User talk:Tim Adriance

Frederick Closter, man or myth?
This edit removed sourced content from the article for Closter, New Jersey and has been reverted. There is no evidence that the Frederick Closter story is a myth, and if it were a myth it would still be relevant for inclusion. We have plenty of myths on Wikipedia, such as the Yeti, black helicopters, Pizzagate and the various Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories; they're all equally untrue, but backed by reliable and verifiable sources, as is the information about Frederick Closter. What we need is a source to support the claim of a myth, which can then be added to the article. All we have now is your assertion. Alansohn (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I must strongly contend the “Frederick Closter” story is a myth (invented by a G.I. from Closter during WWII), based on the sources called logic, and an examination of the historical record.

Here is my evidence:

First the story itself: – “It is believed that Closter was named after Frederick Closter, who received a grant of several thousand acres as a military reward from King Charles I of England.” The mythological origins are proven by the facts – King Charles I of England was executed in 1649, and at that time Bergen County, Rockland County, and the whole of the Hudson valley were under Dutch control (The English did not capture New Netherland till 1664!). The first land grant in New Jersey wasn’t given till 1661 when the last Director-General of New Netherland, Peter Stuyvesant, granted a charter to the village at Bergen (now Jersey City), establishing the oldest municipality in the state. Hence the story itself is mythological by the alleged “facts” it presents. It is ludicrous to believe a story so contradictory to actual facts.

Second: No one whatsoever by the name of “Frederick Closter” (or any derivation thereof) shows up in any historical record associated with either New Jersey or New York. Rather than me having to prove a negative, I request that the supporters of the “Frederick Closter” story (if there are any), prove his existence with one shred of fact.

Third: No source prior to the Second World War contains the story. See Genealogical history of Hudson and Bergen counties, New Jersey Harvey, Cornelius Burnham, 1900 (https://archive.org/details/genealogicalhist00harv) pages 27 and 28 which gives a detailed history of the early settlement on the area. Also see History of Bergen and Passaic counties, Clayton, W. Woodford, 1882 (https://archive.org/details/historyofbergenp00clay), History of Bergen County, New Jersey, Van Valen, James M., 1900, and History of Bergen County, New Jersey, 1630-1923, Volume 1, Frances Augusta Westervelt, 1923. Logic demands that if there were any truth to the story prior to its invention during the Second World War, a single source would be found to show credence.

I agree the story has been printed and needs to be addressed but the text as presented is out of place and context (and supports a false history.) I propose that the following text be inserted at the end of the fifth and before the sixth paragraph in the section - - ''“The factual history pertaining to the origin of the town name “Closter” has been muddied by a fictional character named “Fredrick Closter.”  This character was invented out of whole cloth during WWII by a G.I. from Closter who wrote an article for his base newspaper. A number of sources have since repeated the erroneous tale. No individual whatsoever with the name “Frederick Closter” is found in the historical record, and no history of Bergen County prior to the Second World War contains the ridiculous tale. The utter falsehood of the story is affirmed by the fact that it claims Closter was awarded to “Frederick Closter” in 1669 by King Charles I of England (who was executed in 1649) when the region was under Dutch control (the English did not take over New Netherland until 1664).”''

Tim Adriance Closter Historic Preservation Commission Chairman Tim Adriance (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tim, I appreciate your background on this topic, but the claims regarding "Frederick Closter" as a namesake are based on reliable and verifiable sources, while your claims about "Frederick Closter" being a myth are based on speculation and circumstantial evidence. I will reinsert the original material and add a note that the claims have been challenged. It is essential that you provide a reliable and verifiable source to support your claim about the myth and its creation. Alansohn (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This edit makes some small steps forward, but creates other problems. The Frederick Closter story is backed by reliable and verifiable sources. There is no evidence that the story is "20th century folklore" as there is no evidence of when the claim was initiated. Rewording that the story is "a complete myth" is pure opinion. The effort to discredit the Frederick Closter claim violates WP:SYNTH. Again, what is needed is a reliable and verifiable source to explicitly support the myth claim that you have advanced. Alansohn (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

April 2021
Hi Tim Adriance! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Richard W. O'Neill that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

January 2023
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Closter, New Jersey, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The Borough of Closter’s website no longer contains the following account of the origin of the town’s name – “It is believed that Closter was named after Frederick Closter, who received a grant of several thousand acres as a military reward from King Charles I of England.” The Borough has buried the fictional character “Frederick Closter” as the statement is completely in error and absurd – as it runs contrary to all historical facts.
 * That statement concerning Frederick Closter was first printed on Monday August 31, 1936, in The Bergen Evening Record newspaper in an article with the headline “Early History of Closter is Traced in Book” (page 12, column three).[1] That book spoken of in the article is titled Bergen County Panorama and was part of the American Guide Series written by the Writers’ Program of the Work Projects Administration in the State of New Jersey and sponsored by The Bergen County Board of Chosen Freeholders, was finally printed in 1941.[2]  The Fredrick Closter statement does not appear in the final print version of the book. Repeat, the Frederick Closter statement does not appear in the book.  It only appeared in the newspaper and was thence repeated.
 * The newspaper article is the sole source of the repeated fictional story that defies all historical fact and logic. The story has been repeated and republished by those who are either lazy or ignorant.
 * Take the statement itself. First “It is believed” denotes that there is no clear documentation. Second, “Frederick Closter, who received a grant of several thousand acres as a military reward from King Charles I of England.” Now this is the crux of the falsehood -- King Charles I of England was executed in 1649, and at that time Bergen County, Rockland County, and the whole of the Hudson valley were under Dutch control (The English did not capture New Netherland till 1664).  The first land grant in New Jersey wasn’t given till 1661 when the last Director-General of New Netherland, Peter Stuyvesant, granted a charter to the village at Bergen (now Jersey City), establishing the oldest municipality in the state.  Actual history proves the statement false.
 * Given the facts, what will it take for Wikipedia to stop repeating what is proven to be a false statement?
 * [1] https://www.newspapers.com/image/489485073/
 * [2] https://archive.org/details/bergencountypano00writrich/mode/2up Tim Adriance (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the facts, what will it take for Wikipedia to stop repeating what is proven to be a false statement?
 * [1] https://www.newspapers.com/image/489485073/
 * [2] https://archive.org/details/bergencountypano00writrich/mode/2up Tim Adriance (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * [2] https://archive.org/details/bergencountypano00writrich/mode/2up Tim Adriance (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You state above that "No source prior to the Second World War contains the story", that "no history of Bergen County prior to the Second World War contains the ridiculous tale" and you insist that "Logic demands that if there were any truth to the story prior to its invention during the Second World War, a single source would be found to show credence." You may want to take a look at "A Curious Land Claim. An Old Title to Property In Bergen County" from the Passaic Daily News dated March 29, 1894, which recounts the story. We still can't be certain that it's true or if there are any factual errors in a story that dates back more than 350 years as told 128 years ago. But I can certainly say that the World War II claim is false and that your demand for an earlier source has been satisfied. The material you removed will be reinserted with the addition of the newly identified source. Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How can you possibly give credence to "sources" that are clearly a falsehood? Explain how the King of England (Charles I) can grant land in a country that wasn't English but rather Dutch?  Don't you see the absurdity here? Are you saying that a newspaper article that is contrary to every fact relating to the history of New Netherland stands to have worth? Why do you perpetuate what is clearly "fake news" of 1894? Tim Adriance (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)