Talk:Union City, New Jersey

Government

Alan, I appreciate the collaboration, and respect the articles and information therein you have provided, but there is no need for subheading on Federal or State representation. The need for subheadings arises only when the section is large enough that it warrants subdivision. The Government section is not that large, and why put a subheadiing, when it's the only one there, and when the passage before it so brief? All the information there can be summed up under "Government." Also, you removed the sources I provided. Please don't do that. Wikipedia wants its material to be sourced/referenced. Thanks. Nightscream 15:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Geography

I removed the passage at the end of this section that stated, Due to its location Union City resembles a small town with a lot of New York City influence. Most people live in old two or three family houses lining narrow one-way streets. First of all, in what way does "resemble" a small town? It is a small town. Second, why does 68.46.36.1, the anonymous author of this passage keep adding this assertion about housing, but without citing a single source? I cannot find a source for this assetion, either in the main body of the article where it is made, or in the Sources section. I'd try talking to him on his discussion page, but he doesn't have one. If continues to add this material, I will be forced to contact an administrator to have him blocked. Sorry. Nightscream 10:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This is just a thought - but the person might actually live in Union City and is probably speaking from personal experience. The comment about "resembling a small town" probably refers to the fact that (a) the county is very densely populated and is across from Manhattan, which is also densely populated and (b) the town is primarily residential. I don't think that a discussion of housing requires a reference; it's something that you can visually identify. I think you're getting a little too carried away. Darkcore 17:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Darkcore. I'm glad someone decided to participate in this discussion.  :-) First of all, I live in Union City, and I am speaking from personal experience. But none of this addresses the points I made. Again, what do population density, being located across from Manhattan, or the fact that it's residential, having anything to do with a "resemblance"? Or whether it’s small? These are non-sequiturs, and whether one makes them from the personal experience of living there doesn’t change this. Union City does not a "resemble" anything, as it is a small town. That is a question of fact. This "resemble" passage does not make any sense, and the meaning for it that you suggest does not correlate to it, and in any case, is completely subjective, and not even relevant to that section. Wikipedia is supposed to deal with sourced facts, not arbitrary and vague notions of what things “resemble.” Now to be generous, Wikipedia material can include quoted statements and opnions (as when, for example, an article on a movie quotes a movie critic when discussing its box office performance), but even then, it has to be from someone regarded as an authority on the subject, whose statement in some way reflects a known consensus or perception, and it has to be sourced. None of these criteria apply to this "resemble" quote, and indeed, the vandal who keeps insisting on inserting it does not have a registered user page, refuses to cite his/her sources, and refuses to respond to my requests for him/her to do so.

As for the housing bit, again, you do need a source. Yes, I suppose you could mention things easily and obviously identifiable, but again, we're dealing with subjectives, as I live in Union City, and have no knowledge that most people live on side streets. I myself, for example, live on one of the Avenues, as do many others. I have no problem conceding the possibility that this assertion about sidestreets is true, mind you, but I'm simply asking for a source, which is a Wikipedia rule.

Lastly, the passage also contains other material that is inappropriate. For example:

Bergenline Avenue is the city's main commercial strip. This is already covered by the passage that says, Until the 1880s, the principle business center of Union City was Palisade Avenue. An influential citizen named Henry Kohlmeier who lived there objected to the noise created by horse-drawn public coaches, which led to the route being transferred two blocks west to what is now Bergenline Avenue (formerly Lewis Street), which runs parallel to Palisade Avenue, and which remains the city’s main commercial thoroughfare. The street runs through not only the entire length of Union City from north to south, but also through Jersey City, West New York, Guttenberg and North Bergen, making it the main commercial strip for Northern Hudson County. This passage not only states that it's the city's main thoroughfare, but that of the county as well. Why mention it again?

This narrow and bustling commercial strip is a gateway to Latin America. What does this mean? That the area is mostly Hispanic? The entire city is mostly Hispanic, a point that is covered in other areas of the article, including the History section (which comes before the Commerce section), and the Demographics section. Why specify this point again, and only for Bergenline? It's redundant.

The dominant language is Spanish. Again, this is redundant. The article already mentions the Latino population, and the section on Demographics, which is more pertinent to this point than the one on Commerce, mentions the ethnicity and language of the population.

There are many stores and restaurants representing various Hispanic countries such as Cuba, Colombia, and Peru. It goes without saying that large commercial strips have stores and restaurants, and since the article has already established by now that the population is comprised of Latino immigrants from different countries, it is redundant to mention this.

Moreover 99 cent, electronic, money order, and clothing stores can be found in Bergenline Avenue. So now we're mentioning what type of stores are found in commercial strips??? Is it really necessary to mention that commercial thoroughfares like Bergenline have 99 cent stores, money order outlets and clothing stores? Again, this goes without saying. All commercial shopping districts in all cities, after all, have this. It doesn't need mentioning.

In addition, the proper passage on Bergenline is followed by one mentioning how Summit Avenue is also a commercial strip, though less so. By inserting another redundant passage on Bergenline after the one on Summit, as the vandal insists on doing, he/she is sloppily placing it outside of the proper editorial order of the section. Doesn't this person have enough of a basic understanding of the organizational structure of writing to see this?

The fact that vandal's contributions are poorly written, and not in keeping with the standards and stated rules of WP are why I keep deleting them. The fact that he/she keeps reverting the article, rather than registering or even engaging in a discussion on the matter, is inexcusable. WP needs, in addition to relevant, well-organized material, information that is sourced. Personal experience of someone who lives there is not considered a sufficient substitute. If it were, then by the same token, one could argue that you should just arbitrarily accept everything I have stated here, since I do live in the town, and the vandal has made no mention of this. Obviously, however, this is not acceptable, which is why you'll notice all the sources I worked hard to include, both in the body of the article, and in the section on Sources I created at the bottom of it. I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, but merely state my viewpoint using rational arguments. In my opinion, that's not getting carried away. That's just showing a proper respect, not only for the proper standards of writing an encyclopedia in general, but for the rules of Wikipedia in particular. Nightscream 21:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that you've elaborated, I agree. I haven't been watching this article closely, but I will be monitoring the anonymous editor's changes from now on. Darkcore 20:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Inmytown has now taken to loading the article with lots of redundant, generic pics of Union City. I removed three of the four he/she inserted, and left one of them in, partially as a compromise, and even wrote a more descriptive caption for it, and tried to politely address the matter to him/her, stating my reasoning on his Talk Page. His response? He re-inserted two of the deleted pics again, and of course, did not respond to me, either on his Talk Page, my Talk Page, or here. I removed them again.

