Talk:Red Hook Lane Arresick

Need to find reliable sourcesCaptJayRuffins (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I will remove the tag by Tagishsimon, and for this reason. The article could have been named Fort Defiance, but 1.) Arizona already claimed the title, while this fort 2.) was only 4/08/1776 - 8/27/1776. Having been retaliated against for putting holes in their Man-O-Wars in upper New York bay when they ran their gauntlet, it was totally destroyed by the superior guns of HMS Roebuck. The valiant fort was responsible, along with a recaltricant headwind, for preventing the English gunners from flanking Washington's positions along Brooklyn heights, and ending that maneuver which would have effectively ended the American Revolutionary War. With all the cites provided, Tagsimon should be reconsidering the reasons for deletion... CaptJayRuffins (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@CaptJayRuffins: I'm not considering any such thing. It remains completely opaque what this article is about. is it about "Red Hook Lane Arresick" which I vaguely understand to be a burial ground? Is it about Fort Defiance? Is it about Major Grant? What the hell is the second sentence in the lede all about ("A soldier of the Continental Army fired shots from his perch in a tree at British troops advancing on the Carnarsie Indian path through Gowanus, he was killed by return fire.") Normally at this point you are trying to explain to the reader what your article is about. If there is a subject for this article and if there's an issue over naming, the article can be moved to an approprate name, such as Fort Defiance (Brooklyn). But whilst the article is a car-crash of vaguely related subject matter, and in the absence of someone - and you are about the only candidate - clearing it up, it should be deleted as a menace to the wider wikipedia. If you remove the tag, I will take this to Articles for Deletion. Your best and only hope is to sort out the naming and discipline the subject matter of the article. Go and read other articles. See how they do it Come back and do the same here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@CaptJayRuffins: And, I forgot, the kicker being that you do not really mention the burial ground in the article at all. All that we hear of is that a heritage trail starts opposite it. Nothing else at all. Nothing. Nothing at all about the supposed subject of the article. Just, nothing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and one other option is to push this back to draft: to give you longer to work on it. The option not open to you is to leave this mess in article space. Let me know here if you want to take the draft: route. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I find you are trying to mislead that there is no subject here, so let me begin with a fact. I don't see you as helping to correct the article, but here's the start. In other articles about the battle of long Island, the American war of independence and Brig Gen James Grant, this fact is mentioned:

At the Battle of Long Island, August 27, 1776, Grant led the British left in a strong feint against the American right. He held back his troops as planned until Howe came up on the American rear and attacked with the main British force. During this battle, Americans rejoiced with the news that James Grant, had been killed. This proved to be an error of mistaken identity. It was Lt. Colonel James Grant who was killed leading his regiment in a counter-attack against the exposed east flank of the American right.

I was working on pinpointing locations around Battle Hill, in the Guan Heights, also known as Greenwood cemetery. A friend mentioned that there was a revolutionary war cemetery located in red hook, as I was interested in the war. So I followed it up and found all these articles mentioning the Red Hook Lane, a short St in downtown at Fulton and Jay, which was to be developed over with one of the tall buildings. I was just there taking pictures of a building and did further research. I choose the article name because there are lots of articles about the battle of long island, but none about the original indian trail thru the swampland from cypress tree island to brooklyn heights. As these were the indians cheated in the purchase of manhattan is, I decided to write that article which you now disparage as having no subject. Lets be simple. Three men died fighting for a cause. 269 others died for the same losing battle. Both of them are in unmarked graves. The marylanders will get their due, and this is about a pennslyvanian rifleman whom was deliberately left for the crows as a warning to other patriots fighting for the cause. There are details that usually get culled as too descriptive, and because they are not there you haven't the time to read all the cited pages. I see the need to describe where we are in the battle, fort defiance is visible from the guan heights as is Gov is and buttermilk channel. The dead man (officer) slowed the advance and was buried immediately. Later a building was deliberately not allowed to use a corner of its property resulting in a vacant triangular patch of land. Efforts to memorialize this result in the red hook lane heritage trail. Would you prefer I just call this the Red Hook Lane heritage trail? There more than enough to do that. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you can edit this to specifically mention the arresick... "odd shaped building at Columbia and Nelson streets is the location of the burial ground.[14] The building, built in 1932, had a corner cut off and left undeveloped, neighborhood folklore has that this was the revolutionary war arresick of Major Grant and the two troopers."

I am not here to edit your article. I have no knowledge of or interest in the subject matter. I am here to ensure that wikipedia maintains its quality by the removal of poor quality articles. I can only repeat what I have already said: if your article is about the burial ground, then write about that. If it is about the fort, write about that. If it is about the Major, write about him. But be clear that it is inappropriate to write at length about the fort or the man, in an article on a burial ground. Your reference 19, btw, muddies the water even more, as if that were possible. Is "Red Hook Lane Arresick" the same as the "Aresick (burying-ground), the peninsula later called Paulus Hook." Or is "Red Hook Lane Arresick" a set of war graves?

And, from where comes the name of this supposed burial ground? references 15 & 16, which one would suppose would attst to a thing called "Arresick" do not have that word in them at all.

The very best offer I can make is to move this into draft to allow you time to fix it. The best advice I can give is to use the opening paragraph of the article to define and describe the thing that forms the title of the article. If you will not follow or even try to understand any of this advice, youwill have only yourself to blame once the article ahas been deleted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

My view is that you really have no place here, you rush to tag the article, but have no interest in improving the prose you complain about, hence the moniker TAGish Simon. All three elements are necessary for this article to make sense. The etymology explains the name, it is on a former TIDAL Island named by the dutch, called an ARRESICK. The other translation from dutch placenames in new amsterdam is ARESICK, meaning 'burial ground'. The connection to the heritage trail 'Red Hook Lane' is why the title resolved to what it is. If you can't follow, I can explain. Since you have no interest, I won't bother. Since your mission is to keep bad articles off the wikipedia pages, I submit, the article is properly sourced, factual and not original research. The subject is a site of a skirmish where soldiers were buried. You don't like the lede, mine may not be the best, but it is short and to the point. I'm don't mind adjustments, but you're not helping to resolve your complaints, simply just throwing shade. So, visit later after the cleanup. (BTW: Paulous Hook is Jersey city. that is included as the original definition from the List Of dutch placenames. RIF) CaptJayRuffins (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring, for the most-part, the personal attack, you are saying that you made up the name? And you'll be standing around willing to explain how you came to coin the name should anyone wish to know. I see this article is the only google hit for 'Red Hook Lane Arresick'. Oh well. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I wrote to Red Hook History and asked the following. No different from Fort Defiance (Brooklyn)...

to: redhookhistory

The revolutionary war burial ground at Columbia and Nelson streets in red hook, what is the current name? Coffey Burial ground? Roode Hoek landerij? Cypress Tree Island Revolutionary War burial ground? Red Hook Arresick? CaptJayRuffins (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I DO make up the names of all the articles I write, before I write them, I search for the name on google and on wikipedia, if it doesn't exist, them I use that title in the lede. How do you, pray tell, come up with names for your articles? Edumacate me, please... CaptJayRuffins (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I tend to use the name the subject is known by in the reliable sources that evidence its existence. The problem you have here is that you cannot, as far as I know, point to a single source which labels your subject as you have named it. In other news, could you tone down the very tedious attempt at sarcasm. You are not very good at it & it's boring. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

And... you're the only editor here objecting, and it's boring. I added a new lede. Get busy...CaptJayRuffins (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"Arresick"?

Not sure where the "Arresick" in this article's title comes from, this seems to be a Lenape place name from Pavonia, New Netherland. Pharos (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)