Jump to content

Talk:Buckberg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are at least a couple of solid references provided that identify Buckberg as within the Hudson Higlands. Not helpful to omit this relevant information.
Unnecessary to mention that HH is part of NY/NJ Highlands, Reading Prong, Appalachians, North America, etc.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on this being a POV fork based on our discussion at Talk:Dunderberg Mountain, this article may be deleted. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Buckberg is a significant geographical feature of Rockland County (and the eastern flank of the western part of the Highlands about in the middle, except to the south where they run right along the river), mainly due to its history.
I have carefully sourced this araticle. Perhaps it's existence does contradict your notion of Dunderberg, but I didn't create Buckberg nor direct the Battle of Stony Point.
Its deletion would be Wikipedia's loss.[[1]]

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the existence of Buckberg, obviously. It's good to have an article on it. But you've taken every bit of disputed content from the Dunderberg article (which other editors have also said is incorrect) and moved it over here instead. That's where the problem comes in. You want to find some way to add the information you like—that it's part of the Highlands, that it's connected to the Hudson River—so you can make a counterpoint to the other article. That is not acceptable. You asked for outside opinions and you got them. If you don't get an answer you like, that doesn't mean you can just move your POV elsewhere. Kafziel Complaint Department 08:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you realize you're resorting to hyperbole. Case said that in his opinion are two definitions of the Hudson Highlands.

Another editor commented that it's okay to call Dunderberg Mountain a mountain, though didn't comment on whether it's also a "peak" or a hill.

These opinions are fine by me. I've posted a zillion sourced examples that show the wider definition of the HH is commonly in use. Here's one on a cultural topic from NYTimes [[2]]. Here's one of several from the NY/NY Trail Conference (see caption on Schunemunk) [[3]].
Buckberg material is all carefully sourced. I encourage you and others to expand or correct the article with sourced material.
I've no intention to use it to argue about "Dunderberg." This is something you've brought up. I don't understand why you think it's relevant.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant because these are the same statements you tried - and failed - to make over there, so then you created this page instead. You want to use this article to state that a) Buckberg is south of Dunderberg, b) Buckberg is part of the Hudson Highlands, and c) Buckberg is on the banks of the Hudson River. While (a) is obviously true, (b) and (c) are not. You asked for outside opinions about that, and you got them. It looks like you missed some of the comments; I suggest you go back there and re-read the entire thread. You can't use this article to weasel word your way around the original discussion just because you don't like the way it went for you. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But "B" and "C" are well-sourced sourced and verifiable.
"C," incidently, apart from the sources linked, is bleeding obviously true from a glance at the map, to say nothing of its role as an observation point.
Also, it appears to be pure fantasy that I asked for outside opinions about these questions. I can think of no other explanation for this claim of yours. Perhaps you're again resorting to hyperbole.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... you posted requests for comment at two different Wikiprojects. When members of those projects showed up explaining that you were confused [4] and the sources I am using are considered very accurate [5] you decided to quit the discussion and create this article instead, starting a POV fork (as I have already explained to you). B is not well-sourced. C is meaningless. At some point, every mountain rises "uninterrupted" from somewhere else. It's a mountain; what would interrupt it? But the peak is nowhere near the river. It's clear on the other side of Tomkins Cove. You're just trying to twist the facts to move your POV into this article. But that isn't going to work. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You persist in confusing the two articles when, as you know, I posted requests for comment only on Dunderberg Mountain, not Buckberg.
I simply don't understand your comment about Buckberg's position relative to the bottom of its slopes. Perhaps I could help you with this.
As for the Open Space Institute, they've preserved 25,000 acres in the HH using other peoples' money. They frequently present testimony before various branches of the government. Their reputation is to my knowledge is quite excellent in all regards. Perhaps you can uncover something of which I'm not currently aware, in which case I could change my mind.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confusing anything. I said you requested other opinions on the Dunderberg article, didn't like what you were told, so you came here and created this one instead.
I have to believe you're smarter than this. It seems like you're in a panic, trying to make quick comebacks instead of paying attention to what everyone is saying to you. You've repeatedly ignored my requests for you to stop marking your edits as minor, you're confused about the simplest things, you're editing disruptively... I think you should take a little while, let this all settle down, and re-read the discussions at Dunderberg and here. We can pick this up again in a couple of days. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The extent of one comment was "Dunderberg Mountain is a mountain" and of the other, that there are two definitions of the Hudson Highlands, and the writer personally preferred to think of them as exclusively within a mile or two of the Hudson River.
From these two points of view, you reason that Buckberg isn't on the shore of the Hudson, and that there is only one correct definition of the Hudson Highlands.
Only one the comments on Dunderberg could have the slightest bearing on what you're saying, and you ignore an important part of that single comment.
Perhaps you should re-read the two comments if you feel they are in some way decisive.
I'd be open to including some brief characterization of the two definitions of HH. Indeed, I located a highly obscure source that explicitly says Buckberg is "immediately below" the Highlands," which I'm sure you'll love. Except that it also says Buckberg is on the shore of the Hudson (as anyone can read from a USGS).
As to which definition of HH is preferred, I think citations for the narrow definition are rather slim pickings, but it's legit and reasonable to acknowledge them, provided that the definition preferred by OSI, NYT, NY/NJ Trail Conference, USDA, USGS and state of NY, et al., can also be included along with some sense of proportion.
Interestingly, in reading up on this, I've found several online military maps and letters from the 1700s that identify Stony Point as part of the Highlands, along with a couple of more modern military histories that concur.

Calamitybrook (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

[edit]
I've improved this article a fair bit on a number of counts, added sources and, I think, addressed the above concerns.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC) --[reply]

Further changes:
To a significant extent, I now concede your point, and have attempted to further recast this article in a manner which gives some emphasis to the "traditional" definition of the Hudson Highlands.
It's currently also respectful toward the Open Space Institute's ability to define the properties in which it is involved, and provides additional information and sources concerning the broader definition of the HH, which is undoubtedly encountered by at least some potential readers elsewhere. To ignore this would, at best, merely beg the question.
Threats of deletion and other of the more vehement aspects of your approach in outlining your views, as well as your suggestion that there is a single viable definition of the Hudson Highlands, have been unhelpful.
Initially I added, and then removed, citation of the volume "Batt to Bear," which might be regarded as unreliable due to certain inaccuracies and internal contradictions.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Highlands

[edit]
Removed following material from article:

At least one contemporary writer describes its location as “immediately below the Hudson Highlands.” [6]. However, the Open Space Institute as well as a number of modern military historians consider both Buckberg and the Stony Point penninsula as part of the Hudson Highlands. [7]. During the Revolutionary War, both sides regarded both these places strategically as a part of this region. [8] [9] [10] Currently, several government agencies and other organizations concerned with geography, cultural history and other matters, use a rather broad definition for the region.[11] [12] [13] One New York State environmental regulation, for example, centers the Hudson Highlands at 41 24' N. and longitude 74 00' W, or about a mile south Buckberg. [14].

I think it's a bit silly, but there are at least a couple of editors who insist, for reasons that are in my view rather fuzzy, on an extremely narrow definition of Hudson Highlands, despite generally accepted usage.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buckberg. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buckberg&oldid=1200417672"