Talk:History of Seattle before 1900

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 References needed
2 Style
- 2.1 SLS&E
- 2.2 Jmabel replies
3 Seattle before the city
4 "then gradually greatly extended"
5 Coalition for Networked Information - Meeting

[edit] References needed

Does anyone have materials from the Chinese perspective on the events of 1885-86? I can't even find the names of prominent Chinese in Seattle at that time, although I know that a few were even rather wealthy.

Similarly, does anyone have materials from the Native perspective on the events of this period? I suspect there is something out there, but I haven't seen much beyond "Chief Seattle's Reply", which is, of course, of dubious authorship. -- Jmabel 06:34, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Style

"inhabit":
The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

Inhabit \In*hab"it\, v. i.

To have residence in a place; to dwell; to live; to abide.

Inhabit \In*hab"it\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Inhabited}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Inhabiting}.] [OE. nhabiten, OF. enhabiter, L. inhabitare; pref. in- in + habitare to dwell. See {Habit}.]

To live or dwell in; to occupy, as a place of settled residence; as, wild beasts inhabit the forest; men inhabit cities and houses. [Emphasis added]

[1913 Webster]

WordNet (r) 2.0

v 1: make one's home or live in; "She resides officially in Iceland"; "I live in a 200-year old house"; "These people inhabited all the islands that are now deserted"; "The plains are parsely populated" [syn: {dwell}, {shack}, {reside}, {live}, {people}, {populate}, {domicile}, {domiciliate}]

2: be present in; be inside of [syn: {occupy}]

Why are you copying dictionary entries here? --Lukobe 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation of source that the word is appropriately used in its context. --GoDot 07:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we all know what "inhabit" means. --Lukobe 17:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a recent point raised about whether "inhabit" constitutes settling, for example building the city, but upon searching I found I don't recall just where. --03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"White" is already being used consistently, so for continuity, the term is used to describe the people of predominantly European ancestry.

"[A]s Bill Speidel points out," is a pointed historical commentary on the unwillingness or inability of early San Francisco to establish sufficient city services for the general welfare—such as effective building codes, an adequate fire department, and adequate utilities such as water. The turn of phrase is more true to the source cited by the Wikipedia editor. This economy also had a pointed effect upon the available forest resources.

"First fire. The Indians fired back, small arms", is in the style of a dispatch. The paragraph is a vignette of an act in a passionate scene. It is implicit, as the story unfolds, that the contest was so lopsided as to be absurd if not tragic. Native Americans warred for complicated conceptions of prestige and for resources, and did not comprehend the European war for conquest or annihilation. [Holm in Hoxie, ed. (1996)]

Wikipedia is not a dispatch. --Lukobe 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In this context, the style of the passage communicates more, effectively. The event itself is relatively anomalous. Language rules are guides, not commandments in stone.

True, but whether your style communicates more effectively is up for debate. --Lukobe 17:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"The defenses were based on" is more accurate in that the decisive defense was not provided by the dauntless pioneers.

"A few things do seem clear". In a list without subordinate clauses, commas are the conventional delineators; semicolons are conventional when there are subordinate qualifying clauses, such as this one. In a list without subordinate clauses, delineating with semicolons can be less readable since a more definitive pause is implicit to no definitive purpose. AFAIK (as far as I know) both are acceptable in this usage.

"pp. 31–51"
"The en dash (-) is slightly longer than the hyphen [...] It indicates duration, such as when you could substitute the word "to" (as in a range of dates). An en dash placed between numbers or in compounds does not have spaces around it." [Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)#Dashes and hyphens used on Wikipedia]

"Page ranges should use an "en dash" (-, –), not a hyphen (-).

It is also useful to link author names to their Wikipedia page [if any], assuming that they have not already been linked to in the article text, to give background information on sources and other works they may have written." [Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style#Notes]

"If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked in order to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format." [Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of Measurement]

Cite templates
date: Full date of publication, preferably in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17.

