This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ridgefield, Washington article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hmmm. No mention of the Sara Community?
Sara is a community or populated place (Class Code U6) located in Clark County at latitude 45.752 and longitude -122.713 (Sara Panoramio Photos). The elevation is 135 feet. Sara appears on the Ridgefield U.S. Geological Survey Map. Clark County is in the Pacific time zone (GMT -8).
http://washington.hometownlocator.com/wa/clark/sara.cfm
Sara is in between the heart of Ridgefield and the Clark County Fairgrounds, so if the Clark County Fairgrounds can be considered as "in Ridgefield" then so should the community of Sara.
Doubledragons ( talk) 10:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Ridgefield was two towns, basically, from what I can tell, the town of Sara, and the town of Union Ridge. Union Ridge is mentioned, but Sara is not. And from what I can tell, the entire area was called Cathlapotle before it was called anything else, but the only mention of Cathlapotle is the Cathlapotle plankhouse in what is now known as the "Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge." Just F.Y.I. for anyone who has the time to edit this article with the proper sources.
Doubledragons ( talk) 20:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ridgefield, Washington. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ridgefield, Washington. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Added details on the park that was cut from other pages due to the size of those pages. [1] This will reference the information with background details and give an idea as to the process that lead to the markers being placed on this private land. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 07:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Additional references available: [2] [3] [4] [5]
References
Would it not be best to name it for the park that the land was used for, that is Jefferson Davis Park. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 08:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
In fact, what about naming what the 'land' is currently, it's the Jefferson Davis Park according to the sources provided [19], so why not name it as well as the section? C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 16:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Would it not be better to have Jefferson Davis Park better sourced than just one; could we not add additional references given then issues surrounding the park. I would recommend: [1] [2] But please supply others. Thanks C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 08:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
References
Suggest adding the sentences: "Stone markers had come from both ends of the state designating Highway 99 the Jefferson Davis Highway were erected in the 1930s by the Daughters of the Confederacy, with State approval. They were removed in 2002 through the efforts of State Representative Hans Dunshee and city officials, and after it was discovered that the highway was never officially designated to memorialize Davis by the State." with references [20] [21] And "Clark County Historic Preservation Commission on October 2, 2017, voted unanimously to remove the granite highway marker from its local heritage list." with reference [22]
The current section does not explain why the private park was established or the controversy surrounding it. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 01:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure, nothing to see [23], just move along. It's not controversial [24] and it's all recent made up stuff [25], so why fight so hard not to even include the name of the park on the current section, right, nothing to see, move along. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 15:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Which is to say the local sources put Jefferson Davis Park within Ridgefield WA, if technically just outside of it's exact boundary line: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] Even the Park's Facebook Page puts it in Ridgefield [42] and the City of Ridgefield government is into what happens at the Jefferson Davis Park as it brings unwanted problems to this otherwise quite little town along Interstate 5 in Southwestern Washington State. In fact, it is that prominent location along I-5 that keeps it in middle of current events, almost 30yrs after the issue started in nearby Vancouver. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 00:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
24024 NW Maplecrest Rd Ridgefield, Washington
*Please close this poorly constructed RfC. See my reasoning below.
John from Idegon (
talk) 01:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Should the current 'Recent History' section renamed Jefferson Davis Park and be expanded to include more detail regarding the park, monuments, and controversy surrounding them?
Please give your input, thanks C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 16:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
References
should be decided [collaboratively]. The RfC statement should be neutral, true; but that RfC seems OK to me in that regard (excluding the fact that there was no "short statement" form, which was easy to fix, cf. this edit). It does not get any more neutral than
I propose [this] instead of [that] in the article(if the problem is the absence of the text of the status quo version, again, that's easy to fix). There might be other reasons to shut down the RfC (e.g. if that is the 10th time the same question was asked and consensus was against each former time), but that the statement should be negotiated beforehand is not one of them (if that was a reason to torpedo an RfC, no RfC on contentious topics would ever take place). Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The City of Ridgefield officially asked Clark County Historic Preservation Commission to remover the highway markers from its local heritage list on October 2, 2017, with all six commissioners in attendance voting to remove the granite highway marker. It is very unusual for the city to make such a request regarding items outside of the city limits and because of recent vandalism of the markers as well as these actions, it made national as well as regional news. [1] [2]
References
There's absolutely nothing unusual in city officials engaging in reputation management, since a small cloud of slacktivists was regularly misidentifying the "park" with the city. Since neither the KUOW/OPR piece nor, of course, the Columbian, are "national coverage," there's no reason to even consider this based on the "evidence" presented.
