Talk:History of Norwalk, Connecticut

Connecticut High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-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.

Deaths on 2001 Sep 11[edit]

Hey, let's not get into a WP:3RR situation over the 9/11 victims list. I'm not sure that I want to comment on the issue, but maybe we could get a different third opinion. Nationalparks 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe TJ could start discussing his differences of opinion before cutting contributions. I find his citations of Wikipedia policy inaccurate, and the characterization of that sentence as "memorializing" inaccurate. When a city or town loses the largest number of victims in a single incident since -- since when? The 1854 train wreck in Norwalk? Perhaps it was the greatest single-incident loss of life for residents of Norwalk, Greenwich, Stamford and Darien since Colonial times or earlier (perhaps an Indian war?). This isn't worth mentioning in "history"?

As a non-paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia can have more recent history than traditional encyclopedias and it can revise that history -- so that recent history can play a larger role in the encyclopedia, and it can be updated. I see nothing wrong, and everything right, in including the most important things that happened in the past year in a few paragraphs at the end of a history article or section, or including a few paragraphs from the previous five or 10 years: That is history too, and it's important to readers. Details such as names of the victims can be important to readers too. Not 20 years from now perhaps, but probably for the next few years. As recent events fade, we can revise our description of them, including deleting the names of victims as they become less and less important to our understanding of the incident. But as of now, the names of people from this community who died in the incident constitute something useful.Noroton 21:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! I hope you don't think I'm unpatriotic. I see your point about the large number of deaths, but I think this particularly is an article about the history of *Norwalk*, and 9/11 happened in NY, DC, and PA, and I really think a victim listing is out of place on the the sole grounds they were victims who lived in Norwalk...we aren't mentioned the day Kendall won the Noble although he was a Norwalk son, for example. So...I remember an AfD discussion about an article listing Israeli casualties in the Lebanon conflict, essentially the same arguement was made by 95% of the people invoking the "...not a memorial" in WP:NOT...also, I think the proof is in the pudding on this one, to my finding there is no master list of 9/11 victims on wikipedia, and I'm sure it wasn't simply "overlooked" in the last five years...I looked for a discussion on the topic but the archive is ridiculous....anyways, I don't want you to think I'm a deletionist, so rather than revert I replaced the section with a mention of the martha moxley trial...for like a month CNN was beaming from Norwalk everyday...I think that's more relevant to 21st century Norwalk. PS - there actually is a ten-year rule of thumb (will it be important in 10 years?)..

Nationalparks, there's no need to comment if you don't want...Also, sometimes we need to step back and remove themselves for a reality check and so I'd comply without question to the results of any appeal to the wikipedian community. TJ0513 03:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There can be no better place for a listing of Norwalk's nine or so victims than in History of Norwalk, precisely because this isn't for the purpose of memorializing but for something useful to readers, who may tangentially know or run across the victim's families and, because the names are here, be able to confirm (more easily) whether someone with that name was one of those killed. Why can't we think of providing useful information to readers as our first priority, rather than whether or not somebody else somewhere else on the Wikipedia site decided in some tangential case that each victim doesn't need his or her own Wikipedia article? That's what the Wikipedia page TJ cited was talking about. This is quite different.Noroton 15:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other point, just because a person from Norwalk walked out the door and was killed where they work, outside of Norwalk, before coming back home that night doesn't mean that his or her death was something not part of Norwalk's history. Lots of things that are part of Norwalk's history (because they involved Norwalk residents, often in a group) took place elsewhere. Can we not mention that Norwalkers fought in the French and Indian War, somewhere else, as a group? The (probably mythical) Norwalk story about Yankee Doodle partly takes place away from Norwalk, and we might at some point mention what happened to groups of Norwalkers who went off to war together, and where they fought together (Gettysburg, for instance). I'm not talking about adding anything to what we have already about 9/11 in Norwalk history -- I think what we have is appropriate and necessary to do justice to that episode.Noroton 15:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this is all about about but there is victim stuff here, I found it through the NYC Fire Department article......yah, so, I think it comes down to a philosphy of what the history of a city is...is a city its people? Its physical location? It's pretty deep stuff. Given that 9/11 didn't happen in Norwalk, I don't think 9/11 content belongs on this page. It's only a brief paragraph in the history of NYC page. I'm not sure I think they belong on the people of norwalk page, either, because to be noteable for having been a victim on 9/11 is kind of...an unsatisfying tag. PS - The Yankee Doodle story is true, it's really Norwalk's only claim to fame...besides Stew's...sigh... TJ0513 03:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to TJ's paragraph just above (I don't want to indent another time): Yes, I think a city is it's people, which is the real reason (isn't it?) why you didn't have an objection to the Yankee Doodle episode, even though the crucial parts of it take place far beyond Norwalk. Perhaps focusing more on the 9/11 reaction in Norwalk itself would satisfy your objections? (I'd have to research that, I know schools closed in Greenwich and New Canaan, but not Norwalk.) The most prominent thing about the 9/11 experience for Norwalk was that the city lost nine people (who for now are well worth naming). There's no way that wasn't a big event in the community's history. If an equivalent number of Norwalk school children were killed on a school trip to the Bronx Zoo (may it never happen), that would be an event in Norwalk's history, too, because it would be something that affects the community so much, wouldn't it?