May be wikilinked.

OR: year: Year of publication, and month: Name of the month of publication.

If you also have the day, use date [field] instead. Must not be wikilinked [this I don't clearly understand why]. [Template:Cite_book (Other cite templates are similar.)]

"At the two incorporations," is redundant. That there were two was inferred in the preceeding sentence.

--GoDot 07:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Cohousing condos" : please see Talk:Cheshiahud#Cohousing condos --GoDot 03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SLS&E

"[H]it the jackpot" is per the cited source, a Wikipedia:Reliable source. Cf. random primary source [1].

Links to years in the 19th century are useful in an encyclopedic sense in that they can facilitate understanding the greater context of what was happening in other cities and in history at the time, increasingly remote from understanding today. [Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context].

--GoDot 07:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"(or, as the usage of the period would have it, "Indians")" is illustrative, and is per the source. Why change an edit unless there is a demonstrable reason?

It's not necessary. --Lukobe 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Among the University of Washington Libraries: Digital Collections" "Among the", since the sample provided is less than representative.

--GoDot 09:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jmabel replies

I'm not going to try to address every rationale above, and quite a few of your edits are good or harmless, but I am going to remark on some of the edits you made.

"The first forays for sites in the area by people of European ancestry" became "the first White forays for sites". For one thing, the first is simply more correct: the people, not the forays, are White or European. But isn't it more important (and more appropriate) to say that they were of European ancestry than to single out skin color? Would we talk about the historic inhabitants as "red-skins" (a perfectly common term at the time)? I think not.

The term is per White (people); it is used in the sources; it is used in ethnographic books by the UW Press.

"as Bill Speidel remarks" became "as Bill Speidel points out". Please see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Point out, note, observe. No big deal, I guess, but I "remarks" more clearly conforms to Wikipedia style. Speidel is really no authority on the history of San Francisco, though he is excellent on pre-1910 Seattle, despite his light style.

The point is that there is a pointed relationship between San Francisco, Seattle history, and resources. The relationship, pointed out by way of example, between economy and resources is profound.

"Denny and Edward Lander (the latter was first local federal judge)" became "Denny and Edward Lander (one a first local federal judge)". There was a typo here, and it should have been "Denny and Edward Lander (the latter was the first local federal judge)", but your wording makes it unclear which was the judge.

My source did not identify which of Denny and Edward was the judge.

Certainly Arthur Denny was never a judge. (Am I wrong in presuming that you know enough Seattle history to know that? If not, how can you possibly evaluate your sources on this period?) It is important to use our sources carefully, but this does not mean that we must fetishize them. By the standard you are stating, one could not extrapolate that an article that referred to "Arthur Denny" once and thereafter to "Denny" meant the same person. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The telegraphic style of your "In the morning, acting on tip, a shell was lobbed into the forest above the town, what is now First Hill. First fire. The Indians fired back, small arms," is simply not Wikpedia style. It's not necessarily bad writing, but it is completely out of the style of the article, or of articles on history in Wikipedia in general.

In this context, the style communicates more with brevity than a longer convention might explain.

Yet it remains non-Wikipedian. --Lukobe 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide references. --GoDot 07:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

References not necessary. Do you see this sort of writing in encyclopedias generally? --Lukobe 17:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That which is valid can be documented, tested; otherwise it is faith. --GoDot 03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"ravines-and" became "ravines—and", which is precisely "ravines—and": why on earth are you removing Unicode characters in favor of HTML entities? I thought we made the decision over a year ago that we were headed the other way. (Similarly in at least one other place, with an en-dash.)

I don't know what happened there. Usually the software makes the conversions seamlessly. My copy has "ravines& mdash;and" [space added to force display], which converts to the single em dash character when saved to Wikipedia, "ravines—and". I don't have MediaWiki 1.5

"Seattle in its early years relied on the timber industry, shipping logs (and, later, milled timber) to San Francisco. A climax forest about 1,000 years old and towering as high as nearly 400 ft (100 m) covered much of what is now Seattle. Today, none of that size remain anywhere in the world." This is good, but is it so good that we need it twice in the same article, verbatim?

