Talk:Hudson River/Archive 1

Pollution?
Not one mention of pollution in the article? I thought this was a major issue? -- Barrylb 02:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Feet-meters conversion
It looks to me that the conversion of cubic feet to cubic meters is incorrect. I'm going to change the cubic meters numbers, because I believe the cubic feet numbers are the correct ones. --Rkstafford 03:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

trivia section
NY 28N and US 4 also cross the Hudson River twice. Maybe it's not worth putting the statement about I-87 and US 9 there since crossing the river twice is not uncommon. --Polaron | Talk 00:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Narrows?
My opinion the Hudson seems to end at the Battery, Manhattan, as confirmed by NOAA. Below that is Upper New York Bay. If it is part of the Hudson, other sections should be harmonized with this. This discussion is interesting and useful (geological sense), but might be better placed elsewhere. If this remains, the geological history should be grouped together in one place. If my map reading is correct, also the former course of the Hudson should be Arthur Kill to Raritan Bay (and not Raritan River). 70.21.71.160 02:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Lower Hudson environment
I propose that the article Marine life of New York Harbor be renamed something like Envrironment and Ecology of New York Harbor. This would seem to reach out to the Lower Hudson below the salinity front, especially since this tidally variant. This would also absorb the Narrows section and some of the navigational tidal problems, especially since they are not solely Hudson issues. On the other hand the Hudson may well stand on its own deserving an ecology article. Comments?rmo13 00:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Crossings
Is the Verrazano really a Hudson River crossing? It is between Staten Island and Brooklyn, at the mouth of New York Harbor. It does not cross the river. BTW, does anyone have a complete list of the major crossings? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 17:31, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. I would say it crosses the Narrows, not the Hudson River. However, geologically the Hudson River bed extends out to the edge of the continental shelf, miles out into the Atlantic, so in that sense the V-N Bridge does cross the Hudson. As to crossings, connecting to New York City, they are (south to north): Verrazano-Narrows Bridge (with the caveat above), PATH downtown transit tunnel, Holland Tunnel, PATH uptown transit tunnel, Pennsylvania Railroad tunnel (now Amtrak), Lincoln Tunnel, George Washington Bridge. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:52, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. The geologic definition Cecropia speaks of above is not the standard definition of a river. As a matter of fact the entire discussion of the Narrows is inappropriate for this page, so I am deleting it and any reference to the V-N as a Hudson river crossing. --71.106.97.72 23:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My deletion was reverted. Perhaps I was too hasty-- there's some good geologic history in The Narrows section that's germaine. However, I edited out any reference to the Narrows as the mouth of the river, which is simply false. Alansohn, please let me know if (and why) you disagree.Armandtanzarian 02:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

river or nooAccording to Tidal estuary, the Hudson is a tidal estuary, and not a river, all the way up to Troy. Which is correct? --Spikey 15:14, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Both are correct. It's a true river, having a fresh-water source. It's also a tidal estuary in its lower stretch with a counterflow of salt water. But up to Troy? Not nearly, the salt water line rarely goes north of Poughkeepsie, IIRC. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * My mistake! It says Troy feels the tidal pulse, not that the salt water goes upstream that far.  Never mind. :) --Spikey 20:34, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * I live in Albany and I've heard it said that the Hudson here is a "freshwater tidal estuary." The Wikipedia entry on estuary doesn't include this concept, in part because I think the Hudson is unusual in that it its freshwater feels the tides from roughly Poughkeepsie up to the dam at Troy. --69.207.33.242 13:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The lower 3 feet of the Hudson River IS salt water all the way up to the port of Albany-Rensselaer. Salt water is heavier than fresh water which is why its at the bottom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.78.243.25 (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Lackings of the Article
The article lacks mention of the GE controversy surrounding dredging... A pretty significant issue. Also, it lacks mention of strategic value of the river concerning the Revolutionary War/French Indian war. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.55 (talk • contribs).


 * Then add it! Pjbflynn 18:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

along its southern terminus
I don't understand this phrase, is it refering to the mouth of the river in the south? Or the southern of it's two tributaries in the north? The phrase seems to imply both, with "southern [of the two]" implying the former and "terminus" the latter. SGGH speak! 21:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Printable page
Something in this page causes Netscape 7.2 to crash. Unfortunately, I can't get any more detailed than that. — Loadmaster 01:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Pollepel Island
Anyone know how to pronounce Pollepel Island? (There isn't much traffic on that page.) kwami (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Original Name
Currently the article contradicts itself. First, it says the original name is the Mauritius River. Soon after, it says the original name is the Tappan Zee. So which is the correct original name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandallB (talk • contribs) 13:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right-- Tappan Zee was (and is) the name of a part of the river, not the whole thing. I have pulled the sentence in question. Thanks, -- Mwanner | Talk 15:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand the name given for the Hudson River in Tuscarora, it is the same word that the Schenectady wikipedia article gives for Schenectady in Tuscarora. So is the same word used for both places? Besides that point, what is the point in putting in the Tuscarora name for the Hudson anyways? The Tuscarora came to New York from North Carolina long after white people had come, so it's the same as putting in the Chinese word for the Hudson River. That's my opinion. If people want to keep the Tuscarora word sure, but I'd like to know if that is the real word and not just the word for Schenectady. Camelbinky (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

North River?
I grew up on the Hudson, and I'm a geography buff, and I have never heard of the Hudson referred to as the North River. This might be a historical term, but it is absolutely not still in local usage.71.106.97.72 23:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say it's still current in everyday speech, but the Amtrak tunnels are still known technically as the North River Tunnels, there's a North River Sewage Treatment Plant in Harlem, etc., so it's still alive in a technical sense. It seems to have survived in the vernacular into the early-to-mid-20th century. Choess 15:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To qualify: the *estuary* of the Hudson was/is referred to as the North River. North of the New Jersey line, the usage may have gone off much sooner. Choess 15:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The name North River is used to this day by commercial mariners (i.e. tugs, pilots, etc.). You never hear anyone on the radio referring to the Hudson River. I added a line to that effect. Pjbflynn 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like a legitimate reference for the use of North River as a name that is still used today, other than someone saying "it is used by commercial mariners on the radio". How do you cite that in an article? Do you have an article, book, newspaper article, other encyclopedia, magazine, ANYTHING on the web? (other than the many places online that just copy and paste from wikipedia and then people go to those websites and use THEM as the citation of what was in wikipedia first, and yes I've seen people do that to legitimize their ideas) I'm not saying commercial mariners dont use the term, I'm just saying that wikipedia guidelines dont care if it is true or not, it must be VERIFIABLE.Camelbinky (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Islands in the Hudson River
I've been considering doing articles for most of the major islands in the Mohawk and the Hudson Rivers. Also for islands that no longer exist (I've already done Castle Island, Schodack Island State Park covers that island, and Green Island already has an article for the village/town which used to be an island prior to I-787 construction). There are no articles about Peebles, Van Schaick, Simmons, Lower Patroon (though there is information about it on the article on Patroon Island Bridge and a great map showing where the island was). I'm thinking there are enough islands of importance to make articles about that we could even set up an "islands of the hudson and its tributaries" category (with a shorter snappier name of course), anyone willing to help? Camelbinky (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

-Spanish Explorer at Hudson river 1525- Hello the article is a lot of interesting, and I think to improve the information about the River's history, you could talk about the Verrazano's expedition, and  about the not very well-known expedition commanded by the Spaniard explorer Esteban Espinosa. His expedition left of La Coruña's port in September of 1524 on his ship "La Anunciata", a caravel, and reach the Hudson river in 1525. Espinosa named the river "San Antonio".

