Talk:History of New Jersey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Heading redundancy

Just a thought, does anyone else this an giant history header for this article is a bit redundent. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you rephrase your question? I didn't really understand it. Before, History of New Jersey was a really short article that contained even less than the history section of New Jersey. Supposedly, History of New Jersey was the "main article" for that section. So I figured it would make sense to massively extend this article. If there is any redundancy, please do delete it. AndyZ 00:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, its been changed. Maybe you'll see what i meant now. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. AndyZ 01:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC) At first I thought you were referring to the Expansion tag on the top.

Ah, ok. my bad for not wording it better. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 02:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Suffrage

I noticed that on the New Jersey article there was a large section on Woman's suffrage, which I moved to this page. However, I'm not to sure as to where/how the section should be placed in. As of now, it is a subsection within the subsection that relates to the Original State Constitution, which is underneath the section about the Revolutionary War. I'm not too sure if it would be better to create an entire new section for the original constitution or an entire new section for woman's suffrage (or where to place such a section). In addition, I also added blacks to the section name, which the New Jersey article neglected to do. AndyZ 22:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Expansion

The section about World War I and the Cold War, as well as more recent events need to be included into this article. AndyZ 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition, the history section of the New Jersey Article needs to be cleaned up. There is pretty much no information past 1807, klvnkjfnvdbhivfbvlibidffydygrfreigyrfhriylgfirgfduawhfliurwgiureflurhfliurefiuewgfiuwegugfiuefghrgfreyiogfiyorand there is a huge (yet incomplete) section on woman's suffrage while it summarizes the right of suffrage to black males in two sentences. Since the main article is this page, most of the information has to be transferred to this page, and the main important facts should be placed on the history section. AndyZ 01:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally, more recent developments have to added into this article. AndyZ 19:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, after 81 edits (maybe I'm getting carried away), the article now includes information from the Native Americans up to Recent Events. I added information about both World War I and Cold War, though World War I and world War II could still use more information. In addition, prehistory could (and should) be added into the article, as well as recent events that are not political, for example 9/11. AndyZ 17:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Article is now pretty much complete and quite thorough, and states references. Could I have some feedback as to whether or not this article would be considered as a Good Article? AndyZ 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You've done great work on this article --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. AndyZ 22:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure--ZeWrestler ^Talk 22:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Think someone should add something about the government shutdown, still in effect? Or is it too early?

new inline citation

check this out, might make our lives slightly easier. in particular with citing sources. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be very helpful, considering the number of times I have reordered the references... I will change the reference format asap. AndyZ 19:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear this will help. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Changed to new citation format AndyZ 20:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Good job, it looks good.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Instead of COTW

instead of COTW, wouldn't Article improvement drive be better for this article? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you're right;

This project aims to fill holes in Wikipedia, so only non-existent articles, or stubs may be nominated

Apparently, the nominator for this article for the WP:USCOTW didn't realize that. This is not either, but I guess it doesn't matter now. AndyZ 21:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, withdraw it, and nominate it under AID.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, read the response on WP:USCOTW. AndyZ 21:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

• Is there any pictures from the NJ ship yards of that era that we can put into the article? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem so, I can't seem to locate any pictures of New Jersey shipyards. AndyZ 19:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually there is an image of a shipyard of Camden, NJ, I believe somewhere in the early 1900s (the date is not specified though) here. I have never uploaded an image on Wikipedia and am quite unfamiliar with the process, but I believe according to the disclaimer that it is downloadable for noncommercial use. AndyZ 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Here is the page that contains all of the image tags. See if you can find a tag that fits there, if i have time later, I'll look into it as well. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • That's exactly my problem w/ uploading images, I can never figure out what the majority of the tags are. AndyZ 20:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Would be nice to locate a picture of the Holland Tunnel to place on the article, though. AndyZ 00:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That shouldn't be too hard to do. I'll see what i can locate after finals end for me. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Only picture that might be decent that i've found is this. What do you think? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Looks pretty good. I just wonder as to who the people in the picture are. AndyZ 19:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Not sure. I'll upload it though. Also, like the cold war picture i added? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the copyright on Image:HollandTunnelNYNJboarder.JPG? Since it is from 1927, it might not have passed into the public domain yet. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• It was taken from a government webpage. Therefore, it falls into public domain. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 22:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That is not correct. Only works produced by federal employees during the course of their duties are public domain. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is not a federal body. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I raised the question about the image here. We'll see what comes of it. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Does this image, Image:Johnson Kosygin Glassboro Meeting.jpg still have a place in the article? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• replaced into article; probably was accidentally deleted? AndyZ 20:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, was wondering about that. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sub-pages

I thought it might be helpful to make a list of existing and planned sub-pages of this article.

