Talk:Chatham Borough, New Jersey

Chatham or Chatham Borough?

OK, go ahead. How exactly does CNN/Money prove that they can tell the difference between Chatham borough and Chatham township? They refer to a town called "Chatham." How do you know that they aren't referring to both Chathams, and are only referring to the Borough? Yes, it has a direct rail link to NYC. So what? The combined Chatham borough and township have a rail link. Just because it's located in the borough doesn't mean that Chatham = Chatham borough. Just as if it was in the township, it wouldn't mean that Chatham = township. No one who's outside the area will even suspect that there's a difference between the borough and township, because in general, such a case (of both a borough and township having the same name) is rare.

The point remains: anyone who hasn't researched the area or lived there will assume that Chatham = Chatham Borough + Chatham Township. Hell, even the post office thinks that way. To be honest, the article Chatham, New Jersey shouldn't even redirect to the borough, but should instead be a disambiguation page. But that's for another discussion.  —lensovet–talk – 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Money Magazine article, they were referring to the entire ZIP Code designated as "Chatham" so they were referring to both Chatham Borough and Chatham Township (minus the portion of Green Village in Chatham Township). Sbard 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Chatham, New Jersey

All one needs is a map of Morris County to see the difference. Wikipedia is intended to be based upon research to present the facts so that people seeking information can find useful data. I suspect that, since you have indicated that you used to live in the township, your feelings are getting in the way of presenting clear information. If you will examine the articles for Mendham and Mendham Township you will find that the issue is not factual, but perhaps, one of your own perception. Two separate municipalities are two separate municipalities and maps used for research indicate that clearly. Electronic versions of maps greatly simplify the data because of the inherent difficulty of presenting the data on a tiny screen -- so they are quite general. The title of the article should be Chatham, New Jersey and the redirect before the article begins, suffices to send readers to the township -- just as the title of Mendham is, Mendham, New Jersey. Simplicity is best to avoid making greater confusion. ---- kb - 10.14.2006

And yet, your example also serves my point brilliantly – look at its lead. The lead says:

Mendham is a borough in Morris County, New Jersey, in the United States, some 30 miles due west of New York City. As of the 2000 Census, the borough population was 5,097.

Mendham Township has some of the largest and most expensive homes in the state of New Jersey, with a number of celebrities, Wall Street executives and brokers, and corporate executives choosing to settle in this bucolic Manhattan suburb.

there's already confusion there. Maps are not the places to look up town names – the Census bureau is. I can show you a street atlas that will list Chatham Borough as exactly that – Chatham Borough. Also, your mendham example is wrong, since the Morris Co map you reference does not call Mendham simply "Mendham" – they call it "Mendham Boro."

Lastly, the point remains: people outside either of these communities will not know the difference. This is why this difference needs to be explained. Also please stop linking Chatham Township – it's already linked in the disambiguation header that appears at the top of the article —lensovet–talk – 19:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

All one needs to do is search the Census to find towns called "Chatham" in New Jersey. There you go. —lensovet–talk – 19:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This Wikipedia image that lists the communities in Morris County and shows them on a map, directory to Morris County communities was altered just a few minutes ago by you to read as you wish it to... that is vandalism and I will report it if you do not correct it -- your behavior is pathetic and unprofessional.

O rly? I'd call it professional, actually. I find errors and I fix them. The Census bureau does not know of a town by the name of Chatham, NJ. So you're just making something up. Go ahead and report it. —lensovet–talk – 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

your signature and time stamp are on the changes to the chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

I said, go ahead and report me —lensovet–talk – 20:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling my edits "vandalism" is not going to do anything. I suggest you take a look at what vandalism actually is. If you continue to push forward your pro-boro, anti-facts agenda, I'll make sure that you don't. Do as you wish. —lensovet–talk – 00:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

... If you continue to push forward your pro-boro, anti-facts agenda, I'll make sure that you don't. Do as you wish. —lensovet–talk – 00:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Paul:

That is an anti-Wikipedia threat, which confirms your intention to bully and vandalize in order to have your way in an issue regarding which you have demonstrated that you do not have a neutral point of view. You maintain a web page on the topic of a township in which you used to live and it seems that you wish it were the town because it was featured in a magazine as one of the best places to live..