Also, about placing the two Bergenline Ave. pics (the "circa 1900" and "circa 2000" ones), at the right margin again: I don't really mind them being on the right instead of the left, but I really wanted to place them side by side, partially so that they can form a "Then and Now" diptych, and partially so that they don't push the pics below them further and further down past the relevant sections with which they line up, but I only know to do side-by-side pics on the left margin. Do you know how to do this on the right margin? Thanks, and Happy New Year, Darkcore. :-) Nightscream 10:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize Nightscream. First off I deleted the picture you put because it was not on Bergenline. I replaced with a picture that was actually taken on Bergenline Avenue. Sorry for the late response I am still new to wikipedia as a member.

If you're referring to the one on the right in the "Then and Now" diptych, it is most certainly on Bergenline. Specifically, it's at the intersection of 32nd ST. and Bergenline, just as it says in the caption, as the 1900 one nearly is (it's a bit north of that intersection, facing south instead of west, but's fairly close for a comparison of the two eras). And again, if you would like to take one of that intersection that's of a better quality, so that perhaps we can replace it, I encourage you to do so. I'm not sure why you "regret" apologizing, as your actions go far beyond that one photograph, but I'm willing to put it aside if you are, since you're new to WP. Let's try and work on this together, okay? :-)

As far as the documentation of Union City having the highest Hispanic percentage in the state, you did not cite a source for this. All you did was link to another Wikipedia page that indicates lists five cities with populations between 25,000 and 100,000 people, and which indicates that U.C. has the highest Hispanic percentage of those five. Not in the entire state. If you insist on re-inserting that assertion in the article, then it should be documented. Otherwise, it should be deleted.

As a suggestion, you can sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~) at the end of your post. :-) Nightscream 14:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Union City having highest Hispanic population by percentage

I did try to see if I could get directly from the Census Bureau's web site listing the percentage of Hispanic population in new Jersey's 566 municipalities (preferably in order), but I was unable to do so, and which would have provided ironclad documentation . However, the link that was inserted into the article to back up the claim, List of U.S. cities with Hispanic majority populations#New Jersey, does not just list a few arbitrarily randomly selected cities in New Jersey. As stated in the descriptive portion of the page, it lists every single municipality in the state that has a majority Hispanic population, using data provide based on the United States 2000 Census from the United States Census Bureau. All other municipalities in the entire state of New Jersey are under 50% Hispanic. Of all of the municipalities listed on that page, Union City at 82.3% is the highest in New Jersey. I went to the Census Bureau web site and spot checked and confirmed these numbers within a reasonable range. I think it's hard to argue that there is some other municipality that exceeds Union City's 82.3%. If you can think of one that is not on the list, please let us do the research on the Census site. If it's greater than 82.3% then it's the highest. But other than having documneted justification to debunk the claim, I think it should stand as is. Alansohn 14:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Most densely populated city

Union City is considered the most densely populated city in the country. Although Guttenberg, NJ and Manhattan are more densely populated they are a town and borough respectively. I wasn't sure if this was mentioning because a) it seems obvious and b) the statement does not imply anything that isn't stated. If you want to add something about it though, go ahead. Also I don't know if it should be put in the beginning or under trivia.

Urban Enterprise Zone

The fact that there is no sales tax on clothing in Union City is not a result of its being an urban enterprise zone as the article implies. There is no sales tax on clothing anywhere in New Jersey. I am removing the statement for now, but if somebody wants to put in a more accurate statement on this point, go ahead. Mjj237 14:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Suburb of NYC?

Why does the article state that Union City, NJ is a suburb of New York City in the introduction?

Are you saying that it is not a suburb, or are you saying that it should not be in the introduction? By most definitions of "suburb" it would seem to qualify as such for New York City. Whether it should be in the introduction is, of course, arbitrary. Backspace 07:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Park Theater

If Veronica's Veil was first performed in 1914, and The Park Performing Arts Center's Passion Play opened in 1915, how can the Park Theater's play be the longest-running in America. Veronica's Veil is still performed to this day. This claim being utilized by the Park Theater's Version is just taking advantage of the fact that "the Veil is no longer in Union City.

The Park Theater's can easily be the longest-running in the country if the location where it was first performed in 1914 stopped showing it eventually. "Oldest" and "Longest-running" aren't the same thing. Nightscream 08:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Checking punctuation

17-Aug-2007: Note that Wikipedia uses "logical quotation marks" with punctuation outside unless stating a direct quote:

• Right: The 3 Stooges were named "Larry", "Moe", and "Curly".
• Wrong: The 3 Stooges were named "Larry," "Moe," and "Curly."
• Right: Einstein said, "Education is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18."
• Wrong: W. Edwards Deming said, "There is no substitute for knowledge". (put period inside of direct quotations)

Note that typical American quotation marks are often interleaved with commas, not logically paired in the Wikipedia style. The use of logical quotation marks is similar to the nested pairing found in computer-language usage. -Wikid77 17:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

How does this pertain to the article? Nightscream 04:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuban population?

