Talk:Compo–Owenoke Historic District

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

removed material

I removed the following from the article: "It consists of two coastal settlements: Compo and Owenoke (a narrow peninsula extending from the Compo area). The district lies to the west of Sherwood Island State Park."

I don't know if that info is true or false; there is no source provided. I did search on "Compo, Connecticut" in google and found no information. I don't currently believe that either is regarded as a settlement.

Polaron, if you wish for material like this to appear in the article, could you please get a source supporting it. Perhaps the NRHP document, which you could add, would support that, although i am guessing it will speak of historic settlements that are not current communities. doncram (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the nomination form. I am not adding false information here (or anywhere). Also, what in your mind is the difference between a historic settlement and a current community. It is a named place that had the same name from when it was established through now and people do still live in this place. --Polaron | Talk 17:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that you intentionally ever add false information. Thanks for adding the NRHP document link, which allows us to actually talk about content, and does help your credibility. About this document, I see that it describes Compo and Owenoke as being "residential areas", and explains they were developed as beach communities in the early 1900s. This seems very different to me than calling them "coastal settlements" which conveys, for me, that they were sites of original settlements by Indians or by the earliest colonists. "Settlement" as a term has been used as jargon in Wikipedia to mean communities or something else, i guess, and I think the word should be avoided in articles except when meaning the general meaning of the term, as a place where settlers--meaning like pioneers--settled. So, I think you didn't intentionally misstate anything, but the information was in fact misstated. It was technically false in part, IMO. I have also been in the position of having added information that is technically not correct to articles, when I wrote in stuff from memory that I thought was true, rather than working specifically from a source. So, I don't mean to be superior about anything, but I think this little example reinforces my belief that unsourced material about CT NRHPs should be removed from articles. This material was added previous to NRHP docs being readily available. From several examples i have seen just today, such unsourced info is often misleading, false, semi-fabricated from putting together bits of NRIS data into complete sentences without actually knowing the facts, or otherwise bad info. Happily the NRHP docs are available and can be used to add sourced information in most CT cases now. --doncram (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Settlements" as used in Wikipedia are what is termed by the USGS as a populated place. It is used globally so I'm not sure where you're getting that it has to be a U.S. place established by Indians or early colonists. They are populated places on the coast, hence "coastal settlements". --Polaron | Talk 22:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, the removed info was incorrect in another way. It asserted the district consisted of two areas, when in fact it also includes Compo Beach. It seems the info was just speculation. doncram (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "Compo Beach" redirects here. I have long known the extent of the district from town plans. The beach is typically considered part of Compo. In fact, the entire area including Owenoke is often termed just Compo. --Polaron | Talk 22:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well from Google browsing I had the impression Compo Beach is the name of a community, not just an actual beach. I wonder if it may be a real estate term gaining traction, as "Compo Beach" sounds better and seems more descriptive of a property in a beach community. But from the NRHP doc and what you say i guess the Compo Beach term means the beach. The NRHP doc is pretty clear that Compo is a residential area, not including the beach or Owenoke. You make statements as to what is termed what, but give no sources. No offense intended, but I don't know what to believe. When in doubt, I think one should go back to using only sourced material. That is Wikipedia policy, actually, to use verifiable info above using other info, even if the other info is believed to be more "correct" somehow. doncram (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]