My sources: -http://bartomeus.blogspot.com/2008/06/costa-este.html -History Channel Thank you and my best regards for all

Carlos Reyes Monter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.92.159.121 (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hudson Plane crash
I'm not sure if everyone knows this right now, but there is a crash right now (4:15 local time) It took off at 3:26 PM local time on the 15 of January. I'm not sure if this should go here or not, but oh well. 69.125.178.180 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I read this on BBC News. I'm guessing at some point it will have its own article here, but I don't know how long people normally wait to start this kind of article. I'm not even sure how much info is out there yet. Sky83 (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect it will eventually get its own article. One has already been created, although it was subsequently deleted. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's up now, here. Sky83 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight 1549

 * Captain Sullenberger, a pilot of US Airways flight 1549 became first water lander into Hudson River

Is that true? The first plane to crash or crashland into the Hudson? The reference provided seems of low quality since there are spelling errors everywhere, and it doesn't say that this was the first. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I took it out, it wasn't even supported by the citation given. Kmusser (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Original Name of the River
The article contradicts iself in the first two paragraphs. It reads: "The Hudson River was originally named the Mauritius River, which is claimed to be the name given by Hudson in honor of Prince Maurice of Nassau." In the very next paragraph it reads: "The Hudson was originally named the 'North River' by the Dutch, who named the Delaware River the 'South River.'" Which is it? Todd Gallagher (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does the image of the river TAKE OVER the ENTIRE article?
Someone fix this NOW! I tried to visit the page and at first I thought it was a direct link to the image itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.231.154 (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge from North River (New York-New Jersey)
North River (New York-New Jersey) refers to the same geographical feature as this article. Its content is partially redundant to this aritcle. As such, I propose that content from North River (New York-New Jersey) be merged to this article and that North River (New York-New Jersey) become a redirect to this article. Thoughts? Cheers. --02:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not in favor The name seems to have historical value and it is hard to make sense of things like North River Tunnels & c without an independent article. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 03:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason that North River (New York-New Jersey) couldn't redirect to a section like Hudson River. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But the name is still in use. If the name did not refer to other things, your solution would be fine, but, since it does, I'm opposed not in favor of merging the two articles. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a distinct waterway and an important portion of the Port of New York and New Jersey which provides its name to the North River Piers and other maritime features of the Port. (Centpacrr (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Please explain how this is a distinct waterway form the rest of the river. As for naming, the Hudson Tubes and THE Tunnel both cross the same body of water.  This can go back-and-forth all day with names.  There is no point.  They are two names for the same thing.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a distinct entity in the same way that Tappan Zee is distinct; in addition to being an alternative name for the entire Hudson, North River is also a name sometimes used for a very specific section of the Hudson. Read the North River (New York-New Jersey) article for edification on this point.--Father Goose (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's an abundance of information in that article specific to the historical and continuing use (and definition) of the term "North River".  There'd be no place to put it all in this article, and there's no reason to delete any of that info either.  Perfectly appropriate sub-article, per WP:SPLIT.--Father Goose (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is there "no room"? WP:PAPER. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UNDUE and WP:SIZE. The amount of information in the North River article that is specifically about either the term "North River" or the geographical entity "North River" (meaning the southern Hudson) would be out of place in an article meant to be about the Hudson River in general.  The two articles merged would also be above the 30KB recommended by WP:SIZE.--Father Goose (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support. It is the same geographic feature. If the idea is that its a past name and therefore history on the past name somehow cant find "room" then we'd have to create separate articles for the Hudson's other historical names as well, such as Mauritius. Does the Delaware River have a separate article for when it was called the South River? How many other rivers out there had a different name in the past and dont have a separate article. Isnt this the reason there is a "history" section in articles?Camelbinky (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One difference is that the name 'North River' is still in use.--RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If two pages worth of information could be written about the Mauritius, or the South River, then it'd be pretty sensible to put that information on a page separate from Hudson River or Delaware River. For instance, we have a separate page for the term "Big Apple", because it contains more detail about that term than would be appropriate for the main article New York City.
 * However -- you are also overlooking the fact that North River is not just "another name for the same feature", but also a name sometimes used in reference to a different feature: a subsection of the Hudson River, in much the same way that Tappan Zee is a subsection of the Hudson River.
 * Finally, you seem to be not taking into account that Wikipedia arranges its articles according to "subject", not according to "geographic feature". As a historical term, "North River" is not the same subject as "Hudson River", nor is it necessarily the same geographic entity, as I outlined above.  Trying to cram both subjects together into one article would produce one poorer article in place of two better articles.--Father Goose (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Continue to Oppose. While "North River" may be an "historic" name for the entire 300+ mile Hudson River, it is certainly not archaic for the very much shorter southernmost section of the waterway covered in the North River article, and especially regarding the approximately eleven mile portion from the George Washington Bridge to Upper New York Bay. The name appears on many current maps and nautical charts, and is commonly used by mariners plying this part of New York Harbor. The piers on the West side of Manhattan (25-68; 72-99) are also all referred to using the naming format of "Pier (#) North River." There is no longer any similar usage of the term "South River" with regard to the Delaware River ports in Philadelphia, Camden, Chester, Wilmington, etc, and therefore appropriately there is no separate article. That, however, is not the case with the name "North River" with regard to the Hudson which is a designation that is still in continuous active use as a distinct waterway and thus the article should also be retained as a separate entry as it has been for more than five years. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
 * I'd like to know why you say it is a "distinct feature"? It cant very well be "distinct" if they are the same river. Yes the Tappan Zee is a feature of the Hudson, but is not "distinct" from the river. Maybe I'm just not understanding what you mean by distinct, I take it to mean it is a separate and unique feature exclusive of the thing you are saying it is distinct from. So it seems this is a semantic problem of your usage of the word distinct. There are a lot of maps of many places around the world that continue to put historical names on their maps, names that are no longer used in normal speech, I dont consider that to be a good reliable source, if you had a nationally recognized map company name doing it, that would be different, Rand McNally for instance. The Hudson River is an estuary south of the Federal Dam and technically not a river (or at most a "submerged river"), but no one has ever thought it necessary to split the article into Hudson River and Hudson River Estuary. At least these two things are geographically different in structure. North River is simply another name, it isnt used exclusive of Hudson River. The part of the river you say is the North River is STILL called the Hudson River. Yes, there are structures, piers, tunnels, etc using the North River name, because of its historic considerations I would argue instead of being named for a current usage. There are many instances of this on the Hudson, at Albany there is the Patroon Island Bridge even though that island no longer exists, and pilots, the port authorities, and the corp of engineers all refer to islands that have long ago been connected to the mainland and are no longer islands. Alot of places, cities, etc have antique names that are continued to be used in the names of buildings with those places (Fort Orange and Beverwyck are continued as usage for place/buildings/parks within Albany, but no one would argue Beverwyck is a common name today for that city). I see nothing in your arguments that show North River has anything that makes it unique from Hudson River, the plane that crashed was referred to as crashing in the Hudson, not the North River. If you can answer these following questions perhaps I will learn something new that will change my mind- 1- Definite boundaries (from multiple sources agreeing and not your or other peoples opinion)? 2- What geographic attributes make this unique? 3- Is there information that is unique in the North River article that is not in the Hudson River article already, or can realistically be put in it if someone wanted to? 4- Any (modern) newspaper articles, books, magazines, etc calling this section the North River; exclusive of saying Hudson River as well?Camelbinky (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I recommend you actually read the North River article, and its sources, for the answers to those questions.--Father Goose (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I did as you recommend and there is nothing in the article that addresses my questions or concerns. I assume your plan is to defeat the proposed merge simply based on getting the most number of people to come and vote opposed instead of actually having a debate and defending your position. Having the most number of votes may "win" your position but doesnt make it the correct position, just because a majority of editors want something doesnt make the majority correct, it simply perpetuates things that make irrelevant the wikipedia guidelines, because a majority decided to ignore them. Many of those sources in the article do NOT mention the words "North River" and have NOTHING to do with the North River as a name for the Hudson, either today or in the past. There is no definite boundaries, no geographic attributes that define what the North River is as something different than the Hudson River (whereas the Tappan Zee does meet those criteria), I have not seen any modern sources that call that part of the river the North River exclusively against saying also Hudson River, there is no information in the article that is not already in the Hudson River article or that I cant find a ready place to incorporate it. The name North River appears to be today the usage of a technical group, and that DOES NOT meet wikipedia guidelines why there should be separate articles precluding a merge. I encourage everyone to read wikipedia guidelines why and why not articles should be split or merged. There is nothing so far that I can see that would prevent a successful merge. When there is someone willing to DEBATE instead of "read the article" as your answer to my questions feel free to address problems and state your points. At least I am stating points and positions and finding faults in the opposition trying to convince the opposition and those that are neutral (though I may be unsuccessful), thereby making this a debate; anyone wish to join a real debate? If not then someone just close out this merger "discussion" right now and let the majority win.Camelbinky (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't tried to drum up any support for my views aside from commenting here. I've made my points, you've made yours, and we're still not seeing eye to eye.
 * But I think maybe I'm finally starting to understand the source of your distaste toward the North River article. Is it that you see it as somehow legitimizing the "North River" as something other than the Hudson and/or a portion of it?  I think the article does a good job of explaining that it is not a separate river, although sometimes it has meant a specific part of the Hudson with a lot of history specifically united to the North River name -- and so we document that history.
