Talk:Hoboken, New Jersey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Article milestones
December 1, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
WikiProject New Jersey / Hudson County  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Hudson County Task Force (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Cities (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Night life[edit]

Not much night life in Hoboken?? It's about the only NJ town that does have some. Visit Washington St. around 2nd, 3rd and 4th streets and River St. near the Path at midnight on any weekend night. You'll be hard-pressed to name a single Manhattan neighborhood that's as jumping... This article needs to be corrected on this point and should include a paragraph on the astonishing turnaround in Hoboken from the 1970s-- it went from down-at-the-heels laughingstock to a surprising vibrancy. It might also be mentioned that the number of beautiful girls/women per acre is higher than anywhere outside perhaps certain sections of Manhattan, Paris & Buenos Aires. JDG 14:10, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Where in the article is/was it indicated that there was not much night life in Hoboken? Is that passage still in the article? Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

History glitches[edit]

JDG, others, I'm sorry about whatever went wrong with my edit yesterday. I was tracking the contributions of User:, who appeared to be overwriting information on a couple of different articles. (I think now that s/he may also have been an innocent in whatever problem WP was having yesterday.) This user no longer appears in Hoboken's edit history, but this is the diff I was attempting to correct, and this, I believe, is my edit to fix it, although it's attributed here to Xezbeth. The diff on my edit from both the Hoboken history and my Contributions list shows something radically different, so I can understand your ire, but I was doing routine followup on an anon who had caused problems on another article on my watchlist, not trying to get involved in this article. I have no connection or interest with Hoboken or its mayoral race. Check in at the Village Pump; I believe there's been a rash of problems with edit histories -- edits recorded at the wrong UTC time (and thus sorting out of order), edits attributed to the wrong editor, section edits mixed up half a dozen different ways.... In any case, I'm sorry for the confusion, I hope I've explained it clearly, and I hope we can get it sorted out soon. — Catherine\talk 20:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice job with the history section. I was trying to find a place in the WWI paragraph to put "hell, heaven, or Hoboken," but really couldn't, so I used "h, h, or h" as a heading. Dinopup

West Hoboken?[edit]

Anyone know what happened to West Hoboken? Britannica 1911 seems to think it was a separate city [2]. If it has been incorporated into Hoboken, let me know and I'll redirect West Hoboken here. This is all for Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia topics. Thanks - Taxman Talk 20:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

West Hoboken and the town of Union (also called Union Hill) merged in 1925 to form Union City.[3]Gnomz007(?) 23:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Did it myself.Thanks for pointing out.–Gnomz007(?) 05:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Noteworthy vs. Born in vs. Active in[edit]

There are three categories listing people of significance: Noteworthy residents, Born in Hoboken and Active in Hoboken. I'll grant that the Born in category helps distinguish between people who merely happened to be born in Hoboken, but played no significant role while they were a Hoboken resident. But how can we distinguish between the two other categories, and don't they just add to the confusion by being in separate places in the article? Alansohn 07:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Another cited spelling can be "Hopoghan", which will be added to the section.

