Talk:Collect Pond

New York City: Chinese in NYC Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese in New York City (assessed as Mid-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ccash.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Source number four, "NYC Streets," is poorly researched. The streets it gives as bounding the Collect Pond don't make sense (which is obvious if you look at a map of Manhattan). It also gives a completely different etymology for "Collect" that seems made up. I am removing the information based on this site.

Alleged French Fort

I have removed the reference to a "mythical" 16th c. French fort at the Collect Pond, as it seems to be based on outdated scholarship and conflicting ambiguous sources. The given source for the French fort theory was The Discoveries of America to the Year 1525, Volume 1, By Arthur James Weise (1884), p. 358

For the notion that Norumbega on old maps was a corruption of "L'Anormee Berge" (The Great Scarp), and speculation that this may have referred to The Palisades, see also The Dutch Settlements In Hudson County, Cornelius Brett (1908), p. 4. This idea appears to have been disputed even at the time.

Current thinking appears to put the fort more likely in Maine. Understanding that this is not a definitive refutation, it still seems more prudent to remove the poorly-sourced speculation rather than leave it in as is.

If anyone can point to a substantial reference for this from a reputable source, please feel free to reinstate. Shorn again (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]