 * To lessen the possibility of readers thinking that the North River is something other than the Hudson river, I've been bold and renamed the article to North River (Hudson River), which eliminates the implicit suggestion that the North River is somehow geographically separate from the Hudson. The North River is nonetheless historically a different subject from the Hudson: it is, informally speaking, the now-mostly-defunct port and shipping lane west of/on the west side of Manhattan, which happens to be geographically coterminous with the lower Hudson.  That subject deserves an article separate from our Hudson River article, since it is a related subject that is nonetheless not the same subject.--Father Goose (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Father Goose on this and the reasons he gives to retain the renamed North River (Hudson River) as a separate article. As for some current uses of the name "North River" you can see, for instance, sites relating to the North River Waste Water Pollution Control Plant, North River Tunnels Ventilation Facility , the location of the North River Tunnels , North River Piers , and some recent stories including the quotes "I was warming up my boat, the M/V LT Michael P. Murphy, today at Linclon Harbor Yacht Club, getting it ready for the big freeze tomorrow when I heard a call on the radio “Airplane down in the North River”" , and "Steering the Adirondack toward the Hudson's far shore in Hoboken, N.J., about two-thirds of a mile away, Captain Freitas referred to the Hudson as the North River..." . Since it was created in February, 2004, this article appears to have existed very comfortably as a separate and distinct entry from the much broader Hudson River piece without any previous complaint. I don't see any compelling reason to change that, especially since this short section of the overall waterway has a quite different function and character (as a major oceangoing seaport) from the other 300+ miles of the Hudson. It is also continues to be commonly referred to as "North River" by the mariners who ply its waters on a daily basis. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Comment: I probably would have supported this if it weren't that the Hudson River article is already 32K. The spin off from the Hudson River aticle is currently very clear.  As a side note the renaming of this article is an improvement but I wish all 30+ articles linking to the old article had been changed.Americasroof (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes to the person who stated I had a biased agenda- you figured me out, as someone who has no stake in the maintaining or eliminating of this article I'm the one that is biased whereas people who have put time and effort in editing this article are the ones that are not biased...of course, it all makes sense now that you have shown my evil plan. If you've been instrumental in editing the North River article I'm thinking you probably have a case of WP:OWN going on and are reluctant to see information you put in subsumed into a larger article that others are working on. I think I will start referring to the Mohawk River as the Happy Bunny Trail and buy a couple buildings, put up some docks, and start naming everything I own as Happy Bunny Trail Condos, Happy Bunny Trail Piers, etc and then I too can start a Happy Bunny Trail article about the Mohawk River, I just will get some people I know to go on a CB radio and start saying "I'm taking my yacht out on the Happy Bunny Trail today" a bunch of times, since you have some hillbilly in a boat being quoted as a legitimate source, I do believe I saw that in a list of acceptable sources for wikipedia, "quotes from some guy on a boat on a radio". Those places you mention are named the North River because it is a HISTORIC NAME OF THE ENTIRE HUDSON RIVER, not because they are located along a modern-day geographic feature named the North River. The nerve of people downstate to think they have a monopoly on things that span to upstate never ceases to amaze me. The North River/Hudson River has never and is not today a feature that is only to be seen in the city of NY metro area. You show your ignorance of the Hudson River when you state that the "North River" is somehow unique in that unlike the rest of the Hudson it is a major seaport. Um, that is WRONG and shows more downstate arrogance, the Port of Albany-Rensselaer is an ocean seaport (Hudson is an estuary, therefore it is an ocean seaport, not a riverport), and it is a major one at that being the 2nd largest port in the state of New York (much larger than Buffalo's), it has THE LARGEST harbor crane in the entire state and the largest grain silo east of the Mississippi (sucks that the City gets upstaged by a lil' ole' upstate city huh?). I'm a member of the Ports wikiproject, and a member of its assessment team at that, I know my stuff about ports especially along the Hudson River and New York Harbor. Most port facilities arent even along the Hudson in the city of New York anyways, most PANYNJ facilities are in NJ or Brooklyn or the East River. Even this article (and/or its sources) state that the piers in the "North River" are mostly abandoned or being redeveloped for non-shipping uses. If this article was to somehow expand to include the history of the ENTIRE North River then PERHAPS I could go along with North River (Hudson River). But to say the North River is a feature just along the City is arrogant at the least. You state this article is for putting forth the history of the river as the North River. Ok...where is the information about Poughkeepsie, Kingston, Albany, Troy, Waterford? Those places existed when the river actually WAS named North River. Where is the information about Verazzano and Hudson? Even if you add that, that is all information that is or should be in the article on the Hudson River anyways and therefore you are only duplicating information! As for the piers you mention, even the article states that the usage of the name North River for those piers has faded out of usage, you have a list of each of the piers and the fact that its a list of trivia basicallytherefore is not up to wikipedia guidelines and should be eliminated. The article really needs to go through a formal peer (or pier, get it? haha) review by someone who has NOT edited the article and therefore is not biased, perhaps someone from the ports wikiproject (I can recommend someone). Even the sources stated in the article about those piers do not call them the North River Piers or even mention the word North River. I too can cite a bunch of articles about Mohawk River places in my new article about Happy Bunny Trail and say they support my new article even though they dont mention that name. There is a Fort Orange Club and a Beverwyck Park in Albany, so obviously people today still refer to Albany as Fort Orange or Beverwyck according to your logic about place names being used to support the fact that North River is still a name. I'm still waiting for someone to answer my four questions. I must assume they havent been answered because you cant legitimitize your opinions according to wikipedia guidelines on when and why articles should be merged or not. The use of a term or word among a technical group (such as river pilots in this case) is not a reason to create a separate article the technical term should be a redirect, read the freakin' guidelines! Your opinions dont hold water, at least I'm leaving an open mind, I'm just not hearing anything from anyone that is even meant to sway me, no one seems willing to debate. The answers I get is "I casted my vote, this is why; and you casted your vote and you said why", well, that's not a debate, a debate is "this is my vote, this is why, and this is why your vote is wrong and your reason is bullcrappy"-THAT is a debate. This is a discussion, not a voting contest. Somewhere along the way wikipedians forgot this, I suppose, and these things have degenerated into beauty contests of "lets count the votes" instead of actually judging the merits of the proposal and what qualifies under the guidelines. Either this article fits the criteria of wikipedia guidelines for an article that deserves to continue to be split off or it does not and should be merged. I urge those that oppose merge to look at the guidelines and state your reasons based on the guidelines why this article should stay. I also restate that I would like answers to my questions. If a debate on the merits based on wikiguidelines cant or wont be done then just close this out already! There is no reason in having a discussion. As for the updating the links on the wikilinks from other pages I have this to say to whoever did the move- read the freakin' guidelines on moving a page, one of the very first steps it asks you to do is to check the "what links here" and make sure that you go to each page and update the wikilink. If people just simply followed the guidelines when doing things instead of just doing what they feel like!Camelbinky (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I gather that one is to understand from the above that this whole kerfuffle is actually about: a) regional offense taken with regard to "downstate" vs "upstate" arrogance, and; b) objection to some sort of blindness to the arguments of Camelbinky because of perceived "ownership" of the North River article. For the record I do not live in, have any connection to, nor have any prejudice for or against either downstate or upstate New York. I have also never once edited the North River article, nor did I rename it. I have given my reasons why I feel this article (which has existed for over five years without compliant) should not be merged into the broader Hudson River entry. Others, of course, are free to disagree. It is my understanding, however, that a major change such as proposed (merger of the articles) requires a clear consensus to do so, and nothing close to that has been achieved. The very fact that "North River" is a name that is still in active use (even if just by a "technical" group of its users), and that piers, tunnels, water treatment plants, etc, still carry the name as well, seems to strongly mitigate in favor of retaining the separate entry. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC))
 * First off- dont "assume" or "understand" or in any other way put words in my mouth PLEASE. As you can see I am quite outspoken, I say what I mean and if I dont come out and say something then I obviously dont mean it. Second- you seem to not understand the wikiguidelines on why and when something should be merged or split. you say that since it is still used, even if its only be a technical group, that is enough to keep it as a article. THAT IS IN CONTRADICTION TO WIKIGUIDELINES. Can we PLEASE, come to a consensus that we simply go by what the wikiguidelines say?! It seems those opposed to merger are afraid to even read the guidelines because then they have no leg to stand on. Someone quote SOMETHING from the guidelines that supports why this article should stay. Technical terms/names are to be redirects. That is a simple rule, and it applies in this case. I have given several examples over and over of how historical names for places continue to be used the world over for places that no longer use the historical name itself. Plus- THE PIERS ARE NO LONGER NAMED THE NORTH RIVER PIERS. You obviously havent read the article or my comments if you continue to say they are! Please everyone, read both the North River and the Hudson River articles, including the sources listed on the North River article. Then read the wikiguidelines on mergers. IF after all that you still agree it should be seperate. Well, I disagree with you but at least I'll respect that you did your homework. Everyone who is opposed comes off as if they havent done anyone of those things. I am still also waiting for someone to debate and answer my questions. I think this is ridiculous. There was a time when these things were actually used as they were intended, as debate and discussion forums with open minded people. I'm open minded, its just no one is confronting and debating so theres no way my mind can change without new information and people testing my opinions to see if they are correct. I'm trying to debate and all I get is closed minded people who dont even show that they have read the article and its sources! Many of the sources dont even mention the name North River! And using a quote from somebody's uncle Bob on a CB is NOT a verifiable RELIABLE source. This is ridiculous. If you cant even defend your arguments and debate you dont even deserve a vote. If you have never edited this article, are not from this area, and obviously have not researched this article in even a passing way seeing as how you STILL say things in your comments that are contradicted by the article itself, why are you even voting? As for your "five years and no one complained", well jeez it ran under the radar of most users is all, BECAUSE no one would ever care to look up North River seeing as how everyone would look for Hudson River. As I've said before if you are going to have a North River article the former North River Piers section needs to be taken out and the history section expanded on the ENTIRE North River history of when it was ACTUALLY called the North River. Basically after that this makes the article a copy the history section of the Hudson River. All I see as your reason to keep the article is that YOU CLAIM it is still used (I have shown that a technical name is NOT a reason to keep, wikiguidelines are CLEAR, admit you want to throw them out then or show me I am WRONG, ie- debate me!), and two- you say it is a name things around it use. Well I have shown why for that as well! You choose to ignore things that are facts and make up your own go ahead. Using false propaganda as reasons to ignore wikiguidelines. Nice. And it is false propaganda because you have continously stated the piers as being one of the places with the name and the article itself has said that they are NO LONGER called the North River Piers, that is a HISTORIC name for them. This actually bolsters my opinion the North River is a historic name for the Hudson. You should do your homework on this river before you as an outsider to the area claim to even have the knowledge to make an informed decision. Which your statements show it is not informed. READ THINGS! Or as Handy in the Tick cartoons liked to say "READ A BOOK!"Camelbinky (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Phew! :-) --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 03:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't freak out because we disagree with you, or because you disagree with us. We're not obliged to convince you of something you apparently refuse to consider. Also, don't insist that everyone else is violating policy when the policies in question do not back up your claims. Believe it or not, the relevant page here is WP:NOBOOK. --Father Goose (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A Final Comment: I have indeed read the Wikipedia statement on guidelines and found it to be the following:
 * Wikipedia has developed a body of policies and guidelines to further our goal of creating a free encyclopedia. Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature.
 * Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus. Both need to be approached withcommon sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Those who edit in good faith, are civil, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment.
 * I was not the one who introduced the claim that it is only used by a "technical group" (that was Camelbinky above: "The name North River appears to be today the usage of a technical group,...(supra)" ), and so that's why I put that it in "quotes" in my comment. There does seem to me, however, to be considerable empirical evidence that the name North River is still in use by many mariners and others, and is still carried by (or used to refer to) many facilities along this waterway. That, in my humble opinion, makes it sufficiently notable to be worth recognition with an entry of its own.
 * While I have not edited the North River entry, I have very extensively contributed to the article on US Airways Flight 1549 which ditched there. I have also written for many years on a variety of transportation subjects including aviation, ships, and railroads (including a 445 page book on the First Transcontinental Railroad), and am the co-creator and operator of a now ten-year old, 10,000+ page website on U.S. railroad history. I only pointed out that I had not edited the North River article to show that I have no "ownership" interest in it, and that I do not live in New York (or have not since 1949 anyway) to indicate that I have no prejudice either for or against "upstate" and "downstate" New York. ( ''"Um, that is WRONG and shows more downstate arrogance,... (supra) )
 * What I offered were my thoughts (which is what was asked for by whomever it was who started this section in talk) and gave my reasons for them. I don't see anyplace in the Wikipedia policies or guidelines, however, that says once I have done so I am obligated to engage in extended "debate" with everyone who has a different view, and that a "failure" to do so means that I (or any other editor) doesn't "...even deserve a vote." Anyone, of course, is free to disagree with my views, but that does not mean that mine (or their's) have no value. They are just different.
 * One editor appears to believe that there must be a very high threshold to justify the existence of a separate North River entry. Others (myself included) feel that the fact that there is certainly empirical evidence that the name North River still has a palpable level of currency among people that use the waterway (see, for instance, The Great North River Tugboat Race and Competition), and that there are still many facilities that carry the name, is sufficient to justify such a stand alone article. To me that fully meets the "spirit" of the guidelines.
 * If at some later time a legitimate and real consensus is reached among editors that there is a compelling reason to change the entry's longtime status as a separate article, then it would presumably then meet the guidelines for merger. Until then -- for what my "vote" is worth -- I am still opposed to the articles being merged.(Centpacrr (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