At the time of Dutch exploration and settlement in North America, Der Nederlanden (The Lowlands) included all the provinces that make up The Netherlands and much of Belguim. Then, as today, each province had a specific dialect. Most settlers did indeed originate from below the Maas (in Holland) or around the Schelde (in Flanders), though there were many Walloons, who were French speaking. Then, as today, the Lowlands, was "multicultural" society, which relied on its linguistic resourcefulness to do business. One can imagine that without a common language, the Lenape and the Lowlanders started to exchange gestures, sounds, words. "Hobocan" is likely a European spelling of a sound. "Hoog" "hoger" in Dutch/Flemish means high/higher or tall/taller. When seen from the river the outcropping at Castle Point likely appeared higher than the riparian lands surrounding it. I go for the Dutch/English derivation of the Lenape. Who knows what Stevens was thinking? His use of the word doesn't seem to found anywhere until he bought the land. Weehawken, which also can sound Dutch, does not share the confusion, and has more citations.Djflem 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Lenape origin of the town's name needs a citation. My understanding is that it is one of two competeing theories for the origin, the other being the town in Belgium by the same name. Personally, I would find it to be a rather remarkable coincidence if a Dutch-speaking town, close to the Dutch border, was not the origin of the name of a town, spelled the same way, in a former Dutch colony. But I don't have any citation for that, so I'm not making any changes. Anyone else no more? 20:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The fallen-sandwich story is just a boy's story. I've added the real ethymology, and thought it better to make a separate section for it. 10:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The current Origin section contradicts itself and needs cleaning up. I removed the denial of the Belgian origin of the town's name in "what's in a name" under trivia. As far as I can tell, theirs no definitive proof for either of the two theories of the name's origin, but as I said above, I find the Belgian story compelling.Armandtanzarian 17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The article now states that in Middle Dutch 'Hoboken' would mean 'high bluff'. This is not true. All Dutch sources for the Belgian etymology of 'Hoboken' claim that it means 'ho boeken' or 'ho beuken' meaning 'high beeches'. Hoboken near Antwerp, Belgium, has indeed been woodland ever since Medieval times. The first time the name Hoboken is mentioned in Belgian archives is 1135 (Dierickx, H. (1954), Geschiedenis van Hoboken [History of Hoboken], De Sikkel [Publisher]). As for the etymology of the New Jersey Hoboken, keep in mind that the Dutch used names of Dutch places all the time to indicate colonial territory (New Amsterdam, New Wageningen, Breukelen > Brooklyn, Haarlem > Harlem, Vlissingen > Flushing, Crailo > Fort Crailo, Beverwijk > Beverwyck). There needn't be any geographical resemblance of the new territory and the original municipality; for instance, 'Crailo' means 'crow's bush' in old Dutch, but there needn't have been any crows around in Fort Crailo, NY, for the Dutch settlers to have chosen that name. Likewise, there needn't have been any beeches around in Hoboken, NJ, for the Dutch to have recycled the (then Dutch, now Belgian) name Hoboken. Thus I suggest rewriting the etymology part of this lemma stating the original meaning of Hoboken as 'high beeches', not high bluff.Mcouzijn (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


Are there references for the Guiness Book "most bars" claim & the Springsteen "Glory Days" shoot? The layout of the bar in "Glory Days" looks absolutely nothing like Maxwells.

This section should be removed alltogether and/or have it's own article. It is random, incomplete, often poorly written, don't you think?

I have re-located the trivia sub section to the end of the article. It has become unwieldy, random, incidental, filled with details that are too specific in the greater context. though many NJ towns can support such a section it's time the one for Hoboken be removed. If there is an interest in mentioning filmic, musical, historical, or comical events that have taken place in the city, perhaps there should be another site. This a vote for it's removalDjflem 18:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any proof but I was always told that many of the early settlers were from the Antwerpen suburb of Hoboken.

Amsterdam where many of the settlers left from was in itself mostly founded by people from Antwerpen, again many from Hoboken. Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from Hoboken![edit]

And yup, it's the Hoboken from Belgium that I'm typing this from. Small world I'd say. Oh and by the way, with regards to the "Origin of Name" part up there - we don't quite speak Dutch down here, but Flemish. Granted, the difference between the two is pretty much of the same relation as with British English and American English, but still. -- 13:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Dutch is de official language of Flanders... 10:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't. Flemish is. 12:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Not it isn't. Dutch is. You do speak Flemish, but there is no such thing as the Flemish language. Rp (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a position on which language the name originated from, but if either of you want to edit the passage in that section, make sure that you do so in accordance with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CS. Merely going back and forth on the Talk Page will not improve the article if you don't have sources to back up your position. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Flemish language. Same thing for American or Australian. Both are English with own specific words, dialects and accents. Dutch is the official language in the Flemish part of Belgium where 60 percent of the Belgian population lives. Although very small the region has very strong differences in dialects.For example: people in Belgian Limburg might encounter difficulties understanding a West Flemish person speaking in his or her dialect. The common 'clean' Dutch is the solution in this case. Tv series for children often feature both Flemish and Dutch voices. You hear the difference in accent but the language stays the same. Children have no hard time with this. As always it's us adults!2A02:1811:B709:CE00:9586:5DD4:D5A2:235B (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:B709:CE00:9586:5DD4:D5A2:235B (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


While what is described in this section may be true, it's very POV and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.--Rotten 04:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While you may be correct, strictly speaking, about its unencyclopedic nature, I find that section to be very entertaining, easily readable and as you said, quite true. I don't think it's POV exactly. What "view" is it espousing? That there's a charming rhythm of work and leisure in this small city? What is the "view" that would be held in opposition to this? I think it would be a shame to completely remove it. It's really one of the things that I find maddening about Wikipedia; that harmless, uncontroversial personal observations like this great little piece of literature must be excised because of some unyielding adherence to standards of citability. I realize it needs to be changed, but I do hope there's some source that can be cited to keep some of it intact.Armandtanzarian 17:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

