Talk:Rhode Island/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Rogue's Island" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rogue's Island. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This should be a seperate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.140.65.60 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Who put the Rhode in Rhode Island?

There seems to be uncertainty about the origins of "Rhode". We need an expert. Here is text from two popular sites. It seems important to include this since there is so much about the plantation part of the name.

The first mention of Rhode Island in writing ("isola di Rhode") was made by explorer Giovanni da Verrazzano in 1524 (he refers to an island near the mouth of Narragansett Bay which he compares to the Island of Rhodes in the Mediterranean). Some attribute the name to Dutch explorer Adriaen Block, who called it "Roodt Eylandt," meaning "red island" (again because its red clay is similar to the Greek island of Rhodes). The first official reference to the island by the English is in these words "Aquethneck shall be henceforth called the Ile of Rods or Rhod-Island." The earliest recorded English colonist text (by Roger Williams) refers to it as "Ilande of the Rodes" (without the "h").

Much shorter account on ri.gov page, but even they rely on a general source, rather than a primary source.

This state was named by Dutch explorer Adrian Block. He named it "Roodt Eylandt" meaning "red island" in reference to the red clay that lined the shore. The name was later anglicized when the region came under British rule. Source: Shearer, Benjamin F. and Barbara S. State Names, Seals, Flags and Symbols Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut – 1994.

Nlight2 (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2020

Change the state of Rhode Island's name to simply "The State of Rhode Island" as per the recent vote to change the state's name. 2600:8805:8800:BD00:18DA:E826:C02A:8BD3 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC) The Rhode Island official website has dropped Providence Plantations from it's name after the ballot initiative to drop it has passed. See the ri.gov history page linked below, and ballot results on ri.gov https://www.ri.gov/election/results/2020/general_election/races/624.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsideus (talk • contribs) 01:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Quakers

In the 1700s half of Rhode Island was Quaker.

I've heard that Rhode Island's colonial charter was issued by King Charles II in response to the hanging of three Quakers, including a Rhode Island woman, Mary Dyer, on Boston Common for blasphemy. The hanging of a woman for mere speech was considered repulsive and the Crown had to put a stop to the practice. In addition, Rhode Island Yearly Meeting of Friends, later named New England Yearly Meeting of Friends, was chartered by the same king in 1660. New England Yearly Meeting still meets every year.

The old State House sits where Meeting Street meets North Main Street. Providence Friends Meeting used to sit on the other side of Meeting Street, right next to the old State House. Around 1950 the city tore down the old meetinghouse in order to put up a fire station on the same spot. The Friends Meeting took the money and built a new meetinghouse at Morris and Olney Street on the East Side. People in Providence Friends Meeting told me this history around 1980.

The Society of Friends dominated Rhode Island politics. They dominated the start of the American Industrial Revolution. They dominated Rhode Island banking.

I suspect that most of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution was written expressly in order to entice the Quaker-dominated Rhode Island legislature into joining the union. "The right of people peaceably to assemble" sounds like a clause that references William Penn's previous trial for "riotous assembly" when Penn was actually praying silently with Friends in a public place. Paul Klinkman (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Name

The name area should have the name! --108.52.47.69 (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

wdym boss SusImposter49 (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cumberland Town Hall RI.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

wikilink not working

This is really minor and it really isn't that big of a deal, but for some reason "UTC-04:00" on the table doesn't link to anything, even though there is an article about it. I don't know how to change it though, so if anybody could do that, that would be awesome! - Phrogge (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this @Phrogge. I have edited the infobox. There was a formatting issue with a space missing between the dash. Inomyabcs (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Phrogge (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Area of Rhode Island?

