Talk:Carteret, New Jersey

Disney c-squad dance crew

Um, besides this section being a general mess, is it even facutal? Google only gives one result: this article. I'm not sure if I should just delete it or reformat it or what. Until someone more knowledgeable comes along, I'm adding {{Disputed-section}}. AldoNadi (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Punjabi Sikh population

This seems a bit biased and is not written so well, This part of the article either should be rewritten or totally removed. Also what about including the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus of Carteret, All this should be covered too. I think this part of the article is biased and should be removed. I have added {{npov}} and {{cleanup}} CapMan07008 (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Carteret has the state's largest Sikh community, details of which are backed by numerous reliable and verifiable sources supporting its size and significance. A brief paragraph, three or four sentences long, describing this community hardly makes for undue weight, let alone what the NPOV issue might be. If there are other religious communities in Carteret that are as notable as the Sikh community in terms of their statewide significance, it would certainly be appropriate to add details to the article. Alansohn (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it has undue weight, the Sikh population in Carteret is about 12.4% by some estimates. This wither needs to be rewritten in a more neutral tone with just weight or, completely removed. 3-4 sentences that's more than commerce, more than transportation and almost as much as education. Also you note the Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret. That's something that would have an appropriate weight, in the right section and only necessary information. CapMan07008 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The question is not the percentage of people in Carteret, but its significance in the State of New Jersey. Sikhism is the world's fifth-largest organized religion and its defining representation in Carteret is worthy of mention, and the reliable and verifiable sources provided back it up. Alansohn (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The lack of adequate coverage in other sections of the article isn't really good justification for removing decent coverage in another section. Simply expand the other sections. -- œ^™ 22:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

World Sikh News estimates that Carteret has mere 3000 Sikhs out of 24,000 living in new Jersey. it's notability very clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapMan07008 (talk • contribs)

The sources are what establish notability, not the absolute population or the percentage. As is already included in the article, The New York Times describes Carteret as having the state's largest Sikh population, and this claim is supported by multiple sources. I fail to see where there is an issue with bias or NPOV, nor have you explained what the issue might be. If there were corresponding items in reliable and verifiable sources about Carteret's Catholic, Methodist or Mormon communities, or those of any other religious community, by all means include it. The sources do describe Carteret's Sikh community at length and I still see no justification for removing this reliably sourced content. Alansohn (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Being very familiar with Carteret, I can tell you that Carteret does have a significant Sikh population. With that recent addition of the NYTimes article I'm not sure what doubt remains. If you have any objection to the way this article is written, please rewrite so we can move ahead with this discussion DrSultan85 (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made the changes you wanted. I still wanna talk about the kartarpur reference not sure if that's relevant so i left it there for now to be talked about. Look at the changes and see, also you don't have the include the names of people that aren't notable in the references just what is relevant is okayCapMan07008 (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just found out that both of the Gurdwaras are in Woordbridge Township(Port Reading) and NOT CARTERET, this is according to Google Maps and also the addresses that are published on Dashmesh darbar's websiteCapMan07008 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The calculation of the percentage of population was not in any of the sources, and the range of estimates of the Sikh population was restored. The names are mentioned in the original sources and there is no policy reason to remove them, nor are they mentioned in the text of the article. Additional sources were added to describe the opening of the first gurdwara in Carteret in 1998 and its move to Port Reading in 2005. The location of the gurdwara in Port Reading appears to be several hundred feet outside of Carteret, but is not in the borough itself. Alansohn (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

about 1000 in about 25000 is about 4%, i think anyone can calculate that I'm going to request other opinions on this it seems as we can't seem to agree no matter what I suggest you wanna put it back to the way it was. I think that's give it undue weight, also the population estimates, also I'm not sure how information about a Gurdwara that existed in the borough temporarily has anything to do with demographics. CapMan07008 (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There are two estimates provided, one is 1,000 and the other is 2,500. There is also no explanation of what 25,000 represents. Why pick one number and not the other? Providing a range of estimates to reflect different sources is the best way to avoid a perception of POV, because a reader can ask why the estimate of 1,000 was picked and not the other one of 2,500. The material that I've edited and added is trying to give a well-rounded description of the largest Sikh community in the state of New Jersey, which would include details of a temple that existed in the borough for seven years and that had moved just over the border into Woodbridge Township. Alansohn (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If the 3000 Estimate is correct than that makes it about 12.5%(30000/24000) of the total population but according the US CENSUS total asian population is only about 15 percent. Also a gurdwara that moved out of Carteret has nothing to do with the demographics. My rewriting of Sikh community paragraph does justice to the community size. Also all you have done is revert back the changes I suggest and made no effort to correct anything, instead you've made the undue weight problem worse by adding even more weight.CapMan07008 (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sikhism is a religion and Sikhs can be of any race. The problem appears stem from comparing an estimate of Sikh population from 2008 to Census data from 2000. Details for Carteret from the 2010 United States Census shows an Asian population of 4,349 (19.0% of the borough population of 22,844), of which 3,113 are Asian Indians, accounting for 13.6% of the population. Based on the descriptions of the rapid growth of Carteret's Sikh community, the numbers seem to be in perfectly reasonable alignment. A community that is the largest of its kind in the state and is such a large percentage of Carteret's population would seem to merit the few sentences that exist in the article in a paragraph about the borough's demographics. Alansohn (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ohh the demographics need to be updated, now I guess with this data in sight I can see what you mean, please update these new numbers in the article. I know Sikhs can be of any race, but they are not of any race. Almost all of them are from Punjab. anyways, I see your point with the new 2010 census data. ThanksCapMan07008 (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request (disagreement about the undue weight and inserting unneeded info in the references):

