Misplaced Pages

Talk:St. John's Park/Archive 1

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:St. John's Park

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Djflem (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 11 January 2015 (→Editor determined to skew the article toward his personal POV: BAD LEAD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:00, 11 January 2015 by Djflem (talk | contribs) (→Editor determined to skew the article toward his personal POV: BAD LEAD)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconNew York City NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
NAThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
A fact from St. John's Park/Archive 1 appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 June 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2010/June.
Misplaced Pages

Holland Tunnel?

Those are I-78's exits. The Holland Tunnel exit is over thataway. Five little tunnels don't branch off the big tunnel. The way it reads now, it can be confusing. Epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't I-78 and the Holland Tunnel essentially the same thing in Manhattan? I-78 extends less than 1 mile on the surface of Manhattan and exists solely to provide access to the Holland Tunnel (which is part of I-78). Pburka (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they are concurrent – but there are also two separate articles. These exits, from I-78 coming from the Holland Tunnel, can be confused with the exit portal itself; so, I'd edited it. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The Holland Tunnel may well be designated I-78 (although I'm not at all certain the designation doesn't stop at the beginning of the Tunnel in Jersey City), but no one in New York knows that, or cares, except for some people obsessed with road trivia. The exits are known as the exits from the Holland Tunnel. No one ever says "When you come out of I-78 in Manhattan, take Exit 2", because no one would understand what they were saying. What they say is "When you come out of the Holland Tunnel, take Exit 2". Calling them "I-78 exits" instead of "Holland Tunnel exits" is total pedantry, and also violated WP:COMMONNAME.

Contrary to the contention here, there are no other exits from the tunnel except these. BMK (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

When you come through the portal of the tunnel, you may well technically no longer be in the tunnel, but you have not "exited" anywhere, because THE ONLY PLACE YOU CAN GO TO GET ANYWHERE IS TO THE HOLLAND TUNNEL EXITS. Calling them I-78 exits is ridiculous, and if you were a driver, you would know that. (The "exit" which looks like it's on Canal Street on a map is, in fact, a seperate road, divided from Canal with a nigh wall, and lower than Canal. It is not an "exit" onto Canal Street.) BMK (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The Commissioners' Plan of 1811, which mapped out the streets of Manhattan, designated several spots as open space, including Union Square, Tompkins Square Park, Madison Square Park and Marcus Garvey Parks; in general, early plans allotted more space for these sites than what was finally built. Also, some parks that once existed were eventually eliminated. One, an ornate and elegant square known as Hudson Square or St. John's Park, appeared on Manhattan maps as early as 1797 and existed at what is now the southern exit of the Holland Tunnel until the City sold the land to Cornelius Vanderbilt, who built the Hudson River Railroad Freight Depot there in 1867. BMK (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
As opposed to the northern exit, which is actually the entrance?

And yes, there is an exit to Canal Street. It's called Exit 5, and the sign reads "to Canal Street". The portal is south of Canal and Hudson; that's an approximation. You actually should know that. Epicgenius (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

But that exit is not AT THE PORTAL, it is part of the roundabout exits, which you've never seen except in Google Maps pictures, because yuou don't drive. BMK (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The literal exit of the tunnel is at the portal, and these exits are outside the portal. I'm not partaking in the cracks about failure to drive. Yes, I pass by there very often. Epicgenius (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
But it's wrong to say that I-78 is unsigned, either, so not "no one" every says "I-78" – GPSs do. Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
How about a compromise: The interior of the square is now inaccessible, surrounded by exit roads from Manhattan's Holland Tunnel. This clarifies that they're not actually tunnel mouths, and avoids confusing people about the I-78 designation (which barely exists in Manhattan). Pburka (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. It could even say "Holland Tunnel (I-78)". BMK (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Tangentially, it seems a bit odd to assign ownership of the tunnel to Manhattan. Surely Jersey City has as much claim to the tunnel, and it's operated by the interstate PANYNJ. Pburka (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
You're right, but where does it say that? I didn't see it in a quick look. BMK (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
On closer inspection, it only says it in my awkward proposed rewording. I inadvertently expanded possession from the exits to the whole tunnel. My proposal should read: "The interior of the square is now inaccessible, surrounded by exit roads from the Holland Tunnel." Pburka (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the second proposal; BTW, the Holland Tunnel is in fact operated by the PANYNJ. Epicgenius (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Move of this article to "St. John's Rotary"