With a section called "Character" it's quite difficult not to have a smell of POV. Should it exist at all? I wrote much of it, expanding on an existing entry. Much of the material could be incorporated into other sections and this was deleted alltogether. Whaddya think?21:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

While this section has been flagged, there's been no explanation for why. Doesn't seem to be more POV than others sections, and there's been little contribution to make it less so, if indeed it is. Comments?Djflem 04:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How should one address a section being flagged, when the person who did so has not given any feedback as to why they did?

Notice of intention to overhaul[edit]

I'm one of those who has contributed to the wave of sloppy re-writes over the past year and I'm curious to see what you do.

This article has been subjected to a wave of very sloppy rewrites over the past year, particularly in the History and Character sections. I intend to completely overhaul the page starting in July `07, barring any valid objections on this Discussion page. JDG 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, I've begun some of the overhaul. Hope that you'll add some changes, too.02:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


First Cricket Match[edit]

It was played at the saint georges cricket club not in hoboken 05:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article section about baseball does it say tthat the first cricket match was played in Hoboken, by St George or any other team````

thats becuase i took it out--Geekattack10 16:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


The discussion of where baseball began will no doubt continue.... It would be wise to add citation re: Pittfield's new claim, based on a 1770s ordinance prohibiting the the playing of "baseball" on the town green so that new-installed glass windows (town hall, church school???) would not be broken. Article in local newspapers Berkshire Eagle or Berkshire Record in September 2008--Djflem (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it shouldn't continue. Please follow link to baseball. This has been solved some months ago with many WP:RELY footnotes. We don't need to "solve" this for everybody place-article that claims the game. Student7 (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong. My apologies to all and thanks to the editor(s} who reverted my edits. Student7 (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

New Jersey Road Map[edit]

Though the contribution is appreciated, a road map of New Jersey's major highways and mention of nearby towns doesn't seem to add much to the article. The other map, which seems standard for Wikipedia, may be less colorful, already indicates Hoboken's location within the state. Are there strong objections to removing it, or at least making it smaller and re-locating to a different section, such as transportation???? Wouldn't a map of the city itself be more approprate? Djflem 10:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is discussion at WT:NJ, and I will copy your comment there. Please follow-up there there. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
19-Aug-2007: To User:Djflem: The map, although showing some major highways, is about providing context of the Geographic location, and the map illustrates the following nearby text in that "Hoboken" article:
"Hoboken is located at 40°44'41" North, 74°1'59" West (40.744851, -74.032941).GR1 and lies on the west bank of the Hudson River across from the Manhattan, New York City neighborhoods of the West Village and Chelsea between Weehawken Cove and Union City at the north and Jersey City (the county seat) at the south and west."
Note that "Hudson River" and NYC, Weehawken, Union City and Jersey City (mentioned) are all shown on that map, at that point in the article. As for size, I have reduced the regional map to the top-half of New Jersey with state borders. For maps to be readable, alongside the text, they need to be "larger than a postage stamp" (which might be okay for buildings/cars/etc.). And yes, people have complained, "the regional map was too small to be useful" so seek balance. On balance, note how the map (only 295px width) is readable alongside the Geography text above: it shows the named places without requiring another webpage display, then allows the user to continue reading/scrolling the page. For people with vision trouble, they have the option to display the full-size map webpage, but others can just read along by scrolling.
As for a city-map, yes, that is also needed, using multiple pre-selected maps as displayed by Such a city-map could put Hoboken in the center and show edges of neighboring city limits, then major local streets (not just Interstates/highways). Again, provides both city-limit & regional maps, together, but Wikipedia can't compete against that level of workmanship [yet], so let's focus on the easier regional maps, first.
The current location of the regional-map is actually best: there was some blank space near the "Hoboken" Table of Contents, which preceded the Geography section mentioning those map locations: an ideal pairing of space available near text relating to the map. I think a city-limit/street map would be better located under a "Transportation" section, in the sense that bus routes and nearby towns would be connected by local streets (not just Interstates/highways). Houston, Texas has express buses that skip many local streets by hopping on/off Interstates.
As for making the map smaller, I wonder if local residents are bothered by maps of their towns, so the regional map should be structured to connect as a thumbnail to avoid local people fuming (about that "darned map image"). As you know, travel maps are huge: fan-folding a map while riding in a car can be a major nuisance, so maps generally tend to be large due to the vast amount of information they add to an article (as viewed by an outsider, perhaps not the local POV).
Example city articles with maps: See Swedish Wikipedia for city/map of "Stockholm" (capital city:, town "Uppsala" and town "Kalmar" (versus English Wikipedia: Stockholm, Uppsala, Kalmar).