About Yankee Doodle, I've heard (haven't nailed it down) that it's got no real documentation to back it up (although it's still a great story and deserves to be here in some form because it's been an oft-told tale around here and namesake of the bridge, right?). By the way, as I'm learning more about the history of these communities around here, including Norwalk, and including the people that lived in them, I'm becoming increasingly surprised by how many claims to fame we actually have around here, in Norwalk and just outside it. Everyone in the country recognizes Raggedy Ann, Constant Comment tea, Andy Rooney, Pepperidge Farm, and I'm positive I'm forgetting a few other people or things. Every community south of Ridgefield and west of Stratford (just about) can say they have or have had people or thngs in them that the entire country would recognize. That ain't bad. I've also heard we had Indian wars and witch burnings in the area, but haven't been able to nail that down yet.Noroton 04:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot SoBe, it's delicious...I think Yankee Doodle is more of a fun fact tid-bit, it has implications in that it went on to become CT's state song, and it's more of the more famous traditional american "tunes" in general. I really does link the city to a piece of american apple pie. Regarding 9/11, Norwalk is very linked to the broader NYC area and I think didn't really have its own 9/11 experience independent of anything in regards to the greater metro area, besides the unfortunate loss of nine of its citizens...there weren't greater implications in the city beyond that, and the listing of the deceased is out of context with the rest of the article. Finally, I think we might all try to avoid 9/11 overkill. So, let me be 'explicit' that I am deleting the listing (again).