An editor recast this article and moved it to "St. John's Rotary" without discussion. I have reverted that move, as I think it was unwarranted and ill-advised. I would first like to see references to the existence of "St. John's Rotary" as a name -- I find no Google hits for it at all. Second, the bulk of the article is about the history of the square (that would be a move I could support, to "St. John's Square"), and not about the "rotary", which is non-notable in and of itself. Third, the roadway is not actually a rotary, it's a series of exits laid out in a disconnected circle -- at the final exit you have to leave, you cannot continue around as you would in an actual rotary. BMK (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have also reverted the editor's refocusing the article without first getting a consensus to do so. Per WP:BRD the article stays in the status quo ante while the discussion goes on. I have asked the editor not to revert again until he has a consensus to do so from this discussion. BMK (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I have posted a neutral pointer to this discussion on the talk page of Wikiproject NYC. BMK (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

St. John's Rotary is the name of the place in the article. Djflem (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source that says that. BMK (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The references are in the page you reverted. Go to history, do the homework, and get back to me.Djflem (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
No, you have made an assertion about the name of the structure, so please give me a reference that calls it "St. John's Rotary". BMK (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence for "St. John's Park" as proper article name

  • No Google hits for "St. John's Rotary" relevant to this structure BMK (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In the NY Times archive, I find two hits for "St. John's Rotary", both stories about the Mark Di Suervo sculpture, and one hit for "Holland Tunnel Rotary" (from 1958). On the other hand, there are 437 hits for "St. John's Park" and another 36 hits for "St. John's Square". Clearly, neither "St. John's Rotary" nor "Holland Tunnel Rotary" are the common names here, at least according to New York's newspaper of record. BMK (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to confuse matters a little, the Encyclopedia of New York City's entry for "Hudson Square" is not about the neighborhood of that name (a fairly recent usage), but about St. John's Park: "One of the oldest squares in New York City..." etc. It appears that "Hudson Square" was the original name, and was surplanted by "St. John's Park" by 1827. (See page 627). There is, of course, no entry for "St. John's Rotary" or "Holland Tunnel Rotary", and the article on the Holland Tunnel does not mention the structure at all. BMK (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In a "necrology" entry in the fifth edition of The AIA Guide to New York City (page 65): "The circular wasteland within the Holland Tunnel Exit Rotary" is still called 'St. John's Park' but bears no resemblance to the original genteel square that bore that name." BMK (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The roads around the park/square may well be known as St. John's Rotary (e.g. Public Art Fund) 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. I also think that the overhead photo that Djflem added is superior to the street-level photo which is currently included. Pburka (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree, so I've replaced the ground-level image with the aerial shot. BMK (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    • BTW, I think it's a category error to make assumptions about extrinsic things on the basis of what an artist calls his work. Who knows how he arrived at that name? Did he start with "St. John's Park Holland Tunnel Rotary Arch", but think it was too long? He could have called it "The Lost Square Arch", would we then have concluded that the tract of land was known as "The Lost Square"?

      I think the only conclusion you can reasonably draw from the title of Di Suervo's Serra's sculpture is that "St. John's Rotary Arch" is the name of the sculpture. BMK (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No evidence so-called St John's Park is park

Google hits for St John's Park in New York will take to to Brooklyn.

Can you please provide 20th or 21st century references that call the 2015 incarnation of this piece of land that was once a city square and then later a train depot a park? There a plenty about a park doesn't exist anymore…… Why? It is not a park. It is not a square; it is a tunnel/highway exit with greenery. To say so otherwise is original research.

Below are some for the page you deleted, apparently, without reading, or as indicated above, choosing not to.Djflem (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The NYC Parks Dept does not consider its a "park" or "square". "Park of the Past". New York Parks Department. October 8, 2005. Retrieved 2014-12-23.

