Talk:Peace Dale, Rhode Island

Assertion that the whole village is the historic district

In this diff, [[1]], Orlady reverted doncram's attempt to insert the fact that there is question whether the village and the historic district are in fact identical. Her edit comment was "revert doncram's weasel words" in response to his edit comment "(link to separate article on the NRHP HD. This is escalating, why not discuss/address CT first?)". She removed his link to the separate article, which is a wikinotable, sourced stub. The stub links to this article, why should this article not link to the stub. As far as reinserting the assertion that they are identical, I doubt that very much. I understand that villages are amorphous in New England, but the historic district is not. The only way to tell for sure would be to read the nomination document, and see what is specifically included in the historic district, and compare that to a map of the region, where, amorphous or not, you can usually tell by the concentration of roads what can reasonably be considerd part of the "village". In every case I have ever done this, they have NOT been identical. Unless the district is uninhabited now, I very much doubt that to be the case. It is incomprehensible to me why a respected administrator such as Orlady persists in refusing to acknowledge even the possibility that these two entities might not be exactly the same. I am going to attempt to insert some language that she might find acceptable. Lvklock (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove a link to the separate article. Doncram's edit summary said he inserted such a link, but no link existed when I edited the article. (Look at the edit history.)

I sincerely apologize. He had the name of the article bolded, and that was what was removed. I truly thought it was a link. Lvklock (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Doncram's edit summary accused me of escalating an edit war by my work in this article. As I noted on his talk page, what I did was to create a separate article for Peace Dale, Rhode Island (and also Wakefield, Rhode Island), instead of letting the various village and HD pages all continue to be redirects to the article about the CDP Wakefield-Peacedale, Rhode Island].

In my mind "escalating" is not name calling, it's a comment on the action, not the person. Characterizing another as a "weasel" is name calling. Lvklock (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The term WP:weasel wording is widely used in wikipedia. It does not refer to a person, but to the words. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the education. I don't see anything unverifiable about "Some portion of the village is included in the Peace Dale Historic District,", so I fail to see how they are weasel words. In fact, in my opinion "the village was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as an historic district in 1987" are the weasel words, because they fail to convey the fact that the concretely defined historic district is not the same as the amorphous village, which Orlday has repeatedly assured me has no legal definition. Concrete definition vs. amorphous place, not the same in my opinion. Lvklock (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the allegation that the National Register listing for Peace Dale is only some unknown fraction of the village, note that the village never had a separate legal existence and it had already coalesced with Wakefield to some degree as early as 1895. (This information is in the Wakefield article and in the source cited there.) Any tiny distinction that may exist between the boundaries of the HD and what local people currently identify as "Peace Dale" is immaterial, and certainly an editor's "doubt" that they are the same did not justify the nonencyclopedic weasel wording "Some portion of the village is included in the Peace Dale Historic District." (Your wording is better.)

I understand about there not being a legal village, and somehow in each of our minds that bolsters our own argument. To you that means it's vague anyway, so we can use it vaguely and be accurate. To me it means that since ther's no legal definition of the village it's even more important to be as precise and accurate as possible in describing the historic district, and not imbue it with the same amorphism as the village. Lvklock (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, while the historic district is roughly bounded by Kensey Rd., Oakwoods Dr., Kingstown Rd., School, Church and Railroad Sts., a quick look at the googlemaps display for Peace Dale, Rhode Island shows in close proximity to those are Main St., River St., High St., Holley St, Oak St., Cleveland St., Cherry Lane, Charles St., Prospect Ave., Mechanic St. and dozens more. Note that the first of those was Main Street. Main Street is not within the ditrict! How can they be the same? (This was composed before Orlady's edit above) Lvklock (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut#Content forking for my thoughts on why this splitting of articles is inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines. --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lunch hours over, but I will review this later and respond. Lvklock (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a partial description of the village and the HD, from that state report linked above:

"Peace Dale Historic District: Peace Dale is a settlement centered on the Saugatucket River and Kingstown Road and Columbia Street. Once a distinct mill village separate from neighboring Wakefield, later growth has coalesced Peace Dale, Wakefield, and’ Rocky Brook into an almost indistinguishable urban area today. Peace Dale includes the large Peace Dale mill complex, mill sites, homes of mill owners, workers’ houses, bridges, a variety of public buildings, a railroad station, several churches, a cemetery, and several schools; these properties reflect the evolution of the village from its beginning to the present. Most of these properties lie within a smaller core area that is historically associated with the mills and the Hazard family and has been recommended for the National Register as an historic district. Several properties outside the village nucleus are part of Peace Dale’s later development; they are listed separately."

