Talk:Stillwater Township, New Jersey

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

Orphaned references in Stillwater Township, New Jersey[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stillwater Township, New Jersey's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CensusArea":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for notable residents[edit]

User:Alansohn has the habit of removing redlinked articles despite WP:RED states that they are useful in helping Wikipedia grow. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and there's always work to be done with articles on merited, notable figures obscured by the cloud of talentless popular culture and ignorant philistines. So, sadly if a name is a redlink, it is more a reflection of wikipedia's incompleteness than a lack of perceived notability by someone purportedly not aware of their significance. Trust me, I feel the same way about the notability of Justin Bieber given the obscurity of better talents past and present.

  • Louis Finkelstein, Gretna Campbell Finkelstein...deed records, primary documents, establish their residence that are public records accessible for free, uninhibited online and to in person queries. These are government records, much like the census records that Alansohn likes adding to articles. This inclusion is in keeping with the primary sources policies per WP:V, WP:RS and are neither questionable or self promotion (i.e. not afoul of WP:QS or WP:SPS. Per WP:PSTS the appropriateness of a primary source is determined as "a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages" and further "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." These deed records are used with care only to state a verifiable fact. No interpretation of the deed records is added, only a recitation that the Finkelsteins owned a house in stillwater at which they resided, therefore, secondary sources are not required to bolster that interpretation. It is now discussed here, and considering this application of policy, any further removal of these sources is against the parts of WP:PSTS and relevant policies that warrant its inclusion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of Louis Finkelstein's notability has been addressed with a reliable and verifiable source, one that clearly references him. There is no claim of notability for Gretna Campbell Finkelstein. Create the article and then add it to the list of notables. As to the use of property records, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive44#Use of property ownership records as source to support residency, where the rather clear conclusion was that "Property records cannot be used" for this purpose under policy, among other arguments against their use as violations of WP:SYNTH. Alansohn (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIRST: Neither of these people are living persons. Gretna died in 1987, Louis died in 2000--therefore a BLP policy guideline does not apply to the presentation on persons who are dead. These are historical sources documented from government archives and not a matter of privacy relevant to BLP. They would be a reference for research in a biography if one were written, they should be so here. I bet most of the historians and biographers of Jefferson reference the documents which prove his ownership of Monticello. But citing BLP for deceased people is comparing apples and oranges.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SECOND: There is no policy that says you must create an article before linking something. redlinks help content grow. Eventually, I'll write an article. But the lack of an article as of yet does not render someone "unnotable" by any objective measure.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • THIRD: removing informaton supported by sources is against policy, and continued removals will be referred to ANI.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FOURTH: WP:SYNTH does not apply because I am only stating a fact, not offering an interpretation of facts...in accordance with policies on primary sources as above-referenced.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Living or not, property records are not reliable sources for establishing residence, as they don't demonstrate a connection to the person described, nor do they show that the person lived in the place in question. Mr. Finkelstein is notable and belongs in a list of notable residents: He has a Wikipedia article that establishes notability AND a reliable and verifiable source that establishes his residence here. Gretna Campbell Finkelstein and Anthony Swartout have nothing; No articles and no claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources. As an editor who is clearly capable of creating reliable sourced articles, their absence is a rather strong indicator of non-notability. Convince me and establish consensus here before reinserting non-notables. The burden is on youto establish this and it has not been met. Alansohn (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, "living or not" doesn't mean applying BLP to dead people. It isn't "Biographies of living and dead people." Just because someone doesn't yet have an article, it is not, nor should it ever be construed as, a lack of notability...it's the shortcoming of wikipedia not getting around to it yet. Saying no article automatically equals no notability is a logical fallacy. Heck, just look at the article on Louis de Bussy d'Amboise...a far more worthy figure than Krista Branch. It's a culture of degenerating collective knowledge where people forget anything that happened before they were born. It's the reason why flash-in-the-pan pop stars are GAs while notable figures from the Renaissance or other eras of the distant (and not-so-distant) past are ignored. Hunt-Swartout Raid was created Sunday...it will be written shortly--a redlink that helped Wikipedia grow. It covers an area previously neglected by Wikipedia editors (French & Indian war topics are badly presented here). Gretna Finkelstein, will be written shortly...another redlink helping Wikipedia grow especially in its poor coverage of the fine arts...both are entirely in line with WP:RED. If she wasn't notable, she wouldn't be mentioned on the New York School article, or in various sources I'll be looking through in the next weeks while writing