Why does it being here for 5 years matter or mean anything? Why does things being named for it matter?! Does everything in the world have to change its name if the name it is named after changes ITS name?! Are we not allowed to name things after previous names for things, names that arent used for the original subject? You continue to use assertions that are beyond my comprehension. You claim that the North River is still a name used for the RIVER because it is a name that is still used for BUILDINGS that are near it...how does that justify that it is a true name for that part of the river? Plus, as I have said before, and as the article correctly points out- the name North River is no longer in use for the piers. So obviously it is a PAST historical name that has fallen out of use even though those who oppose a merger continue to say that it hasnt fallen out of use. As for your "not a book" citation, that itself is not a guideline or wikirule or anything other than a particular person deciding to write an opinion on a wikipedia page, it is what is called an "essay", much like the joke page of no angry mastadons. How about quoting from the guidelines on when a page should be merged? I didnt see anyone decide to do that. Frankly I'm done with this. If I had been the one to come across this page first I wouldnt have bothered starting this discussion, I wouldve quoted the relevant passages from the procedure for merging and have been BOLD and done the merger myself, in this case this article is a clear-cut case of duplication and didnt need this irrelevant "voting". I will begin to edit this article and the Hudson River article and add to the Hudson River article history section on the true history of when it REALLY was named the North River, I will add to the North River article the same information. I will remove from the North River article any unsourced or UNVERIFIABLE UNRELIABLE sourced information, and conform it to the criteria of what should and should not be in an article. When I am done then you can see how similar and redundant and duplicating the two articles are when ALL information for them is put in each one. I'm not doing anything to intentionally make them similar, I am simply adding information to each one that deserves to be in each one based on the topic they cover. If that results in them being pretty much duplicates that is not the fault of the information I put in, but rather the result of the topics being duplicates and bolsters the belief that they should in fact be merged. Two articles that are of different subjects should not have that problem, if they do then they are not two different articles. Its not possible to find verifiable and reliable sources to put information in potato chip and french fries to make the two articles pretty much duplicates, the fact that I can do that for these two articles is proof that they are too similar in topic. It is hilarious that the opposition to merger is also claiming that is wrong to quote or use wikipedia guidelines (there are NO RULES, only guidelines by the way), so I should be ignored. That's funny because father goose used wp:undue and wp:size as legitimizing why the two articles cant be merged. Which he (I apologize if you are not a he, I'm basing it on the name) is using faulty math simply adding the two articles sizes together. Some of the information is already in the Hudson River article to begin with and other info can be incorporated in history section without the need for a North River section, and two- the information on the piers is not even needed in this article let alone a Hudson River article, the information needs to be removed, if someone wants to talk about the FORMERLY NAMED North River Piers then start an article about the North River Piers, start an article titled List of things named after the North River, anything but North River, if you are going to have North River then I will include it to have the information on the history of the ENTIRE North River and stop this non-sense of it meaning a geographic modern-day area near the City, which it is not and never has been, its made up wikinonsense believed by those who think if an editor put it in then it must be true(Did you hear elephants are on the increase and not endangered, by the way?! It must be true, LOTS of people kept editing it in on wikipedia until they protected the page! So the consensus based on individuals voting would have come out in favor of keeping that info, but luckily those with brains knew it wasnt true.) You use this "five years the article has been here" claim alot like it matters, well I've been off and on editing to wikipedia for longer than that (yes, I've had different names over the years, never two at one time and never got a new one because of any admin problems or complaints) and I have seen how these discussions on mergers were originally a place of DISCUSSION and DEBATE, you dont have to debate, but SOMEONE should be willing to take up the claims of opposition and debate and debunk the other side, it used to be that way, now people are like you and just want to put in their vote and say whatever crazy claims they want. Instead of confronting and trying to spark a debate and looking like an ass (yes I look like an ass, I admit it) I could have simply voted and claim in my statement that Guiliani and Bloomberg both signed laws saying the North River would not be a legal name for the Hudson River and people would have believed me and voted saying "I support due to blah blah blah law blah blah per Camelbinky" because sheep are stupid. Alot of these comments on why people vote are the same thing, the CONSTANT mentioning of the North River piers when THE ARTICLE ITSELF says it is not a name used anymore is proof of sheepfollowing, because one person mentioned it, others do as well! Does anyone read the freakin article or the sources? The sources dont even support the article. When I do my thorough look and editing of the article any sources which dont support the claim of the North River as the name of the Hudson will be removed per wikiguidelines. It is ridiculous to have a source for this article which only refers to the river as the Hudson River and never mentions the North River or even better I love the source which even claims itself that the North River is "a former name for the Hudson River that has fallen out of use", that source in this article itself supports the claim for merger and refutes the reasoning of the opponents, and it is a source for the very article they are saving! Camelbinky (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A Final Final Comment: Thank you for your comments. However as the questions posed above appear to be largely rhetorical, and the arguments advanced basically circular in nature and dismissive of the views of any of others who have commented here, it seems unlikely that it would be fruitful to carry this discussion on any further other than to incorporate by reference the earlier thoughts and comments of myself and others as set forth above, acknowledge that you are not likely to ever agree with any of them, and leave it at that. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
 * How are my questions posed above rhetorical?! I have been begging for anyone to simply answer them and defend their "opinions" with FACTS, the "facts" you set forth are your opinions and NOT supported by either the article itself or the sources. What you are basically saying is that you dont believe you can change my mind, well give it a shot. You are saying you want to incorporate your thoughts and comments through references...ok...I dont know how you would do that other than gut and change the article itself with more useless references. Please, explain to me how the references in the article that do NOT mention the North River are legitimate references for anything in the article?! My questions are not rhetorical, they are for you to answer so I can try and understand your reasoning. Your reasonings are not ever backed up by FACTS, you think everyones opinion is equally legitimate. They arent. If your opinions are contradicted by facts then your opinions are wrong. Thats how the world works. Not everyone is entitled to hold an opinion. If your wrong, then your opinion is thrown out. Every been to a business meeting?!Camelbinky (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mildly oppose. North River (Hudson River) seems to be specifically about the historical use of the name (the explanation of "N.R." on the piers is particularly interesting; I've driven past those 1000's of times and never had a clue about that).  If Hudson River were a short article, I might feel more comfortable merging them, but Hudson River is already big enough that looking for reasonable ways to split out pieces of it into sub articles is already a concern.  Given all that, I don't see how leaving the two as distinct articles is a bad thing.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
So, thanks everyone for reminding me why I went on a wiki-vacation. So far there is no consensus, so I will propose an alternative: Rename the article to something like North River Port. This will identify that it is speaking about the former port facilities and not the geographical Hudson estuary. Existing material will be split between the North River Port article and the Hudson River article. Thoughts? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that would work as the North River (Hudson River) article relates not only to just the piers, but also to the entire geographic portion of the Hudson River estuary between the states of New York and New Jersey that runs from the Upper New York Bay up beyond the George Washington Bridge, the historic origins of its name, its current usages, etc. While historically important as the "home" over the years of many of the world's great passenger liners while in New York, the North River piers (25-99) represent just a small portion of the total facilities of the Port of New York and New Jersey as well as all the other things that make up the North River waterway and its environs. Also a Google search for the name "North River Port" as it relates to that section of the waterway returns no hits at all. With all due respect, I really don't see that a pressing case has been made to change the present status of the two complimentary Wikipedia articles as they now exist and are currently named. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
 * North River Port is a port in Russia. And I second Centpacrr's other points here.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Why bother messing with two perfectly good articles? What is to be gained?