See more map discussion at: WT:NJ (WikiProj. New Jersey). -Wikid77 08:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know much about all the computer tech stuff you've mentioned, so sorry, I can't respond to that. I can say that the map which you are proposing is very "Jersey-centric" and offers no perspective to the location, role, history, context to the NY Metropolitan area. How can a map not indicate Manhattan, the Hudson, Brooklyn? If it seems important to have such a map can it at least be of the region? For example, 50 mile radius from Times Square, or something? How can you show a map that put Pennsylvania, New York, and CT as vague, obscure, places? Come on... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djflem (talkcontribs) 04:14, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Sorry I didn't sign off last time: but my concerns grow greater. The role of Hoboken, and Hudson County in general, are minimalized by presenting a NJ map. The location, culture, history, and impact of the city and it's residents cannot be defined by the map proposed. I find it to be poor and misleading information when not contextualized.Djflem 06:09, 20 August 2007 (UTCAirport

Hoboken as a gateway to everyplace else[edit]

One editor has objected to the fact that Laguardia Airport is not in Hoboken (among a list of others). This goes back to the basics of article integrity. Why pretend that an article is about a place, if you are going to pretend that every other place is there too? Does it also host the Thanksgiving Day parade? The Daytona 500? Where do you stop?

It is silly to pretend that facilities that are located elsewhere are located here. This article does not yet sufficiently document Hoboken very well. Why not concentrate on what is actually in Hoboken, and allow others to documen what is actually in their city? Or, better yet, if you are that bored with Hoboken, why not help the editors of other articles.

Wikipedia should not be fiction. Documenting a place as being a gateway to every other place does not make sense. Please answer this before reverting. Student7 (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Other places to correctly insert airports outside Hoboken include Hudson County, New Jersey and New York Metropolitan Area. (They became "imaginative" in the county article as well - it needs to be cleaned up.
There's also a bit of an inferiority complex showing up here. You won't find Boston claiming the Guggenheim!Student7 (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoboken stopped being an island long ago, likely when the marshlands between Castle Point and the Palisades were landfilled. But even before that the Lenape use means of transport to get there, likely canoes, and may have done so along the Hudson River, which is not, per se, IN Hoboken. Transportation sections tend to describe accessibility to a place: How does one get to Hoboken??? A description of the regional network used by residents and visitors to it are not inappropriate, and actually add, to an article, especially if the reader is unfamiliar with the location. References to tunnels (outside the city line) and airports (Newark or Queens) make clear they are not inside muncipal borders.Djflem (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And just FYI, Macy's had it's parade warehouse in Hoboken for many years, and sometimes used it as a staging area on Thanksgiving eve, so indeed at least a part of the festivities took place in town.Djflem (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You get to Hoboken by water, rail, or road. You don't fly there because they don't have an airport! Nor a stadium. Nor the Morristown National Historic Park, nor the Grand Canyon. Other places have those. That is why they have separate articles. This is about article integrity. And yes, some New Jersey articles have editorial problems with that which need correcting. Why have article names at all if you don't intend to follow the boundaries of the article?
Should a bio on Abraham Lincoln contain a lot of information on US Grant because the war might not have been won without him? Article integrity is important. Another good reason for article integrity is so we don't wind up with similar information in multiple (unnecessary) places that require maintenance.
Also this tends to copy Chamber of Commerce brochure - "just five minutes away from Laguardia." Right. By rocket, maybe. Wikipedia is not a blog. It shouldn't contain everything that anyone thinks of for any reason. It should be encyclopedic. It should make sense. Putting resources that are not within the article scope, do not make sense. Student7 (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Please refer (all in the same policy) to WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Some different paragraphs within the same policy of what WikiPedia is not. Student7 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
And to answer your other question about where transportation info goes - what isn't actually local, goes into a higher level article - the metro areas, Newark Metro (if there is one), Hudson County or NYC Metro area - these are all proper repositories for shared transportation facilities. But only the NYC Metro article can claim LaGuardia. Similarly, BTW, NYC (itself, not the Metro) cannot claim the Newark Airport even though people from there may use it. If you think about it for a minute, this makes sense. Student7 (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to the header at the top of this page which states: Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