A move was intended, rather than inadvertent duplication. Thanks for capturing that.

To say, in the place that you say it, that the Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern "help[ed] Seattle hit the jackpot with the Northern Pacific" is somewhat misleading. Both "hitting the jackpot" and the chronological order of the mention are problematic: the Northern Pacific eventually did incorporate the Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern, but it was many years later.

Data is per cited references. The SLS&E was an effective lever in the machinations and intrigue among the robber barons, bankers, and the Seattle Establishment. Seattle got the freight link--at the same rate as Tacoma [Dorpat (1994), ch. 41], and between having one or the other (passengers or freight), that mattered more. Note that this railway development around Seattle actually took place over a relatively short span of years, and so far, ownership of the SLS&E seems to have changed hands at least several times; the NP as well, particularly when including the banks, who were usually the ultimate actual owners. In short, these were diplomatic maneuverings for economic empire played out by corporations; lever and jackpot are good metaphors with multiple meanings. [Add. --07:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)]

"[A]ll along the line the road's construction caused a tremendous stir... logging camps, mills, mines, and towns sprang into existence as if by magic." [Prosch in Dorpat (1994), ch. 42] Not only the town of Ballard, but new towns like Ross, Fremont, Latona, Brooklyn (now the U District), Yesler (now part of Laurelhurst), boosting Bothell and Gilman (now Issaquah). [Dorpat (1994), ch. 42]. --07:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Linking 19th century and (even more so) linking individual years strikes me as useless at best, and more likely distracting. Is there anyone who really needs to follow a link to understand 1882? Is there anything at 1882 that will be particularly revealing? Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates not containing day and month. It's a bit contentious, but the number of dates you've linked here seems quite excessive to me, and against what has become the prevailing style in recent articles.

Linking years is a matter of finding a good balance. Decades might be more revealing of useful context. Some Wikipedia articles are nearly painted blue with rather too many links.

Perhaps some link could be found with, say, 4th quarter 19th century railways. Weren't some railoads (RR) on the earliest DJIA (the Dow)? --and what was happening elsewhere across the U.S. and Canada with RR (and what was happening on Wall Street) very much affected RR and Seattle. --09:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To your point, is there any particularly useful reason to link any year? —Other than a seemingly obsolete leftover custom? --07:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"to a lesser extent" became "to a lessor extent". Surely you jest. An extent that leases?

That came along inadvertently from a previous version.

--GoDot 09:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

- Jmabel | Talk 19:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle before the city

Seattle before the city

Lukobe, you suggest merging Seattle before the city. As you know, we usually agree, but in this case I think you're wrong. I'd just want to add that as an additional item in the

History of Seattle

Before white settlement

1851–1900

1900–1940

Since 1940

template. Would that be OK with you? Certainly it's an even more distinct era than the three we've sectioned out; we could rename this as History of Seattle 1851-1900, but still keep a small amount of earlier background material here. - Jmabel | Talk 19:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me. We could rename this as History of Seattle 1851-1900 and change Seattle before the city to History of Seattle Before 1851. --Lukobe 20:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Seattle before the city is spun off from Duwamish (tribe) per

Main article: Duwamish (tribe)

The non-wikified links in the first paragraph had been left over from when the article was in Duwamish (tribe), on my list for next session. The new article was spun off only to reduce main article size. The article is specifically about the ancestors of the Duwamish Tribe. History before 1900 has

See also: Cheshiahud and Duwamish (tribe)#History and == See also == * Duwamish (tribe), which have

See also: Seattle before the city Added

See also: Duwamish (tribe) and Seattle before the city

With considered development, the main pages, Duwamish (tribe) and History of Seattle before 1900, could become interesting counterpoints and be particularly revealing as a pair. They already have fairly balanced, but different, perspectives that could further highlight gulfs and bridges, and unanswered questions.