Other have referred to it as the St. John's Rotary

  • The NYC Dept or Parks doesn't list it as a park or square because it doesn't belong to the city, it belongs to the Port Authority. BMK (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "REHABILITATION OF..." only refers to it as an "exit rotary". No caps, not a proper noun.
  • "PORT AUTHORITY COMPLETES..." uses "rotary" (no caps) throughout, no proper noun. The caps in the title is the result of all words in the title being capitalized.
  • "HT412 Rehabilitation..." refers to it only as "NY exit plaza and rotary at the NY entrance to the Holland Tunnel." The caps in the title is again because all words in the title are capped, not because it is being called the "Holland Tunnel Rotary" as a proper noun.
  • "Studio 5 Partnership..." does indeed refer to it as the "Holland Tunnel Rotary", but this is a firm of architects, and does not represent an official usage.
  • Same with the Ives Partnership, no official status.
  • "Crossing Under..." refers to it as "St. John's Rotary", "Holland Tunnel Rotary" and "exit rotary". This is the only reliable source so far that you've presented that refers to "St. John's Rotary:.
  • "Highway Under..." I see no hits at all for the word "rotary" You searched on "Holland tunnel exit 1927"
  • I think we've established that the name of the sculpture (by Richard Serra, not Mark di Suervo, my error) is "St. John's Rotary Ark", but that really has no bearing on anything, since he could have called it anything he liked.
  • You really haven't presented any significant evidence that "St. John's Rotary" is the name of the rotary, nor that the article should be about this non-notable cluster of exits, and not about the plot of land orignally called "Hudson Square" and then "St. John's Park" which has an extensive history. BMK (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

General discussion

  • You have not presented any evidence that Saint John's Park in 2015 as park, please do.Djflem (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It's clearly not a park, in the sense you're looking for, but it is nonetheless called "St. John's Park". Towns can be called "city" without having any of the normal attributes of a city, streets can be called "Maple Street" without having any maples on them, apartments can be called "River View Gardens" without having a view of the river or any gardens, delis can be called "Gramercy Deli" despite being nowhere near Gramercy, etc. etc. etc. In general, there's no accounting for names, and there's no requirement that a tract of land which was once a square or park can't continue to carry its previous name even when it no longer functions as a public square or a park - and that's what's happened here. The land in question is still called "St. John's Park", just as the Meatpacking District will continue to be called that well after the last meat packer in the area has closed down. It's a name'. BMK (talk) 02:36, 5 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)
Yes it does matter that it's not a park today. It is a rotary at the end of a tunnel and interstate highway that has history of having been a bowery/farmland, a city square, and rail freight terminal. That fact seems to have been ignored. Editors do not get to pick and choose which aspect of a piece of history they wish to write about and then name an article by that choice or notion or their perceived notability. That's original research, which this article is as titled and written. They need to provide references to support your claims with verifiable references. You have been asked to do so, and haven't, so the claims made above are only that until proven.Djflem (talk) 09:00, 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)

While we await Misplaced Pages:Verifiability from the other editors (or if you can provide some yourself) about claims the claims being made I suggest you review the timeline below with regard to your statement about length. You're aware, of course, notability is subjective and a matter of opinion. Djflem (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hudson Square/St Johns Pak 1803-1867
  • St John Terminal 1867-1927
  • Holland Tunnel Rotary 1927-2015
I don't know why you link to WP:V, which really has nothing to do with this issue. The issue is totally about notability, which is only subjective in a minor way, since we have objective notability standards which have to be met. Given that, if that tract of land didn't have prior history as a square, real estate development, park etc, and was simply a circular cluster of highway exits, there would be no article about it, just as there is no article about the Lincoln Tunnel Helix. Its notability is entirely about its history, not about its current function, regardless of how long that function continues. BMK (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Because Misplaced Pages requires verifiable sources for claims made. You are making a claim and have been asked to back it up by references. (just as you asked for references). Your cherry picking of which part of the history of the rotary is notable is subjective. You are welcome to your above bolded opinion but conjecture based on a point of view is of no import here. The entire history of the land on which the rotary is cited is part of what makes it interesting: that's why I cleaned it up, expanded on it, provided additional references and context to the article. Djflem (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
There's no question about verifiability here. The article is well referenced, and will be better referenced if you'd stop screwing around -- by forking this article by moving a copy of your version to Holland Tunnel Rotary-- and let me work on it. Please stop trying to WP:OWN this subject matter, it can't be done. Just follow WP:CONSENSUS, please, which is that this article (this one one and only article) should focus on the history of the land, and not on the "rotary", and that it should live at this address. BMK (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Since when do you decide Misplaced Pages:Verifiability matters or not? You have been asked to. The above sounds like WP:OWN to meDjflem (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No consensus reached that the focus of this article is the park and if it is should be historical article only about the park (1803-1867)

Despite BMK having been asked, and been unable to provide references and unable to substantiate any claims about notability, he proceeds to suggest that that some sort of consensus has been reached.