• Colonial history of New Jersey

New Netherland

New Sweden

Province of New Jersey

• New Jersey during the American Revolution
• Politics of New Jersey (currently this emphasizes modern politics, more historical elements might be added)
• New Jersey in the Nineteenth Century
• New Jersey in the Twentieth Century
• New Jersey in the Twenty-first Century

I created the 19th and 20th century articles copied straight off from this one, so I haven't listed them yet in the article as detail/main articles. The 21st century one wouldn't have much to include, considering that Politics already has its own page. AndyZ 23:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I created the 21st century article and added some details to the sections. All three of the new sub-pages are now linked from the main article.

Leading section

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that the history of New Jersey did not start with the discovery by European explorers... it traces way further back. Saying that the timeline starts then is very... anglo-centric. However, the leading text is fairly close to what it needs to be. It seems, according to History of Greenland and History of Russia that the leading text is a short summary of the entire history of the subject. Just a little more NPOV... I'll see if I can be bold and fix it. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 01:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to help it by claiming that the "recorded history" began at that point, but I'm not sure if it's wholly satisfactory. Must do some research, hmph. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 01:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I made that change to the lead. In my mind, there is no difference between "history" and "recorded history", but on that same token I don't have a problem with calling it "recorded history". Cmadler 14:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

About the new changes w/ the lead section, it states that the History of New Jersey began with the discovery of Cape May by Henry Hudson. Wouldn't this be leaving out all of the Native Americans (Lenape tribes) and John Cabot's supposed discovery of New Jersey before (according to English claims)? Recorded history sounds kind of shaky...AndyZ 20:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The History of South Carolina article (current FAC article and good article) begins like this: South Carolina is one of the original states of the United States of America, and its history has been remarkable for an extraordinary commitment to political independence, whether from overseas or federal control. Indeed, it is quite extreme and not exactly NPOV, but it contrasts greatly from the lead for this article. In addition, the intro for that article is huge (4 long paragraphs) in comparison to the lead into this introduction. I think we should somehow break down the lead so that there is a one paragraph lead-in into the article, though not as drastic as that of South Carolina's, and then an additional one (or at most 2) as a brief summary. AndyZ 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out the leading section of History of Alaska, which is a featured article. It would probably be best to model the lead of this article after the lead of that article as a precedent. AndyZ 02:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to deal with Verrazano instead, since he discovered the Jersey coast had written records of it. See Giovanni da Verrazano. AndyZ 21:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

McGreevey

This lead-in doesn't sit well with me:

Former Governor James E. McGreevey resigned on November 15, 2004 after admitting being gay

IIRC, the reason for resignation was corruption charges and inappropriate appointments of (potential?) sexual partners. Homosexuality was not the cause of the resignation, the potentially illegal and inappropriate appointments and other corruption charges were. I didn't follow this news cycle too closely, so can anyone confirm my recollection? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that sentence would be my fault; I added that the politics section after reading the lead of the Jim McGreevey article, which ignores corruption and just mentions him leaving after admitting to being homosexual. I will make changes to the section. AndyZ 00:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem. Thanks for your edits. I made a few wording changes, please feel free to correct me if they are inaccurate. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Article structure

I'm wondering if there is a better way to structure this article. It is mostly chronological, but broken up topically in a few places (Industrial Revolution, Wars of the 1800s). Despite topical headings, History of South Carolina is strictly chronological. History of Alaska is divided by century, with some topical sections (Russian, Spanish, and British colonization, which were concurrent). Either would be better than this article's current structure, which seems to jump around a bit. Cmadler 11:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to improve the organization of the article. Cmadler 12:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The new structure looks good. A lot of the events in the article were overlapping, making it difficult to chronologize, like the Newark Breweries being opened in 1933 listed under the Roaring Twenties (reason why I merged Roaring Twenties+Great Depression before) and events during the Industrial Revolution. AndyZ 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

New layout looks great. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is flooded with too many {{detail}} and {{background}} tags; they exist in the middle of the majority of the sections, breaking up the text and perhaps even reducing the readibility. Taking a look at some of the other FAs (for example History of Alaska and Arizona) don't have so many details tags with each new topic. Most of them appears as links in the first sentence of the section anyway. Should these be removed, or kept? AndyZ 22:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed a couple of them. What about the late 1900s? I'm merging all of the events in the 1950s and beyond and merge them all into a single "Late 1900s" section in order to keep the article from having too many short sections. AndyZ 22:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Statehood

I believe I've found an inaccuracy and an omission. Footnote #1 says:

New Jersey became a state after ratifying the United States Constitution on December 18, 1787, with 38 delegates voting unanimously in favor of the Constitution. See Article Seven of the United States Constitution, which describes the process by which the Constitution was ratified by states, as well as statistics for ratification.

But this ignores the July 2, 1776 New Jersey State Constitution, the July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation, which was signed July 9, 1778 by representatives from NJ. The AoC and DoI were not mentioned at all.