There is, I think, reason to consider widening your current topic ban on other Portland area politics to this subject as well. Anmccaff ( talk) 16:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The odd thing, is to officially, ask the county historical commission to de-list, remove the stones from the historical registry, given that the stones started out in Blaine and Vancouver and were never inside the city limits. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 01:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This edit, ostensibly about the town's founding onehundred-forty years ago, instead centered on the editor's obsessive topic, removal of Confederate monuments. Anmccaff ( talk) 20:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Should the largest news story in the Ridgefield area and the city's response to it for the past 10yrs be included in this article? I posted this section updating the history of the city:
More recently the town of Ridgefield, has become the center of the controvercy of flying the Confederate flags and Confederate monuments, even though the nearby
Jefferson Davis Park is located outside the city limits. Mayor Ron Onslow said, "We get calls about it every time the Confederacy comes up". Although Jefferson Davis Park has a Ridgefield address, "It's not in our city, so we have no say over it. We're not against history, but there is no history of this in Ridgefield", Onslow said in requesting the memorial at the park, be removed from the Clark County Historical Register.
[1] On October 2, 2017, the commissioners of the city of Ridgefield officially and unanimously asked the Clark County Historic Preservation Commission to remove the Jefferson Davis Highway marker, from Vancouver, Washington, from its local heritage list, which the Commission did.
[2]
[3]
Yet some editor removed it stating it was "
WP:WEIGHT,
WP:RECENT." Does anyone else have thoughts on whether it or something like it should be included in this article?
C. W. Gilmore (
talk) 19:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Helpful information found: [49] [50] [51] - C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 05:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ridgefield, Washington article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hmmm. No mention of the Sara Community?
Sara is a community or populated place (Class Code U6) located in Clark County at latitude 45.752 and longitude -122.713 (Sara Panoramio Photos). The elevation is 135 feet. Sara appears on the Ridgefield U.S. Geological Survey Map. Clark County is in the Pacific time zone (GMT -8).
http://washington.hometownlocator.com/wa/clark/sara.cfm
Sara is in between the heart of Ridgefield and the Clark County Fairgrounds, so if the Clark County Fairgrounds can be considered as "in Ridgefield" then so should the community of Sara.
Doubledragons ( talk) 10:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Ridgefield was two towns, basically, from what I can tell, the town of Sara, and the town of Union Ridge. Union Ridge is mentioned, but Sara is not. And from what I can tell, the entire area was called Cathlapotle before it was called anything else, but the only mention of Cathlapotle is the Cathlapotle plankhouse in what is now known as the "Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge." Just F.Y.I. for anyone who has the time to edit this article with the proper sources.