 * Calamitybrook (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ChrisRuvolo! That's exactly what I said in one of my rants, but I'm sure it got lost in the complete frustration I've been having. Opposition continue to claim this is a perfectly good article. It's a perfectly good duplicate is what it is. If the opposition is that the name North River Port has no "hits" on google then just replace port with Piers. (I love how we are so reliant on the internet, if its not on the internet it must not exist...oh no! My full name seriously doesnt get any hits on Google so I must not exist either...my mom will be so disappointed). First off Cenpacrr, the formerly named North River Piers are not and never have been facilities fo the PANYNJ, as I've said I'm a member of the Port wikiproject and Ive worked on that article. Not every pier and port facility in NJ/NY is owned by PANYNJ, so please do your homework before saying its "just a small portion of the total facilities of the Port of New York and New Jersey", because your wrong, just like whoever said New York is the only major port along the Hudson, but like everything I've said you probably didnt believe me when I said that isnt true. Second you continue to state the North River is a geographic entity, 'PROVE IT because your references do NOT. I have constantly asked you why there are sources for this article that refer to the river as the Hudson and not the North. How do you use a source for the North River when the source doesnt use that name in the first place? I repeat that I will remove any sources and information in the article that are irrelevant. The North River Piers are no longer called the North River Piers and the article and the sources for the info in the article SAY SO, I dont know why people ignore info in the article and its sources. The info will be removed. I urge everyone to take this compromise of renaming this article to be about the former North River Piers and all the history info will be moved to the Hudson River article. The Hudson River along Manhattan is not called the North River. It's a fact, if you dont think it is, then PROVE IT. Information in an article that can not be backed up by VERIFIABLE, RELIABLE sources CAN be removed WITHOUT discussion, you cant just slap any old source on information you want if the source doesnt support the information or if the source can not be verified and shown to be RELIABLE. The opposition has not put forth even ONE reference source that states what the geographic distinction/boundaries/whatever of the North River are. This is not a rhetorical question, I would like an answer, where are the sources, reliable please, not some hillbilly on a CB it doesnt meet the criteria.
 * While the "North River Piers" (25-68; 72-99), which include some of the piers used by ocean liners that call at New York, may not be owned or operated by the PANYNJ, according to the Port Authority's own website, they are certainly located within the "Port of New York and New Jersey district" which is what I said above ( ...represent just a small portion of the total facilities of the Port of New York and New Jersey... ). I did not say they were facilities that were "owned and operated" by the "Port Authority" but they were "facilities of the Port" as a whole. While you have made it quite clear (as it is certainly your right) that the alternate name "North River" is not one that you either use or accept as anything other than an historic one, there is certainly also ample empirical evidence that there are those that still do (beyond even "hillbillies on a CB") currently use it in addition to (or even in place of) Hudson River for the portion of the waterway in question. Perhaps the world (and Wikipedia) would be a more to your liking if everything (including nomenclature) could be reduced to single absolutes which can be universally and unilaterally imposed without exception. Fortunately, however, that's just not the case ... nor, in my experience, has it ever been. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Another Alternative
I have maintained, and will change the article to reflect this if it is kept as an article, that I will agree for the article to remain IF the article is changed from its current format to being SPECIFICALLY about the ENTIRE HUDSON RIVER from the period it was ACTUALLY called the North River. That way Dutch colonial articles about places and people and events along the Hudson from back when it was called the North River could have a wikilink to this article and they'd actually find information on something other than the piers (which take up more than half this article). The piers need to go though, which is why there should be a specific article on them. So actually what I am proposing is not a merger but instead actually making a THIRD article. I object to this article stating that the North River is a term still used. That needs to go. Is that a compromise people can live with, keep this article about the history of North River and split a new North River Piers article?Camelbinky (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I certainly agree that the name "North River" is no longer in use for all 300+ miles of the Hudson River as a whole, it still clearly enjoys some palpable currency and legitimacy (even if it is not broad or common among all groups) as an additional and/or alternate name for that portion of the estuary in the vicinity of the Port of New York and New Jersey. That being the case (although you clearly disagree for you own reasons), it seems to me to deserve to be acknowledged and recognized with the existing North River (Hudson River) entry that gives the history of the name and describes the portion of the waterway to which it is still applied to one degree or another. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
 * (ec)Mildly oppose Seems to me we have a nice article about a specific thing that provides useful information. Can't see any reason to change it at all. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 22:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Information about the history of the (entire) Hudson River from the Dutch era or any other period belongs in Hudson River. A separate article about the North River piers would be possible, although a lot of the history of the term "North River" is tied up with those piers.  "North River" is two things: an alternative name for the Hudson (that subject can be explained in the space of about a paragraph); and the name associated with the historical commercial waterfront on the west side of Manhattan.  That second subject encompasses the piers, the river and/or harbor, and probably some of the waterfront on the New Jersey side as well, because much of the trade coming into the North River piers was being brought over on car floats from rail termini on the New Jersey side.  Prior to the construction of the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad tunnels, and later, the Holland Tunnel, a North River transit was also the only means for passengers to get from the mainland to Manhattan.  The term "North River" is intimately connected with this maritime period and locus, so I think the subject and the name of the North River (Hudson River) article is just right.  The article needs much more info about the historical commercial waterfront, however.  I've been researching that.  It's also inappropriate to strike all mention of "current usage" of the North River term, because it is still currently used -- most actively by local mariners, but also in historical place names.  The North River article explains these facts, in a way that I hope strikes the right balance between "not used anymore..." and "except when it is".-- (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that Father Goose has it just about spot on. I support that approach which acknowledges both the historic and current usages of "North River" and describes why this section of the waterway has been and continues to be so important. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Ok, I love how I am the one accused by opposers such as Centpacrr as not listening and not wanting to compromise. I put forth that compromise, just wanted to see if anyone was willing to compromise, didnt ask for a vote, dont need a vote to go ahead and do what I proposed anyways. Have the opponents said anything other than NO NO NO or put forth a compromise? Look, a consensus is not needed to split off the North River Piers and completely remove that information from this article, I dont need permission or a vote, dont know why a vote is going on about my compromise, once I create the North River Piers article you can bring a merger proposal up on that page and see how far you get, because I'll just do what you did here, refuse to compromise and kill it by just saying NO NO NO to everything and putting forth lies. You still dont get it- the North River article itself says the name is not in use for the piers or the waterfront ANYMORE As well for the editor who seems to think the or the Hudson River is still used as a major shipping depot PLEASE read the PANYNJ article and learn that the North River Piers were never and ARE NOT today a part of PANYNJ and stop saying they are, there are NO PANYNJ piers on the "North River" as you define it! You can claim this is all my "opinion" but you are wrong! At least I do research and write about things I know, if you dont believe me then look it up and see! People keep opposing and keep trotting out the same information that is not supported in the article you are trying to save! By now I must assume you simply know your lying. You trot out that there are places along the river that use the North River in their name, how does that support that the North River itself is a name for that part of the Hudson? It doesnt, apparently no one is allowed to use names for places other than the current names of places near it. Everything in a city must apparently be named for current names. The LA Lakers play in Staples Center, therefore another name for Los Angeles must be Staples. So can I start an article titled "Staples (Los Angeles)" and use as sources references that dont say the word staples in the entire reference? Because that is EXACTLY what we have here. An article that has a bunch of sources that dont even refer to the piers let alone the river as North River. Ignorance and lack of research is evident in opponents claims such as that there are no other major ports on the Hudson other than NYC, no apology or "oh, sorry, I didnt know that, I do now" or anything, just a bunch of "well, that's your opinion", opinions and facts are different. If something is true it is a fact, you cant just go around stating things and saying "well, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it" if you are wrong your WRONG, there are facts and can you please stick to FACTS? No one has apparently felt the need to confront me on anything. If you dont have the time to read the article and read the sources themselves then dont bother spending time commenting and voting on something you dont know about. I am going to spin off the North River Piers as an article. I will edit the North River (Hudson River) article to reflect the history of the North River when it was called the North River, any information in the North River article about it still being called today as the North River will be removed unless it has a legitimate reliable verifiable source. I dont need a consensus to do that, it a right of any contributor to wikipedia. That is where it will stand. You dont want to compromise or debate or show any proof for your opinions that you state as facts when the article you support contradicts your own statements. Show proof for your statements that this article deserves to be saved and is "well written", which doesnt matter if its well-written or not, its a bunch of baloney slapped with sources that dont have anything to do with what they are supposed to be referencing, that is not an opinion, that is a fact you can read them PLEASE. It will be rewritten and split I'm done. Have your vote.Camelbinky (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Am I to understand that it is it your position that the "Port Authority of New York and New Jersey" and the "Port of New York and New Jersey" are the same thing? (I don't believe they are.) What I said was that the piers in question are facilities that are a part of the Port district (which is the same thing the PANYNJ web site says), not that they are facilities that are owned and/or operated by the "Port Authority" which I am aware that they are not.