and thank you for your tipsDjflem (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Another problem with the material, which you haven't really addressed here, is that they sound very WikiTravel-like. This is not a travel site. We are not trying to promote Hoboken as "close" to anything else. Wikipedia is not a chamber of commerce. Student7 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if pointing out that the Transportation material contradicts several Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE hurt any editor's feelings. This was intended to be objective. Please don't take it subjectively. Student7 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet another problem for the reader is when s/he realizes that the article stretches the truth more than a bit to claim that Laguardia is a local airport, s/he may wonder how much we have stretched the truth to claim Frank Sinatra as a local. The latter claim is accurate, but perhaps you can understand how several stretches of the truth can lead a reader to question everything else as well. I even doubted the baseball claim which turned out to be true. I figured everybody was just making up the article! I stuck with it long enough to find out that the baseball claim was true. Most normal readers won't bother in most cases. Student7 (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Also a problem with WP:TOPIC. Other places resources are not on topic for this article.Student7 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It would seem to me since you brought up the whole baseball issue you would have done your homework without messing with the articleDjflem (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Airports in the Hoboken area[edit]


There are no airports within Hoboken itself, but residents and vistors use the following.

A small sampling of cities in which the airport which services it is not located within the municpal boundaries, but in the Wikipedia article includes Boise, San Fransico, Miami, Buffalo, Atlantic City, Glasgow, Pittsburgh. Would seem that there is a precedent within Wikipedia to mention the name of the airport that services the place discussed in the article.Djflem (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There is also the Statue of Liberty which can been seen. The airports can't even be seen directly! People also use the viaduct and the George Washington bridge. Why not claim them as well? The reason editors quit putting information in articles that didn't belong there (if they ever did) is that it crowds the article, confuses the reader, and unnecessarily sets up excessive places for information to be maintained. If we stick to the WP:TOPIC of Hoboken, we'll have enough to do without documenting the resources of places that are adjacent, nearby, of difficult-to-reach-during rush hour. If you would like to contribute to WikiTravel, I'm sure they would appreciate this information. Student7 (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As the issue of articles the above mentioned cities, which includes mention airports of airports that serve them though not inside municpal boundaries has not been addressed, and do not appear to have removed from those articles, there is no justification for removal of airports which serve Hoboken from this article. As above editor concedes, Newark Airport is mentioned in the New York City, buy it has not been removed there either. Until such time as there a defintive policy (other than the above editor's opinion), the PRECEDENT established would seem sufficient to suffice for airport inclusion. (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I just erased Hudson Counties non-existent airports. I can't erase NY Metro area's airports because, by definition, they are as big as they want to be and include any airport they want to. That is the whole point of a metro area article. They do properly belong there. If you want to include the kitchen sink, that is the article you should perhaps consider working on!Student7 (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The above editor does not seem to want to address the FACT and PRECEDENT that many Wikipedia articles about places include the airports that serve them, though the facility itself is not located inside the municpal boundary of the subject to the article. I would not like to believe that Student 7 is just concerned with the article integrity of Hoboken and Hudson County I include a list of places where, in the Student 7's opinion airports are improperly included, though I am sure there are many more. I will not restore the Hudson and Hoboken airport entries until such time as Student 7 has time to make the necessary corrections in the other articles, so as to be dissauaded that there is a personal vendetta in tampering with the Hudson and Hoboken articles: New York City Charleston Trenton Seattle Fort Wayne Paris Amsterdam Copenhagen Boise Buffalo Miami San Francisco Atlantic City Pittsburgh Djflem (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Further please see articles Washington DC and Transportation in Washington, DC, which clearly states that the facilites serving the city are NOT located with it...How should that be handled????Djflem (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I rm all the ones you pointed to. I changed the ones with (I hope) common names: Charleston, SC, Trenton, NJ. If you are looking for a laugh, you might want to follow your own link to Buffalo! But anyway, I used Buffalo, NY. I left the "Transportation in DC" because they may want to change the article to metro transportation.
Instead of looking for more bad examples, you might help here! If I found 50 bios which claimed the person was born or lived in Hobaken, New Jersey and claimed you should change the name of the article based on these bad examples. Then after you changed all those wrong spellings, I went out and found 50 more! Of what use is that? Give me a hand here instead of throwing me anvils! Student7 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You have missed New York City, which, as you cited earlier mention should not mention Newark Airport, and certainly shouldn't include Stewart International Airport in Newburgh, New York according to ONLY INSIDE MUNICIPAL BOPUNDARIES RULE, though they are a major component in the transporattion network of the city. Sorry, I will not help to tamper with relevent, verfiable, information that is included in articles. That would be, at best, counterproductive, and some would consider vandalism.Djflem (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually most places don't include this. Through extensive sleuthing you have discovered a few, but I watch over 1000 place articles. None of them include facilities outside of their boundaries. Okay, maybe 4 or 5 tried out of that large bunch.
This will sound cruel and I haven't looked at the article yet, but, in a way, it would be useful to have Laguardia here. The only other that came the closest in humor was Trenton claiming Newark as one of their "convenient" airports. I once had to catch a backup plane at Laguardia when I missed one at Newark. There was no real way to get there in a timely fashion except to take a helicopter. My boss was less than amused when I submitted my expense account. Laguardia may be close in miles but is far enough away to not be worth it during the work week.
Do you read the comic "Pirhana Club?" Somehow claiming Laguardia reminds me of that strip a bit....Student7 (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The deleted airport info for both Charleston and Trenton have been restored by two diffferent editors who believe it is appropriate to include, one citing the fact that to delete is counterintuitive and not prescribed in any guidelines. Subsequently will restore airport info to both Hoboken and Hudson County, and wait for further comments as requested.Djflem (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Supporting references[edit]

