Talk:Port Jervis, New York

Book source
I placed a book source on the article Port Jervis, New York, but I don't know if I did it properly or not. I did this: Port Jervis, Osterberg and Krakowiak, 2006. Port Jervis is the title of the book, Osterberg and Krakowiak are the authors, and 2006 is the copyright/publishing date. NHRHS2010 talk  18:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Text re 1890's killing
I came over here from WP:BLPN, where a user had posted information about a dispute on this article. I have reviewed the disputed text and checked the sources and think that the information complies with applicable standards such as WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, is encyclopedic and (even if unpleasant) forms a significant part of the history of the town. I am posting this here in the hope of getting a dialog started, in place of the mutually assured deletion and reversion taking place now. I will wait a day or so and if no-one objects, will restore the deleted material. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

there is no easy way to verify the context of article the person posting the story insists proves his opinion i.e. that a premeditated lynching occured. in another article, the context proves only that man was on trial for inciting others to engage in a mob. he needs to reword his point.

the another arguable opinion the person insists there is a provable kkk presence in the town. his only research merely proves that a resisdent donated an article of clothing to a museum. by his logic, if i were to donate a nazi ss uniform, i would be able to prove the nazi's were encamped in the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.172.76 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He also cited another NYTImes article reporting a cross-burning in 1923 and stating there was still a KKK presence. And in the first Times article, a group of white men hanging a black man in the public square is a lynching, I don't think there is any room for doubt there. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

== I have lived in the area my entire life, there is no KKK presence in or around the city. and there hasn't been for better than half a century or more. I suggest the author link to the Minisink Historical Society website and use the same wording. http://minisink.org/histpj.html

This author seems motivated by a desire to besmirch the city for some nefarious or political reason. he or she appears to be making great leaps of logic based on shaky research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.172.76 (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

==

Jonathanwallace: Thank you for offering an opinion on the content issue in dispute. I concur with your reasoning and conclusion. As you have observed, the fact these historical events took place is indisputable. I would respectfully add that, in my view, by becoming aware of the particulars involved in the cited incidents, as with other tragic historical events, one stands to learn a great deal about cultural and social elements of the time as well as human nature. It is comic to me, for instance, that a prominent Port Jervis judge once actually ordered some mischievous boys to repair KKK related crosses that the boys had vandalized. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50D1EF83B5D14738DDDAA0994D0405B828EF1D3&scp=1&sq=klan%20port%20jervis&st=cse    I would also like to express my complete understanding at how this sort of information can be viewed by some as disturbing, controversial, and less than flattering or desirable. I agree completely. By the same token, this is the unvarnished historical truth that may hopefully serve as a measure of how far we have come and a reminder of where we have been. 96.238.203.201 (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User 24, the other user is not alleging there is a KKK presence today, but one which lasted into the 1920's, which is verified by the New York Times artiole. This is an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV and includes all kinds of verifiable, appropriately sourced information, positive and negative, on the subject. Since the lynching and KKK presence are part of the history of Port Jervis, they belong in the article representing a small but appropriate part of the total information given. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

==

It would be more appropriate to use information from the established historical society rather than a newspaper headline for source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.172.76 (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

==

The suggestion proposed by User 24 regarding an alternate reference to the 1892 lynching and historic KKK activity in Port Jervis is appreciated (http://minisink.org/histpj.html). However, notwithstanding the fact that the currently cited independent references are acceptable by Wikipedia standards and deal specifically with the content statements they are associated with, the proposed alternative from the Minisink Valley Historical Society entitled "Port Jervis and the Gilded Age," covers a broad topic area of which the indisputable acts that have inspired this discussion are indeed acknowledged as a part. This being so, it seems to me that merely being mentioned near the end of that considerable article hardly independently documents the content in question as fully and substantively as through the links originally proposed.

Following review of the existing Port Jervis page I do note that the Minisink Valley Historical Society, an extremely important and long-standing not-for-profit community organization, is not included on the page's external links. If amenable and permitted by Wikipedia, I would be more than happy to include a link to the MVHS in the external links section. Not only would that benefit the organization but it would also provide visitors easier access to the proposed alternate reference. Thank you. 96.238.203.201 (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC) === considering the fact that the events being discussed took place between 89 and 119 years ago and have not reflected the societal attitudes of the city for many many decades, i stongly urge the use of the historical society's language. using the nytimes headline as a valid source is irresponsible as the content and context of the article is not easily available to the general public. the historical society is well respected as the 'go to' source of historical information in the area. 24.164.172.76 (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

