Talk:Mashantucket Pequot Reservation Archeological District

message: I removed a passage from the article, which have been might be describing where the majority of the current Mashantucket Pequot reservation is.  It is unsourced, and it is unclear whether it refers to the archeological district.  I was going to paste the passage here, but I think it may just be wrong, and also think it might be unhelpful to provide any location info at all.  I believe this is a restricted address site, for which the National Register deliberately does not provide coordinates or other location information.  Although local editors may possibly know where archeological sites may be, it is fairly generally held that we don't want to pinpoint them. doncram (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think it's wrong? The location is fairly well-known but if you think readers are better served by omitting the location, then so be it. --Polaron | Talk 04:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually i don't know for sure if it is a restricted address site or not.  The NRIS information about the site does not state that;  it just itself omits any precise information about the location.  Also the National Register does not provide the NRHP/NHL documents for this site on-line, while it's policy is to do so for NHLs, and does so for almost all other NHLs nation-wide.  For address-restricted sites, the documents cannot be released except in redacted form, with location information blacked out.  I am just guessing, but think they might not be providing this one, because it is address restricted and they don't have a redacted version available to share easily.  Bottom-line, I would not want location information reported if it is not clearly available in public sources. doncram (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember past news correctly, the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation has expanded since it was first established in the 1980s, which might easily explain the discrepancy between the area listed as "reservation" on the NRHP in 1986 and the area of the reservation as it exists today. --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: location info

message: Anyone interested in developing this article should request the free NRHP/NHL documents from the National Register (even if only a redacted version is provided, it would usefully characterize the importance of the district.
A source that seems relevant for the article is this Archaeology at Mashantucket webpage.  It mentions 3 sites which might be included in the district, although that is not clear, since the scope of the Mashantucket museum's interest is the tribe's archeology, throughout a 250 mile historic area.  I suggest corresponding with the museum to ask about that, but I personally would prefer to first get the NRHP/NHL documents, to be able to ask more informed questions.
Also a visit to the museum with a camera, could provide photos of artifacts or photos of photos of archeological digs, which could illustrate this article.  Of course ask for permission to take pics;  museum policies vary about what is allowed. doncram (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually i am told that the museum gives explicit directions to visitors that no photos are allowed, besides for an exhibit in the lobby, and that cameras must be checked at the front desk.  Seems more photo-unfriendly than most museums. doncram (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for article

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was  no consensus to move. Abecedare (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mashantucket Pequot Reservation Archeological District → Mashantucket Pequot Reservation — Move to the simpler, more common name. This is also the primary name used in the NRIS. I'm not sure why this was moved back to the longer name in the first place.  --Polaron | Talk 04:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The simpler name is what this place is more commonly called and is in no way inaccurate. Note that the reservation area and historic district area moew or less match. (The official resevration area is a bit smaller because the archeological district extends into lands that are not yet technically in the federally-recognized reservation but still held in a federal land trust). --Polaron | Talk 23:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Polaron, you are saying you have private knowledge, not reflected in any references provided, that the archeological district includes area not included in the current reservation, and vice versa.  And by areas in the articles, the current sizes of the two are pretty different.  Your private information does not support a merger, and it is private, anyhow, so I would object to it being used to justify a rename or a merger.  And you say that what the archeological district is commonly called is the name of the reservation?  (Is there really public discussion about the archeological district?  Certainly if there are archeological journal articles which talk about past digs or artifacts from this district, then material from those could be added to the district article, while it would probably be inappropriate to add such detail to an article about the reservation.)  I would really expect that if someone referred to "Mashantucket Pequot Reservation" they would be referring to the reservation.  Polaron, you seemed to want to rename this article from its distinct name to the common name for the reservation, and then to merge its material into the reservation article, which would yield a redirect from "Mashantucket Pequot Reservation" to the reservation article.  The redirect is now that way.  Isn't that most of what you wanted?  Only "Mashantucket Pequot Reservation Archeological District" is separate, because it is a notable topic, a National Historic Landmark, which deserves development.  As a stub it works well, holding categories like :Category:National Historic Landmarks in Connecticut and :Category:Archaeological sites in Connecticut for example, which would not properly apply to the tribe or the reservation.  And, being a stub, implicitly calling for development about why the archeological site is significant to the nation's history (or likely to be important for generating knowledge in the future).   P.S.  I am reminded of the Hanford Site, which is now a wikipedia featured article.  The article once mentioned two NRHP-listed archeological sites on the property, somewhat upon my insistence.  Now i see there is no longer even footnote mention.  I think it is possible or likely that mention of archeological sites in the tribe/reservation article would also likely get reduced or washed out, as little information is known about the sites, and battles about casino creating or unionizing and so are more important in discussing the tribe today.  Insisting on a stub section about the archeological site, in the tribe article, would not be acceptable.  Having a stub article, as now, is just right. doncram (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am closing this request as no consensus, since there is no agreemenet that the proposed name is (1) more common, or (2) refrs unambiguously to the same entity, and no sources have been produced to establish these points. Abecedare (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move