Talk:Humboldt Wagon Road

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dylan620 talk 21:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the Humboldt Wagon Road passed through four California counties, but went nowhere near Humboldt County? Source: Chang, Anita L. "The Historical Geography of the Humboldt Wagon Road", Association of Northern California Records and Research, 1992, p. 19 (source not available online)
    Mark, Andy, "Stories of the Humboldt Wagon Road", The History Press, 2020, p. 89: [1]
    • ALT1: ... that stagecoaches on the Humboldt Wagon Road could make the 400-mile (640 km) trip from Chico, California to Ruby City, Idaho in under four days, for a $60 fare? Source: Mark, Andy, "Stories of the Humboldt Wagon Road", The History Press, 2020, p. 29 [2]
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: I prefer the first hook.

Created by WeirdNAnnoyed (talk). Self-nominated at 16:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Humboldt Wagon Road; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Interesting article on California history. New enough (nominated on same day article was moved into mainspace); long enough (7180 characters). Well sourced and neutral. Earwig doesn't return meaningful results because most sources are books. Citation of multiple sources suggests there isn't a copyvio problem and spot check doesn't seem to indicate close paraphrasing. AGF on book source for hook...but my main nit there is that if you're citing Chang for the first hook (ALT0), shouldn't you also be citing Chang within the article for that one sentence lacking a footnote at the moment? Or are you citing Chang for only part of that hook because the second half of the sentence is common sense inference? The problem with ALT1 is that it is too "complete" – all the facts you need are in the hook itself and there is no reason to click further to answer the question / read the article. It appears submitter is a new to DYK and is thus exempt from the QPQ review requirement, though for future reference WeirdNAnnoyed, it would be helpful to indicate in the Comment section (or Review section) whether it's your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th DYK submission. (After that, you have to do QPQ reviews along with the rest of us.) So really just need clarification on why the sentence in the article corresponding to the hook lacks a citation at the end. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for feedback, this is indeed my first nomination so I apologize for getting some details wrong. The reason I didn't add a citation at the end is common sense inference, as you say. This can be confirmed by consulting a map; the trail's westernmost point was about 100 miles from the nearest point in Humboldt County. I have a paper copy of the Chang reference and can upload an image of the relevant page if that would help with documentation. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WeirdNAnnoyed: No need to apologize at all! This is just part of the standard DYK review and bulletproofing process which continues all the way until the day the DYK runs on the main page, when thousands of people read it (and are liable to poke holes if there are problems). (In other words, we're just trying to identify and resolve any potential issues sooner rather than later, because if it happens on the day, the hook could get pulled off the main page.) In this case, I see that there is a Humboldt County, Nevada that gave the road its name (for example per this source) ("One of those connections was to mines in Humboldt County in Nevada, which gave the local road its name."). Maybe you knew that, but I didn't when I initially read the hook and article, so now I feel that ALT0 is problematic. That said, we could try a version of the hook that plays on the fact that there are two Humboldt Counties, going for the final slot which is often reserved for "quirky" or playful hooks (and hence allows for a bit more leeway):
What do you think? (If we were going to use that, we would have to make a couple of changes in the article itself.) In any case, could you try to propose at least one more hook, so the promoter has a couple good ones to choose from? Cielquiparle (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle:: Thanks for that source, I had not found that one. It disagrees with the reference I have, which specifically names the mining district, but since the county was probably named for the mines it's not a major discrepancy. I really like your hook! I have edited the text of the article to make it more compatible with your suggestion; please let me know what you think.
@WeirdNAnnoyed: I made further edits (and added a different source) to resolve the issue, as I actually don't see it as a discrepancy. I'm just not sure if ALT2 will be accepted, but I am pinging @Lightburst: to see if they might be able to assess whether the hook would work? (I can't approve my own hook anyway.) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WeirdNAnnoyed and Cielquiparle: ALT2 is confounding and does provoke interest. I instantly know it is a trick question but it does make me click and find out how it is possible. I think many people like to solve puzzles. So this road passes through a "mining district in Humboldt County, Nevada" but does not connect to "Humboldt County, California". I believe one line that supports this hook does not have a citation. The last line in route description. though nowhere near California's Humboldt County, far to the west on the Pacific Coast. Since this line is central to the hook, it needs to be cited per WP:DYKHFC. If we perhaps cite it with a map it may be obvious to the reader, and we hope it will not be considered WP:OR. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: Thanks for reviewing and for the suggestion for a solution. @WeirdNAnnoyed: Do you have a map clearly showing the Humboldt Wagon Road which illustrates the claim made in the ALT2 hook and in the article, which we could cite in the article? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle:: Sadly no, the best I can do is this map: [3], which shows the Humboldt Wagon Road leading NE out of Chico, but does not label it as such. Is it OR to point out that the closest the road got to California's Humboldt County was Chico, which is about 90 miles from Humboldt as the crow flies? I tried to indicate that with the map in the article, but that's my own work based on references 1 and 2 from the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle and WeirdNAnnoyed: What is the status of this nomination? What needs to happen to get this approved? Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a map in one of the books referenced, which we could cite, but think we still need to reword the sentence accordingly. I might have time next week to track down the other book. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: Could you please check the sourcing for the claim made in ALT2 in the article now and let us know if you approve? I have added a citation to reference 1, which contains an 1865–1867 map of the road (which you should be able to access via the Google Books link), and also adjusted the target sentence accordingly (with the dates). Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: I forgot all about this nomination. I added a source to show that Humboldt Ca is on the coast of CA - The source states: "Humboldt County is located on California’s northern Pacific Coast." So it is evident that it is not where the road ends. I cannot see the other source for the counties it passes through so I AGF. So I think we are square with the hook. Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approving ALT2. To be clear, I wrote that hook but it was approved by the DYK nominator as well as a second reviewer of the hook (Lightburst). To confirm, I have also now re-read the article "fresh" as there were some fairly exciting edits to it at the end of December (incorporating feedback from one of the authors of one of the books, who also pointed to other sources to check out and reference; see the article Talk page for more info). Kudos to WeirdNAnnoyed for your patience and perseverance with this one. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When did the county take over the route?[edit]