===

Respectfully, please consider the previous remarks as to why the NYTs articles are valid by Wikipedia criteria (including accessibility) and more accurately reflect the tone and nature of the events being described and the time during which they occur. The MVHS article is lengthy, generic, and essentially obscures the events being documented. It is my view that the originally cited references associated with the content statements are far superior, more specific and more appropriate overall than the alternate proposed by user 24. The proposed alternate source can now be accessed via the external link to the historical society that I included last night.96.238.203.201 (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Another suggestion would be to include additional text under the content section with references and narrative as now proposed that would further qualify the lynching and KKK as historical events and rare oddities that were part of the otherwise "Gilded Age of Port Jervis."with the related link reference to the alternate MVHS page. That is about the best I can suggest for what appears to my eyes as a more than reasonable compromise solution. Thoughts?96.238.203.201 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Summing Up
I think some good progress has been made trying to resolve the differences here. The NY Times sources are about as reliable as Wikipedia sources get, see WP:RS (which also allows for pay sources and offline sources). I like the idea however of a more extensive reference to the Minisink page and suggest User 96 draft something and post it here on the Talk page for our review and discussion. Thanks, Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

===

Thank you User Jonathanwallace for helping to facilitate what appears to be shaping up as a fair resolution that addresses the concerns posed by both myself and User 24 and may help to enhance the article overall. I appreciate the opportunity to write a short, narrative text addendum to provide context, balance and the previously identified link to the Minisink Valley Historical Society article proposed by User 24. While that task should not take me very long to complete, at the moment I am a bit pressed for time and kindly ask to be allowed 24-36 hours to provide draft material to this forum. I suspect that I should be able to accomplish this in short order but, if acceptable, would appreciate having a bit of leeway as requested. 96.238.203.201 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

===

Here is a draft of the proposed entry that is the subject of these discussions. The only alteration made to the original content is a spelling change from "Klu" to "Ku." I remain hopefully that we are nearing a win-win all the way around solution and am grateful for the education. Thank you.

<<<>>>

One of the most shameful events in the history of Port Jervis was the widely witnessed and well-documented 1892 lynching of an African-American man by the name of Robert Lewis, whose murder was in the end dismissed by an Orange County grand jury for a lack of evidence. A strong Ku Klux Klan presence remained in Port Jervis until at least the mid-1920s.

For the sake of balance and context it must be noted that while historically important, as with other communities, these events represented rare and sensational extremes of human behavior that were not necessarily a part of general day-to-day life in Port Jervis during the Gilded Age, that period in United States history when those events took place. 96.238.203.201 (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

### I suggest this...

On June 2, 1892, in one of the most shocking events in the history of Port Jervis, Robert Lewis was lynched on East Main Street in front of the Baptist Church as punishment for a rape he may not have committed. The incident captured national interest and a special jury was convened. The case was left "resolved" and no one could be charged with a crime. The Lewis lynching was one of only three ever in Orange County and an extremely rare occurrence for a northern state.

In the mid 1920's The Klu Klux Klan had a substantial following in the Tri-State area and crosses were burned at the top of Point Peter, the mountain top that overlooks Port Jervis. Regularly scheduled parades of Klan members were conducted.

your reference points used.24.164.172.76 (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we basically have consensus. I will post a hybrid version of the two suggestions for comment later today. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

==


 * Works for me. I would recommend the use of "Ku" rather than "Klu" as that is the preferred spelling used by wikipedia.  96.238.203.201 (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

==

It has since occurred to me that the mention of Mr. Lewis being a gentleman of color is conspicuously absent from user 24's suggested content. That, in my opinion, is a significant aspect of the incident and should not be purposefully omitted. I am also wondering if the assertion that the case was left '"resolved'" is correct or a typo that should be "unresolved." Some citation reference to the grand jury's conclusion might be useful for documentation and clarity as would a reference providing more details about the reported two additional lynchings that took place in Orange County. That may well be a historical truth but it would be good to have an opportunity to learn more. It also seems to me that there is a sort of disconnect between the lynching and the mid-1920s prominence of the KKK in the Port Jervis/Tri-State area. Those events took place in little more than a span of 3 decades so I'm not so sure that's the case Thank you. .96.238.203.201 (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

++++

With due respect, having just been reviewing the previously identified Minisink Valley Historical Society web page citation, it troubles me to suggest that some of user24's content appears to have been appropriated from that source. For instance, the MVHS page states "Regularly scheduled parades of Klan members were conducted along the same route as firemen's parades of the period." User 24's content is: "Regularly scheduled parades of Klan members were conducted." Likewise, the MVHS page states "The case was left "resolved" when a special jury was convened and no one could be charged with a crime." User 24's content is:"The incident captured national interest and a special jury was convened. The case was left "resolved" and no one could be charged with a crime." A comparison of user 24's content to that from the MVHS might lead one to believe that user 24's narrative was clearly only a regurgitation of that which belongs to the MVSH. I feel that is unfortunate and not in the spirit of Wikipedia, as little of it that I know. Thank you. 96.238.203.201 (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion
How about:

"On June 2, 1892, Robert Lewis, an African American, was lynched on East Main Street in front of the Baptist Church  in retaliation for a rape he may not have committed. The incident captured national interest and a special jury was convened, which declined to charge anyone for the crime." "In the mid 1920's The Klu Klux Klan had a following in the area and crosses were burned at the top of Point Peter, the mountain top that overlooks Port Jervis. Regularly scheduled parades of Klan members were also conducted."

