Talk:Neighborhoods of Norwich, Connecticut

facts and sources

I will reconstruct here a comment that i promised by an edit summary to make, but which was lost by some Wikipedia error, system was not accepting edits. I was editing the article. Subsequently there has further edits of article reverting what i was doing, which i have now reverted to restore what I was doing. (I have no judgment about subsequent self-labelled "tweaks" by another editor lost in the process, perhaps some/all of those could be re-added). Orlady, what are you doing, you claimed recently that you do not follow me around but that appears to be exactly what you are doing.

About the facts and sources, besides a couple sourced statements that i just added, there were just two sources in the article supporting lesser points. The main assertion in the article that there are neighborhoods that "maintain distinct identities" and have signage is not supported. I assume, since another editor went out of the way to make the assertion, that there is some signage of neighborhoods, but I do not offhand expect that there is signage of all 16 of the subsequently listed neighborhoods. And, to assert that a neighborhood maintains anything is to assert some governance or coherence or organization, and offhand I doubt that there is such organization for all of these. I may be wrong, if there are in fact neighborhood councils or whatever as in some other cities, please let me know. So, in the article, I currently object somewhat to the whole organization. Also, I notice some apparent equation of NRHP-listed historic districts with neighborhoods. From other experience with NRHP HD names, I am aware that a new NRHP HD name does not always correspond with a named neighborhood: the HD name may reflect a historic, no-longer-used name, or the HD may define a different area than the common use of a current neighborhood name. Here as elsewhere, the existence of neighborhoods may be erroneously assumed from the existence of NRHPs.

In the current lead, I put in less information and mention of two perhaps most significant neighborhoods, the Chelsea one and Norwichtown. Perhaps this lead should be developed and the rest of the article reduced. Or, it would be helpful if sources about any actual official partition of the town into sections or any other sources could be provided here and/or in the article. Or perhaps the article should be converted to one about neighborhoods and historic districts, which are different? doncram (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'll try to get the personal accusations out of the way: I don't follow you around, Doncram. Rather, certain pages that you edit are on my watchlist.

Now for the substance: This Neighborhoods of Norwich, Connecticut article has multiple problems. Notably, it is almost completely unsourced. However, it appears to have been written by people who have knowledge of the city. The prominent refimprove template at the top of the page pretty clearly indicates that the article needs some sources, so it was unnecessary to add "citation needed" templates to individual sentences that are uncontroversial in their content.

On the other hand, your additions to the lead section are speculative commentary and original research (some might even describe it as male bovine excrement). In a city with about 16 named neighborhoods, you assert that two specific neighborhoods are the most significant ones, with no apparent basis other than the fact that there has been edit warring regarding the articles about those two neighborhoods. Moreover, in a city with about a dozen National Register historic districts, all or most of which are also local historic districts subject to local zoning protection, there is no justification whatsoever for the bit of creative writing in which you said "Within the city bounds also are two historic districts: the Downtown Norwich Historic District and the Norwichtown Historic District which provide recognition and some tax incentive towards preservation of the historic character of defined areas." Finally, it makes no sense to add the word "also" to the sentence introducing the list of neighborhoods ("Norwich also has these neighborhoods (in alphabetical order)") when it is a complete list that includes the two neighborhoods you have already chosen to describe in your creative addition to the lead section.

It's probably "piling on" to point out the lameness of what passes for written expression in the following passage (but if I don't do it now, I fear that I won't get another chance): "According to the city, the downtown area of the city is known as the Chelsea central district. The city charter also mentions a 'Downtown Norwich neighborhood revitalization zone'.[1] Also, the 'colonial section of the city is known as Norwichtown.'"

Overall, your changes made a bad article worse. --Orlady (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced material

I challenge, and I removed, unsourced material for 2 neighborhoods, the Bean Hill neighborhood and the East Great Plain neighborhood. The latter appeared to have new material. If new material is added, surely there is a source available which could be added at the same time. When added with no source, I think the best policy is to remove it promptly, as part of dealing with a bigger problem. --doncram (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Doncram

For these "neighborhood" distinctions it's more of a social and cultural construction than that of a factual construction (yes boundaries exist). I am re-inserting the description of the East Great Plains neighborhood as I found it to be accurate and descriptive of the area. While it can be approved upon (not bad content in it, but more content can be added), having removed the original content is just ignorant. Not everything "needs" a source, especially when it is a subject such as culturally and socially defined neighborhoods. Need to know what is in this neighborhood? Go there yourself and see for your own eyes as whoever made the East Great Plains entry obviously did (or they referenced a map of the area). You don't need to cite general knowledge of an area - and the information is easily verifiable —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenIpaq (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Great Plains

EGP exists. It's existed for over a century, and has even been referenced in a lawsuit. More refs might be needed, but it's there. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of neighborhoods

The city article says 10 neighborhoods are recognized by signage: Bean Hill, Chelsea, East Great Plains, Greeneville, Laurel Hill, Norwichtown, Occum, Taftville, Thamesville, Yantic. It appears the City of Norwich, Department of Public Works recognizes 12 areas[1][2]: Central, East Great Plains, East Side, Greeneville, Laurel Hill, Mohegan Park, Norwichtown, Occum, Plain Hill, Taftville, Thamesville, West Side. This leaves Jail Hill, Ox Hill, Union Street, and Washington St and Broadway without any justification whatsoever for being a Norwich neighborhood. Since three of the four are parts of historic districts, perhaps those four should be removed as neighborhoods and limited to mentions in the Norwich article (and their own HD articles, of course). 71.234.215.133 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]