While an editor can quote booster c-of-c stuff that claim that people in Hudson use such-and-such airport, where are the actual statistics WP:FOOT that demonstrate this? Also, how small a percentage do you allow before excluding an airport, or is one person per year enough? Some people doubtless drive to Philly to use their airport-not. BWI? Boston? Albany? Where does one begin to draw the line when all objectivity has gone out the window? I dare say more people in Hoboken have visited Disneyworld than have used Laguardia airport. Why can't I use Disney in the statistics?Student7 (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't people just say "airports within 50km are...." or something. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

opening paragraph[edit]

Hoboken may or may not be a bedroom community, but that does not necessarily qualify that characteristic being in the header. One could as easily include: It is home to Steven Tech It is site of many firsts in the USA, including baseball. The American classic On the Waterfront was shot there. 100,000 commuters pass through it train station everyday. All the these examples are mentioned somewhere in the appropriate section in the articleDjflem (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

One has to sympathize with communities of the East which were once on a par with nearby cities and had their own identity and history, but were eventually swallowed up. As opposed to Western US cities who expanded sometimes beyond their boundaries but often had the political ability to include new areas and who were responsible for their suburbs from the outset. It seems a bit of a travesty to reduce and dismiss Hoboken to a mere "suburb" somehow. Student7 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New Netherland[edit]

Novo Belgio[1] was cited on maps, as was common at the time, but was never used otherwise. This piece of obscure information is not relevent to the Hoboken article.


Material in need of sourcing[edit]

I moved the following unsourced material here until it can be properly sourced per WP:V:

  • First brewery in the United States, north of Castle Point.
  • The zipper, invented at Hoboken's Automatic Hook & Eye Co.
  • The site of the first known baseball game between two different teams, at Elysian Fields.
  • The first steam-powered ferry, in 1811, with service to Manhattan.
  • First demonstration of a steam locomotive in the United States at 56 Newark Street.
  • The home of the accidental invention of soft ice-cream, 726 Washington Street.
  • The nation's first automated parking garage at 916 Garden Street.
  • The first wireless phone system, at Hoboken Terminal.
  • The Oreo cookie, first sold in Hoboken.

