Talk:East Side, Providence, Rhode Island

Waterplace Park is downtown

I hope the user who keeps changing the article reads this: Waterplace Park is downtown, not in the East Side. Read: [1]. To assert otherwise runs contrary to all official definitions. Read the East Side intro: it's bounded to the west by the Providence River, which Waterplace Park is on the OTHER side of.--Loodog 02:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm reading this...have you ever been to the East Side of Providence? I go there every day! Look at the bottom of College Hill, below North Main. You will find a portion of Waterplace Park.

Its little wonder you don't see it on the map, its a small, but scenic portion. Anyway, i happen to work for a municipal agency in Providence. I have more detailed and mroe accurate maps then you.

You're thinking Riverwalk. Waterplace Park is entirely downtown.--Loodog 02:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Riverwalk is an extension of Waterplace Park. And I wrote Riverwalk once, without reference to the Park. It was still deleted. I've written it again. When I finish typing will I find that you have deleted it a second time?

I did not delete any Riverwalk article, though you may find it useful to know that the Riverwalk link currently redirects to Waterplace Park. You will have to fix the redirect so the article can be found.--Loodog 02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The first time I posted it, it was deleted. It may have been the other admin thats been messaging me. The reason Riverwalk redirects to Waterplace Par is because Riverwalk is an extension of said park. That is what I was trying to say in the first place. In any event, I am content with leaving Riverwalk by itself, without reference to the larger park.

Also, Blackstone Park also includes the wide median strip between the north and southbound lanes of Blackstone Blvd. It includes a walking path and some small structures. My original post RE this park mentioned the strip but neglected the park at the end. You or the other admin added the park at the end (corner of Blackstone and Hope) but deleted the section about the strip. Can I add mention of this strip or will it be deleted?

You can add anything as long as you cite a webcite, book, or periodical that backs up the information. I'm not aware of the median of Blackstone Boulevard as being officially a part of the Blackstone Park that's at the end on the water. I'll check google.--Loodog 02:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Update, I can't find much, but I did find a Brown student's thesis that mentioned Blackstone Park as being exclusively the patch of land near the river.--Loodog 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As it would happen, I was there today, I does exist. If you look at a street map, you can see the center strip. Its wide and has a pedestrian path in the center. I believe it is listed as a green space. And it is well-trafficked by Blackstone residents.

I agree there is a park there, but I can't find anything saying that that park is officially called "Blackstone Park".--Loodog 02:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Could we put a note in saying that a green space is located between the north and southbound lanes of Blackstone Blvd? The official name can be found later.

That works.--Loodog 02:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I've found something.[2] It shows the median as being called "Blackstone Boulevard Park" and the other bit as "Blackstone Park".

I also found a park named Constance Witherby Park. I've added it.--Loodog 02:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hah - Blackstone Blvd Park - an accurate name but not very creative. Where is this other park located? I've never heard of that park before, but there are a lot of smallish parks about the East Side.

Here's a [link http://www.citywidegreen.org/parkFinder/neighborhoods.php?neighborhoods=24]--Loodog 03:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice the second 'Blackstone Park' east of Lincoln School? I usually hear that area referred to as River Drive. (http://www.citywidegreen.org/parkFinder/neighborhoods.php?neighborhoods=24)

Nope, never heard it called that.--Loodog 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we can't put another Blackstone Park down, thats for sure! As for River Drive, its a street that runs along the waterfront in that Blackstone Park.

Incidently, Loodog, the dome of the First Christian Science Church is very prominent looking east on the Providence skyline. As such, it is one of the most recognizable buildings in the City.

I more meant that it's a part of "hill line", where as when I think of skyline, I think of Bank of America building, 50 Kennedy Plaza, Textron, Westin, One Financial Plaza.--Loodog 18:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If 'hill line' were a commonly used term I would have used it. It certainly describes the view of the East Side more accurately. Whether it be 'hill line' or 'skyline,' the First Christian Science Church dome stands out. Its frequently used as a sort of stereotyped picture of the East Side, especially by local media.

Reference necessary?

You had a remark about what the East Side is as being common knowledge. There was a particularly annoying anon who had a very strong "Fox Point is not a part of the East Side; its a part of the South Side" agenda. Partially, I wanted him to shut up. The main reason is we have an official definition, why not use it?--Loodog 05:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL...whoever has that agenda certainly doesn't reside in Fox point! Well, whatever is neccesary, as you say "why not use it?" RIVA02906 19:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

removed affluent discription

Hi loodog. Not trying to nitpick, just nothing better to do :) Hope you don't mind. Cheers --Tom 21:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just reverted the removal with a source showing the disparities in incomes across neighborhoods.--Loodog 21:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Loodog, how are you defining "affluent"? Do you have a source that says this section is the most "affluent" or are you pulling up statistics and drawing that conclusion? Also, where are you getting the employment claim from? Can we discuss it here and provide sources here, reach a compromise and then edit the article? --Tom 21:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Affluent: having a generously sufficient and typically increasing supply of material possessions" On The Providence Plan website exist the sources I've provided on the page. Want to compare household income? Families living below the poverty line? How about unemployment? Or we could compare median property values: Blackstone: $396,250; College Hill $517,000; Hope: $247,500, while the city as a whole is $130,000. Given this, the East Side is the most affluent part of the city.--Loodog 22:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct Loodog, I could/should have cn tagged the part about the Jewish community. Thank you for adding that back in. I run about 50/50 with unsourced material as to removal vs cn tag. I will try to source that. I know there is a community center across from the Lincoln School, ect. Thanks, --Tom 22:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi loodog, I like this for the unemployment. OK, add the affluent part back if you like or I can do it. Thanks --Tom 22:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

