Talk:Weequahic, Newark

Weequahic Tour

Hello, I am the primary author of this article, and on July 30th, 2006, I am going to be conducting a tour of the Weequahic section. We are going to be seeing the sights of Elizabeth and Chancellor Avenues. Consider coming. The length of the tour will be 2 hours, 30 minutes. Weequahic Tour

How to pronounce Weequahic

I edited "many locals say WEEK-way[citation needed]", a way of saying Weequahic that I've never heard. It's true, I graduated Weequahic High School some decades ago, and perhaps the locals have a new pronunciation. But since the WEEK-way pronunciation had a [citation needed] tag (and I'd love to see a citation!), I thought it acceptable to change to what I remembered. I thought that perhaps "WEEK-way" was a typo anyway, as indeed it is missing the last syllable.

So I changed it to "many locals say WEE-kway-ik[citation needed])" as I remember from my many youthful years in the neighborhood. I don't have a citation either, so I thought this bit would be fair game. However, it was promptly reverted. I would like to know on what basis, and in making this note on the Weequahic Talk page, I am respecting the wishes of the reverting editor to avoid corresponding on their own Talk page.

I note that I have seen a pronunciation in Jews of Weequahic (see a new section in the article, Further reading) but it is very far outside my personal recollection, so I choose not to include it in the article. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering that my edit was reverted less than 2½ hours after I made it, and not having heard from the reverting editor in some 2½ days, I placed the above on their talk page, with an accompanying note similar to this one.Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the unsourced pronunciation with a well-sourced one, which is correct. the same editor who reverted my previous edit, described above, reverted this latest one as well. I will restore the well-sourced edit later today. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Weequahic Park lake discussion

Re "Impeached ;-) Park page is incorrect. It is not close to largest lake in Essex County. A couple, if not more, are larger, eg: https://www.lake-link.com/new-jersey-lakes/essex/canoe-brook-reservoir-number-one/325521" OK, that's an anthropogenic lake and it is named a reservoir, unlike Weequahic Lake. But Weequahic Lake is also anthropogenic, so the editor has it accurately in my view. Perhaps Weequahic Lake is the largest "Lake" not the largest lake, but that does not seem notable enough to make the distinction. Regretfully as a former Park neighbor, I must thank the editor for their correction. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Doriden Weequahic Lake is anthropogenic, so what makes it different from a reservoir? They are both anthropogenic lakes. Weequahic Lake is by no means the largest anthropogenic lake in Essex County. The Olmsted Brothers' report and proposal describes it as mostly a marsh; see their Landscape Architects' Report. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Doriden -- Please stop your edit warring about Weequahic Lake and confine your concerns for the time being to the Talk pages of the respective articles. After initially agreeing with you, I have found that Weequahic Park Lake, for all its having "Lake" in its name, is no different from a reservoir, as they are all anthropogenic. I have found citations to this effect.

Your citation at NewarkHistory.com states: "At 80 acres, Weequahic Lake is the largest lake in Essex County. Weequahic Lake is natural, but it has been enlarged by a dam." The citation from the Olmsted Brothers' Landscape Architects' Report (1899) makes it perfectly clear that it was a marsh. NewarkHistory.com does not provide a basis for their assertion, "Weequahic Lake is natural." The Olmsteds, who designed the park, were there, and we should take their word for it.

It is disappointing that you refuse to engage on this besides edit warring.

Whom may I ask is edit warring? Once again, it's the last thing on my mind at the moment, so please stop trying to make something out of this that isn't. Thank you Doriden (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Elilzabeth Ave photo

@Djflem used their own photo, replacing one of Elizabeth Ave. The photo's details credit the photo to user Djflem. I've read their Talk page, where they write:

It's not my personal knowledge that matters. It can inform my thinking, but Wikipedia does not allow Wikipedia:No original research. It requires Wikipedia:Reliable sources (RS), that follow Wikipedia:Citing sources (google maps are not considered RS) Personal observation is original research.

So I can't but assume that using their own photo violates these tenets, and also that they know better. On what authority do readers know that the photo shows what it purports to show? The edit that included this photo should be reverted. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If you do not believe that is a picture of Heritage Estate and Zion Towers on Elizabeth Avenue, take it up somewhere else and see how that results if that’s how you want to spend your time. Djflem (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Djflem Seeing that this photo replaces your own earlier photo, there's no point in reverting. And it's a nice photo! Still, I am surprised that you are happy to violate the policies that I quoted from your Talk page, which you express so articulately.

I assume that your identification of the towers is all in good faith. I haven't lived on Elizabeth Avenue since 1967, so I can't confirm anything myself, and as you point out, it's not how I want to spend my time.

I just like adherence to Wikipedia's policies. That's what I was flagging. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s question for Wikimedia Commons. How do you know that any of the 100s of thousands images are what they are purported to be? Which policy are you referring to? Djflem (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)