Talk:University District, Seattle, Washington

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Neutral point of view 1.1 References for gun violence 1.2 References to meet concerns expressed 2 Style notes 3 Accuracy 4 Boundaries 5 Out of Hand 6 references

[edit] Neutral point of view

This article's final two paragraphs, related to bars and nightlife in the University District, are highly opinionated and inflamatory. The mistake is made wherein a young person in a bar who is white, has a conservative haircut, and is dressed well but non-trendily in some sort of vague supposed "frat boy" outfit, is assumed to be a frat boy. The vast minority of students who live in the University District area are affiliated with the Greek system of UW, and so the vast minority of young people seen on the streets or at the various nightlife spots are frat/sorority.

As a resident of the U-district for many years, and a former U-district bar worker for many years, I feel that I can say with some certainty that the later portion of this article greatly misrepresents the neighborhood, and as well is in danger of insulting a particluar group that the article generalizes. (Oct 2, 2005) (67.168.99.182 21:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)])

I myself have just discovered these two paragraphs and agree that they are highly opinionated and not entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia. I've cut them down considerably--please feel free to further edit this article if you feel it's needed. --Lukobe 05:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Highly opinionated can be appropriate if significant and points are discussed well per WP:NPOV and WP:RS (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Reliable sources), "The two policy pages that discuss the need to use sources are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability." [WP:RS, aka Wikipedia:Reliable sources] --GoDot 07:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have issues with some of the other content as well. I lived in the U-District for a few years, and never once had change "demanded" rather than asked of me. If this is said to be "common", I think some sourcing is in order, or at least a few Wikipedians should come forward and vouch for it. --Soultaco 22:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

"Ave Rats", change, bars and parties: This is indeed interesting (endearing in a Clockwork Orange sort of way), but {{Citation needed}}, per WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. "[B]ear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be removed by any editor." [Wikipedia:Reliable sources]
Please see next section, post 07:11, 17 May 2006.

Research back to before Europeans documents that the above points of contention illustrate aspects of changing (and perennial) neighborhood character—and very real problems needing airing, making a good WP (Wikipedia) article useful. --GoDot 07:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References for gun violence

Are there some sources to back the reference to party crasher gun violence? It seems somewhat at odds with my experiences in the neighborhood on weekends. It might want some language to point out that such nonsense is rare (that or I'm just lucky/sheltered in my U. District experiences). w?c 03:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Besides the local newspapers of record, The Daily of the U of W covers all about that beat closely (Archives by year back to 1995, off-line back to c. 1891). The North Seattle Herald-Outlook covers thoroughly a little less, and Real Change has had some good insights. After quite some sensational peaks in recent years, the UW has joined with the SPD and neighborhood groups in Community Policing liaison with the fraternities toward ameliorating the bad rep, along with prominent police patrolling on the most popular nights.
Documentation provided for organized crime, see article. --GoDot 07:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References to meet concerns expressed

By the way, thank you for really fleshing this article out, GoDot. --Lukobe 05:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[Moved to here --GoDot 06:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)]

I don't want to take more time on it, but it could be remarkably interesting to have good references from such as The Daily, the North Seattle Herald-Outlook, Real Change, Columns, the P-I, or Times* for more of the True Crime and Clockwork Orange sort of activity. Is the U Distict really so seamy? (Broadway could be further colored in with that (in ways less dark), in the way Pioneer Square and environs south became (nationally) reputed in "Doc" Maynard's day, WWI and WWII : ) >

* See above section for links, plus Columns. P-I and Times are at nwsource.com.

I suggest a template note in the article, and if well-sourced text doesn't show up some time after a call for it, then I suggest deleting all the unsourced stuff that leans to sordid. --GoDot 06:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style notes

Summary: +, cit, so cl, rephrased; see Talk. MoS
Explication: See Talk:Seattle, Citing sources.

Neighborhood names and boundaries are nebulous. See http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~public/about.htm in the References section.

Suggest focus on particular, relatively unique people, places, events that characterize or define, rather than listing of, say, well-known franchise outlets per se. As a distinctive, signature architectural work, the Meany Hotel is widely recognized. "Best Western University Tower" looks like product placement.
"Six theatres": Grand Illusion, Metro, Neptune, Seven Gables, University, and Varsity.

