Talk:Chatham, New Jersey

Authority?

I have a question to ask our fellow anonymous user. When was the last time s/he set foot in chatham? currently the edits are being made from california. a lot of these edits reek of someone who's either nostalgic or out of touch with the area. i lived there permanently until just a year ago, and was there this last summer for 2 weeks. i can swallow the historical stuff because i simply don't know any facts to the contrary, but the contemporary definitions imposed by the user are simply false. no one calls the two chathams the chathams, and the library and school district have nothing to do with why they would name both towns as chatham. I mean seriously, where is this sentence coming from?

Chatham, New Jersey, when mistakenly used to mean two joint governmental activities actually organized under the name "The Chathams," is thought by some to refer to a school system and a library system shared by two abutting Morris County, New Jersey municipalities:

um, what? chatham is used to say the land area covered by the two towns. if someone's referring to the governments, they'd actually make the point of clarifying which one they are talking about. otoh, if someone asks you where do you live?, the response is simply chatham, even if you live in the township. no one thinks that chatham, nj referse to the school system and library. that was just pulled out of the writer's butt. —lensovet–talk – 03:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The anon's edits are unsourced and pointless chauvinism. Chatham Borough was formed in 1897, doubtless out of the more long-settled parts of Chatham Township; but to claim that they have been separate settlements is unsourced error. I shall undertake to watch this page actively. Septentrionalis 20:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

History

Reading the history of the area shows clearly that the settlement of Chatham began in 1710 when it was founded close to the shallow crossing of the Passaic River. the first recorded colonial name for that settlement was derived from the man who built Day's Bridge at that location. The colonial buildings built at that time are well documented and some remain. The township that was formed in 1798 included several settlements (including Chatham) and was called Chatham Township -- is a form of governance that did not exist before that date 1798. As soon as another form of government was allowed in the state, three settlements in Chatham Township seceded and reestablished their independence. This information is available on the references cited on pages being fought over (based upon a personal ignorance that is acknowledged above). There is no town called Chatham Township, there never has been. It is a governmental entity that includes several long established settlements (think of a county -- where is its main street?). List the streets included in the downtown of your mythical town of Chatham Township, give its dimensions, and document the stores and offices therein.

Now the township could not have been settled in 1710, that form of American government did not exist in a British colony before the United States existed, but the town did exist and was renamed, Chatham, by the colonists to honor a member of the British government who treated them well. Once the new country existed, forms of government were instituted and townships were the predominant form used in New Jersey. Townships were not towns -- they contained towns -- no one formed a town of Chatham Township. The town has never moved, instead it has grown to 2.4 square miles from a small crossing with a tavern, a stagecoach stop, and a cluster of homes and trade shops. There are signs indicating to all where the boundaries of the town of Chatham are... maps show the boundaries of the town clearly. Portions of Green Village are in Chatham Township, no one calls that Chatham and Green Village has a distinct identity even though it is part of two townships -- check it out --

If one lives in the Chatham Township and another lives in Chatham, they both know to which municipality they pay their taxes and fees! When one purchases a house, one learns in which municipality it is located. When one registers for school one must declare their address and municipality. Where did lensovet pay his taxes? Why was he so confused about his location? What grammar school did he attend? Did he walk to high school -- or was he bused? Did he have to pay a separate entity for garbage collection, or did the township crew pick it up? What was his water source? Which was his sewer system? Which police responded to his calls for help? Which fire department and ambulance served his home? There are lots of ways to know where one lives. The citizens of Green Village know also whether they are in Chatham Township or Harding Township.

Lensovet states that he now lives in California – is that your culprit?

Anonymous user is a term used by editors who are just as anonymous as those without a signature... they use made-up signatures and some, silly vanity pages, some use more than one name, but we still are all anonymous. Wikipedia calls for respect for all.

One of these editors states that one "only gets respect" when after taking a signature -- how can that be the basis for respect? If it is, why are so many signature users so disrespectful of one another? The quality of one’s work is what counts for editors, not the clubs to which they belong. I see some of the most sloppy work on Wikipedia placed by seven-stared egomaniacs who can not tell the how to make tenses of their verbs agree with the subjects, and place their opinions in articles rather than facts.

Instead of trying to track an editor who is making a contribution, go look up the history that eludes one who admits, “i can swallow the historical stuff because i simply don't know any facts to the contrary…”! Here, here, how true!