In addition, these people who were listed under Noteworthy residents

It would seems that the fact that many of the removed items have direct Wikipedia links which clarify the connection to Hoboken would be sufficient. If not, it seems the work to be done would be following up on those links and bringing the source material into the Hoboken article, not shifting it to the discussion section. Time consuming indeed, but if the concern is about source integrity, certainly worthwhile for the watchdogs who are worried about it.Djflem (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources. If the biographical articles do have reliable sources establishing residence for these people, then yes, those can be placed in this article. Unfortunately, place and date of birth/residence is something that is often found unsourced in articles, and not surprisingly, this is the case with many, if not most of these. The Hoboken residency/birth of the first one, Tom Bethune, was not sourced in his article. Ditto for Andre Brewster, Irwin Chusid, Alfred Dunlap, etc. And Hoboken isn't even mentioned in the articles for Joanne Borgella, Ken Freedman, Ben Frisell, etc. I didn't go down the entire list, but I wonder just how far down that list one has to go to find a sourced mention of the city. Sorry, but you can't just assert a fact in an article. WP:V requires it to be supported by a verifiable source.
As for moving unsourced material to Talk Pages, that was an alternative that was suggested to me during a discussion on these matters on Jimmy Wales' Talk Page. Nightscream (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
All of the notables have been moved to the List of people from Hoboken, New Jersey, if sourceable. Alansohn (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


  1. ^ [1]

Assessment comments[edit]

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

While it's obvious that a LOT of work has gone into this article, I've downgraded it to a "C" because it fails to meet the "Suitably Referenced" criterion for a "B". shirulashem (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Fredmertz624, 17 November 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

the word "Manhattanites" in the The 19th century section should link to the wiki page for this term:

Fredmertz624 (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Manhattanite article describes a 2008 film, and not the group of people referenced in the Hoboken article. Nightscream (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hoboken City Website[edit]

I believe the link the to city of Hoboken website is broken. Correct me if I'm wrong. Beepoppab (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)(talk)

The link is fine and points to the correct address, but it seems like the city's web site is down right now. Something is broken, but it's not here. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good article[edit]

How come this is not a good article? I have read through it and believe it meets the criteria. How would one nominate this as a good article? –Tinton5 (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it a second time, I suppose it could use a few more citations. Tinton5 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Name Origin[edit]

Is the name "Hoboken" of Native American origin or was it named after Hoboken district of Antwerp, Belgium?~~(User:CalicoCatLover) 11:19, 8 January 2012 (PST)~~

That's explained in the second paragraph of the History section, my fellow calico lover. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Notable media appearances[edit]

Something important is missing here, isn't it? Hoboken does have one of the world's best know zoological gardens. ... Ok, it's a fictional one. ... Ok, it is not so much well known as notorious but the Hoboken Zoo is an important theme in The Penguins of Madagascar and in ep.50 we even got to see it.Markus Becker02 (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Through my father, born in Rotterdam, I know there existed in this Dutch city from the 19 th century till 1924 a manor of 56 ha. called " Land of Hoboken" , after the Rotterdam shippingcompany owners family HOBOKEN. As the first development in New Yersey was Dutch, it could be feasible this is where the name Hoboken comes from. See also the Dutch Wikipedia page " Land van Hoboken". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


"The homelessness problem is addressed by the Hoboken Homeless Shelter, one of the three homeless shelters in the county.[72]"<<This lone sentence opens up the "demographics" section and it's completely awkward. It's cited, so I didn't remove it, but can we incorporate it somewhere else for better flow? Or possibly expand on it and stick it later on as a sub-heading of demographics?? I feel like a tourist (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Intro wrong[edit]

I think someone has been messing with the intro of the article? Empress Alexandra Butler?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosimoM (talkcontribs) 20:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


First the minor error.

From 100-year flood:

A common misunderstanding exists that a 100-year flood is likely to occur only once in a 100-year period. In fact, there is approximately a 63.4% chance of one or more 100-year floods occurring in any 100-year period.