The historic district mapped in that report (pages 153-154 of the PDF) is sufficiently extensive that it's hard to figure what might have been left out, other than a school that was built in 1954. However, the appendix suggests that the 1857 Friends meetinghouse, 1870 Congregational parsonage, and 1923 Peace Dale School might not have been recommended for inclusion in the HD. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

From the quote above "Most of these properties lie within a smaller core area that is historically associated with the mills and the Hazard family and has been recommended for the National Register as an historic district." MOST of the properties (not all) lie within the SMALLER core area that is" now the historic district. Also, this quote refers to the fact that it "has been recommended" for the NRHP, which listing occured in 1987. In my view, all you can assert from this is that twenty-two years ago the historic district and the village were not the same. I would agree, though, that it is likely they still are not the same. Lvklock (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Partial reply (clarification): The source I cited is dated 1984, so it describes the HD nomination before it was approved. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC) This current map shows a larger historic district area than the 1984 report showed as proposed. --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the diff is just from between 1984 and listing in 1987, or if there's been a boundary increase since, which should then have its information included in the historic district article. In the end though, defining the historic district doiesn't really help resolve the issue of if they're are essentially the same, because all you have to compare it to is the vaguely defined village. So we're back to the concrete vs. amorphous argumant, that in my mind defines the difference in the two things. Lvklock (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[OUTDENT] Regardless of the what the reality might be, the current wording of this article is fine, thanks to Lvklock's clear thinking and good writing. I still contend that the wording in the HD article, saying "It includes some or all of an unincorporated community named Peace Dale, Rhode Island" makes Wikipedia look stupid, and I further believe that creating a separate article for the HD is inappropriate content forking. --Orlady (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is a merger proposal at Peace Dale Historic District which links to discussion here. For clarity, for others who might join the discussion, could we let this new section be the place to discuss that? Certainly comments within the above discussion section (such as Orlady's concern about content forking) should be considered by anyone specifically commenting on the merger proposal.

For the record, I am opposed to a merger being forced, at first level because no one has obtained the National Register application document which would likely clarify the extent of overlap between the unincorporated community and the NRHP HD. It seems to me premature to have a discussion about forcing a merger when such a basic, free source document has not yet been obtained. \

Also, while there is a merger proposal pending, I think it is wp:disruptive and various other negative things, for anyone to delete the merger tags and the article as a whole in redirecting it here, as if a consensus had been reached, which has not in fact happened. doncram (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, for the record, as per my comments above. Lvklock (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added information about individual contributing properties to the stub, which would not be appropriate to the town/village/hamlet article. Lvklock (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be appropriate to include information about those properties in the Peace Dale article? The main focus of the Peace Dale article is the village's history. It would be very logical to talk about the village's historic buildings, the sculpture on the library lawn (see [2]), etc., in the same article that tells about the history. There are no population data to report in the Peace Dale article (Peace Dale is part of a CDP with Wakefield), there's no local government to discuss, and "economy" is not a big topic there, so the article isn't exactly cluttered with unrelated topics. Furthermore, IMO the Peace Dale article (which is still pretty stubby) is incomplete without discussion of the village's landmark historic buildings. --Orlady (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Orlady, i thot your tastes were generally against including "metes and bounds" and dates and lists of contributing properties of historic districts into articles about villages/hamlets that contain historic districts, so I wouldn't think you'd want that list here in this article. But, certainly, it is fine and good for editors of articles on villages/hamlets to copy selectively or even en masse from NRHP HD articles. However, i do think it would be appropriate, first, to verify those properties are included in the village/hamlet, and i do expect that material can/will be developed that is not of interest for this article. Also, editors should be careful not to make assumptions about equating the historic district with the village/hamlet, given no specific sources identifying which is included in which, or otherwise describing their geographical relationship. Also, not to say you were claiming otherwise, but this question seems to have no bearing on the discussion section topic. For any other new discussion topics on how to develop the Peace Dale, Rhode Island article, for those interested in developing that article, could those be started in separate discussion sections? Just like there is a separate discussion section at Talk:Peace Dale Historic District on a separate topic about how to develop that article, for people interested in developing that article. doncram (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Map

For reference, here's a map of the historic district based on RIGIS data. --Polaron | Talk 02:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Coke bottle, from PeaceDale, RI

I have a large collection of Coke products from all over the States, and going Thur some bottles yesterday I came across a 6 ounce Coke bottle with Peace Dale. RI on the bottom. Is this plant still in existence, and where was it located in PD. It is well "worn" out on the sides, no markings visible, has been in service for a long time. It was purchased from the Coke plant here in Florence, Al,some 15 years ago. Thanks!!!! Leon Edmond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7C0:CC80:2E0:19E:8B03:36D5:9525 (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)