There are barely any Cubans living there, it is 80% South American. Years ago it was mainly Cuban and Italians residing there but now a days it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.93.233.25 (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Source? Nightscream (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hoppata's edits

I'd like to welcome Hoppata to Wikipedia, and thank him/her for his participation in this article. However, while he has made valid points about much material in the article (in particular in regards to sourcing), I disagree with much of the edits, and would like to explain my reaction to some of them here:

• Removing history of Palisade and Bergenline Avenues. Hoppata says he cut this unreferenced claim, but I see no reason why a fact tag should suffice for the various other passages he found that were unsourced, while removing this one. In any event, I've added the source I relied upon for this information, something I've been wanting to get around to for some time. (When I originally wrote these passages, it was before I began the practice of including sources whenever I add material.)
• Removing "In media" section. Hoppata says he cut this section because it "has nothing to do with Union City". Obviously this is self-evidently false, since appearances by a city in various media indeed pertains to that city, which is why such sections are seen in city articles all over Wikipedia.
• Origin of UEZ status. Hoppata claims that this was a "political promotion w/o reference." While it does not have a reference, it is not necessarily a "political promotion" simply because it mentions who was responsible for this. I restored it, but as a compromise, I removed Rudy Garcia's name from the passage, keeping just the year.
• Part of the NY Metro area. Hoppata moved this passage to the Demographics section. I agree that the percentage of citizens working in NYC is more appropriate for that section, but we can still mention that the city itself is part of the NY Metro area in the Lead.
• Periods and quotes with fact tags.[1][2][3][4][5][6] For some reason, Hoppata included quotation marks and extra periods with the fact tags that he placed in some passages. I removed these.
• Moved History section. I see no reason why the History section should be placed after the government section, so far down in the article. The most salient things about a city are its Geography and History, as that information is more timeless, so those sections should be first.
• Moving the 9/11 photo There's no reason to move this photo to the Notable landmarks section, since the Boxing Club no longer exists. The photo doesn't even show the Club, but centers on the 9/11 attacks, which is why I think it's more appropriate for the History section (given the event) or the Geography section (since it illustrates where UC is in relation to Manhattan).
• Fact tag for Prieto's book The information in this passage is already sourced, and does not need an additional cite. While providing an ISBN is fine, it is not required, and certainly has nothing to do with WP:V. Nightscream (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Movies that have nothing to do with Unionc City other than being the film's location are not about the city, and therefore do no warrant more than a mention, which there is in thëre is intergrated in the history section.Djflem (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Would make sense since its a statewide program that has a lot more to do with the powers that be than Mr. GarciaDjflem (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In general the opening does not fulfill the guidelines for writing an article which should include the introduction of material to be discussed in more depth. The population density claim to fame is already stretching the otherwise dictionary defintion opening of the article.Djflem (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The park came to be a a result of the events of 9/11. A photo of the twin towers inferno says something about the skyline or the park, and is a red herring in the geography sectionDjflem (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC) The landmarks section is appropriate since the history of the landmark is discussed in each.

If wikipedia is an attempt to create a reliable source of information, and eventually a encyplodia a non controversial reference would be appropriate.Djflem (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please do not edit my posts. If you want to respond to them, please do so in a separate post of your own, and not by mutilating mine by placing your responses after each passage. You can easily reply to each point with a simple boldface heading or something.

In media section. The fact that those films and TV shows are set in or filmed in Union City is precisely what they have to do with the city, and for this reason, it is perfectly legitimate to include a section that provides some details of them, such as when they were filmed here, the fact that Union City is explicitly mentioned in one of them, etc. It is for this same reason why articles on other cities, such as Hoboken and Weehawken, have such sections. I agree that works that were not filmed in a given city or feature it prominently in some way should not be included (which is why I supported the removal of a number of them from the Hoboken article), but relegating them to a decontextualized mention in a History section is unacceptable. If you continue to disagree with this, we can have a consensus discussion on this. As for Yolanda Prieto's book, it obviously has everything to do with Union City, since it's entirely about the town. The source for it is valid, and is not "controversial", and you haven't even bothered trying to provide a rationale for why it is. If you can explain why it doesn't pass WP:RS, then please do so. You don't place a fact tag on a passage that is well-sourced unless you can do so, let alone remove mention of its author without a rationale, as Hoppata did when he moved mention of that book to another section.

UEZ. I was unaware that the UEZ program was statewide, but in any event, I removed the attribution to Garcia, since it was unsourced anyway.

Lead. The Lead is supposed to be a summarization of the article itself, and can include the most salient facts about the city or its claims to fame, albeit to a brief, succinct degree. It's perfectly reasonable, therefore, to mention that it's the most densely populated city in the country. However, if you insist on moving the mention that it's part of the NY Metro area to the Geography section, then I'm fine with that.

9/11 Photo. Well, the photo isn't of the park, so I think it stretches the "Landmark" designation of that section, but I guess it provides historical context (the reason I originally placed it in the History section), so if you insist on that, that's fine. Nightscream (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to the following;

• edit on the Weehawken, New Jersey page:

(cur) (prev) 19:12, 10 December 2009 Nightscream (talk | contribs) (43,802 bytes) (Copyedit; Wikipedia does not consider imdb to be a reliable source.) (undo)

• Wikipedia policy:

Miscelleanous trivia in the form of lists is highly discouraged. Relevant information should be relocated to appropriate sections and written as prose. Djflem (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I added the imdb cites back before I was informed that Wikipedia does not consider it a reliable source. Either way, information on a film that can be verified by watching it, such as its plot, mentions of the city, or anything that would be in its credits, such as filming locations, is sourced to that film itself. For this reason, such works are primary sources for articles, and don't require an additional source.

None of this constitutes "trivia", since setting or filming a given work in the city directly pertains to the subject's notability, especially if it is mentioned in the work, or is the title of the work, as in some of the examples from the In media section. (Btw, you could've just cited WP:TRIVIA instead of putting a banner in the middle of this discussion, but whatever.) That a given work is set in or filmed in Union City is the "relationship" to it.