I've been in touch with Andy Mark, author of one of the references and he brought up the issue that he feels that road became a public road in 1883, see Mark, p. 88. He cites the Weekly Butte Record, April 21, 1883 p. 1, column 6:

"Chico and Humboldt Road.- The charter of the Chico and Humboldt road, owned by General John Bidwell, has expired, and a meeting of our interested citizens and business men is called to assemble at the City Hall this evening, to take some action in making this a free road. General Bidwell built this road over the mountains at an immense cost, and has kept it in good condition for a number of years. He does not care to take the responsibility any longer, and hopes that our people will make an effort to take charge of the road and keep it in good order. As Chico derives great benefit from this road -from the people living in the mountains, it is for the interest of our people to take some notice of this matter. Let the meeting be well attended which is not available online.

I agree with his position that the road was a free road in 1883. Unfortunately, there are a few sources have it differently. The article says:

In 1883, the Chico and Humboldt Wagon Road Company's operating lease expired, and the road's operations were taken over by new partners Williams, Cecil, and Barham, who continued to operate the road as a toll highway.[24] Bond issues to improve the road were approved in 1897–1898, at which time the road became a public, county-maintained highway.[25][26] Though he no longer had an ownership interest in the Humboldt Wagon Road, Bidwell maintained involvement in the road's operations through the remainder of his life, and personally worked at construction projects along the road even into old age.[27][28]

The citations are:

  • [24] Mansfield, George C. (1918). History of Butte County, California, With Biographical Sketches. Los Angeles: Historic Record Company. p. 308 which can be found here and says:
"In 1883 the Chico-Humboldt Wagon Road franchise expired, and the road was leased to Messrs. Barham, Cecil and Williams. The lease provided that in exchange for the toolstolls the lessees were to keep the road in good condition." (Note that Barham is likely wrong, see below.)
  • [25] Chang (1992), p. 35. I was not able to find this online, but I have a scan of this source that states that Bidwell's franchise expired in 1883, that an appropriation was made in 1897 and that in 1897 was when road ceased to be a toll road. Andy Mark (and I) believe that Chang was not correct with the 1897 date, likely because they did not have the keyword search that we now have in 2023. See below for support.
  • [26] McGie (1982), p. 165. I was unable to find this, but Chang (1992) refers to this source.
  • [27] Leek (2018), pp. 21–2220-21. I was not able to find this online, but the scans I have state that on July 28, 1883 the county supervisors leased the road to Bonham et al. and cites the Chico Weekly Enterprise August 3, 1883. Leek continues that the contract was reconsidered in August. A letter appearing in the Chico Weekly Enterprise, August 17, 1883, p. 1 supports that the contract was recinded. Leek states that a contract was let to J. H. Williams for $1875 (see Chico Weekly Enterprise, September 7, 1883, p. 2 for the amount of the bid) and Leek presumes that tolls were no longer collected. Leek seems to support the idea that the road was not a toll road in 1883 and that Bonham, Cecil and Williams no longer had the lease. Note that Mansfield writes Barham, Cecil and Williams, which is what was used in the article (see above). The August 3, 1883 article says Bonham, so Mansfield is possibly not correct. I'm more inclined to go with Bonham because Leek (2018) uses Bonham and a Chico Weekly Enterprise July 27, 1883 article uses Bonham.
  • [28] Edmonson, Barbara T. (1992). "John Bidwell's Fifty Years on Rancho del Arroyo Chico". In McDonald, Lois Halliday (ed.). Ripples Along Chico Creek. Chico, California: Butte County Branch, National League of American Pen Women. p. 61. ISBN 0-9631582-2-8. I have not seen this source, so I have no comment.