The history is what we are trying to document—or don’t you realize that? This is not a page about what Paul told people who inquired about where he lived when he was “working” in Summit, having a soda in Millburn, or trying to impress someone in California with a copy of a magazine article about hype that changes every year… it is about the history and facts of the topics in the articles and clarifying it to readers who want to learn correct data.

We appreciate the effort you're putting into this. But you still seem to brush over my comments really quickly. I said When was the last time s/he set foot in chatham? currently the edits are being made from california. a lot of these edits reek of someone who's either nostalgic or out of touch with the area. i lived there permanently until just a year ago, and was there this last summer for 2 weeks. I still am waiting for a valid response to this. Yes, the name Chatham, New Jersey might have been synonymous with the borough historically. However, this is simply not the case anymore. Please, go ahead and make contributions about the history of both towns, communities, whatever you want to call them – but leave the contemporary stuff to someone else. Your repeated incorrect edits about the train service to New York in the borough article are a very good example of your misplaced "expertise." —lensovet–talk – 01:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So, no response to this, eh? —lensovet–talk – 05:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, you say

When one registers for school one must declare their address and municipality.

You bet! And guess what one puts down as the municipality? Not Chatham Township or Chatham Borough. They put down Chatham. —lensovet–talk – 01:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that you are talking about a mailing address... I hope that you do not believe that Chatham is a new municipality that includes Chatham and Chatham Township! The post office does not determine the municipality of locations, it is a place where mail is handled. Postal zones often are quite different from the governmental boundaries.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You said that when "one registers for school one must declare their...municipality." I responded that the only municipality one puts down is "Chatham". So make up your mind as to what you want this to be. —lensovet–talk – 05:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

History distorted - why ?

By focusing upon Chatham borough, and asserting that it was “founded” in 1897 you are distorting the history of Chatham, New Jersey and making it seem that it never existed until after the township.

Chatham was “founded” almost two hundred years before that as Chatham, New Netherlands, over eighty years before a township was created. You are posting information that is absolutely incorrect after you have been made aware of that; I must question the motivation. It seems that you want the township to have existed first.

I assert again that the following is the history,

• Chatham, began as a pre-Revolutionary community settled in 1710 by Europeans on land that had been purchased in 1680 from Amerindians. Chatham grew into a village while it was part of a Dutch colony called New Netherlands. New Netherlands became New Jersey when it became a British colony. Newspapers and books were published in colonial Chatham, New Jersey during the Revolution. Twenty years after the revolution, Chatham and several other communities were included in Chatham Township when it was incorporated in 1798 as a form of government for a region, but Chatham withdrew from the township to regain its independence by reincorporating as a village in 1892. Chatham reincorporated again in 1897, becoming a borough when that form of government first became available in the state.

• Chatham Township, a vast township incorporated in 1798 when that form of government was created in the emerging state of New Jersey in the United States, following the Revolutionary War. The township was defined as an area that included several existing pre-revolutionary villages dating from the early 1700s (Green Village, Chatham, Bottle Hill, Avon, and others). The township was reincorporated as a much smaller township after three settlements within its boundaries seceded and returned to independent governance, being very dissatisfied with the governance by the township. I recall that the final issue to provoke the break was the township refusing to pay for the gas lights Chatham residents planned to install in the town. Several settlements, enclaves, and scattered homesteads remained in the township.

Ultimately, the three seceding settlements were incorporated as boroughs (Madison, Chatham, and Florham Park) using a form of government became available in the new state only in 1897. None of these had been boroughs until after seceding from the township.

Chatham and Chatham Township are thereby two distinct municipalities with separate long-standing governments.

Chatham Township never was a village or a town, Chatham always was a village or a town.

Chatham and Chatham Township held elections in November 1986 to consider joining their separate school systems into a combined district. Prior to this, students from Chatham Township were bussed to Chatham for high school after completing elementary classes in their own school system. This proposal was supported by the voters in both elections and since then, the two municipalities have shared a regionalized school district, the School District of the Chathams, using the previously existing buildings.

Chatham Library was founded in 1907 in downtown Chatham. Growth of the collection brought about expansion and movement to progressively larger facilities until the current building was built on Main Street. The new site was chosen after the Fairview Hotel, which had been on the site, burned down. The hotel land was bought in the early 1920s by Charles L. Lum, after whose family Lum Avenue is named, and a brick building was constructed to house the library. The new Chatham Library was dedicated and opened to the public in 1924.