Yeah, you know, how did you find out? I'm totally doing all this to promote my town, Chatham Township. Christ, at least come up with rationales that make sense, please?

And ok, I have different Bios on different websites. So what? What's your point here? The wiki one is more detailed. And?

You also note on your User Page:

My name is Paul, I work on a number of open-source projects. I specialize in web design and localization.

My goals for Wikipedia are to correct errors or unclear phrasing, and to make more articles available/bring existing articles up-to-date into Russian. The Russian-related goals have taken a total back seat at this point, so I'm mostly rewording passages. Every so often I actually write my own material from scratch.

Writing one's own material from scratch is not following the principles of Wikipedia, regarding original material, but it seems to be your style. That is acceptable on your own web page, not as a Wikipedia editor. I have no intention to get into an edit war with what seems to be an immature bully who will rewrite established pages and charts to make them conform to his personal and distorted point of view. One could characterize that as an obsession. Only Wikipedia suffers from such wars.

Really? What I meant in my sentence was that i write new material. Not that I make it up, but that I write articles on topics that didn't exist before. For example, Headway, Turboliner, Autorail à Grande Capacité, etc. But sure, go ahead and twist my words to suit your agenda.

I have participated with many editors on Wikipedia to work out differences in approach or data to include in many articles, under tolerant and ethical conditions in good faith. My success in those collaborative efforts has made working on those articles rewarding and enjoyable.

Your logs at Lensovet (Talk | Block log | Logs) show that you have now altered several longstanding articles because of what seems to me to be a personal issue. They no longer fit the pattern of their peer articles and are diminished by that. It could only be detrimental to Wikipedia for me to continue attempting to make edits to improve these articles that you have altered and intend to dominate. Your methods and attitude give me an insight into the tales of frustration seen among other editors who continue to try to work with what seem to be rogues and wind up only with rants as the final product. A couple of efforts to make a contribution are worth spending one's time... but there are millions of articles in Wikipedia for one who truly wants to improve Wikipedia in collaboration. .................... 2006.10.05 response to threat by lenvoset

I have corrected errors. I'm sorry but you seem to have trouble reading. Let me present to you again, this link: [1], which shows that no town with the exact name of Chatham, New Jersey exists! How many times do I have to repeat this? The same applies to Medham, by the way – see [2]. I'm really done here. —lensovet–talk – 17:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Chatham vs. Chatham Borough

I'm disturbed by the level of animosity in what to call the non-Township Chatham. I will say that the Census Bureau is a spectacularly poor source to use to determine the name of the municipality. Far more relevant would be references by the municipality to itself (though a web site will often use a formal name that isn't used venarcularly) and to how the locality is referenced by locals, say in the media. Using the Census Bureau proves absolutely nothing. Alansohn 01:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's ask the town itself....its website is chathamborough.org and the title? is Borough of Chatham. The borough Council agenda minutes say Borough of Chatham on them.[3] Is that enough? —lensovet–talk – 01:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This guy grabs at whatever (he thinks) will justify his actions... I am glad that others recognize the absurdity of using the census bureau as an authority. The community has been called Chatham, New Jersey for over a century -- he even used it on his web page for the town (for which he is seeking donations!). Thanks for speaking up. I see that you have provided significant contributions to many similar articles. ---- kb

Guess what? My webpage refers to the combined area, not to the borough specifically. —lensovet–talk – 01:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The name of the government is not the name of the town. ---- kb -

Interesting proposition – what is the name of the town then? Whatever you determine it to be? —lensovet–talk – 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to participate in a discussion relating to this matter over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#How do we find out the city name?. Please hold off on editing and discuss this matter further there. Thanks. —lensovet–talk – 03:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Aren't boroughs and townships technically on the same level of government in New Jersey? Or are boroughs more important than townships? In nay case, since the common names are the same, they must be disambiguated somehow. In New York, the convention is to use <name (type of municipality), New York> when there is a village and a town of the same name. I personally don't like that naming style but that is one possible solution. --Polaron | Talk 03:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