 * You have made it very clear that, for your own reasons, you feel very strongly that "North River" is only an historic name and thus has no place in contemporary usage. You are of course free to personally never use it yourself. Surely, however, that should not mean that you are proposing that others such as local residents, mariners, businesses, organizations, facilities, et al, that are associated with or ply the waterway are prohibited from using it. (Or, for that matter, that groups or persons who have no formal association with the waterway should be proscribed as well.) The name is clearly still carried or used in the names of tunnels, a waste water treatment plant , a large annual tugboat competition , and yes some even still use to refer to the piers . Father Goose, who appears to have already been a long time contributor to the North River (Hudson River) entry, has volunteered to further research, expand, and source it. As he seems to have a far more objective view of the subject than anyone else in here, as a compromise I suggest that everyone else back off and allow him to do that. When that has been completed, if necessary this discussion can then be reopened to iron out the remaining disagreements (if any). (Centpacrr (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Ok, first about the difference of the port district and the port authority. As I have mentioned on several occasions I am a member of the port wikiproject and have worked on many port articles including PANYNJ. The difference between the port district and the port authority is that the port district is the area in which the port authority is legally allowed to operate. The district is not a unique separate entity. ANYTHING within the certain mile radius circle centered on the Statue of Liberty is in the district (sorry I dont have the exact number on hand, check the article). Within that district the authority has the right to seize by eminent domain or build or buy or do manage anything that its specific insterstate compact charter between the states of NY and NJ allow it to do. There are no separate entities, one is the name of the public authority the other is the name of its jurisdiction. That is why one redirects to the other and does not have a separate article in wikipedia, but according to the logic of why North River should exist it would seem that you would have to then support the splitting of the PANYNJ article. Now on to something I keep trying to inform Centpacrr about- just because there are places along the river that have that name that does not mean that the river itself has that name! Why do you think that there being a waste water treatment plant using that name means that the river uses that name?! Why cant things have names for things that arent named that anymore?! We cant use HISTORICAL names when naming things?! That doesnt bolster your claim! I'm not waiting for anyone to do their own editing. When I have time North River Piers will become its own article, I will change the history section to be about when the North River was really the North River. A source from 1920 that is used as a reference for the statement in the article that the North River is still used "today" is not a reliable source for saying it is still used TODAY, we are not in the 1920's, 89 years after a source says "today" can not be used to justify that it is still used TODAY in 2009, I'm sorry it doesnt cut it as a reliable verifiable source for the statement in the article. This is just one of the many many many sources that dont back up the statement in which it is supposed to be referencing. Any source that doesnt mention the North River as being the name of the North River is ridiculous, and this article has many of those. WP:BOLD and other rights of wikipedia editors to edit within the guidelines are not suspended just because a one or a few or even a majority of people decide to appoint an "article czar" to rewrite the article. The opponents of any change are being obstructionists and are taking ownership of the article.Camelbinky (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't really disagree about the piers not being owned and/or operated by PANYNJ, and I did not say that they were. What I did say was that they are within the"Port of New York and New Jersey district" which is the exact language used to describe them on the PANYNJ website.