Since we're in disagreement on this, I'll start a consensus discussion on the New Jersey Project Page so we can discuss the inclusion of such sections with others. Nightscream (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A mention that films have been shot in the city is of interest if mentioned in prose form, but certainly does not constitute a entire section with cast lists, plot summaries, playlists, etc, which was previously presented. I had edited to its proportionate relevence, but that edit was reverted to a long elaborate list, with much too much peripheral information. I include templates because they say what it needs to be said. It would seem a tedious exercise, but if you are so inclined, then I suppose seeking a variety of opinions on the subject would be of interest. A clarification of a claim that a source is at one time reliable and another time not would help, too. Djflem (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Which source are you referring to? Nightscream (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jose Marti

library

Thanks for catching my error. I took pix of the library and the school, uploaded the one and mistook it for the other. Here's the actual library, in case someone thinks it should go in the article instead of the school, but I think the school pic is prettier. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Views from easternmost streets of UC

I'm going to request Third Opinion over the inclusion of this phrase in the Geography section, over which Djflem and I disagree:

"The city is located along the ridge of the lower Hudson Palisades, with its easternmost streets overlooking Weehawken and Hoboken, and offering views of the New York City skyline."

Djflem removed this passage, stating in his edit summary, "West Hoboken overlooks the towns/Union Hill does not/to points in". In fact, there is no "West Hoboken" or "Union Hill", as those cities no longer exist. They ceased to exist in 1925 when they merged to form Union City. I restored it the passage accordingly.

DJflem again removed this, saying, "which part of the Union Hill section of the city overlooks Hoboken or Weehawken? One can see the skyline from 495, or looking east from almost any street", ignoring my previous statement that there isn't any "Union Hill" section of the city. The city is called Union City, and does not feature any such "sections", nor does anyone ever refer to these former cities by these names. The only remnant of them is Union Hill Middle School, which retains that name. As for the latter part of this statement, the easternmost streets offer views of Weehawken, Hoboken and the NY skyline. This is not true of I-495 or "almost any street" west of the most eastern ones. I again restored the passage.

Djflem again removed the passage, with the Edit Summary "west of blvd w/ ref". This is a reference to small addition he made to that section that reads, "A small section of the city lies west of the boulevard between Bergen Turnpike and Weehawken Cemetery." He offered no rationale for the repeated removal of the passage about the city's easternmost streets. Nightscream (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The following passage more than satisfactorily describes the fact that the city, both the southern section that was formerly West Hoboken, and the northern section which was formerly Union Hill, are both located atop the Hudson Palisades and that from many of the streets in both the southern section of the city, which up to only up 19th Street overlooks Hoboken and Weehawken, and the northern section of the city from 32nd th to 48th street, which does not overlook Hoboken and Weehawken, both offer views of the the skyline. The shorthand used in edit descriptions and NOT USED IN THE ARTICLE itself is based on the assumption that one who is making contributions to the article would understand the reference to WH and UH, w/o the long winded northern section of the city and southern section of the city which one could describe as being divided New Jersey Route 495, which bisects the town, or Bergen Turnpike which was the previous border between the merged municipalites.

Union City is located at 40°46′4″N 74°1′55″W (40.767651 , -74.031833). Part of the New York metropolitan area it is one of the municpalities which comprise North Hudson, New Jersey. According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 1.3 sq mi (3.3 km²), all of it land. The city is located along the ridge of the lower Hudson Palisades, many of its streets offering glimpses and views of the New York City skyline. djflem

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Union City, New Jersey and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: In my opinion neither the inclusion nor the exclusion of the language makes any significant difference to the encyclopedic value of the article in light of the other information already in the article concerning the location of the city. That is, the article is neither significantly harmed by its inclusion nor significantly harmed by its exclusion. The dispute seems to turn to some degree on the location of the streets from which Hoboken and Weehawken can be seen. This could be avoided by rewriting the sentence as, "The city is located along the ridge of the lower Hudson Palisades, many of its streets offering glimpses and views of Hoboken, Weehawken, and the New York City skyline." My suggestion would be to change it to that, and then both parties drop the stick and move on to something more productive.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 23:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a perfectly fine compromise to me. What do you think Djflem?

Also, can you indent your posts so that they're easier to differentiate at a glance from mine? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• It is a lovely sentence which doesn't work in the context of the whole geography section, which should be concise and inclusive. I suggest the following:

(May I also suggest that Nightscream look at the article and what is written in it before reacting to edits without long uninteresting stories about how offended (s)he is?)Djflem (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Union City is located at 40°46′4″N 74°1′55″W (40.767651 , -74.031833). Part of the New York metropolitan area it is one of the municipalities which comprise North Hudson, New Jersey. According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 1.3 sq mi (3.3 km²), all of it land. The city is located along the ridge of the lower Hudson Palisades, many of its streets offering glimpses and views of the surrounding municipalities, the New York City skyline, and the New Jersey Meadowlands. It is bordered by North Bergen to the west, West New York to the north, Weehawken and Hoboken to the east and Jersey City to the south. Paterson Plank Road creates the city line at Jersey City Heights while Kennedy Boulevard, a major north-south thoroughfare, divides Union City and North Bergen. A small section of the city lies west of the boulevard between Bergen Turnpike and Weehawken Cemetery.

I have not provided any story about offense. All I did was relate to the one providing Third Opinion the dispute, nothing more. Let's not let this degenerate into a personal matter, okay?

For the record, I am male.

The passage is okay, but the portion "...many of its streets offering glimpses and views of the surrounding municipalities..." is generic. Mentioning that the easternmost ones offer glimpses of Weehawken, Hoboken and the New York skyline is more specific. Why specifically mention New York by name and not Weehawken and Hoboken? Isn't Manhattan just another surrounding municipality? Nightscream (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's the skyline being mentioined, and NYC is not on the list in the next sentence. There is no reason in a article re UC to list neghboring municpalities 2x in two sentence paragragh. ITS BAD WRITING. Especially then only specifying the east side it becomes incompetent writing. When we go to the west side and start with North Bergen, Secaucus, the Watchung Mounatains, East Rtuherford, etc, etc. All fluffDjflem (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That it's the skyline being mentioned is not a given, but what you prefer, which is the entire point on which we disagree; prior to you changing it, it was not the skyline being mentioned. The reason I wrote it to mention Weehawken, Hoboken on the Manhattan skyline is twofold: 1. Because people know where Manhattan is, so this gives the reader an idea of where Union City is geographically in relation to one of the most famous cities in the world, and 2, because it underscores Union City's elevation above sea level atop the Hudson Palisades. This is perfectly reasonable, and does not have to be "fluff". By contrast, isn't the passage "many of its streets offering glimpses and views of the surrounding municipalities" something that can be said of almost all cities? It's completely generic and devoid of content: It tells the reader nothing they don't already know. Isn't that a lot closer to "fluff"?