PS - The Native American wars were the Pequot and I think I heard something about 'a' witch in what is now westport... TJ0513 03:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noroton, please stop re-adding lists of 9/11 victims. I wanted to give this a week-off for cool down. I have thought about it, and in the meanwhile tried to look up similar circumstances...I remain convinced it's not appropriate for inclusion. List pages have failed before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks)...this is why the sept11 wiki was created...although that seems to have been much deleted, too...I dunno what the history is there. The point is, I can't really find lists on wikipedia other than the ones you created, and there seems to be a history of aversion to these lists. I was thinking about setting up a straw poll but it seems the discussion has long ago occured. TJ0513 15:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly wanted to discuss this, you wouldn't change the page first: A point I've made with you repeatedly. I've given my reasons and I'm sticking to them. You don't seem to have cooled down at all, because you're still trying to force your opinion rather than discuss it, although I guess discussing it while you're trying to force your way is an improvement. You're adamant about this, but as I see it you're stated reasons are that it hasn't been done elsewhere and someone else, somewhere else is opposed to it, which doesn't seem to correlate with your adamancy (other than that you just don't like it) -- so is there something else going on here besides your stated reasons? I get the impression that this has nothing to do with the disagreement itself. I've shown myself willing to compromise (on the Silvermine page, for instance). Why don't you?Noroton 17:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what are you infering? What else could be going on?!? You're no longer giving any discussion other than "you've already given your reasons" I wasn't forcing my opinions, I was editing out inappropriate material from this article. Please review that link I posted, and note the absense of victim's list on wikipedia; I was trying to illustrate there is a general opposition to 9/11 victim's list on wikipedia. Personally, I doesn't think it belongs, and many others would agree. What would it take for this issue to be resolved with you? TJ0513 17:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noroton, obviously we are in diagreement, and we could very well continue reverting ad infinitum...I ask you again, what would it take to settle the issue with you? You are not addressing the points I raised: that similar 9/11 lists have failed before. You are also saying things that you ought to take back, like suggesting I have an underlying motive (that "something else" that is going on). Also, do not pretend this is my first attempt at dialouge, re: your most recent edit summary. Let me propose this: start an article listing fairfield country causualties of 9/11 (I would but don't want to attatch my username)...if it is AfD-ed, would that prove it to you? From the evidence, I think it would be deleted. Do you have any alternative proposals? TJ0513 03:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I've been cooperative in a lot of ways with you, open-minded, listening, and I've changed my mind on some things and agreed to compromise on others in a spirit of collaboration, but you're so adamant about such small points, and you have so very, very many of them -- and when I also take into account the pugnacious tone of quite a few comments of yours -- that I'm getting the impression that there's some underlying animus on you're part that you're not voicing, and I'm coming to the conclusion that you're not going to be cooperative and that I'm wasting my time.

I feel strongly that in an article about Norwalk history we need to note the number of people who died from this city and, at least while the event is relatively recent, we should give their names. As I've said and now repeat: I don't want to do it for memorializing purposes but because it's an important historical fact, as are their names. This is local history. People are named in local histories. It is useful, and usefulness is very close to the heart of what we should be doing here, and what is very far from the heart of what we do here is whether or not someone somewhere else in Wikipedia does it or likes it.

Creating an article has a higher standard than including a couple of sentences in an article, which is all I want or think is deserved. I have no interest in doing something countywide because I think the usefulness of listing the names is purely local. I have no interest in expanding this sentence or two because I think this is all it's worth. I also have no interest in constantly repeating myself or in spending all my time trying to negotiate when I'd rather be adding material to articles or starting new ones.

