for Wikipedia:Five Pillars would say, "Hey, what's going on here?" As seen above when asked a straightforward question about the real work on the the response is usual tactic to avoid the question and accuse the asker. I'm sorry that if you have really considered the question (and noticed the MO) you don't find it fishy, cause It stinks.

St. John's Park

St. John's Park contains original research, specifically Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS, since it does not accurately cite reliable, published sources directly related to the topic and directly support the material being presented. The article contradicts itself:

lead

St. John's Park is a plot of land owned in the TriBeCa neighborhood of Lower Manhattan, New York City bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place.

subsection

The inner portion of the plaza, inside the rotary, is still referred to as "St. John's Park" and appears on Google Maps as such, but it is not legally accessible to pedestrians.

In the first sentence of the article (which should clearly define what the article is about) one sees a claim that the "plot" known as St. John's Park as being the entire city block which is the site of the rotary mentioned in the subsection. The phrase in the subsection clearly states that the "plot" is bounded by the rotary itself. The descriptions are contradictions. The "plot" is bounded by an interstate highway roadway, not the streets mentioned in the lead. (The situation is correctly described in that article.)

References

Ives Architecture reference

The Ives Architecture Studio reference, a map, shows the block bounded Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Ericsson Place to be named the Holland Tunnel Rotary, and makes absolutely no reference to St.John's Park.

NYC Maps reference

The NYC Dept of Transportation reference in the first sentence of the article serve only to clarify that Ericsson Place is the the name of the block along the street otherwise known as Beach Street and makes absolutely no reference to St. John's Park.

AIA reference

The AIA reference is the only one in the entire article that supports the whole premise & first sentence of the article and the only truly reliable one to support the the claim that "St John's Park is a plot of land". It states: "The circular wasteland within the Holland Tunnel Exit Rotary is still called "St. John's Park".

Google Maps reference

While the Google Maps reference does label the nearly circular plot of land within the rotary St. John's Park, it unfortunately, and confusedly, describes it as an "outdoor sports & play plus rec center" which is direct contradiction to the claim that it is inaccessible, as claimed in Wikimedia Commons reference. (The use of "legally inaccessible" is not at issue here and has more or less been resolved at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikimedia Commons, though specific appropriate language has not been decided upon.) if you can direct to me Wikipedia:BMK can claim consensus as a reason to ignore Wikipedia core policies to suit his needs to promote his POV I'd be happy to read it, but in the meantime i'll stick Wikipedia:Five Pillars. The lead you are promoting is synthesis which is not permitted. Do you have any sources to support the claim you are making in your preferred version? I suggest you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads to make your inquiry

Aware

This is to make you aware that I am editing at the article again and would ask you to keep an eye on how it goes. Again I am seeking verification for claim being made in the opening sentence which defines what the article is about. I intend to ltag the article as possiblly containing original research. I would make you aware of the fact that the opening sentence of the article has has been changed four time in a month, by the editor who initiated this thread.

I would draw your attention to the fact the editor stated on Jan 5 "I don't know why you link to WP:V, which really has nothing to do with this issue." [12] and "There's no question about verifiability here" [13] claiming the notability is more important then verification. In response an inquiry about original research and verifiability BMK declared on Jan 24, "There is no "false information" in that suggested lede" [14] but continues to avoid providing or clarifying references when asked to do soon the talk page

regarding an inquiry about original research and verifiability and reticence to address the problem clearly presented above and now at

do not strike me as willing or good faith. I had hoped that it was it understood that [15] that burden of proof is standard protocol and a serious matter at Wikipedia. Djflem (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not really understand how BMK expects there to be any consensus about the article s/he cannot even say what St; John's Park IS (IS, not WAS) and continues to make stuff to suit a POV, and making the article. When asked to clarify the definition [16] the response was accuse me of wikilawayering.

Talk page

I've added the banner above to remind you that this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the St. John's Park page. It is not the talk page for what BMK believes, so can we keep the discussion on target and stick to the facts? I will remind you that avoiding substantive discussion is considered Stonewalling and that if you do not wish to discuss the problem in a substantive way, then you should recuse yourself from editing this article. So please address these questions so that we might proceed (if you so choose).

1.Does the source say "within the Holland Tunnel Exit Rotary is still called "St. John's Park"? (YES) 3.Does the source say "bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place" (NO) 2.Does the claim made in your lead contradict the statement made in the rotary section of the article? (YES) 4.Does saying plot of land "bounded by Varick Street, Laight Street, Hudson Street and Beach Street, also known for that block as Ericsson Place" without providing a reference constitute original research? (YES)