Talk:Boroughitis/Archive 1

Untitled
The line "This led many boroughs to contain portions of two or more townships" needs to be clarified, because it does not clearly imply what action is being referred to. Did they cofigure their borders at incorporation specifically to include parts of multiple townships to begin with? Add on portions of other boroughs? 18.173.1.42 20:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

-mania is the joke that is properly intended
boroughitis is an ignorant distortion of a medical suffix misapplied to borough which becomes meaningless through being a malapropism:


 * A ludicrous misuse of a word that sounds like the one intended. ex: "Lead the way and we'll precede." (should be proceed) - oneonta.k12.ny.us/hs/murphy/terms.htm
 * the unintentional misuse of a word by confusion with one that sounds similar - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
 * Common malapropisms in modern English include use of: * Disinterested (impartial, unbiased) for uninterested ("A judge should be disinterested, but not uninterested")* Fortuitous (random, by chance) for fortunate* In the ascendancy for in the ascendant ("One has the ascendancy" vs "One is in the ascendant")* Barbaric for barbarous ("Barbaric" can be positive and is used of culture, "barbarous" is negative and used of behavior: "Barbaric splendor" vs "Barbarous cruelty")* Enormity (a heinous ... - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapropism

-itis is a suffix applied to the name of an organ that implies an inflammation of it, as in appendicitis, which means an inflammation of the appendix -- The only logical parallel that could be applied here to make any sense is 'borough-mania' (The English suffix -mania denotes an obsession or madness towards something; a mania. The suffix is used in some medical terms denoting mental disorders. It has also entered standard English and is affixed to many different words to denote enthusiasm or obsession with that subject.) as in the application of the suffix used with, Beatle-mania, which occurred in the 1960s and centered around the Beatles. There are several other examples given at –mania in Wikipedia, which describe such jokes. They are jokes – making them seem serious is counterproductive in an encyclopedia, which attempts to make sense of things instead of adding to the confusion and ignorance.

I agreed with the opinion that the article should be deleted in order to avoid making Wikipedia seem to be a pre-teen blog instead of an encyclopedia, feeling that it should never have been written. Sometimes, however, the damage needs to be addressed after a mess has been created. The places where the term is used, should be corrected to -mania at the very least because it would be consistent with other jokes of this type, but editing the malapropism out of the articles is more rational. Perpetuating such confusion is contrary to responsible editing. The current argument raging at Chatham, New Jersey vs. Chatham Borough, New Jersey about renaming articles on places to carry the name of the current government form instead -- in that case a borough again -- falls right into this category, showing confusion and ignorance. The history of a place first settled in the beginning of the eighteenth century is now hopelessly and unnecessarily confused. A whole host of links are now rendered meaningless by that misguided action and it may never be straightened out! If these practices are not stopped and reversed, Wikipedia can never hope to avoid becoming a muddle of stupidity.

Made some edits to the article to this effect -- attempting to make the article more understandable, pointing out the error without perpetuating the incorrect use -- hope it is acceptable to other editors. These changes may serve to unravel the damage from our broadcasting a malapropism - now world-wide -- by serving as a reference to its incorrectness.


 * If I understand correctly, you are unhappy with the title of this article, incorrectly assuming that the use of -itis as a suffix, rather than -mania is a "malapropism". Having actually read The Rivals in the distant past, and used the word in conversation, Malapropism means the substitution of a similar sounding, but incorrectly used word. Both "Boroughitis" and "Boroughmania" are neologisms, neither of which seems to have a clear claim of superiority. That -itis seems to imply disease in your mind was fully intended in its formation. Even if not coined in the 1890's, the term has been widely used, including in such publications as The New York Times ("At the time, so many little railroad stops were incorporating in the area that the newspapers regarded it as a disease, which they called boroughitis." at ). I welcome your input as a brand new user. If you can show that the word has no source, we can make the changes, but unfortunately, your assumption that this is a malapropism is simply unsupported. Alansohn 14:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * entry you are responding to was misunderstood - - it does not call for changing the title, just explication, which now exists -- Both are diseases, one is an inflammation, the other a craziness (manic being the psychotic source of mania which describes the behavior resulting from the disease) – As I understand the entry, I think the point is well taken since there are many instances of -mania to show crazy behavior focused upon one thing (Wikipedia has a whole list) and none to show a reddened, swollen (possibly puss-filled), borough as in -itis -- call it what you please. I did not note an indication that the word was without a source, merely that the phenomenon would be better defined by another word introduced into the article for the benefit of Wikipedia. I did note that the retention of the title was supported in the entry, as necessary to counter the misuse of what I will call, “the new word” (translated from Latin). I think you have misinterpreted that. Let’s not quibble over the definition of the imagery when intervening in our significant contribution to the popularization of the illogical word made up by one joking politician is more important. I would concur with that and it looks as if that has been accomplished. The scrutiny of “the new word” in Wikipedia will prompt readers to contemplate the use and, if they choose, to make another selection that is more fitting when discussing the topic. Documenting its brief use during a time of significant social change is accomplished in your article as it has now been edited, and I believe it now meets our responsibility as an encyclopedia, ("All's well that ends well!"). ...on second thought, given the nasty local politics occurring... there just might be a lot of pus still about in New Jersey boroughs.


 * I would have to agree that "mania" makes more sense as a suffix. I had seen "boroughitis" in some of the research that I had done, and latched onto the word. As an example, the article A Centennial Review of Bergen County Borough Fever 1894-95 refers to "Borough Fever" "Boroughmania" and "boroughitis". I think that the phenomenon deserves a catchy term, a la Boroughitis or Boroughmania, and that a title of "Borough Formation in Late 19th Century New Jersey" would be less compelling. I would have to say that whichever suffix form had caught my eye first, -mania or -itis, that I could have argued this either way. Thanks aagain for your input. Alansohn 00:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dubious

 * ''Often the communities adopting the new form of government had been quite distinct in colonial territories and settled much earlier than the township form of government. They had been organized into being parts of townships when that form of local government was introduced in the new state government after the revolution.

This is quite simply false. New Jersey townships were not bodies corporate before the revolution, but they were the oldest forms of government under the British Crown; the records of Middletown Township go all the way back to 1664. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Great Depression" was not a factor
"With the formation of new municipalities now firmly returned to the hands of the New Jersey Legislature, the wave of changes met its end, by the beginning of the Great Depression."

There's no evidence cited in the article that the end of "Boroughitis" was at all related to the Great Depression, although the way the sentence is phrased makes it seem like it is. I recommend taking it out to reduce the possibility of reader confusion over inclusion of this non-fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.177.244 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boroughitis. 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/20101214050914/http://celdf.org/downloads/New%20Jersey%20-%20A%20history%20of%20municipal%20govt%20in%20NJ%20since%201798.pdf to http://celdf.org/downloads/New%20Jersey%20-%20A%20history%20of%20municipal%20govt%20in%20NJ%20since%201798.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Visiting Scholar Wehwalt has worked on it.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)