I'm sorry if i was vandalizing the page, but i've came across multiple geography books and websites, and most of them say that Rhode Island is 4,001 square kilometres (1,545 sq mi), The US census bureau would also say the same thing https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-files/2010/geo/state-area.html 165.140.54.21 PS: I do know that some US states lie about their area, and Rhode Island is one of them. (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Well first, creating an account to continue the edit warring won't help you at all. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

IP range blocked

165.140.54.16/29 has a rather long record of disruption. It's assigned to Westminster Public Schools and is now blocked for 3 months. Favonian (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Rhode island

There is a dressing named after Rhode Island Skrillonyt (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Page Preview Not Right

So I discovered that the page preview of this article was shown 41.7°N 71.5°W instead of its casual preview. I don't know how to fix this, so i'm letting y'all know about this issue. Spookycheems (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where you are looking, but I did look through the Wikidata page and saw different lat/lon pairs. One was for the geographic center (where the population exactly balances) of the state, another was a little further north (and the one you illustrated which probably allows for the best sizing of the state through various zoom levels), and the last was the most northern point (although that one looked like it was in Massachusetts and not Rhode Island). Not sure if this is an issue or not considering the geographic centers don't necessarily make the best mapping points. Inomyabcs (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed by WallAdhesion. Thanks for reporting. Inomyabcs (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

removal of template

In edit of 4 September 2023, the editor removed {{sources exist}} offering only the explanation that numerous sources obviously exist, which hardly seems to explain why the editor would have removed this. To be clear, I would just like to establish that removal of the template was inappropriate, Fabrickator (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

To elaborate further on this, here is an extract from the {{sources exist}} documentation:

This template indicates that an article needs additional inline citations. It is similar to {{unreferenced}} or {{more citations needed}}, but also indicates that an editor has searched for reliable sources on the topic and determined that sufficient sources exist and that it is therefore notable. ... Use this template if the article has no references or if there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article, and you or another editor have determined that there are sufficient sources available to be cited..

Based on that, I am re-inserting the {{sources exist}} template. Fabrickator (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: This is not an appropriate template to use on an article that already had 200 citations. GMG^talk 20:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: The template documentation certainly mentions its use in conjunction with notability, but nothing indicates that this is restrictive rather than permissive. Making an assertion that sources exist for a particular claim alerts editors to the existence of an opportunity to improve the article.

While one could adjust the documentation to actually state that this template is restricted to addressing the issue of notability, it's hard to overcome the literal interpretation of {{sources exist}}. Nevertheless, if this template were really being used inappropriately, then it would be much more palatable to replace it with an appropriate template, possibly relying on the assertion that suitable sources actually exist, rather than simply deleting it. Fabrickator (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: Using that logic, it should be on nearly every article: Dog (sources exist), Tree (sources exist), Paul Rudd (sources exist), Diabetes (sources exist). This is a WP:COMMONSENSE issue. Nobody is questioning, or needs to be notified that there are additional sources available. GMG^talk 22:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: It's not reasonable to expect editors to be familiar with every fine point of every "tag" that might be placed on an article. If the intention of this template is that it be restricted to notability issues (and hopefully the docs would be updated to make this clear), that's fine. I presume that the person who inserted this was indicating that they had enough interest in the claim to bother to insert the template, that there was no existing citation to support the claim, and they had actually verified the existence of at least one source. If it bothers you because you think they're using the wrong template, then I would suggest replacing it with the appropriate template or templates which hopefully convey the intended meaning. Fabrickator (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: I presume ...Yeah...you do. GMG^talk 23:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You're utterly misusing the template, which would be clear to you if you read it. It should have been immediately clear to you that a giant orange maintenance template does not go in the middle of text. Wikipedia's policy on the burden of proof for statements is quite clear. If you wish for the statement to remain in the article, you will need to cite it. It is not our responsibility to do so for you. The use of a citation needed tag is actually what "alerts editors to the existence of an opportunity to improve the article", and I have taken the liberty of adding one for you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The body-text actually does even include the citation "Roger Williams, letter to John Winthrop in June 1638", which would be a decent {{Cite letter}} missing only the letter's subject if there is one. So {{full citation needed}} would be more appropriate. I added a link to the letter itself to WP:V the actual quote. DMacks (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, I gave the wrong link, it should have been revision of 11:48, 4 September 2023. User:DMacks has graciously provided a source which I have put into standard format. The improvement of the article can at least be partially attributed to User:Sativa Inflorescence, who inserted the {{sources exist}} markup, notwithstanding the differing interpretations of the intent of this template. Fabrickator (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)