They are two different (but equal) types of municipality, both incorporated. In this they differ from NY, and most other states. See Township (New Jersey) for much, much more. Septentrionalis 15:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For reference this is how other articles with a township having same name as another municipality handle this:

• 14 out of 22 have the borough/city/town at "X, New Jersey" with the township at "X Township, New Jersey"
  • Andover, Berlin, Boonton, Bordentown, Burlington, Chester, Clinton, Franklin, Hopewell, Lebanon, Pemberton, Rockaway, Shrewsbury, Washington
• 4 out of 22 have a dab page at "X, New Jersey". Articles are at "X City, New Jersey" or "X Borough, New Jersey" or "X Township, New Jersey"
  • Egg Harbor, Freehold, Gloucester, Neptune
• 1 out of 22 has "X, New Jersey" as a redirect to "X Borough, New Jersey" with the township at "X Township, New Jersey" (same as the current case for Chatham)
  • Mendham
• 1 out of 22 has "X, New Jersey" as a redirect to "X Township, New Jersey" with the city at "X City, New Jersey"
  • Union (In this case, the "Union Township, New Jersey" page is actually a dab page).
• 1 out of 22 has an article at "X, New Jersey" that refers to the combined area of borough + township
  • Princeton (the individual articles are at "Borough of Princeton, New Jersey" and "Princeton Township, New Jersey")
• 1 out of 22 has no article at "X, New Jersey"
  • Ocean (city is at "Ocean City, New Jersey" and township at "Ocean Township, New Jersey", which is a dab page

--Polaron | Talk 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and if one returns the two articles to the name recently changed by lensovet from Chatham, New Jersey and Mendham, New Jersey one would have 16 out of 22 conforming to the naming convention that is typical in New Jersey of x, New Jersey and x Township, New Jersey -- this is the reason that the objection to the changes made by lensovet have arisen -- he has changed longstanding articles that were following the accepted names of the communities... Looking at the chart, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Morris_County%2C_New_Jersey_Municipalities.png, one also will see that every township in the county is identified as such, and the other communities are listed in the conventional format. Please revert the articles to the pevious titles - the notation at the begining of the article for Chatham is more than sufficient to send people to the township article if that is what they are seeking, note that most do not provide such a notation to a township, because of the established convention. Then the weird aspects of the second paragraph can be made to make sense. ---- kb 2006.10.16

With the exception of the really extraordinary case of Shrewsbury Township, this doesn't make very much sense; and Shrewsbury, New Jersey should be a dab page, including New Shrewsbury (now Tinton Falls, but the name can still be found. Certainly with Freehold and Egg Harbour, the Township is as important as the borough. Septentrionalis 20:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

suggest reverting to prior wording for second paragraph, as of Revision as of 22:03, 14 October 2006 by 63.232.118.162 (Talk)

Chatham shares a common heritage with two other boroughs, Madison and Florham Park, which were formed from portions of a vast township which became difficult to govern, and a greatly reduced Chatham Township which was incorporated at the same time. Chatham contains the town that grew from the early settlement. Chatham Township is 9.4 square miles (see a map of Morris County directory to Morris County communities) and at the period of the reorganization, contained rural farmlands and scattered homesteads—only recently being developed for suburban housing without any central town. Chatham and Chatham Township are referred to as "the Chathams" in joint activities such as the recently combined school district, although they are separate municipalities. In July of 2005, CNN/Money and Money magazine ranked Chatham ninth on its list of the 100 Best Places to Live in the United States.

and reverting to Chatham, New Jersey and restoration of Mendham, New Jersey title -- does reverting the titles require an admin?

Chatham Borough is properly so called (see NJ Municipal Data Book); it, like Florham Park and Madison. was split off from Chatham Township between 1889 and 1897. The whole shebang is less than 25 sq. mi.; and the suggestion that it was "difficult to govern" requires sourcing: Most of the changes of that era were property tax disputes, and there were significant minor shifts of land after partition. I oppose Mendham, New Jersey for Mendham Borough unless usage can be shown; a collective article on both Mendhams would be the proper article for that name. Septentrionalis 22:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

References

Chatham - transfer discussion from admin notice board

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#talk:_Chatham_Borough.2C_New_Jersey has discussion regarding this issue also -- should be part of this consideration -- sorry for any duplication -- but let's get it all on one page -- here