WP:MoS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style) recommends not linking year unless such is specifically relevant to the article.
loitering page DNE. [Later fixed.]

The possessive form is generally conceptually awkward for inanimate objects, and so should be avoided unless some specific objective or prose structure is being served.
"and designation as" can be preferable to "and the U-District's designation as" because the U-District is an inanimate, somewhat nebulous abstraction that does not in itself possess, nor, in this case, does the designation apply to more than a specific demarcation within the area--further detail that is of insufficient importance to include in the 'pedia entry. Therefore, the former construction is also more accurate.
Similarly, "and Pioneer Square Downtown)" helps denote that the alcohol problem there is a Downtown problem, not exactly corresponding to the Pioneer Square neighborhood.
Alcohol Impact Area is not accurately congruent with the District or The Ave.

"Due to the size of the UW Greek system" is now dwarfed by the student body as a whole. The Greek system at the UW (though prominent in media, which favors the sensational) has been mny decades in gradual decline relative to the burgeoning student population. That satellite campuses have been developed is testimony of that, as well as the RPZ effectively surrounding the UW main campus, to discourage car commuter students. Even local on- and off-campus housing greatly exceeds the populations of fraternity and sorority housing.

"Due to the size of the UW Greek system," what is the size? Low 1000s? Source? The main campus student body was recently > 39K ["Quick Facts"].

{{Citation needed}} noted where needed to distinguish from citation following.

See "Style" section in Talk:Seattle, Citing sources.
"Include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation" (WP:MoS#Quotation marks).

Note re. Street layout of Seattle provides references for accuracy. Redundancy may be reduced.

--GoDot 07:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As a distinctive, signature architectural work, the Meany Hotel is widely recognized. "Best Western University Tower" looks like product placement.

Yet the latter is its actual current name. --Lukobe 17:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Language chosen defines the realms of discourse. As with many things, there are several suitable names. In this case, both of these are actual names; the currrent, more cumbersome one is a patent advertisement.

We should use the current name and note the former name. There are several actual names but only one is current. We no longer refer to Constantinople or Leningrad except in historical contexts. --Lukobe 06:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it contribute significantly to the purpose of the article? Which of the names is most recognized and best describes with respect to the purpose of the article? Does Wikipedia realize revenue from the product placement? If not, what is the obligation to use it?

We should call things by their current, proper names regardless of if that name happens to incorporate the name of a company. This is not an advertisement any more than "SAFECO Plaza" is. --Lukobe 06:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, "Best Western" does not appear on the building identification.

AFAIK, Wikipedia does not do advertising, and this exemplifies an unnecessary fudge, appropriate only in an article about the Best Western company. If Wikipedia advertises, it should choose to do so by open decision of its board, and should not do so beforehand. --GoDot 05:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to bring this before the board and see what they say. --Lukobe 06:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary: fmt ref name, + ft native, librarians, + cite web, + link Shenk, + ft so congruent wrt sources; see Talk
Explication: Format <ref name=Dorpat>, etc.; add short full text ~Dkhw’Duw’Absh, librarians 1920s, add template cite web, add link in reference Shenk, add short full text so content is congruent with respect to sources; see Discussion, which refers to this paragraph. --GoDot 07:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

Accuracy is a goal.

"[O]n the east by the Burke-Gilman Trail and 25th Avenue NE," is less accurate in that the two are parallel, therefore logically "and" doesn't apply here. Further, contiguous UW facilities are sited betweeen them, and by definition these would be in the U District. More accurately, "on the north by NE Ravenna Boulevard and NE 45th Street," is per cited reference map. "[I]s known throughout the city", since asking such as any bus driver how to get there will be recognized. ("U Village" is similarly recognized by anyone who knows the prominent city places.)

Both Burke-Gilman and 25th Avenue are necessary in that the Burke-Gilman is the eastern boundary south of 45th and 25th north of 45th. As for the cited reference map, I challenge its accuracy. I have a hard time including East Campus in the U-District. If anything I would consider it part of the greater U-Village neighborhood or even Montlake (listen to a sports broadcast lately?). Take away East Campus and 45th is no longer the northern limit of anything. --Lukobe 06:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"[K]nown as 'The Avenue' or 'The Ave' should be denoted since it is an internal link to an integral part of the neighborhood.