 * As for the name "North River" I repeat that I do not claim that it is any longer the "official" or "primary" name of the waterway, only that there is considerable empirical evidence that at a minimum this term is still in both palpable colloquial use locally as an alternate or additional name, and that it is carried by or used in the names of various facilities, events, or organizations associated with the waterway such as the North River Tunnels, the North River Waste Water Treatment Plant (which, by the way, was opened just 16 years ago in 1993) , the North River piers , The Great North River Tugboat Race and Competition , and the North River Power Squadron as just a few examples.This is also the definition of the term as it appears in many current dictionaries including The Random House Dictionary (2009) ( "part of the Hudson River between NE New Jersey and SE New York." ) , The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2006) ( "An estuary of the Hudson River between New Jersey and New York City flowing into Upper New York Bay." ) , Webster's New World College Dictionary (2005) ( "The lower course of the Hudson River, between New York City & NE N.J." ), and The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2009) ( "An estuary of Hudson River between SE New York & NE New Jersey" ).


 * I am constrained to observe, based on his statements above, that the only editor who seems bent on appointing an "article czar" (apparently himself) is Camelbinky. ( "I will edit the North River (Hudson River) article to reflect the history of the North River when it was called the North River, any information in the North River article about it still being called today as the North River will be removed unless it has a legitimate reliable verifiable source. I dont need a consensus to do that, it (is) a right of any contributor to wikipedia. That is where it will stand." ... " When I have time North River Piers will become its own article, I will change the history section to be about when the North River was really the North River." .) My suggested compromise, on the other hand, is to allow "Father Goose, who appears to have already been a long time contributor to the North River (Hudson River) entry, (and) has volunteered to further research, expand, and source it (to do so) as he seems to have a far more objective view of the subject than anyone else in here... (and) ... that everyone else back off and allow him to do that. When that has been completed, if necessary this discussion can then be reopened to iron out the remaining disagreements (if any)." ' That hardly constitutes "appointing" an "article czar."


 * I am curious, by the way, why during the five years that the North River (Hudson River) entry has existed on Wikipedia (since February, 2004) that Camelbinky (especially as a member of the WikiProject Ports) never found anything objectionable enough in the article to make a single comment, edit, contribution, or deletion to it until just a week ago? Just wondering. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC))

Saying the piers are within the port district is like saying "wall street is in the port district" or "staten island" is within the port district. EVERYTHING WITHIN A 25 MILE RADIUS CENTERED ON THE STATUE OF LIBERTY IS WITHIN THE FREAKIN DISTRICT, IT DOESNT MATTER IF ITS PORT RELATED OR NOT. Having the right of any editory in wikipedia I have the right to edit any and all articles as long as I do so within the established guidelines and dont vandalize. Goose can edit whatever he/she wants as well. WP:BOLD encourages everyone. What does five years have to do with anything? Do you know how big wikipedia is? A couple months ago I changed Latham Circle which had been a redirect to Latham Circle Mall for something close to 4 or 5 years into an actual article about the traffic circle. Should it have stayed a redirect because it had been that way for 5 years?! What about name changes and disambiguations of pages that have had that name for many more than 5 years, but along comes an article of similar notability and things need to be moved and pages need to give up their name. Syracuse, New York is a good example of that and the hatred that still to this day goes on between the editors of that page and of Syracuse, Sicily over the ny loss of Syracuse to a disamb page and syr. sicily still wants to be the one with the Syracuse name. There are constant debates on whether or not to change New York City to New York and move New York to New York state and many other alternatives that keep coming up. Once an article is created it cant be changed, is that what your saying? Why as a member of Ports wikiproject would I have ever seen fit to visit an article on North River when I would always look up Hudson River or New York Harbor or other real names for the waterways around there if I wanted information on the area. It actually bolsters my point that no one uses it! Wikipedia guidelines even EXPLICITELY STATE that this is not a forum to add or encourage or support or get notice or expand the use of a saying/phrase/or name of something that is not in common usage. You may disagree with the guideline that technical phrases should be redirects and not used, that the most commonly used phrase or name that someone would look up is to be the name of the article. You can, as you have before say that its a rule that never caught on. This shows again your lack of understanding between fact and opinion. That what I just stated is the guideline is fact, check the guidelines and you can see it. You saying it never caught on is an opinion, unless you have somewhere in wikipedia where it says that guidelines is not valid. Yes, yes common sense is to be used. So use some common sense and start going by the guidelines, if you disagree with them, start a discussion on the guideline page to change the guideline. The guidelines are made because a consensus across all of wikipedia is made so that the entire encyclopedia can be consistent instead of localized consensus' disagreeing with each other. They are there so we dont have a discussion like the one we are having. What should have happened is that this convo should never have even been brought up. The person wanting the merger had the right to do so without bringing it up. A revert would have been seen as vandalism or the start of an edit war. A admin would have been brought in, looked at the relevant guideline and kept the merger. (That would be an example of an opinion since I dont have the ability to see what alternative futures would have developed, but I guarentee with 80% probability it would have gone that way). You may think it cool or that people "should" bring back the name North River, but this isnt the place to get people to start doing that! It has fallen out of use. That's a shame. But things happen. Yes, there are things around the river that have that name. They arent going to change the name of things after a river has changed its name, and sometimes people just like to name things after historical events or names that are out of fashion. The Saratoga National Historic Battlefield Park is not in Saratoga because boundaries change, it is in the town of Stillwater. So does that mean that Stillwater can still be said to be called Saratoga because it has things in it using the name Saratoga? According to your logic, yes. But in reality- no. The town of North River, New York is up in the Adirondacks. So because that town uses the name North River then the Hudson way up there must still be called the North River as well by locals, since they never changed the name of their town. According to your logic, yes. Reality- no one calls the Hudson the North River up there. Show me an article from the NY Times, the NY Post, anything RELIABLE and VERIFIABLE from the area where you call the Hudson the North River that calls the river the North River EXCLUSIVELY and CURRENTLY and I will shut up. I cant verify or find reliable that your cousin billy bob's uncle joe on a fishing vessel calls it the North River over the radio.Camelbinky (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolution and Consensus

 * As had been requested earlier, I have already provided above citations to four contemporary (2005-09) and verifiable standard third party reference works that support the legitimacy of the name "North River" as being in current active usage for that portion of the Hudson River in question (i.e. situated between New York and New Jersey and ending in Upper New York Bay.) These sources are: The Random House Dictionary (2009) ( "part of the Hudson River between NE New Jersey and SE New York." ), The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2006) ( "An estuary of the Hudson River between New Jersey and New York City flowing into Upper New York Bay." ) , Webster's New World College Dictionary (2005) ( "The lower course of the Hudson River, between New York City & NE N.J." ) , and The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2009) ( "An estuary of Hudson River between SE New York & NE New Jersey" ) . As far as I can tell, none of these depend upon "cousin billy bob's uncle joe on a fishing vessel" as their source, and while User:Camelbinky may disagree, I believe that they more than meet the standards of the relevant Wikipedia guidelines for "legitimate, reliable, and verifiable" sources. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC))


 * File:North River (Hagstrom map of Manhattan 1997).png. Hagstrom is a division of the second largest map maker in the US.  Map is from 1997.  Is this somehow insufficiently current, exclusive, or reliable?--Father Goose (talk) 06:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The requested legitimate, reliable, and verifiable sources referred to above have been added in the appropriate places to both the North River (Hudson River) and Hudson River articles. (Centpacrr (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

