Talk:Bristol, Rhode Island

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled

Hey all, I'm the WikiProject Cities assessor of this article. If feedback is what you want and need, come to my talk page and give me a holler! --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 21:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Gladding Rock

Hi - I am doing some geneology research and am looking for a modern picture of this rock: http://www.mysacramento.me/images/gladdingrock.gif

I can't find anything online - this image was grabbed out of an old book about the Gladding family (apparently lots of gladdings buried in Bristol). Does anyone know the context of this rock and if it still exists in Bristol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.71 (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parade Tea Party "controversy"

I would think that was iffy in an article about the parade: in an article about the town, it has no place that I can see. Removed again because it gives undue weight to the event. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is properly sourced and was discussed in international news broadcasts. I can understand wanting to condense the discussion of the controversy, but removing it altogether isn't in keeping with Wikipedia policy. I am trying to assume good faith, but I always have a bit of trouble with "moving goalpost" discussions (first, the problem is insufficient sources; once more reliable sources are provided, a claim of undue weight is made). If this is just a case of I just don't like it, please remember that your edit resembles censorship. I'll assume good faith and trust that we can work something out in a discussion, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "moving the goalposts", it's "not thinking it all the way through when there's something more obviously wrong". If you want to write an article about the parade and include this here, that would make some sense -- it would still be undue weight to a degree, but arguable. However, for an article about the Town of Bristol, it's about as irrelevant as it gets. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Tea Party incident at parade

{{3O}} Is including a paragraph about an incident that happened at the 2009 Bristol Independence Day parade appropriate, or is it undue weight?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the complaint was about insufficient references, I added more. When it was about the letter to the editor, I removed it. When it was about a reference to the Glenn Beck program, I removed it. When it was about giving too much space to the controversy, I shortened it. I am willing to shorten it a little more, however: "In 2009, a Tea Party group was briefly banned from participating in future events when they were suspected of handing out copies of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights during the parade." Is one sentence (with reliable sources) on an internationally televised controversy still undue weight? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
The version most recently inserted by GaryColemanFan does appear to give undue weight to the incident. I suggest cutting it down to something along the lines of 'After the 2009 parade, a tea party group was temporarily banned from taking part in future parades'.— --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 05:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response What about the version I proposed above? It is also one sentence, but it actually includes some context. The reason for the ban is important. Otherwise, we'd have the equivalent of "In 1492, some guy got on a boat and ended up somewhere else." Perhaps "In 2009, a Tea Party group was briefly banned from future participation when they were suspected of handing out copies of the Declaration of Independence and other historical documents during the parade." That's about as short as it can get while providing context. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That just makes it look lame. If you want context, how about "In 2009, a Tea Party group was briefly banned from future participation when they were accused of handing out literature from the float in violation of parade rules." It's still undue weight to include a single incident from a 200-year-old parade in the article for the town where the parade happens, but at least with this version you know why it happened.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a possibility. What about my version was lame, though? GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't that your version was lame, it was that it made the decision look lame (as in, completely indefensible). Having the reason that handing out the Declaration got them briefly banned makes it look less lame (and I have walked next to political floats on the 4th handing out the Constitution/Declaration myself, fwiw).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to be getting somewhere, but the controversy seems like a non-issue that way. The reason that it was featured on the news in my country was that it was allegedly handing out the Declaration of Independence that got them banned. If it had simply been a flyer for a mattress sale, it might have made the news in Bristol, but I certainly wouldn't have heard anything about it. I think "In 2009, a Tea Party group was briefly banned from future participation when they were suspected violating parade rules by handing out copies of the Declaration of Independence and other historical documents during the parade." is closer to a compromise, but I can't think of wording that would make it clear that the rule relates to all literature and not specifically historical documents. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Maybe 'In 2009, a Tea Party group was briefly banned from future participation when they were accused of handing out political literature, including the Declaration of Independence, from the float in violation of parade rules'? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with that wording, but I won't add it myself, since I still think it's undue weight -- especially given the temporary nature of the ban. If there were an article about the parade itself, it might be noteworthy enough to mention, but I can't see how it's appropriate in the town article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bristol, Rhode Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bristol, Rhode Island. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Bristol,_Rhode_Island"