I'll try to give an impartial opinion here; I've not done this before, so if the results are not helpful please go ahead and ask for another. As I understand it, two matters are a source of disagreement: 1. does the passage: "Carteret has a Sikh community, estimated to be from 1,000 to as many as 2,500 of the borough's residents, that has been described by The New York Times as "the largest concentration of Sikhs in the state". The area's Sikh community has made a connection between Carteret and "Kartarpur", based on the similarity of the borough's name to the site of the final resting place of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism. The Gurudwara Singh Sabha Sahib, the borough's first gurudwara, had rented a location in Carteret in 1998 before moving to a permanent location in the nearby Port Reading section of Woodbridge Township in 2005." have undue weight in the Demographics section? and 2. has unnecessary information been inserted in the references? My answer is yes to both. I'll try to explain why: The connection with Kartarpur and the location of the gurudwara are not relevant to the demographics of the borough. They are of course important to the Sikh community, but that is not the topic of the article. This just isn't the place for what User:Alansohn calls "a well-rounded description of the largest Sikh community in the state of New Jersey" Many references in the article, both among those relating to the Sikh community and relating to some famous residents, have unnecessary quotations. References should not be used as a vehicle for extensive quotations, as these may violate copyright If I may make some suggestions: update the census data as a first step rephrase the first sentence to avoid peacock phrasing, maybe something like "the Sikh community of Carteret, variously estimated at 1000 to 2500,[ref][ref] is the largest in the state[NYT ref]" if it can be linked to the number of Asian Indian residents, as Alansohn began to do in the Talk, then so much the better agree to eliminate the other two sentences consider whether the religious institutions of Carteret should be covered in a separate and balanced section, and whether any of the material removed from Demographics might have a place there agree to limit or eliminate lengthy quotations from the references; those who are interested can always consult the references themselves work on the style and referencing of other parts of the article, such as the history I hope this helps.—Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

After 3rd Opinion Should we add other sections

I have no objections to your suggestions and as a matter of fact I'm going to do just that. Also, should we add another section to address the influence of Asian minorities on Carteret? We can add the Kartarpur reference there?CapMan07008 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree JLAN and CapMan we should add another section, contribution of Asian Minorities to Carteret or something like. DrSultan85 (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I added some more things about the sikh community in the local govt, but generalized them to south asian. I think the south asian do deserve mention in the passage just under proper headings 74.102.160.53 (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Earlier today I added references to your contributions, still not sure if that is the proper way to address this issue, I think we need some expert's advice CapMan07008 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think perhaps you need more input, yes. I've switched on the "attention" flag in the WikiProject Jersey banner, in the hope that someone might take an interest here and help you move the article forward. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, JLAN. I think we have settled the debate over the notability of the south-asian community, but we can still use some more input about this article. The Terminator p t c 20:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Carteret History

I see that Carteret history section has no refs. If no one has any objection I think I might rewrite it according to this[1]. I'm not sure if it's 100% but at least it's verifiable. The Terminator p t c 23:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections to your taking on the task of rewriting the history section, which could use appropriate sourcing. I do take offense at your signature, which both creates confusion by differing from your user name and implies that your purpose on Wikipedia is destructive. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carteret, New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thedailyjournal.com/article/CN/20101227/NEWS/12270339/Longtime-Carteret-political-figure-Deverin-dies-age-89
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218121447/http://databasefootball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=MCMAHART01 to http://www.databasefootball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=MCMAHART01

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carteret, New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420215624/http://www.ci.carteret.nj.us/content/57/192/default.aspx to http://www.ci.carteret.nj.us/content/57/192/default.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://blog.northjersey.com/thesource/2443/legislators-top-list-of-obama-delegates/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)