THANK YOU centpacrr. I in fact do agree those are reliable verifiable sources and I am actually glad you found them. Contrary to what you may believe I do not WANT to eliminate this article or DEMAND that the Hudson in that area is not called the North River. If you reread my rants (and yes, I get carried away) I even BEGGED that someone come up with these types of sources and references. All I wanted was proper citations and PROOF. I really dont mind being proven wrong, as long as I'm PROVEN wrong instead of just TOLD I'm wrong. I think that's good work. I dont care one way or another about facts in wikipedia, as long as they ARE facts. I do not have an agenda. That concerns the dictionary references. As for Hagstrom my problem is that it is one company, and it is a company that at some point did not label it as the North River and then started up again. That inconsistency along with the fact that I could produce a million different maps from a million different map-makers from across 300 years that DID NOT label that stretch as the North River. That is my problem with Hagstrom, inconsistent labeling across time and they are outnumbered by the many other maps across time that did it differently. An example of the problems maps produce as sources can be illustrated thusly- things such as almanacs, globes, maps etc published by reliable big name Western companies when sold in places such as Algeria, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. do not show Israel and instead show only Palestine, often these national laws require that such material that DOES show or mention Israel as a nation is completely banned from being sold, printed, published, or imported into the country. Does this mean that the article on the State of Israel should be changed to say that it does not exist and instead a Palestinian State has jurisdiction over the whole country by using as a source one of these almanacs? Also there is the possibility of using as a reference a foreign language map version in which the name of the Hudson is not a transliteration or translation, instead they give it a totally native name for some reason. I dont know of a case of this, but if it occurs it could be used as a source to start an article about the Hudson with that other name. Obviously the Israel example is a much bigger complicated issue than the name of a section of river, but it is along the same slippery slope and illustrates the problem of using maps. The foreign language is just a silly possibility that I'm sure somewhere on the English version of wikipedia someone has tried. They are just examples of why maps as sources should be used with a grain of salt, how many times has someone used a gps or a map and said "damn they got the street wrong" or they left off a street or some stupid thing. Jimapco is the biggest map seller in the Albany area and until recently they went a LONG time (several editions) showing the wrong boundary for a local city, not because of any recent annexation, but simply a mistake, that doesnt mean those people lived in the adjacent town in reality because a map company said so. Anyways- I now drop any objections to the article remaining. I would like to suggest that a history section on that particular section of the Hudson called the North River be included, maybe showing the ups and downs over the years on the usage of the term and how the term came to be used just for that section, there must be an interesting story as to why NYC kept it and upstate did not, as NYC would have had more immigration of people with less of a nostalgia for the old name whereas upstate small towns such as Poughkeepsie and Kingston would have kept their Dutch descendants in a majority and then large minority for a longer time. (An example of a similar nickname having an interesting story is the very old Dutch nickname of Gotham for NYC has seen upticks and downturns and its been verified that in recent years the use of that nickname corelates with the popularity of Batman movies comics etc, strange but true fact), history of development along the river and of shipping on the river. Also, I suggest that the North River Piers section can be expanded to the point of being a spin-off article, it is a different subject than the rest of the article and enough information can be easily found to justify a more than stub article.Camelbinky (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Camelbinky's suggestions above about a section on the history of the name "North River" and an additional article on the North River Piers seem quite reasonable to me. I also agree that names on maps are less definitive as they vary so much over time and by views of the cartographer. (Although I did not add the Hagstrom map, it does seem to provide an additional piece of evidence that the name "North River" still has local currency which was all my argument about it was intended to show.)


 * Curiously, the only reason I originally got involved in the whole discussion above was as a result of my view that the North River (Hudson River) article was the more appropriate wikilink (as opposed to the broader Hudson River entry) to describe where US Airways Flight 1549 ditched on January 15, 2009, in the Wiki article about that accident to which I have been a major contributor. It was through my research on that event that convinced me the North River deserved the status of having such an entry of its own.


 * Although I do not live in New York (my home is in the suburbs of Philadelphia), ironically I do have an historic early 17th century colonial connection to both the North River and Capital District areas as a 13th generation direct descendent of the Rev. (Domine) Everardus Wilhelmus Bogardus (1607-1647), the first Dutch Reformed minister in Nieuw Amsterdam whose sixty-two acre farm, the "Dominie's Bouwerie," fronted on the North River near the future site of the World Trade Center, and his wife, Anneke Jans Bogardus (1604-1663), who spent the last fifteen years of her life in Beverwyck (Albany). It's a small world indeed. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I don't have a problem with spinning off the piers section should it get long enough. I'm about to pick up At Sea in the City from the library, so if there's anything useful in it, I should be expanding the article soon.


 * I'd like to be able to explain why "North River" remained in use longer downstate than upstate, but being able to find such specific information in reliable sources is a serendipitous process. I know the Dutch had a strong cultural influence on New York City well into the 19th century, though that alone doesn't explain it.--Father Goose (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. It's an interesting and puzzling question which probably has a fascinating answer. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

That's pretty cool, I've always liked geneology. I tried looking up the Domine Bogardus on wikipdedia, does he not have an article? I would like to help you on one, if you dont mind, as a way of mending fences with you. I am currently trying my best on getting History of Albany, New York somewhat near a C class, if there is a place that it wont look out of place I will definitely be mentioning that the widow of the first domine of Nieuw Amsterdam lived for 15 years and died in Beverwyck. This kinda ends out this discussion on this page, but if you wish to collaborate or just have ideas or come across things that you think may interest me feel free to contact my talk page. I also apologize if I may have come across as a rude or angry. I'm glad we came to agreement and didnt leave it hanging with hard feelings on both sides.Camelbinky (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note and kind words, and I am glad that we could work this all out successfully. (I'm sure that we both learned some interesting history from each other in the process.) I had not actually ever considered doing an article on the Domine Bogardus but I know that there is considerable published material about him. He was apparently quite a character who rubbed a lot of the "folks in charge" such as Lubbertus van Dincklagen, the former Schout Fiscaal (legal officer) of Nieuw-Nederland whom Rev. Bogardus had excommunicated, and Gov. William Keift, the Dutch West India Company's "villainous and jealous" third Director General of the Colony, the wrong way. (Ironically both the Domine and Gov. Keift perished beneath the waters of Bristol Channel when the "Princess," the ship on which they were returning together to settle their disputes before the Classis of Amsterdam, sank in a storm.) His widow, Anneke Jans, is best remembered not for what she did in life, but for the mess created in the disposal of the "Bouwerie" on the North River from her estate which was sold to the second British Governor of Colonial New York, Francis Lovelace, on March 9, 1671 (and later transfered to Trinity Church by patent sealed on November 23, 1705), a transaction which led to well more than two centuries of litigation! (Let me know if any of that inspires you to look into this colorful family.)


 * As a fan of history, you may also find some of my personal websites linked on my Wikipedia user page of interest. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Hudson River
I think the Hudson should get Mid or Low on the importance scale. I would reccomend Mid, though, because it is the biggest river in New York state, and the state's capital, Albany, and New York City both lie on it.

-- Rayqayza Dialga Weird 2210   20:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Student report on Hudson River
Hey. I'm doing a report on the Hudson River. I can't find anything about how it's important. Anyone know anywhere where I can find something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.238.183 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Municipalities
In response to editor Ken Gallager (talk)'s concern over limiting the infobox size, I've preserved the accuracy and integrity of the municipality list by redirecting it to the body of the text. I find it completely unacceptable to artificially trim this particular list to 15 to "fit the box," as the Hudson, more than many if not most other rivers, is very much about the towns that run right alongside it. I've also removed redlinking of tributaries from the infobox. If anything, these edits will also make the infobox appearance cleaner. Castncoot (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Greenbush Ambiguity
I fixed the greenbush ambiguity. According to the East Greenbush, NY wiki page it used to be part of Greenbush, and is, or was, bordered on the West by the Hudson and Greenbush. Greenbush seems to have been a town that stretched across the Hudson and subsequently divided between Greenbush on the west side and on the east side the towns of East Greenbush (originally Clinton) and North Greenbush. Greenbush on the west side seems to have been incorporated into Albany. As the RR went from Troy to Greenbush on the east side of the river East Greenbush seems like the most appropriate link, unless we remove the link totally.

Some day someone might want to create an historical Greenbush wiki page, but till then I think this fixes the ambiguity the best way possible.--Plmerry (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Crossings fixed
Don't know why the paragraph about river crossings was not under the heading "Crossings," but I moved it there.--Plmerry (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hudson River as a Watercourse?
The first sentence of the wikipedia article says that The Hudson River is a watercourse. That seems too generic, and that it should simply say river. I don't see other estuaries with the same name. An example of a similar river is the Delaware River. I propose that the first sentence have the word River instead of watercourse, regardless that a large portion of the Hudson River is an estuary. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Length
Don't read the length of the river. Need some basic facts like length.

Norm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.91.155 (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I've added it up front. For the record, though, it was in the infobox on the right hand side, toward the bottom. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have checked Mapquest and Google Maps, both show the outlet of Henderson Lake as the true official source of the River.

Mike DeNicola — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miked1992 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)