The major error is that this is a forecast resting on tenuous assumptions about how the past relates to the future that presently lie the center of an immense global controversy. — MaxEnt 16:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I spotted this again just as I was closing the tab. Just to be clear, the upshot is that we shouldn't casually reword technocratic niceties riven with controversy into seemingly commonplace language. — MaxEnt 17:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
MaxEnt, ... nor should we add drive by tags to articles. You know what you think the article should say; Fix it already. Alansohn (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Alansohn Sometimes I'm not in a good state to "fix it already". In that moment of this instance, whatever I came up with would have turned into a paragraph of OR, so instead I was passing my hot button along to cooler heads (which could have been you).
There are hundreds of edits in my edit history where I waded in and "fixed it already" if I judged that to be my best response (I don't always judge correctly, and sometimes my edits do get reverted: sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not). There are even more cases where I just let something slide because it wasn't material enough to bother with.
So right back at you. Don't like it? Revert it already—if you think the article was better served contributing yet another splinter of misinformation to a tire fire's tire fire, than flagged as dubious (in which case, we disagree, but each to his own, I'm fine with that).
Now I'm going to come right back at you on Level 2. This isn't really aimed at you. I have a simmering fifteen-year-old issue with the entire culture of open source's inability to grasp Comparative Advantage. You'll note that Oz is better than Adam at both fabrication tasks. Indeed, on the evidence, Oz could probably offer Adam some constructive advice. But look what happens if Oz opens his mouth and comments that something about the axe is substandard: he soon ends up making axes himself—or lecturing about the entirety of axe culture—at the expense of his happier, higher-value contributions making spears.
So there it is. I'm kind of prone to getting hot under the collar over conceptual issues that others don't even notice, causing me to make personal judgements different that what others would like. Adam Smith, were he alive today, would probably agree with you on "fix it already" as a general rule, but then he'd continue to add "modulo the inevitable strictures of comparative advantage, which—when applied—will no doubt shock and horrify your neighbours, but what can can a guy do differently at the end of the day if he's really thinking things through? Sad."
Better, I guess, that this screed landed on the talk page rather than something similar in tone landing in the original article. Does my "dubious" flag not now seem like the better part of valour? Peel back a few layers and you'll find that this ugly downside of "fix it already" can never be fixed. There are probably many editors who do abuse drive-by flagging where "fix it already" would be the better mode of engagement. I am not those people. The one that particularly bugs me is "{who}" when there isn't any available answer (problem: diffuse consensus exists). The fix often ends up involving recasting an entire paragraph so as to better sweep diffuse consensus under the rug (it's still in there, but now recast in a grammatically subordinate form less likely to trigger the flag), with the new form being at best marginally better than what came before in explaining the subject matter, and very easy to dent back to the who-bait sentence structure by the next well-intentioned editor who fails to spot the side-step.
Here's another one. I happen to like the birth year in the lead sentence of living biographies, so I'll often make a quick effort to add one in, when it's missing. Recently, in my productive haste at a moment in time where I had the least bandwidth to spare, I ended up adding a cite to a resource I didn't realize was some horrible "anyone can edit" mess, and my contribution got reverted (with a useful talk page admonition). Lesson learned, I won't use that source again. So the upshot: that BLP page went back to having no birth year, and the next person such as myself will repeat the entire process of searching for a birth year to add, maybe noticing or maybe not noticing that the only available source is not considered citeable, and so this will go forever, until everyone motivated to fill this hole as a matter of course eventually gives up (due to excessive duplication of effort), all because Wikipedia won't flag the birth date as missing because we've looked already, dammit, and found nothing; here falling miserably short of the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (what well-motivated Oz editors require definitely being the latter; the Adams out there barely seem to notice).
With so many core problems, the resounding finality of "fix it already" always strikes me as a plastic lifeboat of denial. I guess we end up defending this reductive view of how the editing collaboration works because it's all we've got. I feel this too, but I've made different (and unusual) choices in how to deal with this sad state of affairs.
Was it effective for me to write this? Probably not. But the mood only strikes about twice a year, and it doesn't hurt for me to put this into words from time to time, if only for my own benefit, so what the hell? As it happens, just yesterday I googled "Wikipedia is dying" (I do this roughly once a year) and got served up yet another helping of Andrew Lih: Wikipedia just turned 15 years old. Will it survive 15 more? As my brother likes to say, "the first rats off a sinking ship are the best swimmers". Suppose Oz departs, while Adam stays. What then? At the end of the day, no amount of good will will keep Oz tolerating ridiculous duplication of effort because the editorial standards prohibit textual annotations of repeatedly failed citeable reference trawls. What we have is a culture where the page text is primary, and the work poured into generating the page text is considered secondary (easy to do if you model your labour as free, at which price point comparative advantage isn't even a comprehensible notion). The evolution of the comprehensive test suite as the primary software asset (over the delivered product) reflects the slow realization in the software industry that this donkey ought to be lashed to the cart the other way around. Ultimately this same light bulb has to come on at Wikipedia, or my verdict on its next fifteen years is largely negative. "just fix it" serves to increase the difficulty of comparative advantage entering the room, and perhaps someday contributing to a collective cost-of-labour donkey-flipping tipping point. As viewed from 20,000 feet, the stakes are high. — MaxEnt 18:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hoboken, New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 21:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hoboken, New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)