Here's a compromise: I can tone down the language and put the names in a footnote. What do you think of that?Noroton 03:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you’d like a 3rd party observation, here is mine for what it’s worth. I recall how after 9/11, there was a lot of talk about people knowing people knowing people who died at the WTC. It is human nature, but still shows a need to be somehow associated in some way to an event with global impact, like a need to show how we were all victims, if not directly, then by association. I get the same feeling from this article of a certain need to show that Norwalk was also affected by the terrible events of 9/11 through the loss of nine of its residents. There were a lot of victims from many cities and countries during 9/11, and Norwalk being so close to Manhattan would likely have a higher proportion of victims than a town further away. Don’t really think it’s relevant to the article though. If there were an article of a list of victims and their origins, that’s where this would belong. I’ll give you another example. The Indian Ocean Boxing Day Tsunami of 2004, claimed 543 Swedish lives, apart from the 1994 sinking of the ferry Estonia in the Baltic, which took 501 Swedish lives, the Swedes haven’t lost so many lives in one disaster, natural or otherwise in hundreds of years. For Sweden, it was a significant loss of lives, compared to their historic experience. Yet, compared to the 130,000+ Indonesians dead, the 543 Swedish dead seem insignificant in comparison. In an article on the History of Indonesia, the Tsunami’s reference would be appropriate, but it doesn't belong in an article on the History of Sweden, and indeed, there is no such reference. I don’t think I’d be searching History of Sweden for information on the Tsunami. If I wanted to know how many Swedes died in the Tsunami, I’d look for it under “Countries affected by the Tsunami of 2004”. Anyway, as mentioned, it’s an observation, and one which is neutral. I should also point out that I in no way mean any disrespect to the Norwalk victims of 9/11, or any other victims for that matter. Jnpet 10:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be a sock puppet, Jnpet. I'm unimpressed with comments from sock puppets.Noroton 16:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a request for an opinion for this article and I gave one which I felt was from a neutral point of view and for you to take it for what it’s worth.You obviously have the right to disagree and I respect your opinion and wouldn’t make any changes to your article either way. However, I do find your response uncalled for. I spent a considerable amount of time providing my third party observation as I found the request for such for this article. Your response by name-calling is frankly immature and also shows that your emotions are driving your inclusion of the debated item to this article as I had concluded in my analysis. Hey I could be wrong, but calling me a sock puppet hasn’t convinced me and indeed only strengthens my POV. You’ve had my two cents worth. If you didn’t want it, don’t make requests for a third opinion. Jnpet 02:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jnpet, Noroton, FYI, I was the one who requested a third opinion on Wikipedia:Third opinion for this dispute. Jnpet, thank you very much for taking the time to offer your opinion in this matter, it is appreciated. Noroton, what say you? Would you like a 4th opinion? TJ0513 02:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my "4th opinion". It is very sad and tragic that this community lost 9 people and I certainly understand the desire to include the fact. That said, it would be pretty obnoxious if every "location article" included lists of locals who died in some notable event. Moreover, the population of Norwalk is 82,951; nine is a pretty small fraction of the population. I don't see how this had a significant impact on the 21st century history of Norwalk (beyond the impact that 9/11 had on almost every American city) and I don't think it would help anyone better understand the 21st century history of Norwalk (didn't help me). As such, I think the inclusion of this list is slightly sensational. How many Norwalk history books is this going to show up in? I think that the best measure here is to ask, "should similar information be in every similar article?" and I think the answer is a clear 'no'. All of that said, the inclusion of this information really isn't that big of a deal -- it is verifiable and non-controversial. Finally, if the information stays then I think the word "murdered" should be changed. Yeah, these people were murdered but I think that "killed" would be a more "encyclopedic" phrasing. shotwell 13:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if it stays, then I feel it should be rephrased to something like "Nine residents were killed during the September 11, 2001 attacks....". shotwell 13:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJ, What do you think of my compromise? Jnpet, if it's "uncalled for" for you to be called a sockpuppet, does that mean you deny it? ... I didn't think so. Just look at your "my contributions" list. I did.Noroton 18:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I deny it. And I confess I was initially discouraged by your response as it was my very first contribution to Wikipedia. Have since read up on it and I understand your reservations. Indeed, it seems Wikipedia allows sock puppets (to be honest, I wasn’t even sure what you meant by that initially), and even has a “look out for” guide line. Being a Newbie, I guess I show all the signs of being a sock puppet as described in the Wiki guidelines. I was also glad to see a note for Newbies not to be discouraged if accused of being one. At any rate, I understand now that contributing to a dispute resolution as my first task was probably just asking for trouble. I guess I’ll contribute elsewhere, at least until “my contributions” list gains more substance. Cheers! Jnpet 01:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this conflict resolution is going to need a conflict resolution! Jnpet, Shotwell, thank you for adding 3rd party contributions (and sorry your opinion was discounted). Noroton, I appreciate the effort to reach a consensus. Honestly, and I hope you take no offense, I think your compromise offer stands at the lower bound of tolerable for inclusion. Wouldn't you agree that the *median* view is that the 9/11 mention is unnessecary/inappropriate? TJ0513 03:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd say your reading of that is as tendentious as the rest of what you've said. Jnpet is a newbie and shotwell has objected to the list, not the mention. Too bad you're not in the mood to compromise. Incidentally, there is a reference to the Boxing Day flood on the Postwar Swedish History page, at the bottom, as a "See also".Noroton 04:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is that I think it doesn't need to be included, neutral 3rd-partiers Jnpet and Shotwell think it doesn't need to be included (Shotwell urging a wording change conditional on inclusion, only), and you think it ought to be included. No one is supporting your view besides yourself and frankly I think you're being a little stubborn. Don't accuse me of having a biased read...or if you think my assesment is wrong tell me where. Not sure what the next stage of conflict resolution is but just after this first step you appear to be standing alone. TJ0513 12:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more clear. I am not strongly concerned with the mention one way or the other. I wouldn't include it and I'd probably remove it. If the removal were contested, I'd probably just move on. You feel strongly about it, so I guess that is not an option for you. Let me point out that the statement is sourced and uncontroverial in itself. If it stays, it needs to be rewritten and given some context (earlier on the talk page someone said it was the largest loss of life since some other event). Before taking this through any sort of dispute resolution, I'd recommend that everyone take a short break to evaluate their concerns. If you should decide that this issue is very important to you, I'd suggest an informal route like the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. shotwell 18:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS...don't want to speak for Jnpet and think it's splitting hairs anyway but skimmed the sweden article and although saw flood link at end didn't see mention of it in article itself. Also saw no mention of sweden on flood link article. Since there is no context in either article one would be justified in removing that link.