A referendum was placed on the November 1974 ballot proposing that the Chatham Library would serve Chatham Township residents also, and the measure passed. The library was renamed as the Library of the Chathams, which now is administered by six trustees, who are appointed jointly through the two governments via the mayors of Chatham and Chatham Township or their representatives, as well as a representative from the newly created joint School District of the Chathams.

I believe that you must have a personal agenda that is prompting you to muddy the waters regarding the clear difference between the beginnings of Chatham and Chatham Township. I notice that you do not seek information to increase your knowledge of the history, which one who is concerned about the facts would.

Again, I am not talking about their beginnings, for the hundredth time! I'm talking about their current, modern status. If you want, we can say this in the lead:

Chatham, New Jersey has historically referred to what is now Chatham Borough, New Jersey. Today, however, the name can refer to either Chatham Borough or Chatham Township.

and so on. I'd really appreciate it if you actually read what I said, instead of blindly comparing me to Kruschev, of all people, and continually saying the same things over and over again. And the question still remains, when was the last time you were in Chatham? —lensovet–talk – 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have marked some of the claims in this rant which are both unsourced and false. Some of this I have commented on elsewhere; but I prefer to consolidate the discussion here. Septentrionalis 13:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The information sought for the items tagged is available on other Wikipedia pages or through links on those pages -- I found it with no difficulty -- what is the issue on a talk page? Seems that the wrong editor is being questioned -- where is the data to support the wide-spread confusion about two different municipalities? Why not attempt to correct it rather than perpetuate it or make it more convoluted?

References have been added for Snyder, and the NJ Municipal data book; from Chatham Township, New Jersey. As for the anon's carefully unspecified sources, our anon has misread them, and demonstrated why WP articles are not by themselves reliable sources.

• NJ has had townships since 1664. (Look at Middletown Township, New Jersey and its source .) They became corporate bodies in 1798, but that was a change of status, not a creation.
• Borough (New Jersey) cites, correctly, the Borough Act of 1878; I believe some individual boroughs are older, but that will suffice.
• Chatham Borough was never a municipality of any kind before 1892; it was not independent before 1897; as Snyder's maps make clear, Chatham Township was formed out of Hanover and Morris Townships.
• Chatham Township was never "vast"; it was, when formed, about 25 sq miles. Many NJ townships were larger; some still are. It retains about a third of its original area. Septentrionalis 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

YET AGAIN, in modern usage, "Chatham" is NOT synonymous with "Chatham Borough".... —lensovet–talk – 21:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Documenting history can correct mistaken, supposed "modern use"

The rise of ignorance should be resisted, not encouraged. -- personal opinion: Wikipedia ought to clarify things, not perpetuate errors and call it "modern use" (which is undocumented). I seek correction of errors you point out, to the contrary your stand seems similar to asserting that since some people state frequently that the moon is made of green cheese, this encyclopedia should accept it as "modern usage" rather than attempting to make a place where people can find accurate information. I have not seen you make a single attempt to research information -- but lots of bullying to make sure that your personal "understanding" is adopted. You are the one who changed existing pages and created redirects without any evidence of confusion. You are the one who altered other pages to defend your actions when objections were raised. Rather than reconsidering your actions or trying to develop consensus, you declared a victory and tried to squash the opposition. You are the one who insists that "borough" be stressed, even though that is a governmental entity -- and one that was introduced long after Chatham, New Jersey (the village or town) existed. That drives the issue -- you began by changing the title -- you then began to skew the focus the discussion, making it begin long after the beginning of the topic. Go to the library in town and ask for information about the founding of Chatham. You will be given an early 1700s date. Ask for the earliest date of the settlement that has seen continuous existence since that date. You will be given an early 1700s date...

I quote: “The second newspaper started in New Jersey was also devoted to the American cause in the Revolution. This was the New Jersey Journal edited and printed by Shepard Kollock, who established it in Chatham in 1779.”; “Kollock essentially resigned his military position in order to start the newspaper in Chatham.”; “General Washington needed an organ to boost morale and gather support for the war effort in North Jersey…”; “Kollock's New Jersey Journal became that organ. Kollock's paper often received supplies for paper making from the army. Plus, his location in Chatham, near Washington's Morristown headquarters from 1779-80, gave him excellent access to breaking war news. His editing provided a strong voice for the Revolutionary cause.” ; “Here are the first ten New Jersey towns to establish a printing press, the year, and the printer. These and the following dates are courtesy of McMurtrie and Nelson.