So what date should we consider the official date of statehood? July 2 1776 makes sense to me. Thoughts? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Traditionally, the colonies were considered part of the union when they ratified the US Constitution. July 2, 1776 would be the colonial or state consitution that was at a state level only, before the colonies decalared their independance. list of States entry into the union.The current setup is correct. NJ was not a state until the United States Constitution was signed by them.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. NJ decided it was soverign when it signed the July 2 constitution. Quoting, "all civil authority under him [King George III] is necesarily at an end, and a dissolution of government in each colony has consequently taken place." Statehood means that the state is an independant actor, as opposed to a colony that is inherently not soverign. Whether and when the state joined a federated government of other states is a different matter. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no arguing that New Jersey became a part of the United States as of December 18, 1787. The question is what to do with its status after July 2, 1776. It seems that the argument revolves around statehood having two meanings: 1) a constituent part of the United States, or 2) a state with an "organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty." The other aspect to consider as part of the earlier date is the status of New Jersey's sovereignty as it "pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit, and in certain context to various organs (such as courts of law) possessing legal jurisdiction in their own chief, rather then by mandate or under supervision" given the continuing American Revolutionary War, during which the British exercised control of portions of New Jersey at varying times. And is there any reason that we couldn't say that it declared its independence from the Crown on July 2, 1776 and became a state on December 18, 1787 (or some variation thereof)?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alansohn (talk • contribs) .

There is no reason for not saying it declared its independence from the crown on July 2, 1776 and became a state on December 18, 1787. The original question came accross as it was challenging the day NJ became a state in the union. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It became a member of the federal government on that date, giving up some aspects of soverignty as described in the US Constitution. New Jersey was LESS soverign after that date. Also, don't forget that it was a state under the the Articles of Confederation before that. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I made a change in the note so that it says "New Jersey became the third state to ratify the United States Constitution on December 18, 1787". I think that will be suffient. As to when it actually became a state, according to the Articles_of_confederation#Signatures they were states even before the ratification of the Articles of confederation. With certain websites like this one (even if it is for kids), the statehood is set at December 18, 1787. I guess it would be best to settle it after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, according to U.S. state#Legal status at end of Revolutionary War: the 13 colonies became 13 independently sovereign states, which became fourteen in 1777 with the formation of the Vermont Republic; for a brief period, they were in effect legally separate nations. AndyZ 20:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Good vs Featured?

Can an article be both a good and a featured article at the same time? Or once it gains one status, does it lose the other? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I read through the Good Article page (and discussion page) pretty thoroughly and could not find an answer to this. Cmadler 18:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Guess this is something to bring up there. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No, once it is featured, it is no longer has the good status. AndyZ 21:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton-Burr duel

The Hamilton-Burr duel took place in Nj. should we include that somewhere? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You were the second person to bring it up (it was on the Todo before it was cleaned up). The information is located on New_Jersey_in_the_Nineteenth_Century#Hamilton-Burr_duel, though I guess it could deserve a quick mention on this article itself as well. AndyZ 23:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Indian King Tavern

A new article at Indian King Tavern was created recently, making some dubious claims over its place in New Jersey history. Please review and comment at Talk:Indian King Tavern. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Is everything in the article right?

Is everything in this article right? because wikipedia has at least 3 mistakes in each article.

Funny you mention it...while reading the article I found grammatical errors, redundant sentences, and misspelled names. Featured article, eh? Miraculouschaos 01:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please list the errors you found. Or, fix them. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-04 01:18

I already fixed them. Miraculouschaos 01:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed?

Just a general question which has occurred more than once before; what happens if someone places a {{fact}} - citation needed - thing on a sentence that was taken from another Wikipedia article? For example, the citation needed thing in the 9/11 section of the article was taken from the September 11, 2001 attacks attacks. Do you cite another WP article? AndyZ 22:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Knowing that it came from that article is a good start. I don't see why other wikipedia articles shouldn't be cited. I'll add a cite for tha PATH info I recently added also. Regarding this particular text, I don't see any source cited in the September 11th article, so I've added {{fact}} there also. Also, I think the point of the text germaine to the New Jersey History article is the movement of offices out of lower Manhattan. The unsourced details of 30% destruction or damaged and loss of tax base are neither backed up by sources or directly relevant to the New Jersey article. I think they can be safely removed. I'll make some edits to this effect. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Eek! No, you can't cite Wikipedia to back up a claim, especially if the article you are citing doesn't cite anything either! :-/ TheGrappler 13:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey joining the U.S.

In the opening paragraph:

In 1787, New Jersey was the third state to join the United States of America.

Is this technically correct? It may have ratified the Constitution in 1787, but wasn't it one of the United States of America under the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation? I've changed this line to say that it was the third state to ratify the newly drafted U.S. Constitution. —Cleared as filed. 17:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)