I do not think that mentioning the other municipalities twice in two sentences is necessarily bad writing, nor did I know that was one of your concerns, since you didn't mention this before. How about this:

The city is located along the ridge of the lower Hudson Palisades. It borders West New York to the north. To the east it borders Weehawken and overlooks Hoboken, beyond which can be seen views of the Manhattan skyline. It borders Jersey City to the south, and North Bergen to the west, beyond which Secaucus and the New Jersey Meadowlands can be glimpsed.

Let me know what you think. Nightscream (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Union City is located at 40°46′4″N 74°1′55″W (40.767651 , -74.031833). Part of the New York metropolitan area it is one of the municipalities which comprise North Hudson, New Jersey. According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 1.3 sq mi (3.3 km²), all of it land. Located atop the ridge of the lower Hudson Palisades, many of its streets offering glimpses and views of the surrounding municipalities, the New York City skyline, and the New Jersey Meadowlands.

The city is bisected by New Jersey Route 495, a vehiclar cut built in conjunction with the Lincoln Tunnel. Soon after its construction, many streetnames were abandoned in favor of numbering in most of North Hudson starting at 2nd Street, just north of Paterson Plank Road, which runs through the city's only major park the and creates border with Jersey City. 49th Street is the northern boundary with West New York. Apart from small section between Bergen Turnpike and Weehawken Cemetery, Kennedy Boulevard, a major north-south thoroughfare, creates the western border with North Bergen. A former colonial road and previous border between the merged municipalites takes three names as it diagonlly crosses the city's urban grid: Hackensack Plank Road, 32nd Street, and Bergen Turnipke. Most of the city north of the street, formerly Union Hill, shares it's eastern border along Park Avenue with Weehawken. The southern section of the city, formerly West Hoboken, is indeed west of Hoboken and connected to it by the road which creates their shared border, the Wing Viaduct.

• Looking at the forest and not just the tree, I think above addresses both the specifics of local (streetnames), regional (North Hudson municpalities N,E,S,W,) and national (Lincoln Tunnel, NYC skyline, atop Palisades, NJ Meadowlands) geography well. One can expect something of a reader, can't one?Djflem (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Djflem (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Have added above paragragh to article w/ small edit including the overlook, which seems to be the pointDjflem (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! Nice collaborating with you!

Just one thing: The whole point of the using the ref name tag is that you don't have to write out the entire citation information. Once you do the first time, all you have to do is place the opening tag (with a forward slash before the closing arrow) at every subsequent citation of it. So with the "Story" citation you used, every use of it after the first would simply need <ref name=Story/>. However, since those two cites of that source in the same paragraph were consecutive, and not interrupted by a different one, I removed the first, so that the second (now only) one can support the entire passage.

Also (and this is just a suggestion), using colons to indent posts has the effect of doing this invisibly, without a bullet. And it it allows you to indent it farther and farther to the right for each colon you use.

Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Think the article has had a pretty good working over for the time being and looks pretty solid/stable. There's always more to do, as the history of the city is quite rich, which is of great interest for me. In the meantime, ready to give UC a restDjflem (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Landmarks

Roosevelt Stadium is certainly worth mention, but is also coverd extensively in its own article as well as in high school article. The school is a landmark for the two reasons mentioned, as an architectural solution to the shortage open space in a city that has none, and being home to a modern new auditorium/theater, a cultural venue. By the way, the architecture of the school recalls the stadium not only in its playing field, but the arched gallery along its western facade is also a nod to previous building.

Ugly as it is New Jersey Route 495 is also a landmark of considerable architectural and engineeering significance not mentioned,as would be the Yardley buidling, but then the article would get too too long, or would need to be shifted. List here, separate article.

In general, landmarks are not necessarily old...Looking at the NJ Register you will some more gems.Djflem (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree landmarks are not necessarily old: Remember that I added Cecelia Cruz Park. But just out of curiosity, in what way is the Yardley Building architecturally significant? Nightscream (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Thread: common sense and editor discretion

Here is an example of citations that are completely wrong and identified as such:

• Communipaw

Some have suggested that the name comes from Community of Pauw, which likely is more a coincidence than a fact.

Meaning to say that sometimes some generally reliable sources (ie the NY Timss) do get it wrong as is clearly the case with The Thread. Whilst trying to make a correction, the article makes a mistake. IT HAPPENS. Why Include contradcitory information in this article. NEW BUILT HIGHRISE (2008) a FORMER FACTORY. Is it not an editor's responsibility is to reconcile this contradictory information as opposed to promoting confusion? Logic would have one way on the side of the fact that a newly built highrise would not likely be a former embroidery factory. When the substance of the statement is not diminished by the ommision of the wrong information,(the name recalls the history of the industry) there's no reason to keep the info at odds. Any resident of UC or almost any traveller on NJ 495 would likely contest the former factory statement, the truth of which is not borne out by field research or observation.Djflem (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that sources are sometimes wrong is not in dispute. But editors are not free to make that call on their own without superior sources, or at least a preponderance of other reliable ones that establish this. For an editor to removed such content based on personal knowledge, or "field research or observation" is called original research, is not permitted on Wikipedia. I live in UC, have been by the Thread multiple times, and see no reason why it, or any other highrise cannot have been a former embroidery factory, nor do I see how any information in the article is "contradictory", nor have you provided any explanation of these two points.

The inclusion or exclusion of this information has nothing to do with the passage about the building's name.

Also, was that you who removed that information on January 31 and February 16 (as well as under your usual username January 30)? Nightscream (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• The point of the sentence is clearly about the building's name recalling the industry's history. Logic and discretion should prevail, especially when nothing is gained by the inclusion of confusing statements. That point you seem to gave missed: An editor's responsibility to reconcile conflicting info is one you've avoided answering. If you can explain how a building specifically constructed as a residence in 2008 could have ever possibly been a former factory, then there's room for discussion. It is clearly misinformation that you seems attached to keeping in the article, diluting it's validity, and unfortunately, your reputation a reliable editorDjflem (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Incidentally here are the references (#5 & 6) you used pre-January 30 (and later corrected) which clearly states another hi-rise condo was completed B4 The Thread.