Comment:The Census Bureau should not be used as a standard on New Jersey geography; they do not understand it, and never have. I don't pretend to know Morris County well enough to know whether Chatham is common usage there. Septentrionalis 15:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute - not something requiring admin attention. Stop attacking each other and just write out the fact that the name 'Chatham' often gets used to describe what might more precisely be called 'Chatham borough', 'Chatham township', and/or BOTH of those together. Put a nice explanation like that on each page, have 'Chatham, NJ' itself as a disambiguation page to the two articles, and off you go. If you can't manage that... see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Or just meet down at the train station and duke it out under the mulberry trees. :] --CBD 17:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

CBD, I know you're only making a joke here, but not too long ago two people attempted to settle a flame war in a shopping mall parking lot, with lethal results. (I'd hope that Wikipedians would be too smart to imitate this as a means to resolve conflicts, but some days I have my doubts.) -- llywrch 19:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry. I thought it was too absurd to actually be contemplated (i.e. fisticuffs over what the name 'Chatham' refers to), but as the link you cite shows... the world can always be just a little more absurd than you thought it could. --CBD 13:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry too. Now we can all feel nostalgic for the good old days of just a few weeks ago, when the worst that anyone could expect to happen in a flame war is that someone gets banned from Wikipedia for incivility or threats. :( -- llywrch 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The battle should be in the spring. I do not want to participate or even watch. I want to eat all the mulberries I can get ahead of the birds -- it has been a (long ) lifetime habit to wait for them to turn from green, to white, to purple... then eat all within reach! The town? Chatham, New Jersey -- renowned for the best mulberries along the entire railroad, and the reason that Chatham Township never had a "town"! Revert the name, this is nonsense, borough is a definiton of the form or government, the borough of -- you guessed it -- Chatham -- since the 1800s when a village called Chatham withdrew from a township along with two other villages that were along the new railroad -- and population increased greatly in all three. Read the history if you must -- resort to the facts -- seems to be a novel idea among some of the participants in this dispute, but it still remains a handy tool for people building articles in an encyclopedia!

Chatham, New Jersey - discussions merged to one page here

No, actually, it means one of the five types of government; but New Jersey has eleven forms of municipal government, and the six more modern ones are open to all types of municipalities, whether borough (New Jersey) or not. This article needs a source which specifically says whether Chatham Borough has a Faulkner form or not. Septentrionalis 23:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The form of the government is one thing, the place name is another -- however, this is an article about the place. Among the things properly discussed about Chatham, New Jersey, ought to be its form of government under the appropriate category. Why isn't the article about the country an article about the United States of America Republic? Because it is about the place, and constitutional republics are discussed under that topic. Similarly, the form of New Jersey governments is discussed in other articles that focus on each major form alone and there is an article entitled, Borough (New Jersey). Most significantly -- now that the title of this article and the one for Mendham has been changed by lensovet, they are the only two of three boroughs in Category:Boroughs in New Jersey (see the link at the bottom of the Borough (New Jersey) page - sorry, I do not know how to create a link to a category in Wikipedia) that are now listed as he has changed the two articles to read... all others except Freehold are listed consistently. Seeking a logical consistency in Wikipedia is another reason to revert the two changes he made. I think Freehold's title should be changed also for consistency at the same time. (I have never heard anyone refer to Freehold borough, New Jersey as a place name either) and that means that before the change to Chatham and Mendham, it was the sole article on a borough in New Jersey that used that format for the title of the article.

Chatham, New Jersey discussion resumed

Whoa. I never said that Chatham = Chatham Township, you just made that up. I said that Chatham, no modifier, is ambiguous. And it is. Just because a consistency exists doesn't mean that it's actually correct. Once we get this settled, it would make a lot of sense to re-evaluate the rest of Foo, New Jersey articles to make sure that they are correct.

The way I see it, the real solution is this: make Chatham, NJ not a redirect but a page that briefly describes that the name can mean either the two communities as one, or one, or the other. we can also talk about what history the two towns share. then, you link to both the borough and township for more specific info, like the demographic and geographic info. this would also allow us to place the library and schools info on one page so that we don't have to duplicate it on two separate pages like we do now. —lensovet–talk – 02:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Best for everyone to catch up with the discussion in order to prevent loss of points made by various editors.