Just to make it clear: You have no interest in compromising, correct? You're really looking for any little edge you can get in order to get your way. And once you've gotten your way with one thing, you'll repeat the entire process on something else. That's been the pattern so far. What it isn't is collegiality, collaboration or, most important, consensus. I get the impression you put far more effort into disputation than actual contributions. Well, whatever floats your boat. So, just to make it clear -- there's no interest in compromising on your part -- isn't that correct?Noroton 17:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really tired/exhaused tonight so will keep short...think article can't stand as is, though said is tolerable with change (call that a comprmise if you want to)...still not convinced of 9/11 mention at all, believe you're resorting to personal attacks/making assumptions about me that are unwarranted/insulting/untrue (you're only wikipedian who's said these things to me so won't take too seriously). I see it as a black/white issue; it should/shouldn't be included - I'm questioning the necessity of Norwalk-9/11 passage relevance, not its wording. You seem to rather dodge my points and insult me than discuss the issue (longer than meant it to be). TJ0513 03:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What points have I dodged? My comments about you have been based entirely on describing your past behavior, without my assuming anything about you.Noroton 05:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1: When have I "gotten my way"? #2: I try to link/show how victim lists of 9/11 are upheld to be ommitted, that in five years no similar information was added to other pages outside what you've added, and tell me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be standing alone in wanting this material added. Frankly, I just want the Norwalk article to be good, and am trying to eliminate irrelevant/inappropriate/unencyclopedic material. My concern is the 9/11 stuff, for Norwalk, satisfies this. Why don't you lay off me and list your concerns for if this information was omitted, and maybe we could get somewhere. TJ0513 13:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth opinion. This deserves no more than the following: "Nine residents were killed during the September 11, 2001 attacks." No names should be listed, that's trivia and not enyclopedic. Ashibaka tock 19:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Ashibaka. John Reid 12:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Ashibaka, but only if any 9/11 info has too be included. If not, it serves little purpose. AussieWiki2006 08:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I believe the arguement becomes, is it the case that 9/11 material has to be included? TJ0513 13:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the creepy part of what you're doing -- I've already changed it to reflect what Ashibaka said and, just as I said you would, you continue trying to get the whole thing out, because you're relentless and uncompromising. I'm afraid I don't give much credibility to an obvious sock puppet who says he's on the other side of the world.If we take out 9/11, we take out everything that happened outside Norwalk, including Yankee Doodle, to be consistent. And we certainly don't need Martha Moxley's name, or any information about the murder Skakel was convicted of, or even where it took place, because none of that is Norwalk history. Then after we've done that, it will be on to your next crusade. This isn't discussion, it's machination.Noroton 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are crazy! I think I'll have to take up the other editors suggestion about mediation. OK, here we go: for the record, I edited to reflect Ashibaka's comment of "...no more than the following:" (first edit 10/9), you had moved the names one section down...essentially the same.Aussiewiki doesn't seem to be a sock pocket from his contribs but if you think so take it up with him. Matha Moxley's name is not crucial, I only add it because I think her murder ("A Murder in Greenwich") is more famous than the name Michael Skakel. You can make a 9/11 victims/Yankee Doodle comparison; little Norwalk schoolchildren certainly learn about Yankee Doodle as Norwalk history, not the list of Norwalk victims, which is part of a larger event that isn't suitable for wikipedia anyway. By asking if the mention is needed, I'm trying to get to answer, left ambiguous, as I've become convinced since I requested the 3rd opinion you're the only one who wants it mentioned. Most importantly, I'm creepy now?!? My crusades? I'm disgusted in your behavior; you have a bad attitude, and your comments here and elsewhere discredit your statements on collaborative intent. TJ0513 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at the article? I took the list out of the main article and put it into the footnotes. Are you now objecting to that? What won't you object to? You never stop.Noroton 01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at the article? I *deleted* the list from the footnote. Second, rather than repeat myself, please see above. TJ0513 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't take a list in a footnote? That's what I call creepy. It goes beyond what anybody else said here. Take a look in a book of local history. You'll see lists of names of people who founded towns. I've given you reasons why this isn't memorializing, and you refuse to address what I've said about that. I've been reasonable here, you haven't.Noroton 00:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposals[edit]

