Talk:Bothell, Washington

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

Education[edit]

I reverted the changes to the final sentence in the education section. No school in Bothell is part of the Edmonds School District, there are no Edmonds School District schools in Bothell, and there is no connection between the two school districts. The list of Edmonds schools are available at http://www.edmonds.wednet.edu/schools/default.cfm, and the map of those schools is at http://www.edmonds.wednet.edu/about/map/elemmap.cfm (the secondary school coverage is the same). See Northshore School District to compare. Brier is within the Edmonds district. There are places where Brier borders on Bothell on its northeast, but none of the areas covered by Brier schools are in Bothell. In any case, even if there were some slight overlap the added text was incorrect.

Koganei, Tokyo as a sister city?[edit]

I've heard that Koganei, Tokyo is the sister-city to Bothell. If someone can confirm this, please add this info. I do know that Cedar Park Christian School in Bothell has had several exchange students travel to Koganei (and vice-versa). -- Eptin 08:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics section?[edit]

Is the "Politics" section intentionally bolded instead of section-headed? It looks wrong as it is. Solarbird 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The politics section seems to be correctly formatted. It is a subsection, and in the code it uses three equal signs instead of two. --Eptin 19:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand - it just seems odd as a subsection of demographics. I agree it's too small for a section of its own, it just seems, you know... odd. (No, I'm not going to make a Wiki case of it. ^_^ ) Things like that, I've started putting into talk: as kind of a storage bin until there's more. (C.f. Kenmore's talk page.) Solarbird 04:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen similar information in other demographics sections for other cities, though not usually set aside in a subsection. I wonder if, even though this is census information, it might make more sense in the Government and Politics section that I just added? Llachglin 01:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gibbard[edit]

As far as I know Ben Gibbard never lived in Bothell (as it states in the Residents section)... any sources? Abcdemily 03:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization of sections[edit]

Per Wikipedia guidelines, I deleted the Trivia section. I think I'm the user who created this section in the first place, moving information that was in History that didn't really belong there. Rather than delete the content, I moved it into a new Culture section (matching usage for other city articles). I made the existing Civic Events section into a subsection here, and created a Sports subsection with information from the trivia section (and new info about Pop Keeney Stadium) and grouped everything else in an admittedly nebulous "Popular Culture" subsection. All three items in that section are national media references or events that featured Bothell. It's possible none of these items are encyclopedic enough to really belong in the article at all, but I didn't want to make that call without opening a discussion. The Blake Lewis item in particular is probably more relevant for the Blake Lewis article. I also think the list of famous people from Bothell is also probably not necessary for this article, and not standard practice in most city articles, but I don't want to make that call either.Llachglin 01:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motto[edit]

I'm not sure we have the motto right. An official source for that would be great, but I don't know if that's possible. I know it's what we have on our welcome signs. As far as I know, it might be just "Bothell - For a day or a lifetime" or "For a day or a lifetime". I can't just trust that the full text of the sign coming into town is the official motto. I've seen Bothellites using different versions.

This Seattle Times article gives the motto as "For a Day or a Lifetime"

Even looking at the city's official site lends credibility to the shorter version, it seems to me. Its graphics read:

The City of Bothell
Welcomes you...for a day or a lifetime

You see that? It has the "For a day or a lifetime" part, but the rest is just rearranged in front of it.

Hmm...*strokes beard*

Misha Vargas in Bothell (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in the city and the note about "Hype" is funny because I remember when that happened. It was a very common occurance among the local teen population in the 1990s (i.e. spraying the BOT out of the welcome sign). Welcome To Hell For A Day Or A Lifetime was a motto among the Bothell High classes of the early '90s.HansEworth (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it still happens. A few years ago I was heading into Bothell and the BOT on the sign was much brighter than the HELL, suggesting it had been repainted only recently. Love that place! Begeun (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bothell, Washington/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article is okay. History section needs more references along with the notable people. -- Hdt83 Chat 22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bothell, Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bothell, Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Area of Bothell[edit]

In "Geography", it is stated: "According to the City of Bothell, the city has a total area of 13.7 square miles (35.48 km2), all of it land."