Let me know-- Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

= it looks good to me. it keeps inflamatory lanugage and supposition out and deals only with facts.24.164.172.76 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

+++ The proposed content language is generally acceptable. I would suggest that the jury be identified as a "grand jury" and that the word "special" possibly be omitted

The content as currently suggested does not provide link references which I do believe are important and suspect would be forthcoming. There are a goodly number of NYTs articles to choose from regarding the lynching and specifying a "grand jury," some of which can be found here. http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=port+jervis+lynching&more=date_all

While I do feel the visual impact and related narrative supporting the previously cited external link reference to the 1920s KKK outfit from Port Jervis now on display in a Liverpool, England, slavery museum is valid, powerful, and worthy of inclusion (http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/collections/legacies/klu_klux_klan.aspx), additional confirming documentation can be found here. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/travel/23iht-museum.1.7224242.html?_r=1&scp=16&sq=port%20jervis%20ku&st=cse

As user24 has accepted the proposed content, and I have already added an external link to the Minisink Valley Historical Society, presumably further qualifying language regarding the content's topics will not be included in the entry's narrative with a link to the the MVHS's web page that had previously figured largely in user24's concerns and proposed narrative content.

Other than these observations, I feel user Jonathanwallace's content will adequately serve the purpose. Thank you. 96.238.203.201 (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

+++Addendum: Would links to NYT's search query results associated with the lynching and KKK be suitable citation references? IMO, not only would that greatly expand the easily verifiable documentation but it would also potentially provider readers with opportunities for further personal investigation and education. If agreeable, two possible external link references could be: 1) That previously given above associated with the lynching grand jury (http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=port+jervis+lynching&more=date_all) 2) A similar search associated with the Klan http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=port+jervis+klan&more=date_all

Thank you 96.238.203.201 (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC) =

overkill much? 24.164.172.76 (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

++++

As noted earlier, it seems to me that giving Wikipedia end-users the opportunity to learn and explore more about any topic that piques their interest - including this one - is not a bad thing and likely consistent with Wikipedia concepts.

By that means visitors are better able to draw their own conclusions based upon what valid reference material is available and, in this instance, might therefore likewise be considered as consistent with the neutrality consciousness of user Jonathanwallace's proposed - and agreed upon - content. My preference would be that the external link references be the NYT's search query results of the respective topics'   as previously identified above. Thank you. 96.238.203.201 (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit
Users 96 and 24, I have made a version of the edit we agreed on. It consists of two additions to the history section, one referring to the lynching and one to the KKK. Both are cited to New York Times articles. I mention only the matters I could reliably source to the articles, so dropped the reference to the Baptist church and to the victim's possible innocence, as the news coverage at the time clearly states he was believed by everyone including the police to have participated in an assault. The sources, rather than saying the grand jury declined indictments, report that nine people were indicted and arrested, though I didn't see any follow up article reporting on whether anyone was convicted of the lynching.

AS far as the Klan is concerned, I mention the crossburning but not the parades as I couldn't find a source for this.

I hope this is satisfactory to everyone, and welcome further discussion if there are proposed edits to my additions. I've enjoyed working with you to reach consensus on this issue. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

+++ Jonathanwallace: Thank you for taking the time to mediate this content dispute which for all intents and purposes I now consider resolved. The narrative is about as neutral and plainly based upon the available reference material as it could be. The education and experience you provided are appreciated. The only remaining question I have at this point is whether the NYT's articles cited as footnotes would benefit users by having their associated headlines included rather than just the url. Are there any Wikipedia best practices about that or known prohibitions that might provide guidence? 96.238.203.201 (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure there is a strictly observed standard, but I think it is the better practice to include the headlines, so please feel free to add them. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

+++OK. Done. As suspected, Wikipedia reference guide states a "raw" url (http://xxywyssywws.com) is considered a "bad" reference and that identifying the references as we have done in this instance is preferred. 96.238.203.201 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiki external links policy
Greetings,

The external link to pj.pride.com appears to be inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines for such urls.

The inconsistencies would seem to include at least the following examples shown in the Wikipedia:External links policy section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL Links normally to be avoided


 * Links mainly intended to promote a website
 * Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority.

Advertising and conflicts of interest


 * "...in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked."

Respectfully, I have again removed the external link in question and trust that the guidelines cited above are helpful. 96.238.203.201 (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In defense of that link, you have cherry picked two rules to support you claim. According to the guidelines, the link is supported by more rules than it violates. Regardless, I feel the only link necessary is the one to the city's own website. Previously listed were links to the Fire, Police, Ambulance and School websites. These can be accessed from the city's site. To keep this from becoming a larger issue, the city's website should be the only link on this page. Art portjervis (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Rip Van Winkle
I just removed this material: According to local lore, Point Peter/ Elks Brox Memorial Park was the inspiration for Washington Irving's "Rip Van Winkle".

R. Winkle tale specifically mentions "the lordly Hudson." Is"local lore" in Port Jervis based in illiteracy? Irving would enjoy! Badiacrushed (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Port Jervis City Seal.webp