<outdent> Loodog, I am done for now so feel free to edit. The thing about saying the East Side IS the most affluent seems to be synthesis/original research without 2ndary sources saying this. Anyways, your efforts are apprecitaed. I am off to BQ burgers :) Cheers! --Tom 22:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, though I noticed you backed it off a bit to "an affluent part of the city". I know I sound like a real estate agent or some local booster, but I think this sells the fact short. The East Side is the most affluent part of the city. You can compare neighborhood by neighborhood and this will be your conclusion. There are more and less affluent parts of the East Side, such as College Hill, and Mount Hope respectively, but try making a more affluent grouping of neighborhoods. As I'm sure you know, the East Side has a reputation of being the richest part of the city, why not confirm this for the readers when the statistics clearly show it to be true?--Loodog 22:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

<outdent back from burgers, yummy> That, imho, is the rub. I know that the East Side has the "reputation" as being the most affluent part of Providence and it might be the "truth", but as you have probably heard or been told, Wikipedia is not about "the truth" but its about presenting already established, peer reviewed, reliably souced material. Your "compare neighborhood by neighborhood and this will be your conclusion" is the entithesis(sp) of wp:or in my opinion. Ideally, we/you/I would like to find a wp:rs that flat out says "The East Side is XY or Z" rather than presenting statistics and then making a conclusion from those stats. Some parts of the East Side are "slumy" and maybe there is a section of the city that is being overlooked, I don't know. Again, it would be best to find a souce that says exactly that "The East side is the most affluent..." or leave it that the East Side is ONE of the most affluent sections of town ect. which would be hard to argue with. If a reliable souce is found this minor issue is moot. Anyways, --Tom 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC) ps, maybe we could get some more photos and spruce the place up :) Cheers, and if you must revert back to your version, go for it, no hard feelings here! :) --Tom 00:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you and I are operating with different definitions of "affluent". I'm using the one above. What the above statistics say, exactly, in no uncertain terms, is that the East Side is the most affluent part of the city. You acknowledge it has the highest income level, lowest poverty, highest property values, and lowest unemployment in the city. I don't think it's original research to say that that is affluence, nearly by definition.--Loodog 00:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, you say "the above statistics say" and I would say statistics don't "say" anything per sey, statistics are statistics, period. I would prefer a source that says "The East side is the most affluent section of Providence" period. Anyways, like i said before, if you would like to revert/change the article to your version/prefference I will not revert it back since we have beaten this subject up pretty well at this point and it really isn't that big a deal. Take care, --Tom 13:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The above statistics do say that the East Side has highest income level, lowest poverty, highest property values, and lowest unemployment in the city. This is equivalent to them saying it's the most affluent. I'm really at a loss to understand your belief that this is insufficient.--Loodog 13:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You say "This is equivalent to them saying it's the most affluent" but the stats don't come out and say anything. You are the one "saying" what the stats say and this is border line wp:or. By the way, who's on first :). Seriously, I will go back and revert the article, and we can be done, ok? Thanks, --Tom 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather not win because I argue long enough; I'd rather understand your point. If I'm truly committing OR, it shouldn't be included. You and I are obviously working from some unforseen fundamental difference in assumption since it seems we're just talking past each other.--Loodog 15:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

<outdent> I don't look at this as either of us winning or losing, just a difference of how/what wp:or works/is. Statistics are just statistics, no more, no less. What if folks in a different part of town all had larger bank accounts, they all had 2nd homes in Maine and each had 3 expensive cars? Would that make them more affluent than the ES folks? Can we confirm or deny this? No, oh course not. Again, I believe the truth is that the ES is VERY affluent and absolutely COULD be the most affluent section of Providence, but a source which states this, rather than cobbled together statistics would carry more weight and would be perfered in a perfect world. I also could be totally wrong and misguided :). Anyways, talking in this format can be difficult and I do hear what you are saying. Maybe somebody else's imput could help? I am sure this isn't the first time something along these lines has come up. --Tom 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. But in the case of as much certainty as can be obtained in the real world, we have it.--Loodog 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Side, Providence, Rhode Island. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116212112/http://www.providenceri.com/CityCouncil/Ward_Maps/target2.html to http://www.providenceri.com/CityCouncil/Ward_Maps/target2.html

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: 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) 05:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on East Side, Providence, Rhode Island. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928004352/http://204.17.79.244/profiles/altnames.html to http://204.17.79.244/profiles/altnames.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070413053546/http://www.providenceschools.org/hs/hope/arts/index.html to http://www.providenceschools.org/hs/hope/arts/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928004444/http://204.17.79.244/profiles/bla_main.html to http://204.17.79.244/profiles/bla_main.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928004657/http://204.17.79.244/profiles/coh_main.html to http://204.17.79.244/profiles/coh_main.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070804061911/http://www.risp.state.ri.us/history/ to http://www.risp.state.ri.us/history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928004352/http://204.17.79.244/profiles/altnames.html to http://204.17.79.244/profiles/altnames.html

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) 07:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)