Djflem (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"The point of the sentence is clearly about the building's name recalling the industry's history" No. The fact that the predicate of the sentence relates that info does not mean that that is the only information the sentence can provide. What we are discussing is the threshold for inclusion that is indicated by policy, not by the strict subject-predicate structure of a sentence, which is completely beside the point. Besides, I'm the one who originally wrote that sentence, and I structured it in such a way so as to fit as much information in it without leading to a run-on sentence or requiring two different ones, so by what reasoning do you argue what the "point" of it is, since you didn't write it? I find the building's history (if true) to be as thematically relevant as its name, which is why I included both pieces of info. Which is established in the sentence's predicate is a moot point that can be hypothetically side-stepped by writing it as two different sentences, which will still leave the point on which we are in disagreement:--the information's reliability.

"That point you seem to gave missed: An editor's responsibility to reconcile conflicting info is one you've avoided answering." I refer you to this statement from my last post: "nor do I see how any information in the article is "contradictory", nor have you provided any explanation of these two points." Hard to answer a point about conflicting info when I've made it clear to you that I didn't understand (until now, at least) which information you were indicating was in conflict in the first place.

By contrast, you did avoid answering my question: Was that or was that no you who removed that material from two other anonymous IP addresses?

"If you can explain how a building specifically constructed as a residence in 2008 could have ever possibly been a former factory, then there's room for discussion." It's called conversion. Buildings of one kind get converted into another all the time. If there was a building there that was formerly a factory, and it was converted into a residence, there's no contradiction. From your posts I seem to gather that you're saying that the Thread is an original building, but where is this established?

I am not "attached" to keeping it in the article. I am merely attached to following the properly policies with respect to inclusion/exclusion. Those policies are predicated on sources, and not blatant violation of WP:NOR, which is euphemistically labeled "logic and discretion" and "an editor's responsibility to reconcile conflicting info".

There is nothing in that Hudson Reporter story that indicates that another high-rise was completed before The Thread. If you're referring to The Altessa, that story does not say that it was completed before the Thread, it merely mentions it before the Thread. If you look closely at that story, it says that the Thread has already been moved in, with some cosmetic construction completed by April 2009, whereas the Altessa was not to be completed until the fall of that year. (I also suspect that it may not have met that deadline, given that it still looks unfinished, as I live two blocks from it). As for the Times, that story doesn't even mention the Altessa, or any other building by name, or any UC high rise that predates the Thread. If you want, I'll try contacting the writer of the Times piece (and maybe someone connected to the building), to see if that point can be verified or debunked, and/or whether there's a documented source with which that info, if incorrect, can be legitimately removed in terms of policy. Nightscream (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just emailed The Thread, as well as five or six different addresses for The Times, in order to ask them about this. (I could not find an email for Antoinette Martin, the article's writer.) Let's see if we can confirm or debunk this notion about it having been a factory. I've also asked Jimmy Wales his advice on this. Nightscream (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone on Jimmy's page suggested going to RSN. Since RSN judges the reliability of a source (and The New York Times is obviously reliable, at least in general), rather than the veracity of a given claim, I didn't think of this, so I asked there as well. Nightscream (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source which quite clearly indicates that it is new-build. http://www.coregroupnyc.com/files//press/04.20.08%20NorthJersey.com%20Now%20its%20Union%20Citys%20Turn.pdf

Note that it is only the correction at the bottom of the NYT article that says it is a former embroidery building. The body of the article, with phrases like "going up", strongly implies - although admittedly does not say explicitly and outright - that it is a new building. Barnabypage (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And here is the New York Times itself asserting that "construction of the Thread Building started in 2007". http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/realestate/08njzo.html

With numerous other, albeit less reliable, sources such as http://www.kannekt.com/14/34condo.htm describing it as new-build, and nothing other than the correction in the originally-cited NYT article stating that it is a converted factory, I think it is now reasonable to remove that point from the article. Barnabypage (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for finding those sources, Barnaby. I've added them to the article. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

UC Seal deletion from commons

The image of the UC seal has been listed for deletion on commons. It is not appropriately licensed for commons, but would be acceptable for upload to the english wikipedia under fair use policy, as long as an appropriate source is provided. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Early History

While it may be of interest to add a more extensive history of the colonial era of UC, there are some factual errors. It is not really certain that the Haceknsack spoke Munsee but more likely Unami. Stuyvesant a New England governor? Pavonia predated Bergen (as in Bergen Square) by 25 years, not the other way around. Hackensack was not part of the original Bergen County, and only became county seat in 1709 when the the area west of the Hackensack was added to it. Few, ãnd no remaining named streets in UC, of North Hudson really refer to the colonial era. The article Bergen, New Netherland gives a better picture of the chronology of events. As written now, sorry to say, the section is has lot's of misinformation. There is a bit of Durch colonial history that pertains specifically to North Hudson. After the Peach Tree War, hostages were held at Paulus Hook. Adrian Post, was responsible for the negotiation of their release. These meetings took place at Espatin in the Bergen Woods. Stuyvesant's purchase was as much an attempt to exert his control over Post's attempts to start a settlement there as well as to formalize the negotiated peace after the war. An inclusion of that meeting place/Indian settlement in that area would be very interesing to the specific locale, but have yet to get to it.Djflem (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The details regarding Munsee, Stuyvesant and Pavonia come directly from the source I cited. As for Hackensack, maybe the book condensed the "with Hacksensack as county seat" part without detailing that that came later? If you can use a better source that can correct this, I'm all for it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the source cannot be accessed digitally accessed and has clearly incorrectly misinterpreted history with regards to the 17th and 18th century. Therefore I have replaced the text with correct information and a source that be checked via the internet. I suggest you review the numerous references in the blue-linked articles cited in current text, which extensively discucss the formation of Hudson County, and not rely on a a book which apparently seems to be a photo compliation and not well researched. They will lead to a better explanation of the history of the county. As mentioned there was some activity in the 16th and 17th century long before it was urbanized, but little reliable soures for it. Djflem (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it's mostly a photo compilation is not the centrally relevant point. The info came from the Introduction, which was written by city historian Gerald Karabin, on whom the city relies for historical issues.