How can that be? The Sammamish River cuts right through Bothell. Note that the cited source does not support the assertion that all of Bothell's area is land. So I am going to modify that statement. --Alan W (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Census Bureau must not have counted it. The raw 2020 Gazetteer files list the water area as "0". SounderBruce 06:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good. You found a reliable source (which I overlooked in the InfoBox). I meant no "original research"; I just couldn't see the statement allowed to stand as it was, since it was not supported by the cited source. Still seems odd to me; but "you can't fight city hall". Or the U.S. Census Bureau. :-) --Alan W (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information in History section[edit]

The first paragraph of the history section features incorrect information. I am going to post the correct information here since my corrections keep getting reverted.


Current:[1]

"The Sammamish River valley from Lake Washington to Issaquah Creek was historically inhabited by the indigenous Sammamish people (Lushootseed: sc̓ababš; also known as the "s-tah-PAHBSH", or "willow people"), a Coast Salish group with an estimated population of 80 to 200 by 1850. Among them were the "ssts'p-abc" ("meander dwellers"), who settled near the river's mouth at two villages—the larger of which was "tlah-WAH-dees" between modern-day Kenmore and Bothell. Most of the Sammamish were removed from their lands in 1856 following the Puget Sound War and assigned to the Port Madison and Tulalip reservations."

My proposed changes:[2]

"The Sammamish River valley from Lake Washington to Issaquah Creek was first inhabited by the Indigenous Sammamish people (Lushootseed: sc̓ababš), a Coast Salish group with an estimated population of 80 to 200 around 1850. The Sammamish had a major winter village, ƛ̕ax̌ʷadis, at the mouth of the Sammamish River, between what is now Bothell and Kenmore. Although the Sammamish resisted removal efforts by settlers, they were eventually removed to Fort Kitsap following the 1855-1856 Puget Sound War. Some Sammamish continued to live in the area, working as laborers and farmers, but after the removal of the majority from ƛ̕ax̌ʷadis, the village was destroyed."

Here are my comments, which are OR but at this point I am justifying their existence:

"...inhabited by the indigenous Sammamish people (Lushootseed: sc̓ababš; also known as the "s-tah-PAHBSH" [sic; it is written "s-tsah-PAHBSH" in the source on p. 31], or "willow people")..."

  • The name is sc̓ababš as stated (Bates et al. 1994 p.50-51). "s-tah-PAHBSH" is meaningless in Lushootseed. Buerge is approximating how the Lushootseed language sounds, equivalent to using respell (suh-MA-mish. We don't spell Sammamish like that???). Should be removed.
  • What's more, the etymology is disputed, variously translated as "meander dwellers," (Hilbert et al. 2001, p.81) "willow people" (Buerge 1984, p.31), or "hunter people" (Dougherty 2008). The name comes from sc̓ap/sc̓əp (which is the disputed part) and =abš, the suffix meaning "people," typical in the names of Lushootseed-speaking peoples. Due to being surrounded by vowels, the final p in sc̓apabš becomes sc̓ababš. FWIW, as a Lushootseed speaker, I think Buerge's or Waterman's are probably the most likely, however, we can't pretend there is one accepted version ("willow people") when there are multiple propositions. I think the etymology should be removed as it is explained in detail on the main for Sammamish people.

"Among them were the "ssts'p-abc" ("meander dwellers")..."

  • Nonsensical, this is just a diferent interpretation of sc̓ababš. This is derived from T.T. Waterman's original recording of the name sc̓ababš. It is seen on page 81 of Hilbert et al. 2001: "The people living here were called the sts!apa'bc. The name for the people has been applied to the lake and the river." Waterman's orthography uses "c" as "sh." (Ibid. viii) This is a major blunder from the King County streams assessment. The "ssts'p-abc" and the "s-tah-PAHBSH" are the same people, just using different ways of pronouncing the name sc̓ababš.

"...who settled near the river's mouth at two villages—the larger of which was "tlah-WAH-dees" between modern-day Kenmore and Bothell."

  • I don't know if "larger" is verifiable. It says in the sources that it is a "major" village (History of Bothell n.d. p.1; King County Streams Monitoring Update for September 2018: Sammamish River 2018 p.3). Please correct me if I am missing where it says it is larger.\
  • The village's name is ƛ̕ax̌ʷadis (Hilbert et al. 2001 p.81, 86). Also see the Waterlines map by the Burke Museum, and the City of Kenmore, which recently named a park after the village. Again, "tlah-WAH-dees" is an attempt to sound out the name. You can see a similar spelling on the park website ("Tl' awh-ah-dees").[3]

"Most of the Sammamish were removed from their lands in 1856 following the Puget Sound War and assigned to the Port Madison and Tulalip reservations."

