This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
California water wars article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rhawki01.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deceit:
Farmers and ranchers tried to band together to sell water rights to Los Angeles as a group, but again through deceit, Los Angeles managed to buy the water rights at a substantially reduced price.
Deceit is a pretty strong word. Does the book cited use it? If so, the author of the book should be cited in the text as source for the word, don't you think?
Sincerely,
GeorgeLouis 00:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Under the section "Obtaining water rights 1902–1907" the claim is made that, "Mulholland misled Los Angeles public opinion by dramatically understating the amount of water locally available for Los Angeles's growth." This is attributed to Marc Reisner's problematic "Cadillac Desert." However, this claim is belied by a more even-handed account from Marc Wheeler, Smithsonian magazine October 2002, footnote [12], who states, "Freshwater was limited to the meager flow of the Los Angeles River, now a much-maligned concrete channel, and the paltry 15 inches of rain that the area averages a year." In general, the number of times that anti-development crusader Reisner's book is used as a source -- twenty times -- diminishes the impartiality and credibility of the entire article. This article should be rewritten using a less biased source than Reisner. Les Standiford's "Water to the Angels: William Mulholland, His Monumental Aqueduct, and the Rise of Los Angeles" is a workable medium between Catherine Mulholland's book celebrating her grandfather and Reisner's finger-wagging and inflammatory polemic. Sincerely, ChristineBeatty58 3:23, 21 November 2022
It seems to me that keeping the URLs is most consistent with WP:V. I'd like to put them back in. hike395 03:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The first five sections were written by User:Wenrick --- I poked around with Google and in the Kahrl book, and could not find any evidence of copying. I think we'll have to assume good faith and thank User:Wenrick for his fine contribution.
I wrote the last three sections, mostly from notes from [12], but with consulting other sources. I wrote these myself, they have been subsequently edited. Feel free to verify. hike395 12:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The section titled "Public vs. private: early problems of water control in Los Angeles" is a good backgrounder on LADWAP -- should it belong at Los Angeles Department of Water and Power or here? I'm uncertain. What do other people think?
The article portrays Eaton and Mullholland in a negative light, without listing any sources. ( Lucas(CA) ( talk) 06:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
The article's NPOV would be greatly improved by balancing Reisner's editorializing in Cadillac Desert with more balanced and neutral sources. For instance, why are neither of these two authoritative sources referenced at all: Peter Vorster's "The Development and Decline of Agriculture in the Owens Valley." University of California 6/6/2012 [1] or Les Standiford (2015) "Water to the Angels: William Mulholland, His Monumental Aqueduct, and the Rise of Los Angeles" New York: Ecco. ISBN 978-0062251428. Leaning so heavily on Reisner negates any hope of an NPOV. ChristineBeatty58 12:14, 21 November 2022
I just re-added the citations missing and refimprove tags. There are quite a few statements made in the article that should have a citation provided. Additional sources would help as well. -- Gmatsuda ( talk) 12:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't fathom the reason the refimprove tag was removed from this article when it clearly is missing a boatload of citations for stated facts and even quotations. I've added the fact template where necessary, and cleaned up some of the existing citations. I didn't have time to go through the entire article, however.
I cleaned up as much as I could in the "Water rights and profit" section, as an example for the rest of the article. Note how the same citations for multiple statements (and how to avoid having to add the entire citations over and over again) have been added. I hope this helps. -- Gmatsuda ( talk) 08:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
This article would be greatly improved by a map specific to the subject or even a general map of the area. -- TjoeC ( talk) 18:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There's been plenty of disputes over water in the Central Valley and up further North in the Klamath River. It would be good to add sections about those as well. 63.107.91.99 ( talk) 17:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Imveracious has twice deleted material from the article supported by Cadillac Desert: once with a somewhat obscure edit summary ("correction of format and reference"), the second time apparently claiming that the material was not supported by the source.
I invite User:Imveracious and any other editor to double-check the references --- the quoted words are directly from Cadillac Desert and page numbers were provided. It's a simple matter to check that the deleted material was well-supported by the reference. See the old version at [1].
Cadillac Desert is a standard reference on water conflicts in the West. Several other references confirm the fact that Eaton and Mullholland were dishonest in the acquisition of water rights. See, e.g.,
If any editor believes that the article was not WP:NPOV, then the correct action is not to delete well-supported material, but to find reliable sources that support the opposite claim that the water rights were acquired honestly, and add those sources to the article.