Looking over your edits, you didn't just fixed those two or three points you mentioned above; you removed quite a bit of other material as well. Was all that wrong too? Also, since you took upon yourself to fix or add the correct material, shouldn't you be the one who adds the sources from the blue-linked articles?

In fact, comparing the version before I added that material to the current version shows that you made that section even smaller than it was before, and removed a number of valid sources that were in it before. Why did you do this? I'm sorry, but this was not a valid way to address the problems you saw in that section. You should simply have corrected the individual points you noticed that were wrong, and cited the sources with the correct information, while leaving the rest alone. Can you fix that? Nightscream (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

DJ, are you going to respond to the above? Nightscream (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made the edit that I think is appropriate for the article The information you added and source you used was such a mess and in my opinion not needed in this article. (Even the municpal breakdown stuff is rather boring. If you can find something speciic to UC and the 17th/18th century then it certainly shoulld be included.) I choose not to sort through it, but rather made a suggesstion where you could find better sources. You don't seem to want to, so what is there to talk about?Djflem (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That you made an edit you thought appropriate is a given. The point is that we are in disagreement, and therefore have to discuss the matter, as you did not merely make a "suggestion", but edited the article, and would likely, IMO, revert it if I attempted to revert it back, if your behavior regarding the unsourced and false material you keep adding about the Cuban Day Parade is any indication. You seem to act as if you have unilateral authority to make decisions on the article, and the privilege of deciding that a source is not reliable, even though you're just another unknown volunteer like me, and the book was written by a professional historian and city politician. You do not have this right, and to argue that you can dismiss a source in this manner, without even providing a rationale or a countersource that illustrates your assertion, or even discussion when someone disagrees with you, is inane. Like it or not, you do have to discuss things with those who dispute your edits, lest you engage in edit warring. I will be inviting others to weigh in on these matters. Nightscream (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you were somehow unable to read the first sentence of the subsection 21st century, the one and only that makes mention of the Cuban Day Parade, and click on one of the references immediately following it to check verifibility? Is this not how Wikipedia works: A writer adds information w/ a reference, another if he so chooses checks it, and then if there something questionable a discussion can take place. You reverted the edit 3 times making claims w/o the crucial step of investigating the entry. You again reverted an edit from a completely unrelated matter and in your edit summary referred to the above issue, making that 4 times w/o investigating the material readily available in the article, and scolding about how its not done, when indeed the procedure of adding info to the lead and refs in the subsection was followed to a T. If you would have liked to have a discussion about the inclusion/presentation you would have done your homework, and been prepared to have one. You did not. You also chose not investigate Hudson County's colonial history though on the talk page I suggested you do so since the entry you made had numerous factual errors. Only when I had made an edit which I believed was satisfactory you suggested I sort through the material you had added and that I provide references for information you wished to include. Is that not asking me to do your work for you? You did not take the opportunity to make a proposal, an edit, or provide any references for that section once it was identified there was a great preponderence of other/more reliable sources than the one you had provided. My edit was my suggestion/input. There was no suggestion on your part as to how to improve the article, only questions which made it appear that you had not done any research to be prepared to have a discussion, and thus collaborate.Djflem (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your desire for discussion is undermined by the total lack acknowledgement of your misreading of the article page/edit history and insertation of bad references in the population (as seen in disucussion below). Where an apology would be appropriate you add snippy critical edit summaries, add info not needed in the lede as per Wikipedia policy, and pretend like it didn't happen at all. Is this your contribution to the promotion of civility and collaboration on Wikipedia?80.57.99.7 (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As happens, my log in session was over when I made above entry, so now from the horse's mouth: the above is me (anyone could have figure that out)Djflem (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I finally completed my research into the information I added back on June 11, which Djflem disputed, with the help of Union City Historian Gerard Karabin, who provided me with the relevant source documents. Here are the disputed points:

1. It is not really certain that the Haceknsack spoke Munsee but more likely Unami. I could not find corroboration for this in the Lenape or Delaware languages articles ("Munsee" redirects to the former), and City Historian Gerard Karabin said he relied on this Wikipedia map, which appears in both of those articles, and which indicates that the the natives in this area spoke Munsee, and not Unami, which is farther south. I asked User:Nikater, who created that map, and he responded that his source was Bruce G. Trigger's Delaware languages: Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 15: Northeast, page 215. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 1978. ISBN 0-16004-575-4. If you have a source that disputes this, let's discuss it. We can compromise by mentioning both conflicting assertions, omit which language they spoke entirely and just refer to them as the Hackensack Indians, etc. Let me know what you want to do on this.

2. Stuyvesant a New England governor? Mr. Karabin informed me that he relied on New Jersey Tercentenary: 1664-1964; (1964) by Dr. Walter F. Robinson; Assistant Chairman of the Hudson County Tercentenary Committee for this information. Page 190 contains a chronology which indicates, as the second event for the year 1647, “Peter Stuyvesant New Governor of New Netherland.” Mr. Karabin conceded, however, that sources differ, with some saying “Director-General”, and he speculated that translations may be responsible for this. But if you think Director-General is the more common title attributed to him, we can use that. However, the “New England” error was my mine, not Mr. Karabin's. I accidentally transcribed it as such instead of “New Netherland” when I referred to the book on June 11. Thanks for pointing this out.

3. Pavonia predated Bergen (as in Bergen Square) by 25 years, not the other way around. In looking over my June 11 additions to the article, I cannot find any indication of Bergen coming before Pavonia. The only indication of any chronological placement of the two would be the following two paragraphs, in which Pavonia is mentioned in the first, and Bergen in the second:

Paragraph 1

The portion of that land that included the future Hudson County was purchased from the Hackensack branch of the Lenni-Lenape in 1658 by New England governor Peter Stuyvesant, and became part of Pavonia, New Netherland.