If the name of the articles is to be St John's Park then, it should be about Hudson Square/St Johns Park 1803-1867 with a brief mention what proceeded and what followed. Any article which substantially discusses those issues should not bear the name of place that hasn't existed for more than 150 years.

Holland Tunnel Rotary is appropriate name for an article that discusses the history of the piece land on which it sits covering the development from the colonial era to the present day. Not the period of it's incarnation (63 years) as a park, not it's 50 years a rail station, but the current use (88 years)Djflem (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite there being no consensus, an editor is attempting to suppress facts to order to promote their POV and have it both ways. S/he would like to claim that St John's Park is a tract of land at the same time is attempting thorough use of imagery and headers to give the impression that the original St Jame's Park is the most important aspect of this article. It hasn't since existed 1867 and has actually been the exit plaza for the Holland Tunnel since 1927 and for 50 years before that, a train depot. S/he has been hard pressed to provide more than one reference that alludes to St John's Park name in 21st century usage, and even that is in a historical context. Clearly the editor is unfamiliar general essay structure and how Misplaced Pages:MOS, Misplaced Pages:Naming, and Misplaced Pages:UNDUE works. Cherry-picking based on subjective personal perceptions is not encyclopaedic and not permitted. The editor has not given any reason other than opinion above (let's hope they don't repeat here!) as to why the article should be an exception to standard Misplaced Pages practice of presenting material in a an orderly chronologic fashion.

The facts:

  • Hudson Square/St Johns Pak 1803-1867
  • St John Terminal
  • Holland Tunnel Rotary 1927-2015

St John's Park was the colloquial name of Hudson Square, a park that existed from 1803-1867. It later become the site of St. John's Park Terminal from 1867-1927 which since 1927 has been the circular exit roadway for the Holland Tunnel.Djflem (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your bolded comment is correct, except for the erroneous use of "St. James" where you meant "St. John's" and the use of "colloquial" -- none of the sources cited support that contention. In essence, though, you are correct, it was a square with townhouses and a park, then it was a rail terminal, now it's a bunch of highway exits. Problem is, the square/park is historically notable, as is the rail depot, but the exits are... just a bunch of exits, and are non-notable. That's why the other commenters above agree that focus of the article should be on the history of the place, and the name should be "St. John's Park". You seem to want to wave away that clear and obvious consensus (Epicgenius and Pburka agree with me, you are the only one who doesn't) -- and its logic -- because the edit roadway, for some reason -- appears to be important to you. I, on the other hand, think it received just about the right amount of coverage in the article as it is now, with the right balance in importance, which is not very. BMK (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Your repeated claims about notability do not dismiss the fact that the article as so structured does not conform to Misplaced Pages:MOS, Misplaced Pages:Naming, and Misplaced Pages:UNDUE. If you wish to write an article about a historical park then do so, but do so. If you wish to write about a plot of land, as the opening sentence of the states then it should be structured in such way that that history is presented neutrally without an emphasis on one aspect. of that land. The article as you have presented is POV and poor encyclopaedic work. Djflem (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I entirely disagree, but I'm sure you'd expect that. BMK (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.Djflem (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Any notable aspect, which brings us back full circle. Your WP:V and WP:WEIGHT arguments have no validity, and your WP:N argument is based entirely on your notion, unshared by anyone else here, that the most notable aspect of this subject are a handful of highway exits. You throw WP:NPOV at me, but, in fac, you are operating entirely on the invalid assumption that the exits are notable and interesting. They're not.