Mulberries are so luscious that they can not be packed for shipment -- jam is possible, but decidedly inferior to the fresh fruit. The trees at the railroad station marked with the place name "Chatham" are weeping Mulberry trees, imported from Japan for their elegance. These trees were placed at most of the stations along the railroad route to "Millionaires Row" in Madison and Morristown, which was referred to as “the inland Newport” among the four hundred families listed in the Social Register. Prior to the introduction of the railroad, it took my family members six hours to make the trip from New York in a horse drawn carriage to get to their "country place" and its farm. After the railroad was built from the city to Morris Plains, the journey was reduced to less than an hour. This is why the towns along the railroad experienced a great increase in population. ---- kb - 2006.10.18

Compromise reached

Please note that we now have a real page over at Chatham, New Jersey, which should be the place for common history and facts to the two towns. For example, the tidbit about the history of the name having to do with the Earl of Chatham clearly belongs on the common page. The splitting of the township could be put there as well, so people know that the township came first and why there are these two separate towns.

It is also important to go through the two articles and move any duplicated/common text to the common page. That way, if any changes are made, they have to be made in just one place. Great work by all. —lensovet–talk – 05:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Compromise not reached

One person's preemptive actions can not be determined as consensus -- this seems like Khrushchev's shoe technique. The two articles have been butchered and are inaccessible -- the disambiguation page has been turned into an article -- and this all seems to be to satisfy one person alone among several editors trying to make decent contributions to Wikipedia. Declaring victory and suppressing the opposition is not co-operation.

Don't see a reference to it in the discussion of his personality in Wikipedia, but I remember Khrushchev's typical tricks -- and see the parallel to your statement, *Nikita Khrushchev#Khrushchev's personality -- for those who need a quick link... recommend just continuing the efforts to have a rational logic to the articles, not bizarre compared to their peer articles... it is most illogical to warp all this around a reference to the town and a former resident who wants it to refer to the township where he lived for a couple of years... the borough of Chatham is its government -- now if you want an article about the government of Chatham, New Jersey -- go at it... separate from the article about the place, Chatham, New Jersey and the place, Chatham Township, New Jersey -- and to keep him happy make an article about "the Chathams" for his school district and the inclusion of the township into the library system that existed in Chatham where the sign on the fire department shown on the borough site reads, Chatham Fire Department and all of the histoic postcards read Chatham, New Jersey (and none of them are of the township)

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.

Nonsense; Townships have existed in New Jersey since 1664; see Middletown Township, New Jersey; in fact, Chatham Township was formed (in 1806) out of Hanover and Morris Townships. Chatham Borough did not exist as a municipality of any kind before 1892; it was never an independent municipality before 1897. Septentrionalis 13:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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 --

Nonsense; see Township (New Jersey). Septentrionalis 13:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

Conversation on Talk:Chatham, New Jersey. Septentrionalis 20:02, 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! ----

a minimal, "tempoary solution" should exist while it is worked out

As suggested by lensovet elsewhere, putting "Chatham, New Jersey has historically referred to what is now Chatham Borough, New Jersey. Today, however, the name [may] refer to either Chatham (the borough) or Chatham Township." first in the article sounds like a good idea... (using may would be the correct verb). Although very misleading, 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. Don't see how misuse in the last few years could justify rewriting history! ms

new diversion recommended

"After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a bare majority (54%) of the population agreed to change" Leningrad, USSR to Saint Petersburg, Russia on September 6, 1991 -- there is a lot of revision needed on that article, someone suggests in the article that it was founded in 1627. Clearly, using your methods, the date should be 1991! -- you guys need to take your special magic to that page and the ones linked to it -- imagine how much fun you can have rewriting that history to your new modern form. Just think of all the pages you can revise...