I only removed "The Avenue"--I don't believe the street is known as such --Lukobe 06:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"One-way pair" makes clear. That they are a pair is not necessarily obvious to anyone who doesn't already know. One-way streets are not necessarily immediately adjacent. Which goes which way is less essential since the pair conforms to the drive-on-the-right-side-of-the-road convention. That they are not so well-known is demonstrated by drivers occasionally going the wrong way for blocks.
More accurately, only part of 15th Avenue is a principal arterial.
"The sentence "are its principal" contains a redundancy; most everything in the article is about the neighborhood.

That the Street Fair is indigenous and first of its kind in itself displays the character of the neighborhood. It is particular, so therefore a proper noun. "[F]ounded in the college culture of 1968 is one of the most telling aspects of the development of the Experimental College--and the context for the creation of the Street Fair. Note the link to that particular year. That the Blue Moon is "an unofficial landmark" is integral with what it is, and emblematic of an aspect of the neighborhood. It didn't win historical landmark status from the Downtown-dominated City Council in part because it is blue-collar--and avowedly anti-fudd. That Scarecrow is locally-owned further characterizes the neighborhood, in the same way that the Saturday Farmers' Market is the first of its kind and the most popular in the city. That the Meany Hotel has a corportate name is irrelevant to its archictectural and neighborhood significance. "The Meany Hotel" is widely recognized and as such what significance does the corporate name contribute to the purpose of the article? The name is itself only a product placement, and as such would not qualify for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Oh come on. NPOV violations are rife in Wikipedia, but this isn't one of them. It simply isn't the Meany Hotel anymore. That's what it was built as, and that's what you can still call it and be understood, but its name was changed. The official name should still appear at least once in any article that mentions it. I don't get it--why are you such a stickler for citations and officialdom but not in this case? --Lukobe 06:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"its" is not the same as "indigenous". --GoDot 07:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What does the modifier in "39,250-strong" contribute to the purpose of the article?

A descriptive sentence containing Street layout of Seattle is a useful link that is particularly relevant to content of metro neighborhoods articles, since such info is of particular interest to anyone wishing to navigate a city. Its codification has been a big deal in Seattle public works (cf. Phelps, Samson). The layout patterns of New York are famous. As such it is also a distinctive aspect of community character, demonstrably so with respect to that of different cultures.
After the initial paragraph, "NE" is redundant; they're all NE around here. People don't much use the compass designations within a neighborhood (unless disambiguation is required). The link provides any further elaboration desired.

--GoDot 05:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boundaries

Do we really want to include "East Campus" as part of the U-District? Does the U-District really extend all the way to Surber Drive in Laurelhurst? --Lukobe 05:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see footnotes of the article first paragraph, and reference to Dolan & True in Union Bay Natural Area (paragraph beginning, "The Montlake Landfill, University Dump, or Ravenna Landfill"). The three maps qualify as primary sources, Phelps drew extensively from primary sources, "HISTORY @ UBNA" cites primary sources. UBNA is a department of the UW. The sources are consistent. --GoDot 06:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of Hand

It seems to me that this article is getting a little out of hand. The references and bibliography section are longer than the article and seem to contain a bunch of subcutaneous drile. Anyways, although this article has gone through a substantial clean-up, i really think more than the surface needs to be cleaned up.--Gephart 13:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In cases such as this, editors usually have no option but to delete all references not actually used in the footnotes. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI (For your information), please see Talk:Seattle # Citing sources, 4th paragraph & on. Please see also 2 sets of paragraphs immediately preceding # About sources cited, beginning "[D]o I see". Points of controversy, in particular, are sourced. AFAIK (As far as I know) style is compliant with Wikipedia recommendations, referenced for convenience at above links.

Neighborhoods articles are, in any grand scheme, about fine points if not esoterica. AFAIK, few comprehensive sources exist, particularly primary or secondary. --GoDot 19:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Take it up with GoDot... :) --Lukobe 19:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references

Many of the references seem to be nonstandard; I can make no sense of "Dorpat" as a citation. Many of the cited texts seem to confuse in text citation (author's last name) with a full citation. Some cleanup is required, ideally by someone who knows what the citations mean. --TeaDrinker 10:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)