Doubledragons ( talk) 20:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ridgefield, Washington. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ridgefield, Washington. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Added details on the park that was cut from other pages due to the size of those pages. [1] This will reference the information with background details and give an idea as to the process that lead to the markers being placed on this private land. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 07:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Additional references available: [2] [3] [4] [5]
References
Would it not be best to name it for the park that the land was used for, that is Jefferson Davis Park. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 08:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
In fact, what about naming what the 'land' is currently, it's the Jefferson Davis Park according to the sources provided [19], so why not name it as well as the section? C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 16:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Would it not be better to have Jefferson Davis Park better sourced than just one; could we not add additional references given then issues surrounding the park. I would recommend: [1] [2] But please supply others. Thanks C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 08:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
References
Suggest adding the sentences: "Stone markers had come from both ends of the state designating Highway 99 the Jefferson Davis Highway were erected in the 1930s by the Daughters of the Confederacy, with State approval. They were removed in 2002 through the efforts of State Representative Hans Dunshee and city officials, and after it was discovered that the highway was never officially designated to memorialize Davis by the State." with references [20] [21] And "Clark County Historic Preservation Commission on October 2, 2017, voted unanimously to remove the granite highway marker from its local heritage list." with reference [22]
The current section does not explain why the private park was established or the controversy surrounding it. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 01:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure, nothing to see [23], just move along. It's not controversial [24] and it's all recent made up stuff [25], so why fight so hard not to even include the name of the park on the current section, right, nothing to see, move along. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 15:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Which is to say the local sources put Jefferson Davis Park within Ridgefield WA, if technically just outside of it's exact boundary line: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] Even the Park's Facebook Page puts it in Ridgefield [42] and the City of Ridgefield government is into what happens at the Jefferson Davis Park as it brings unwanted problems to this otherwise quite little town along Interstate 5 in Southwestern Washington State. In fact, it is that prominent location along I-5 that keeps it in middle of current events, almost 30yrs after the issue started in nearby Vancouver. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 00:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
24024 NW Maplecrest Rd Ridgefield, Washington
*Please close this poorly constructed RfC. See my reasoning below.
John from Idegon (
talk) 01:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Should the current 'Recent History' section renamed Jefferson Davis Park and be expanded to include more detail regarding the park, monuments, and controversy surrounding them?
Please give your input, thanks C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 16:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
References
should be decided [collaboratively]. The RfC statement should be neutral, true; but that RfC seems OK to me in that regard (excluding the fact that there was no "short statement" form, which was easy to fix, cf. this edit). It does not get any more neutral than
I propose [this] instead of [that] in the article(if the problem is the absence of the text of the status quo version, again, that's easy to fix). There might be other reasons to shut down the RfC (e.g. if that is the 10th time the same question was asked and consensus was against each former time), but that the statement should be negotiated beforehand is not one of them (if that was a reason to torpedo an RfC, no RfC on contentious topics would ever take place). Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The City of Ridgefield officially asked Clark County Historic Preservation Commission to remover the highway markers from its local heritage list on October 2, 2017, with all six commissioners in attendance voting to remove the granite highway marker. It is very unusual for the city to make such a request regarding items outside of the city limits and because of recent vandalism of the markers as well as these actions, it made national as well as regional news. [1] [2]
References
There's absolutely nothing unusual in city officials engaging in reputation management, since a small cloud of slacktivists was regularly misidentifying the "park" with the city. Since neither the KUOW/OPR piece nor, of course, the Columbian, are "national coverage," there's no reason to even consider this based on the "evidence" presented.
There is, I think, reason to consider widening your current topic ban on other Portland area politics to this subject as well. Anmccaff ( talk) 16:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The odd thing, is to officially, ask the county historical commission to de-list, remove the stones from the historical registry, given that the stones started out in Blaine and Vancouver and were never inside the city limits. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 01:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This edit, ostensibly about the town's founding onehundred-forty years ago, instead centered on the editor's obsessive topic, removal of Confederate monuments. Anmccaff ( talk) 20:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Should the largest news story in the Ridgefield area and the city's response to it for the past 10yrs be included in this article? I posted this section updating the history of the city:
More recently the town of Ridgefield, has become the center of the controvercy of flying the Confederate flags and Confederate monuments, even though the nearby
Jefferson Davis Park is located outside the city limits. Mayor Ron Onslow said, "We get calls about it every time the Confederacy comes up". Although Jefferson Davis Park has a Ridgefield address, "It's not in our city, so we have no say over it. We're not against history, but there is no history of this in Ridgefield", Onslow said in requesting the memorial at the park, be removed from the Clark County Historical Register.
[1] On October 2, 2017, the commissioners of the city of Ridgefield officially and unanimously asked the Clark County Historic Preservation Commission to remove the Jefferson Davis Highway marker, from Vancouver, Washington, from its local heritage list, which the Commission did.
[2]
[3]
Yet some editor removed it stating it was "
WP:WEIGHT,
WP:RECENT." Does anyone else have thoughts on whether it or something like it should be included in this article?
C. W. Gilmore (
talk) 19:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Helpful information found: [49] [50] [51] - C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 05:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)