the articles. The burden is met by valid sources offered (facts in valid primary sources per WP:PSTS), the discussion presented here (despite your ignoring it), and the policy guidelines that have been and continue to be followed (referenced above). You seem to ignore this hence any further removals will be referred to ANI as disruptive editing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swartout is merely mentioned as a militia officer who was killed in an Indian raid, which does not constitute a claim of notability. Gretna Campbell Finkelstein merits no more than a single unsourced line with her name and dates in a laundry list at New York School, and her only other mention is in Mr. Finkelstein's article. I'm willing to work on these if there were articles or very strong sources, but there's nothing to work with. Create the articles first and establish notability, then add the entries. Until then there's nothing to discuss and the entries will be removed unless you can show that there is a new consensus on establishing notability. Please feel free to take this to WP:ANI, but it might be more productive to rebut the WP:BLPN consensus that property records are not reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rome wasn't built in a day. Wikipedia wasn't either...as it is constantly evolving and will continue to constantly evolve. Why should I argue a BLP issue to support the use of documents for information (i.e. dead people) for which BLP does not apply? There is no policy saying "create articles first" when policy supports redlinks and listing information not yet developed knowing of wikipedia's consistent unfinished state. Perhaps you should read parable of the barren fig tree before clubbing nascent additions of information as if it were a baby seal.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The burden is on you to demonstrate notability in the absence of articles and you have failed. Neither Mrs. Finkelstein nor Mr. Swartout have articles, or any claim of notability or strong sources demonstrating notability. I wouldn't club a baby seal, but there isn't even a seal sperm cell here to whack with a microscopic club. Rome wasn't built in a day, so start devoting the time to create the articles proving notability or find some credible support demonstrating that we should accept your edits without reliable and verifiable sources, solely on your say so. Build it and they will come into the article, but not until then. Alansohn (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still smug rejecting sources based on your entirely faulty and incorrect arguments unsupported by the very policies you quoted, and imperiously ignoring policies that accurately applied to the issues discussed above and decent arguments supporting, should have third opinion (which would have likely supported my well-sourced, well-supported claims above). Will contact 3O and ANI forthwith.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gretna Campbell readded. Article written. Petty objections satisfied. Swartout next.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what was needed and I look forward to the possibility that an encyclopedic article could also be written for Swartout. Until the article was created for Gretna Campbell, there was no credible claim of notability, nor was she mentioned in anything other than in passing in both her husband's article and in the article for the New York School. The sources added previously to this article established that someone with that name had owned a piece of property in Stillwater, but a source from a website about her was not a credible reliable or verifiable source. The sources now in her article meet that standard and set a benchmark for the type of article that should exist before an entry is added for a notable. Alansohn (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only in your skewed view of the world...you never cited one single policy that compelled this course of action that other than your imperious idea that "this is the way things should be" and a "my way or the highway" intransigence. There's nothing inherently wrong with an occasional forsaken redlink that impugns any topic as lacking notability...just the neglect of the dustbin of time. It just shows wikipedia isn't done and likely never will be...instead, you think (incorrectly) that neglect=worthless as far as contributions to the project are concerned. I'm glad that I only rarely run into you. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did. Several times. WP:RED says it best: "Lists of 'notable people' in an article, such as the 'Notable alumni' section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should be removed; the lists should remain confined to names of people whose notability is attested by an existing article or other reference." You're a capable editor. Create the quality article first. Then -- and only then -- add the entry to a list of notables or wherever else the entry is appropriate. Laundry lists like in the article for New York School that are completely sourceless add nothing to Wikipedia and unsourced red links only make Wikipedia even worse. Every entry, everywhere in Wikipedia, requires and deserves a source. If you need a list to trigger future article creation your userpage is a wonderful place to do that. Alansohn (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will concede, New York School is a neglected article that needs much work. I'd rewrite it if I ever got the time to research that informal movement, but I don't see that happening. You ignore this part of WP:RED which is far more key, and applicable to our current situation. It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic. I'm not creating huge lists of red links that will never be addressed, it's one or two here or there and they are addressed rather quickly. If it's an article I'm working on or paying attention knowing I'll get back to it, the red link keeps me reminded. it's why i have such a list on my user page, but if i persistently see it while editing an article, I will always get back to make that red link turn blue. I do not and never will use sandbox.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stillwater Township, 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stillwater_Township,_New_Jersey&oldid=1212296935"