1. Perth Amboy, 1723. William Bradford.

2. Burlington, 1727. Samuel Keimer and Ben Franklin.

3. Woodbridge, 1754. James Parker.

4. Newark, 1776. Hugh Gaine.

5. Trenton, 1778. Isaac Collins.

6. Chatham, 1779. Shepard Kollock.

7. New Brunswick, 1783. Shepard Kollock and Shelly Arnett.

8. Morristown, 1784. David Cree.

9. Elizabeth(town), 1785. Shepard Kollock.

10. Princeton, 1786. James Tod. ...

source: http://www.constantreader.org/printers/intro.html – a website created as an independent study project as partial fulfillment of the Master of Library Service (MLS) degree at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

And further, “FIRST settled in the 1720s along the Indian Minisink Trail, where the Leni Lenapes forded the Passaic River, the Morris County Borough of Chatham thrives in its rich past. Main Street, which follows that trail, still has black cast-iron fire hydrants with the date 1889 in raised numbers..." source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E0DF1E3EF934A25757C0A962958260 Please note that the New York Times reporter had no "modern use" problem in 1994, with the town and the township being thought of as one, in this recent article, distinctly identifying the borough as the community that was settled in 1720 and referring to it in his column entitled, If You're Thinking of Living In / and which is then focused upon as, Chatham; Rich Past, Bustling but Homey Present. That seems to be pretty synonymous (your term) reading the title and the text. Now when was the township founded again? 1806, you assert in this article and you also assert that the borough followed in 1897. How many years separate 1720 from 1897? One Hundred and seventy-seven years that you want to see dismissed! I show that history demonstrates that Chatham, New Jersey -- as a place -- has nothing to do with the form of government and an article on the place ought to be historically correct. Take the borough (that you inserted in an existing article) out of the new title of the article and none of the hoop jumping is necessary. I think you will find that Chatham residents cherish their history and have no interest in dumping a couple hundred years of their history in exchange for a "modern use" of faulty understanding. Chatham, New Jersey now leads directly to an "ambiguation" page in my humble opinion -- and I believe I have a right to object under the rules of Wikipedia, to what I see as an error without being bullied. Try to be the best you can! ----

first off, keep everything in one place, i.e. here. second, leave comments in chronological order. lastly, everyone can see that the moon is not made of green cheese – please stop wasting our time with ridiculous comparisons. again, your quoting of the NYTimes is only further proving my point – that article is over 12 years old. that is NOT by any means modern, things change a lot in 12 years. hell, things change over the course over just one year, i can attest to that personally. what i am proposing is a modern, current usage. what you are proposing is some sort of "in denial" view that wants to hold on to the borough's "coveted" status as being the Chatham. stop it, please. no one is denying any history. what's more, the history that you speak of can easily go into the Chatham, NJ article. but yet again, it is ludicrous to say that Chatham is the borough, because it simply isn't. chatham, in modern usage, makes no distinction between the two municipalities. for example, if i ask a chatham resident (of either town) where the library is, the answer that comes back is not Chatham, it is the borough. —lensovet–talk – 00:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Putting "Chatham, New Jersey has historically referred to what is now Chatham Borough, New Jersey. Today, however, the name [may] refer to either Chatham Borough or Chatham Township." first in the article sound like a good idea... (using may would be the correct verb) at least that would cover the renaming (before the revolution) of the long satanding pre-Revolutionary settlement to Chatham, New Jersey to honor William Pitt and Chatham, New Jersey being the location of the printing of a newspaper during the revolution as well as several books. Don't know why you are resisting the acknowledgement of its existance, after all the settlement is well documented from Dutch and, later, British colonial periods of occupation. ms

interesting discussion elsewhere

How do we find out the city name?

This might seem silly, but how do we determine a city's name? In the process of a discussion at Talk:Chatham Borough, New Jersey, an anonymous user as well as a respected editor dismissed Census bureau data as incorrect. Alansohn then suggested that references by the municipality to itself [would be relevant]; the anonymous user retorted with The name of the government is not the name of the town. So...how do we resolve this? Thanks. —lensovet–talk – 03:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The point that the name of the government is not the name of the town is well made. In fact, I believe we confuse city governments with cities in Wikipedia, and, actually, all kinds of governments with places. As to how to find out the real name of the town, it's common usage. Normally, they are the same as "official usage", so it's not much of a practical problem. --Serge 04:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We've had much confusion with New Jersey municipalities. Just to clarify the situation, boroughs and townships are equivalent civil divisions in New Jersey; a borough does NOT exist as part of a township. Though boroughs are often contained within townships, they are indepent municipalities. In a typical scenario, The Borough of Foo was formed from portions of Foo Township. People refer to the Township as "Foo Township", but may often refer to the borough simply as "Foo". This may lead to confusion when someone links to "Foo, New Jersey"; are they referring to the Township, the borough or both (the combined Foo area)? Princeton, New Jersey is an interesting example of this phenomenon, where the borough article is named Borough of Princeton, New Jersey. However, most borough/township pairs have article names that are in the Foo/Foo Township form. Possible solutions:

1) Keep "Foo Township, New Jersey" as is; leave the borough as "Foo, New Jersey" with appropriate cross reference in both articles.

2) Keep "Foo Township, New Jersey" as is; rename the borough as "Foo Borough, New Jersey" with appropriate cross reference in both articles. Change "Foo, New Jersey" to a disambiguation pointing to both "Foo Borough, New Jersey" and "Foo Township, New Jersey".

To be honest, this is my preferred alternative. The only problem with this is that it involves going to every article that links to Foo, NJ and trying to figure out what that link should really point to. Also, how do we resolve references to the "combined" area? For example, if some article says Foo, New Jersey is a suburban town with many areas of wild, undeveloped land, what does it actually mean? Is it referencing Foo borough or Foo township? What if it actually means "the combined area of the borough and township"? How do we link to both towns, or do we just link to the dab page (note that this is technically problematic and might be "fixed" by unaware users/bots)? This matter is not so much of a problem with more specific facts, such as birthplaces, etc, but it's still an issue to keep in mind. —lensovet–talk – 05:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

When unidentified references are made, link to Foo, New Jersey. This is particularly important in historical articles, since in most cases the communities are much older than than the donut-and-hole municipal governments, most of which come from the 1890's. New Brunswick, New Jersey is an exception, IIRC. Septentrionalis 20:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever our collective preferneces are on this issue, I don't believe the Census Bureau's name for the municipality is useful. Far more relevant is local usage. Even a website that is named FooBorough.com or calls itself the "Borough of Foo" on the website is not necessarily "proof" in my experience. Local usage -- perhaps best demonstrated in newspaper articles -- would be far more dispositive. Any thoughts on the issue? Alansohn 04:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

NJ Municipal Data Book should be in most NJ public libraries, and should be reasonably accurate on names; and Snyder's The story of New Jersey’s civil boundaries will establish name and bounds as of its date. There have been some changes since then, but they will be obvious. (Aberdeen, New Jersey, for example.) Septentrionalis 20:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Other possible solutions:

1.Foo (borough); Foo (township) (when Foo has no ambiguity issues with other boroughs and townships)

2.Foo (borough in New Jersey); Foo (township in Jersey) (when Foo has ambiguity issues with boroughs and/or townships with the same name in other states)

--Serge 04:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Unidiomatic and unnecessary; Americans have been dealing with their multiple Springfields for years. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, just document how it has already been done. Septentrionalis 20:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See this discussion for a similar problem. --Polaron | Talk 05:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree on the similarity: NY's townships are not incorporated; NJ Townships are municipalities like the others. Septentrionalis 20:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

this should be in the discussion also;

until the articles were changed by lensovet, the articles were Chatham, New Jersey and Chatham Township, New Jersey --- and it worked well. It seems that only a few people who lived in apartments rather than owning houses had no idea of the municipality they lived in... Now there is a third article, about the government of one with many fragments of the information that should be in another and all three articles are so distorted, that they are worthless as encyclopedia entries. Details that should be in one are in another and details that were furthering the information given have been deleted at the whim of one person, who seems to refuse to acknowledge his personal motivation. He knows little about the communities that have very long histories and thinks that the last ten years of his poor "understanding" should drive this train.

Regarding some information deleted and the sarcastic comments based in ignorance -- lensovet should ask Councilwoman Fuller the date when her house (and all of the others along the new street on which it exists) were built by clearing a wooded enclave in Chatham, New Jersey.