Before you start using cute examples from my personal life, try to get your history straight, genius. It was called "leningrad" only after 1924 and "petrograd" between 1914 and 1924. at all other times it's been called st. peterburg. including the time of its founding in 1627. here's a better diversion – you stop arguing a losing argument. —lensovet–talk – 03:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And to be honest, if the innuendoes into my personal life don't stop, I'll be taking appropriate action. This isn't a content dispute – it's like some personal vendetta of yours. I suggest taking a look at WP:NPA —lensovet–talk – 03:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

from another's viewpoint, I can see the parallel being made -- it is no different than the settlement first founded in 1720s (or 1710?); that was renamed Chatham, New Jersey in the pre-revolutionary times; that became part of a township governmental organization called Chatham Township after the revolution; and then a village by itself again; and later a borough. It seems all one place to me, but isn't that the basis of your reason for separating the original settlement and the borough? How can you argue the opposite for another place now? 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.

Notables

Former tennis player Peter Fleming, who was a Nº1 doubles player was born in Chatham and could be added to the list of notables

Error in description of adjoinging towns

Chatham Borough DOES NOT border on:

  Long Hill Twp (now Passaic Twp.)
  Harding Twp.
  Berkley Heights
  New Providence
  Morristown
  New Vernon

  Short Hills is an unincorporated are of Milburn.

To my knowledge, there are no portions of the Great Swamp in the Bourough, and the portions mentioned in the article are actually in Madison, Chatham Twp., Harding Twp. and Passaic Twp. The site http://www.fws.gov contains a map of the Great Swamp, as does the Wiki article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Swamp_National_Wildlife_Refuge

I submit that the two articles should be in agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.245.98 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Replacing outdated Record article source

Alan - Please advise what is the policy about removing outdated sources with better sources. It does not seem to make sense to leave in an outdated source if the new sources have updated information and more complete details.

I have tried to replace an outdated 1991 Record article source related to Leanna Brown under Notable People with 2 new sources that have updated information about the referenced 1991 election in the Record article and more complete details about Leanna Brown's political life. The outdated 1991 Record article source that I removed is then put back in even though the 2 new sources supersede it and provide more complete details about Leanna Brown's career.Wondering55 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

All other referenced sources for "notable people" in this Chatham report provide an overview of the notable person's career. I thought I was being helpful in finding new sources that provide an overview of the notable person's (Leanna Brown's) career. The Record's source is the only one that only provides a reference about one specific event for a notable person. The Record's source has also proven to be an unreliable source with reporting mistakes/info in other Wikipedia articles.

If someone is insistent on keeping an outdated unreliable source, which is superseded by 2 other sources that are also referenced with more complete and updated information about Leanna Brown, I guess that is their choice.Wondering55 (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Chatham Borough, New Jersey

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

Reference named "Committee":

• From Boonton Township, New Jersey: Township Committee, Boonton Township. Accessed July 19, 2016.
• From Millburn, New Jersey: Township Committee, Township of Millburn. Accessed July 4, 2016.
• From Mendham Township, New Jersey: Mendham Township Committee, Mendham Township. Accessed June 24, 2015.
• From Long Hill Township, New Jersey: Township Committee, Long Hill Township. Accessed June 24, 2015.
• From Morris Township, New Jersey: Township Committee, Morris Township. Accessed June 25, 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chatham Borough, 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/20070502150645/http://money.cnn.com:80/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2005/snapshots/31984.html to http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2005/snapshots/31984.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228122746/http://njmonthly.com/articles/best_of/placestolive/best-places-to-live---the-complete-top-towns-list-.html to http://njmonthly.com/articles/best_of/placestolive/best-places-to-live---the-complete-top-towns-list-.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
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121005917/http://www.njsba.org:80/school-leader/janfeb09.html to http://www.njsba.org/school-leader/janfeb09.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104105532/http://www.chatham-library.org:80/history.html to http://www.chatham-library.org/history.html

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) 20:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chatham Borough, 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/20060907202759/http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/cuhis3057/textscans/MHDodge1932.htm to http://www.tentowns.org/10t/suststew.htm

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) 21:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

William Pitt Village

I don't understand how the town couldn't know that the Summit Greek restaurant owner who bought the village and then had the William Pitt Restaurant burned down. What an atrocity, to lose this historic village so he could reconfigure it with multiple rental buildings all in the name of as much money as he could make. He NEVER belonged in Chatham. 68.80.132.87 (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)