Andy Mark points out these sources:

"Since the Humboldt road was made a free highway, many heavy teams come to Chico from the mountains for supplies"
"The expiration of the franchise of the Humboldt Wagon Road Company has resulted in giving that valuable artery of trade and commerce to the county as a free public highway"
"It was made a county road, after having been a toll road for twenty years. During the last fourteen years, making the necessary repairs and keeping the road [in] order has been a heavy and constant strain on the taxpayers."

Below is proposed text replacing the above:

In April of 1883, the Chico and Humboldt Wagon Road Company’s operating lease expired. Responsibility for the road was then handed over to the county and it soon became a free public highway.[1][2][3]
In 1897-98, a major road improvement project was implemented, supported by county funds and citizen contributions.[2][4]

References

  1. ^ "Busy Scenes". Weekly Butte Record. November 24, 1883. p. 1.
  2. ^ a b Shuffleton, J. H. (October 15, 1897). "The Humboldt Road". Chico Weekly Enterprise. p. 2. Retrieved December 18, 2023.
  3. ^ Leek, Nancy (2018). "Chapter 1: John Bidwell and the Humboldt Wagon Road". In White, Gregory F. (ed.). Ten Miles of Roadside Archaeology Along the Old Humboldt Wagon Road. Association for Northern California Historical Research. pp. 20–21. ISBN 978-1-931994-29-3.
  4. ^ "Humboldt Road Fund". Chico Daily Record. January 5, 1899. p. 4.

Note that the Leek reference would appear as "Leek (2018), pp. 20-21." If someone who has access to McGie (1882) and Edmonson (1992) and feels that thethey are appropriate, then including those references would be great. As I have not seen them, I'm not sure I'm comfortable including them

I realize that this is a very minor detail, but as some reputable sources might have it wrong, it seems worth hashing out. I supposed one could call this WP:OR, but I feel that looking at the contemporary news sources in hopes of confirming secondary sources such as Mansfield and Chang is not WP:OR, especially because it seems that Mansfield gets at least one name wrong. Comments are most welcome! Cxbrx (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made some minor edits to the above, see the strikeouts. Cxbrx (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cxbrx, thanks for digging into the references on this. I think what you're doing is totally appropriate. I am not sure which it was. I have a paper copy of McGie, 1982, who specifically said the franchise was transferred to Bonham/Barham, Cecil, and Williams, and I also have the Leek reference and Edmondson (Edmondson doesn't say anything about road ownership as I recall, but I will check again in the next day or two). However, I missed those news articles, and maybe McGie did too, which suggest the contract was cancelled. You and Mark may well be right, it might have been a public road by the end of 1883. Let me take a closer look at the references I still have in my possession. And there's nothing OR about using primary sources, we just shouldn't base entire articles on primary sources. Please edit as you see fit if you find anything else. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @WeirdNAnnoyed:, Andy Mark forwarded me some references. McGie (1982), p. 165. does not mention precisely when the road became a county road, though they do mention county expenditures in the 90s, which indicates that by the 90s it was a county road. As I've see McGie, I would include that reference in my proposed edits. Do you have any suggestions for the proposed edits or shall I go ahead and make them and you can take a look? I feel that we are basically in agreement on when the road became a county road and we can make adjustments about this to the article itself. Thanks. Cxbrx (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cxbrx:: I say go ahead and make those edits (stating the road was made public in 1883). I haven't been able to find any information other than what I said above, and Edmondson says nothing about road ownership as I suspected. I would make sure to include references to the news articles you found (e.g. contract was transferred...but transfer was cancelled (ref)) to make it clear...several sources say that Barham et al. took over the road at this time, but if that isn't true then we need to back it up with references. And also thanks for reaching out to Mark, I trust his research on this subject far more than my own. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made the edits. I also did another strikeout on the text from the end of the quote from the Weekly Butte Record, April 21, 1883 above. Andy Mark pointed out that the Chico Weekly Enterprise, September 7, 1883, p. 2 does not mention J.H. Williams, he is mentioned as getting the contract on p. 3. Page 2 does mention the amount of $1875 from an unsigned bid. Cxbrx (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humboldt_Wagon_Road&oldid=1199207703"