Norwalk City Hall with History of Norwalk, Connecticut StephenTS42 15:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Norwalk with History of Norwalk, Connecticut StephenTS42 11:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. The Battle of Norwalk was a significant and notable American Revolutionary War battle that was part of Tryon's raid. If anything, a few details that may be missing in the main Battle of Norwalk article might be transferred to that article and the section on the Battle of Norwalk in the History of Norwalk article reduced - as it is in the section about the battle in the Tryon's raid article, though perhaps not to that small extent. Minor battles would be lost in articles about cities and locations and major battles (by the standards of the particular war) need their own articles. Minor battle articles would more properly be merged, if at all, with a battle about a campaign. This battle is the main battle of the campaign and there is enough detail about it to support a separate article. Now, only a short summary of the battle is in the Tryon's raid campaign article. I would not support cutting back the Battle of Norwalk article and putting it in the Tryon's raid article. It would be more appropriate there if it were to be merged anywhere but it would likely be considered too long for it to be comprehensive and to be housed entirely in the campaign article. Donner60 (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text for discussion[edit]

Archaeological evidence suggests substantial pre-contact Norwalk inhabitancy by human beings;^{[according to whom?]} artifacts found near Ward Street date back 5000 years ago.^{[citation needed]}

Suggestion[edit]

"In 2005, a probable Paleoindian component was identified in the Route 7/15 Interchange in Norwalk, north of the project area (Jones et al. 2005)." [State Project No. 0301-0180] ^[1] ––→StephenTS42 (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Sportman, Ph.D., Sarah P. (June 2016). "Archaeological Assessment Survey Danbury Dock Yard Improvements Norwalk, Connecticut" (PDF). State Project No. 0301-0180: 7. Retrieved 28 February 2017.

City Hall split[edit]

Due to a un-wanted merge, the Norwalk City Hall article got merged into this one, which is completely unnecessary. I propose just splitting at least that article into it's own. —JJ Be rs 02:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Similar section already exists in South Norwalk article. Norwalk City Hall sections are essential to both this and 'History of Norwalk' articles.––→StephenTS42 (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~:@StephenTS42: Yes, a brief mention of the city hall is important, but not the whole article. —JJ Be rs 00:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

I split the articles, seeing that you clearly didn't do it with out any consensus, except for one editor who opposed it. Secondly, it was a clear copy and past (with most of the formatting intact), which is a violation of both WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYWITHIN, with no attribution. —JJ Be rs 00:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COPYVIO[edit]

Note: Lengthy quotes from copyrighted sources cannot be used without formal written permission from the copyright holder. This is an exception to the three revert rule, and is non negotiable. TimothyJosephWood 14:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material used is not in copyright. See https://archive.org/details/ancienthistoric00hallgoog Thank you and have a nice day!