Instead of engaging in an edit war, I invite other editors to discuss these issues and see if we can come to a consensus. — hike395 ( talk) 03:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
“ | Los Angeles employed chicanery, subterfuge, spies, bribery, a campaign of divide-and-conquer, and a strategy of lies to get the water it needed. | ” |
“ | ...the Reclamation Service received a couple of applications for rights-of-way across federal lands from two newly formed power compies in the Owens Valley. Each was interested in building a hydroelectric project, and Lippincott had to decide which, if any, of the plans could coexist with the Reclamation project. Unable or unwilling to look into the matter himself, Lippincott might have waited for one of his engineers to return later in the spring, but he wanted to dispose of the issue, so he decided to appoint a consulting engineer to look into the matter for him. And though there were dozens of engineers in Los Angeles and San Francisco among whom he could have chosen, he decided to turn to his old friend and professional associate Fred Eaton The news that Lippincott had hired Fred Eaton to decide a matter that could affect the whole Owens Valley Project left his superiors stunned, but their response, typically, was one of bafflement rather than anger. |
” |
“ | Wilfred's suspicions that Los Angeles was engineering a water grab had begun to simmer when word got around that Fred Eaton, the would-be cattle rancher, was offering some astonishingly generous sums for land with good water rights. There were stories that Eaton would make an offer that already seemed generous, and, if a landowner gambled and tried to raise him, Eaton would readily meet his terms. | ” |
I agree that Cadillac Desert may be cited as a source and that the disputed portion of the article should be returned. I recommend that when the material is returned that they are string cited with the other material you just provided here. Geodanny ( talk) 16:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This subject remains, as it has from its origins, highly controversial and polarizing to many. As such, to be informative, truthful, and to remain within Wikipedia's polices makes a NPOV even more important. Notwithstanding that I myself do not know of any recognized historical organization or society which considers this book to be a "reference" the problem remains in that although it does contain a fair amount of factual materiel, the wording is so highly biased that it can not be used as quoted. Further, though there are, as exampled, a few areas that if included in their entirety, would be acceptable, they would then lessen the articles appeal simply on length alone. We need to keep in mind that an article must be, as far as possible, in an Encyclopedic format and it is not to be a forum to prove or disprove a point. My intentions here are, as with any article, to lessen or remove the inflammatory expressions while retaining the factual text. I do not read any factual and non-inflammatory section which I did remove. Please indicate to which area you refer as I may have been mistaken. Thanks Imveracious ( talk) 20:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
In short and to a large part, I agree. My point was simply that the article should be such that it does not use judgmental or biased, which I had termed as inflammatory, language and in a disinterested tone. An article written from a neutral point of view is one that neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject. This includes use of the language, which was in question, even though it was how a cited reliable source choose to use about the subject. It is only natural that we have our own points of view, although we should strive in good faith to provide the information in such a manner that we achieve the needed level of neutrality so that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Thanks Imveracious ( talk) 20:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The paragraph from "Obtaining water rights 1902–1907" claiming Mulholland misled both the residents of the Owens Valley and Los Angeles should be deleted as it sourced only by Cadillac Desert, which is contradicted by other sources. The Smithsonian article [12], Catherine Mulholland's book and Les Standiford's "Water to the Angels: William Mulholland, His Monumental Aqueduct, and the Rise of Los Angeles" both note the limited rainfall in the Los Angeles region and the finite level of the aquafer. Earlier in the chapter where Reisner claims the Mulholland exaggerated the impending water crisis, Reisner agrees with William Mulholland that the LA River cannot sustain a six-figure population over time. With regarding to this paragraph's claim that Mulholland also misled residents of the Owens Valley that "Los Angeles would only use unused flows in the Owens Valley, while planning on using the full water rights to fill the aquifer of the San Fernando Valley." Per Peter Vorster's "The Development and Decline of Agriculture in the Owens Valley." University of California 6/6/2012, the intake of the LA Aqueduct was far south of the vast majority of Owens Valley ranching and farming. [1] ChristineBeatty58 11:59, 21 November 2022
User:Imveracious marked several citations as needing verification. I double-checked some of the sources, and they indeed support the sentences that they are associated with. I would remove those verification tags, but perhaps Imveracious meant something else? — hike395 ( talk) 09:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Wondering how an area with a known native population can subsequently have a "first expedition"? Perhaps this should be written as "first American expedition"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.192.101 ( talk) 10:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)