  • FWIW, I think it should be added that they initially resisted the removal, because that's why they were moved following the conclusion of the Puget Sound War. They participated in it and lost, so the leader's people let themselves be moved to Fort Kitsap (Buerge 1984 p.31). Only later were they assigned to Tulalip (Ibid.) which I don't think it reflects in the article.
  • This is why I added the fact that "[s]ome Sammamish continued to live in the area [Bothell-Kenmore area], working as laborers and farmers, but after the removal of the majority from ƛ̕ax̌ʷadis, the village was destroyed." (Kenmore by the Lake: A Community History p.15, 16). This is relevant because it regards the village that precedes the modern settlement of Bothell. It is in the article, having survived being removed, so I assume @SounderBruce believes the village's existence near Bothell to be relevant. Adding one sentence about its demise further adds context, instead of just going from "there was a village" to "now there are American settlers."
  • SounderBruce takes issue with the fact that the Kenmore Historical Society source is self-published. I believe it is reliable because the history was supported by King County and the City of Kenmore. There are several other sources in the article (such as "History of Bothell" by the City of Bothell) which are published by historical societies or the city/county itself, and I think they are just as legitimate.

References

  • Bates, Dawn; Hess, Thom; Hilbert, Vi (1994). Lushootseed Dictionary. Seattle: University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-97323-4. OCLC 29877333.
  • Buerge, David (August 1984). "Indian Lake Washington" (PDF). Seattle Weekly. pp. 29–33.
  • Dougherty, Phil (January 28, 2008). "Sammamish Names Then and Now". Sammamish Heritage Society. Archived from the original on May 7, 2015. Retrieved November 21, 2023.
  • Hilbert, Vi; Miller, Jay; Zahir, Zalmai (2001). sdaʔdaʔ gʷəɬ dibəɬ ləšucid ʔacaciɬtalbixʷ - Puget Sound Geography. Original Manuscript from T.T. Waterman. Lushootseed Press. ISBN 979-8750945764.
  • "History of Bothell". City of Bothell. Archived from the original on February 19, 2022. Retrieved February 19, 2022.
  • Kenmore by the Lake: A Community History (PDF). Kenmore Heritage Society. 2003.
  • "King County Streams Monitoring Update for September 2018: Sammamish River" (PDF). King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. October 24, 2018. pp. 3–5. Retrieved February 19, 2022.

PersusjCP (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being prepped for GA and eventual FA status, so there is great care needed to curate "high-quality reliable sources" to meet the FA criteria. While Lushootseed Press might meet the RS standard, it does not meet the high-quality qualifier of FACR. Anything cited to Lushootseed Press and other sources that don't meet that criteria should not be included, period. Also a reminder that comments should focus on the content instead of calling out users for perceived slights; this is wandering into contentious territory and is unacceptable. SounderBruce 03:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "call you out for percieved slights," I mentioned you because you are the one trying to get it promoted to GA, and the second mention of you is simply what you wrote as a reason for your revert: "Kenmore Historical Society is self-publishing their book."[4] Other than two words, the rest is on content. Also, frankly it feels infantilizing and threatening to warn me for pinging you, and saying that pinging is "unacceptable." If you would like me to not ping you, please ask, instead of jumping straight to calling my behaviour unacceptable. I was not aware of any rules against pinging people in discussions they might be interested in.
In regards to the reliability of the Lushootseed Press sources, I will comment here on the RS noticeboard to keep it in one place. PersusjCP (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ping is not the issue. The tone of the comments above are what is straying into PA territory, and frankly is what keeps me from commenting further on this talk page to avoid being unnecessarily stressed. Accusing me of being threatening is an absurd claim, especially in light of previous comments made both on and off wiki. SounderBruce 07:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What tone?? I am genuinely asking here. I seriously tried to be neutral and civil. I didn't mean to have a mean tone and I apologize that it came off that way. Tone over text is something I struggle with and I was just trying to put the correct information.
Every time I have been called out for edit warring or said something uncivil I have apologized. In the case of the off-wiki comment, I apologized to you and deleted it. Other than that, I don't know what you could be referring to other than the couple times I was breaking the two-revert rule when I was starting out or so. I was just saying how it has felt hostile to me. I am the same in that these conversations cause me a lot of stress and I have almost stopped editing because of it. I don't want to argue any more than you do. PersusjCP (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @PersusjCP and @SounderBruce - I have reinstated PersusjCP's efforts from the revert done by SB in regards to claims that a reliable source is not of high quality and therefore should not be included. I also fail to see any WP:COPYVIO issue nor is any source listed unauthorized. Sources are admittedly reliable, content is contextual and pertinent to the history of the Bothell area. A nomination to GA status does not prohibit additional ongoing or future editing, the summary/topic explanations are not covered or granted under WP:STEWARDSHIP, and despite SB's clear GA history and experience, it is up to the GA reviewer(s) to decide the determining value of all included refs. To note, the article is being nominated for GA, not FA, and a future FA designation cannot be foreseen; the mention seems to suggest the article to be limited to any future additions/edits and must be approved of for an indetermined and unforeseeable time.