This material, which appears to come from a source published in 1979, would be copyrighted. TimothyJosephWood 15:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Ancient Historical Records of Norwalk, Connecticut: With a Plan of the Ancient Settlement ..., by Edwin Hall, Published 1847, Identifier ancienthistoric00hallgoog, Scanner google, Mediatype texts, Identifier-access http://www.archive.org/details/ancienthistoric00hallgoog, Oclc-id 5981490, Scandate 20070509, Copyright-region US, Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t8df6wv6b, Imagecount 346, Source http://books.google.com/books?id=vwYCAAAAYAAJ&oe=UTF-8, Backup_location ia903602_8, Book digitized by Google from the library of Harvard University and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb., Publisher Baker & Scribner, Year 1847, Pages 346, Possible copyright status NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT, Language English, Digitizing sponsor Google, Book from the collections of Harvard University, Collection americana.––→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the part where you actually click on the link I provided, because you are talking about something else entirely. TimothyJosephWood 16:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(cur | prev) 13:41, 28 February 2017‎ Timothyjosephwood (talk | contribs)‎ . . (59,667 bytes) (-2,437)‎ . . (→‎Pre-Contact: WP:COPYVIO - 250 word quote from a source not in the public domain) (undo)

Is the text following this sentence not what you removed for the reason you gave in the deletion? [text removed - copyright also applies to talk pages] (152 words, properly cited, missing opening quotation mark) So, where is the 250 word quote that was not properly cited from sources in the public domain or in violation of copyright? ——→ StephenTS42 (talk)17:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section that I removed began and ended with quotations, indicating it was a direct quote. Verbatim searches indicated the text was taken from the 1979 book. Inserting original citations and parenthetical comments does not constitute a substantial change or original creative contribution that would avoid issues related to using large portions of copyrighted text.

If you would like the content included, you should restate the information in your own words. TimothyJosephWood 17:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want the content included (That should be obvious) The entire section was a collection of quoted text joined together with my paraphrasing. For whatever reason the entire section was enclosed in quotation marks I don't know, at best it was a typographical error that could have been tended to without removing the entire section. Next time you are so inclined to do so again, please alert me or whoever editor's work you want to exclude for the reasons you had. I would have been glad, as I'm sure any other editor would, to correct the minor errors first before entering into a warring prelude. If nothing else, thank you for the display of editor comradery. I will work on the content and return it restored, I hope, with your blessing! Thank you again and have a great day! ––→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also recommend setting up a Wikiquote page as a repository for a lot of the quotes that are currently in the article. As a general rule, the use of direct quotes on Wikipedia should be fairly rare and fairly brief, with the majority of the content in the article being a prose summary of the information from the sources. However, Wikiquote is exactly designed to house as many related quotes as can be found while, for example, researching for a Wikipedia article. Compare the Wikiquote companion I started for the article Scranton general strike, which was eventually promoted to good article status, but which has the Wikiquote for quotations that don't fit in the article, as well as a Wikimedia Commons page for all related media.

This is more or less the strategy for building comprehensive coverage of a topic in a way that can't be done with a Wikipedia article alone, and can also be expanded to include Wikivoyage for individuals interested in actually traveling to an area, and Wikisource for extended source texts that are no longer covered by copyright. TimothyJosephWood 11:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion request[edit]

I've removed a Third Opinion request because it was so malformed as to be incomprehensible, at least as to the things for which 3O is available. It can be relisted, but (a) don't include any usernames for anyone, (b) realize that 3O doesn't handle matters concerning user conduct (e.g. "user X is removing material about A") but only issues about article content (e.g. "whether material about A is allowed in Wikipedia"), and (c) that there must be thorough talk page discussion about the issue in dispute. Just provide a link to the talk page discussion, a very brief summary of the content dispute without naming names, and sign the request with 5 tildes. If there has not been any discussion or the discussion has not been thorough, then that has to happen before refiling. If the dispute is about conduct, speak to an administrator or file a complaint at ANI after thoroughly reading the instructions there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC) (3O volunteer)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Norwalk, Connecticut. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 21:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Norwalk, Connecticut. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Sportman, Ph.D., Sarah P. (June 2016). "Archaeological Assessment Survey Danbury Dock Yard Improvements Norwalk, Connecticut" (PDF). State Project No. 0301-0180: 7. Retrieved 28 February 2017.

[1]