Talk:Levi B. Frost House

Need additional readers to read source(s) and comment on content dispute
It seems that User:Duncan Jones and I reading the same National Register nomination form and finding different things there. I think we need a third party to get involved with reading the sources to address the points of contention: Jones apparently rejects that certitude and says: "It appears that the front part of the building that housed Barnes' tavern was partially destroyed in a fire in 1836." Jones disagrees with including this in the article, instead saying: "It is likely that the rear part of the house is the oldest, as the front bears the most characteristic details of the Greek Revival style, including wide pine floors, the front stairway rising to the left, a large front room on the right and the detailing of the stairway treads, risers, railing and handrail that appear to be original of the mid-century design." After reading Jones' language and re-reading the source several times, I revised Jones' sentence to focus on the Greek Revival aspects of the front, since nothing here indicated that the rear was older: "The front of the building generally appears to be newer, as it bears the most characteristic details of the Greek Revival style, including wide pine floors, a front stairway rising to the left, a large front room on the right and detailing of stairway treads, risers, railing and handrail that appear to be original of the mid-century design." I did not find an any mention of "barrel stains" in the nomination document, nor that the dado was gouged by boots. I also did not find content that would support the certitude of the statements "is likely older than the front of the house" or "is said to have been the taproom." I did find "The gouged dado and separate exterior door of the rear room make it a strong candidate to have been the taproom of a tavern, but the structural relationship in time of one part of the house to another, or its growth, is not clear" (on page 7) and some detail about the rear room at the top of page 4. Based on what I actually read in the source, I rewrote Jones' text as follows: "The rear room has well-worn chestnut planks, a large fireplace and stone hearth, and separate exterior door, suggesting that it may have been the taproom of the former tavern." --Orlady (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I read the source as indicating that "The building that housed Barnes' house and tavern was partially destroyed in a fire in 1836." Specifically, the fourth page of the nomination form states "The house was badly damaged by a fire in 1836" and the eighth page states "There was a fire in the house in 1836, but the extent of the damage is unknown."
 * 1) I find that the source supports a statement that: "Investigators have been unable to determine what, if any, elements of the pre-1836 building remain." Specifically, the fourth page of the nomination form states "In careful examination it has proven to be impossible to determine with assurance what if any existing fabric pre-dates 1836."
 * 1) Jones writes: "The rear room with its well-worn chestnut planks with barrel stains, its large fireplace and stone hearth, which given its length most likely supported an oven with a front wall opening, its separate exterior door, flat trim and boot-gouged dado is likely older than the front of the house and is said to have been the taproom of the former tavern."


 * I've read the three online documents, but only this one seems pertinent for these questions. As usual, the  link is useless.
 * 1. As it is stated on pages 4 & 8 of the PDF, the site was damaged by a fire sometime in 1836, and there is no way to tell how much damage there was or if the whole place burned to the ground. So I'd have to say that Jones' conjecture about the front of the house is not supported by the source.
 * 2. I can't really make much out of the source other than it is unclear which part of the building is pre-fire existant, which is typical of NRHP documentation.
 * 3. I again have to agree, Jones' prose is not borne out by this source on this point either.


 * If there are other sources, they should be added to the article. Otherwise, I think Orlady's edits are reasonable. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My Reading
I believe the nomination form and its sources support the fact that the rear of the house is older than the front. First, Ransom notes the ell in the rear of the house is supported by joists that are tree trunk with bark intact, "indicating that the narrow ell is old," and by the floor plan the ell shares a rear wall with the rear room of the house. Second, Ransom notes the difference in construction style between the front and the rear of the house, noting the rear room's "gouged dado and a separate exterior door ... make it a strong candidate to have been the taproom of a tavern." The floors of the rear room are "well worn chestnut," and the exterior door in the rear room has original band molding different from that of the front door. Also, the front part of the house demonstrates "the characteristic of the Greek Revival plan of a hall in which the stairway rises on the left and a large front room is on the right." Third, the size of the fireplace in the rear room with its large hearth and the likelihood of a cooking oven with front wall opening, indicating an older fireplace than typically seen in a mid century Greek Revival. Finally, one of Ransom's sources, the WPA Census of Old Buildings states for this house that "Front part burned at one time." Taken as a whole, it appears likely that the rear part of the house is older than the front.

Duncan Jones (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that you are taking information from the source and synthesizing it to produce a conclusion that is not stated in the source. Synthesis is a form of WP:Original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Your analysis may be correct, but the article cannot make statements that are based on a contributor's analysis. --Orlady (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. A fair reading of the architectural historian's analysis and the cited sources support this fact. Obviously, nothing can be ascertained with certainty, but it appears likely, given the evidence cited by the report and the cited sources, that the rear portion is older. And that is how the article reads, "It is likely that the rear part of the house is the oldest..."

Duncan Jones (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You are saying "it appears likely", "given the evidence cited" and based on "a fair reading of the architectural historian's analysis." That is original research. Please read WP:SYN. --Orlady (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked at your reference. Synthesis describes taking conclusions from multiple Bold textsources. Except for the WPA Census, all the other data is from one source -- architectural historian David Ransom's thorough research. Perhaps others can give their opinions on this.

Duncan Jones (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, the examples given on that page do involve separate sources. Those examples relate to the kinds of situations that first led to that policy being articulated. However, if you scroll up to the top of the page WP:OR, you will read a clear statement of the policy: "Original research ... includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." WP:Synthesis can involve synthesis of separate statements or facts contained in a single cited source, as well as separate statements in multiple cited sources. --Orlady (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about removal of Rochambeau trivia
Who is this Orlady who seems to think Wikipedia belongs to her? What she eliminated was pertinent to the article and was directly from Timlow's. What right does she have to remove someone else's work based on her subjective belief that the facts were trivial? Someone needs to speak to her. I've seen what else she has done in other articles. Wikipedia is all of ours, not there for some to simply censor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.74.16 (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is."

BobThree (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The above complaints are actually related to attempts to add to the article trivial content about Rochambeau's visit to the area, including but not limited to: "the young women of the vicinity ... esteemed it something of an honor to have had a "cotillion" with the polite foreigner." --Orlady (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities." Duncan Jones (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Painfully obvious sockpuppetry
user:Duncan Jones, user:BobThree, and user:68.229.74.16 are so obviously the same person that it boggles the imagination. I almost felt bad reporting you. Almost. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)