Additionally, I find it wrong that SB declared his denials of PersusjCP's edits based on absolutism (see use of aggressive "period" in first reply) and that his accusations of lack of civility from PjCP (in this topic conversation) to be unwarranted and entirely unsupported. Also, that PjCP cannot continue to explain themselves, or their efforts, should stop because of SB's stress levels is out-of-bounds and not material. In closing, PjCP's worries over feeling threatened are valid - "this is wandering into contentious territory and is unacceptable". Dismissing the claim as absurd, immediately after SB writes about their stress, is concerning.

SB's above actions - denying the use of a RS, denying content, denying a right for a user to explain their efforts - and using GA nomination status, unseen personal attacks, and mental health concerns to back his command over the article, to be highly questionable and should be noted to the future GA reviewer(s) of the Bothell page. If PersusjCP wishes to expand on the Sammamish people's history before or after the creation of Bothell, based on their original written words in this topic, they should be able to do so without impediment.Shortiefourten (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYLINK is policy. WP:RS is policy. Reverting to a version that violates these policies is simply not acceptable, nor is hounding and trying to diagnose my mental state (seriously, WTF). There are expectations of simple courtesy, especially when an article is being nominated for a process that requires stability, to discuss changes and wait for a discussion to have been resolved before re-adding contentious content. SounderBruce 19:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These changes were largely discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lushootseed_Press_as_a_reliable_publisher. There seems to be consensus that the sources are reliable (We can de-link the Buerge article if you feel it is a copyvio, that's fine). Also, I don't think Shortiefourten is hounding you just because they replied once on a talk page. Hounding involves repeated attempts to disrupt and follow another editor around, and, going by this interaction timeline between you two, that is hardly the case.[[5]] PersusjCP (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please detail what you believe to be hounding. All accusations of such need to be supported.
  2. You shared/mentioned your own stress as a reason that the conversation should end which I find immaterial. No diagnoses was stated nor inferred.
  3. I do not believe COPYLINK is qualified in this matter and we can disagree. RS is a policy and you superseded it. Since PersusjCP is willing to remove it, although I find it unnecessary, this may be a moot point.
  4. Simple courtesy goes both ways. The same courtesy you ask for, such as for the situation to be resolved, was not given to the prior editor; see "period".
I have reverted your revert per WP:BRD. You are overruled per that policy, SounderBruce. If you feel BRD does not apply, you are free to ask for an arbiter.
Shortiefourten (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better wikilink than North Creek (Washington)[edit]

@SounderBruce, PKT, and Pfly: Hi, all three of you have placed redlinks to North Creek (Washington) in various articles. Considering that there is no Wikidata item for the North Creek that flows through Bothell, but instead there are two other Wikidata items for streams known as North Creek in Washington state, North Creek (Q99215893) & North Creek (Q109507411). Using North Creek (Washington) thus might be better suited for a disambiguation page.

Perhaps it would be better to link instead to North Creek, Washington#Geography for these particular articles, as that section does describe the North Creek that flows through Bothell. If you concur, I can move forward with that. Peaceray (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative is North Creek (Sammamish River) based on the norm for rivers, but this North Creek should be the primary topic under the (Washington) disambiguator. As North Creek CDP is not a permanent designation, it'd be best to develop a separate article in the long-term. SounderBruce 03:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the North Creek (Washington) redirect to North Creek (Sammamish River) & switched to [[North Creek (Sammamish River)|North Creek]] in this article. Peaceray (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bothell,_Washington&oldid=1226310187"