We might look at doing something similar with, say, any of the thirteen Washington Territory treaties. --07:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"This page is 53 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."

--GoDot 09:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "then gradually greatly extended"

From the article: "The line was abandoned as a railroad in 1971 with the general decline in rail, and became in 1978 a foot and bicycle route renamed the Burke-Gilman Trail, then gradually greatly extended." More accurately, the original Burke-Gilman Trail followed a portion of the line; both the Burke Gilman and Sammamish River trails today more or less follow the line (although I believe the extension of the Burke-Gilman toward Ballard goes well beyond the original Seattle, Lakeshore, and Eastern); revisions to both over the years have, in places, moved them away from the original trackbed in several places. But the wording here suggests that the original Burke-Gilman covered the entire rail line, and that the Burke-Gilman has been extended significantly beyond that line. - Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Yet this is a summary, where brevity is sought. "History of Seattle before 1900" may not need very great detail about this. This text will need polishing for fine clarity, with "See also" as desirable. That would be Wikipedia and cooperative editing.

Someone, SDP45, I believe, did a lot of digging for that sort of detail for the SLS&E article. In summary, the B-G Trail generally actually does follow the old SLS&E out to connect with rail trails generally along the SLS&E out past the falls, then to Iron Horse State Park and beyond along the Milwaukee Road. Most all of any changes of route along the B-G Trail itself are tiny, within eyeball of the SLS&E line(s). At the western end, the detail is intricate if not arcane. As you all prob'ly know, the first operation of the SLS&E was between Seattle and Ballard; the SLS&E and heirs made multiple moves, extensions, and modifications further into and through Ballard and Fremont, then the modern bike and pedestrian route has extensions and plans for extending ever farther.

In the 19th century and through WWII, railroads were frequently first built on pilings 'cause that was the fastest way to get track laid where the terrain wasn't flat (or dry). After trains were rolling (and heavy materiel could be readily brought), more permanent lines would be laid. So routes would be shifted, sometimes multiple times if warranted, as they were Seattle–Fremont–Ballard and elsewhere. Cf. Ravenna image, foreground.

Would something like this bit be helpful at Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway or Burke-Gilman Trail? There are some cool (even famous) examples.

I suggest some summary that lends itself to readers looking further to the Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway and Burke-Gilman Trail articles, if they wish. My intent has been toward shifting from the SLS&E and the old BNSF lines decaying into decreptitude toward having new life in lines for different forms of transportation. --GoDot 03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the B-G's deviations are typically only by a few yards, almost never more than about 15 yards; all I was saying is that it doesn't all follow the railbed. - Jmabel | Talk 04:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Beds on a line were moved—not uncommonly, even today near rivers and through steep terrain, though less so than before heavy equipment made beds more permanent. The right-of-way usually allowed for that, and the allowance was extended to confiscatory extremes in the eras of Robber Barons : ) --22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happier if we removed "then gradually extended": if we are going to speak loosely, let's leave that out, too. - Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A good intent could be maintaining being concise without being loose; some polishing of wording could help. A few yards is still within the right-of-way (which is not particulary wide) and so is sufficiently close that meaningful accuracy is not lost; such changes are not extensive with respect to the entire length. Most changes are so small that they are barely detectable, if at all, on route maps. Releveant points are that the line was converted to another active use, the new use essentially follows the original line, the changeover has been gradual (the first segment of the B-G was nominal), and the new use is being integrated into a larger, comprehensive system. Further detail could be made available with an appropriate reference to the Burke-Gilman Trail or SLS&E articles. (A map being needed is noted at SLS&E, the B-G Trail article has detailed links to detailed maps.) --GoDot 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is outside the right-of-way from Gasworks Park to somewhere around Dunn Lumber. - Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)