Paragraph 2

Peter Stuyvesant ordered the building of a fortified village as a solution. This village was called Bergen, and was the first permanent settlement in New Jersey, now Jersey City.

Djflem, if you can point to me the passage that you felt conveyed that Pavonia came after Bergen, please let me know.

4. Hackensack was not part of the original Bergen County, and only became county seat in 1709 when the area west of the Hackensack was added to it. Page 20 of New Jersey Tercentenary: 1664-1964 (1964) by Dr. Walter F. Robinson; Assistant Chairman of the Hudson County Tercentenary Committee indeed indicates that Bergen Square was the town seat, and that the seat was moved to Hackensack Village much later (though it gives 1714 rather than 1709). Mr. Karabin stated that the word limit under which he was forced to work required him to compress or summarize the history in a way that may have resulted in wording or passages that conveyed an incorrect meaning, and in looking over that passage in the book, and the passage into which I transcribed it (“In 1682 they created Bergen County, with Hackensack as its county seat...”), I can see where you saw the problem, Djflem. If this material goes back in the article, I’ll be sure to correct it.

5. Few or no remaining named streets in UC, of North Hudson really refer to the colonial era. The passage stated that some streets retain the names of settlers, but it does not specify the colonial era. Long after the colonial era, this area was still sparsely populated and/or wooded. The first people who gradually expanded into this area were indeed its early settlers, and a number of streets bear their names, including Sipp Street, Brown Street, Cantello Street, Tournade Street, Kerrigan Avenue, and Golden Lane, which Mr. Karabin and I verified from historical documents.

6. Stuyvesant's purchase was as much an attempt to exert his control over Post's attempts to start a settlement there as well as to formalize the negotiated peace after the war. An inclusion of that meeting place/Indian settlement in that area would be very interesing to the specific locale, but have yet to get to it. When you add it to the New Netherlands article (or even if you want to provide the info and source yourself here or in the UC article), I’m perfectly fine with adding in order to reflect the depth of Stuyvesant’s motives, since Adrian Post is not currently mentioned in the New Netherlands article, which you cited.

Djflem, let me know your thoughts on this so I can work re-adding the info correctly. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't see the need to cover this info so extensively in the Union City article, though I am not opposed if kept concise. I would suggest using Algonquian as language (since there remains unclarity/opposing sources/POVs). Mention of the patroonship and the "re-purchase" certain warrant mention, though there were no recorded private patents or settlement during the 17th century. (the governor-general bought the land that was Pavonia to clarify the original deed, it did not become part of Pavonia). The mention of Hackensack as county seat seems peripherial. Originally many streets were named for original settlers, and there are a few remaining that were not numbered after the consolidation of WH & UH and the construction of the tunnel. This fact could be placed appropriately for chronological continutity. Good luckDjflem (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I finally got around to adding the material back in, along with the historical sources, corrections and a bit of trimming. Sorry it took me so long. As far as the language the natives spoke, since I have a source saying they spoke Munsee, I cited that. If and when you find other sources that dispute this, we can incorporate that into the passage, either by mentioning both languages and the conflicting sources, or using Algonquian. As far as keeping it concise, there were not a lot of areas that I saw that could be trimmed without eliminating information that I fee is relevant to the area, but I did what I could to trim sentences that I thought I could. Nightscream (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Population Statisics

The population statistics in the lede are in direct contradiction to the those given in the demographics section. Is someone willing to sort this out since the claim of highest density should be well supported and references/math appear to be contaminated. The 80,000 figure likely includes Weehawken which still uses 07087 zip code. Djflem (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

80,000 is obviously wrong, that zip code includes portions of Weehawken (look at the google earth zip code layer). See here for the 2000 census data: [7] As of the 2000 census, it is 67088 people in 1.255341 sq miles (3.279807 sq km) = 52977.8 ppl/sqmi (20454.8 ppl/sqkm). I think we should avoid using the census estimate in the intro and infobox, it is just an estimate and may be wrong. Also, the "most dense city" label is based on the 2000 census (not the estimate) and the fact that it is a "city" form of government. Guttenberg is more dense, but not a city. Manhattan is more dense, but is a county and only portion of NYC. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Since it will be some time b4 2010 figures are published think it's wise to go with last definitive numbers and the above math. Would you be willing to make this change if no one else is opposedDjflem (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Gave it a shot, please review. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, looks precise.Djflem (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Cuban Day Parade

(cur | prev) 04:23, 17 June 2010 Nightscream (talk | contribs) (77,701 bytes) (No, that's not how it works. The Lead is a summary of the article, and nothing in the 21st Century section mentions the parade. If it's in the refs, then you have to add the refs to the Lead.) (undo)

Is there a reason why the above edit restored an identified bad reference for a completely different topic than the one stated in the summary? I think its generally safe to assume that at least two thousand people of the 40,00 mentioned in ref 30, the 350,000 mentioned in ref 31, and the 200,000 mentioned in ref 34 came to Union City to see the paradeDjflem (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hudson Task

As it seems the discussion regarding: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force#Use of templates for federal, state and county representation will be re-visited, above thread has been started. Please post your comments there as a way to keep it centralized and arrive at consensus. Thank-you Djflem (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Population numbers exceed 100%

Hispanics remain the dominant ethnic group in the city, and their percentage of the population has increased from 82.3% in the 2000 Census to 84.7% in the 2010 Census. Non-Hispanic whites made up 15.3% of the city's population in 2010; up from 13.3% in the 2000 Census. Blacks made up 5.2% of the city's population in 2010; up from 3.3% in the 2000 Census. The rest of the racial makeup of the city was 0.70% Native American, 2.15% Asian, 0.08% Pacific Islander, 28.19% from other races, and 6.87% from two or more races.[90][91]

This can't be correct, because the Hispanic and non-Hispanic white populations alone would total 100% - which would mean that all of the black, Asian, Pacific Islander and Native American residents would have to be Hispanic, which obviously isn't the case. The non-Hispanic white figure is probably wrong. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)