As with most obsessions, lensovet lets his interfere with better judgment. Luckily there are other people who at least care about preventing such distorted articles.

sick and tired of this crap

fyi, i will address your argumentation issues about st. petersburg when i get finished doing more important things. as for the personal attacks (this time, you're attacking the fact that i lived in an apartment instead of a house – this is pertinent to the current discussion how?), as soon as you make one more similar comment, you're getting reported. —lensovet–talk – 01:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

History easily confirmed and Wikipedia hurt by blocking

Instead of brutally suppressing someone who is trying to set things right for the benefit of Wikipedia (as I read it), simple research of the historical records can confirm that:

1. the village now called Chatham existed first as a village in New Netherlands at a place the native Indians traditionally crossed the Fishawack (river) at a low spot in the Watchung mountains, the village went through several changes in name,

2. then as a village in the British colony called New Jersey (when the village was finally renamed "Chatham"), being Chatham, New Jersey

3. then as a village in the new American state still called Chatham, New Jersey,

4. then as a village in a new township government (formed in Morris County as Chatham Township New Jersey), still called Chatham, New Jersey,

5. then as a village seceded to independent governance again, and still called Chatham, New Jersey

6. then as a village with a borough form of government, and still called Chatham, New Jersey

It is all the same place, containing the same families and citizens (three generations for my family). All one has to do to confirm the facts is to consult the historical records:

Fishawack Papers - A Collection of Papers on the History of Chatham, New Jersey http://www.chatham-library.org/histlit.html

This village has been in continuous existence all of this time and deserves an accurate history similar to all of the other colonial communities discussed in the encyclopedia. Its citizens played a significant role in the war for independence from Britain just as its citizens played a significant role in saving the Great Swamp. Chatham is quite separate from Chatham Township, which has never had a village (having lost the three ones it contained when incorporated to govern them), and from which government Chatham seceded over a hundred years ago.

The way I see it, there should be two articles, Chatham, New Jersey and Chatham Township, New Jersey -- reflecting the two separate municipalities -- one a village, the other not. Stop creating a muddle yourselves and then shouting -- look it is a muddle!

Wikipedia is never going to gain respect as a valid source of information until it demands reliance upon accurate information and freedom from purely personal preferences of editors being supported by administrators -- at the expense of the Wikipedia philosophy.

Blocking the contributions of all normally welcomed users to protect one editor with a weird agenda stinks – and has prompted me to say that publicly – it really does not matter that he has made many contributions elsewhere that may not be biased, this one is and his baiting of the others (and it looks like several to me) making contributions has led to a breakdown in civility. Is that surprising? Is the best solution to protect his edits? I think not. Is there any effort to make that editor civil? I think you have empowered him to be more uncivil and to go alter other articles just to fit his agenda. He admits that he has no idea of the history he is deleting and makes no effort to seek the correct information which is available readily. Yet Wikipedia administrators (the worst part of this in my opinion) see fit to lock out other contributors – to what purpose and with what justification? Plenty of people are reading this chronicle and discussing it – most I hear, say that this epitomizes the problem with Wikipedia when it gets off track. Most do not want to get involved. I finally had to comment, at least once.

Excuse me, you were the first to become uncivil, using my personal history to throw sideways attacks at me. Again, village or not, "Chatham", in modern usage does not mean Chatham Borough. How many times do I have to repeat this? Again, when was the last time you set foot in Chatham, either one of them? —lensovet–talk – 20:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Demographics?

No 2000 census data? -- Toytoy 13:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• This article covers the combined Chathams, including both the borough and the township. Census data is available in each of the individual articles. Alansohn 14:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you think about combining them on this article? I.e. give census data for both towns? I did the basics with the population here, but we can do it with all of the 2000 Census. Thoughts? —lensovet–talk – 17:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Shared Services

Chatham Borough does not get to decide whether or not it shares postal services or a zip code with Chatham Township. That decision is made by the USPS. Please create an account an sign your postings rather than continue to prop up the borough in violation of WP:NEU. Jeffcutter (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chatham, New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104105532/http://www.chatham-library.org:80/history.html to http://www.chatham-library.org/history.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.chathamtownship.org/TC_agenda/2010/TC_minutes121610.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928014312/https://www.rosenet.org/gov/court/pages/home to https://www.rosenet.org/gov/court/pages/home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206015526/http://www.njmonthly.com/topschools/hslist.lasso to http://www.njmonthly.com/topschools/hslist.lasso

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023065212/http://www.chatham-nj.org/cmsstaffpages to http://www.chatham-nj.org/cmsstaffpages

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Notable People

Are there really no notable natives of Chatham, New Jersey? I find that hard to believe. Anyone care to compile a list? Jersey Jan (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)