Please stop your campaign. The consensus here is clear, if you keep editing against the clear consensus, you are likely to be sanctioned. You seem to do good work elsewhere, so that would be a shame. BMK (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. 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)
Read and move on, BMK. and stop rep[eating yourself. Your arrogant assumption that you know what my assumptions are of io nterest here, I do agree with Pburka that the history of the park and railway depot should be given equal weight in the article, which is not happening here.Djflem (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Your ability to (willfully?) misconstrue Pburka's remark is really quite amazing. BMK (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Poorly structured article

Article should following standard practice with foots in appropriate sections

  • Introduction
  • colonial era
  • Trintiy Church
  • St. John's Park Terminal
  • Holland Tunnel Rotary

This current mishmash of headers and pictures is sloppy work.Djflem (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The above is the structure of the article, only the headers differ. The current headers are appropriate, and the layout is visually balanced. BMK (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Poor punctuation

Rotary is a standard English word. It's definition in this context is explained once. Quotations all over the sloppy writing and editoritializing.Djflem (talk)

"Rotary" is indeed a standard word, however, the cluster of exits from the Holland Tunnel, although referred to as a "rotary" because it is roughly circular, is not an actual rotary, because it does not loop back on itself. At exit 5, one has to leavve the roadway, one cannot continue and try again for exits 1-4. For this reason it is not a an actual rotary, and the quotation marks are appropriate. BMK (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not one source,not the NY Times, not the PANYNJ "it's owners" use quotations, which are not needed. Only BMK in what appears to insert his opinion in a non-neutral way. See [[Misplaced Pages :MOS}}Djflem (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Djflem on this specific point. If the sources call it a rotary (without quotes) we should do the same. Pburka (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Then I go along with the consensus. BMK (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Cherrypicking from unreliable references

Two weak USERGENERATED unreliable references present contradictory information. One is a Wikipeidia Commons photo a a sign on fence used to support the claim "is not legally accessible to pedestrians" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:St._John%27s_Park_no_trespassing_sign.jpg) the other shows the park labelled to a recreation area. (http://www.google.com/maps/place/Saint+John%27s+Park/@40.7214751,-74.0076523,18z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c259f526786baf:0xf3925f45c2979270) The editor who continues to insert this information is clearly cherry picking support a non neutral point of view.Djflem (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The Google Maps note is clearly an error. Google's algorithms may have confused this St. John's Park with another park of the same name in Brooklyn. It should be noted that Google Maps notes are user generated content, but the place names are not, and Google should be considered a reliable source for such. I'm not entirely comfortable with a photo being used as a reference, but this photo is of a sign, so little interpretation is necessary (although one must trust the photographer that the sign is located where claimed). Assuming the sign is the actual cited source, this is a primary source, but not user generated. Pburka (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
If so, then the Google reference is unreliable and does not provide verifiable info. A picture of PANYNJ sign is clearly user generated. Since they are poor quality references that contradict each other, they are better left out.Djflem (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The description is in error, not the name. BMK (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The sign is not user generated content. It's a published (i.e. publicly displayed) written work. Think of the sign as a rare book which is only available at a single library. BMK has helped us by scanning (photographing) the book (sign) and placing a copy on-line. It's self-published (by the PANYNJ) but it's not user generated. Pburka (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor determined to skew the article toward his personal POV

Editor Djflem has been consistently editing this article against the consensus of the commenters here, making as many small changes as possible to skew the article to focus on five non-notable Holland Tunnel exits rather than the notable history of the land, the historical park and square, and the railroad depot that replaced it. Practically every edit he's made has been to this end. He has broken WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:Disruption and WP:TE, at the very least. In addition, his writing is unacceptable in quality, his sense of how to structure and layout an article is poor, and he has a predilection for personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with him.

Because of this, and most importantly because of his apparent inability to follow the clear consensus on this talk [page, I ask the other editors here to enforce a requirement that Djflem post any changes he plans to make to the article here first, so that they can be evaluated and approved by a consensus before being added to the article. BMK (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Agreed, there is one editor who is determined to skew the article toward his personal POV and can be seen in the lead:Djflem (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Bad Lead

The first sentence of this article is St. John's Park is the name for a tract of land, which is already very poor. (how many other article start with is the name of?: Baraka Obama is the name of the president of the USA; the Elizabethtown Tract is the name of the tract? So the article is about the name? Nonetheless, given that poor start, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section requires that the the introduction be succinct and cover the basics in as they will be discussed in the article. The person (BMK) who wrote this conveniently avoids mentioning the colonial era, despite there being a sub-section in the body.. Proceeds to use the word originally, despite the fact the name of the tract of land was the Dominee's Bouwery. Deletes links to very appropriate links and the present day usage of the tract. And then determines, to include and highlight one critique, not a fact, mind you, but a critique, and milk it in the lead. Djflem (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories: