Talk:Spokane Valley, Washington

March 2003
Yes, I know I described a future event in past tense...just wait a month, and I'll be correct!

Brian Sayrs 18:00 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I'm new
New Wikipedian here, proud resident of Spokane Valley... can anyone suggest what might be worthwhile to add to this article? --Davidf1966 15:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I recall the irrigation ditches as a kid, they used to run everywhere. We caught a lot of turtles in the one next to my house. There was a large apple packing house in the field behind my house that was torn down in the late 50's. I also remember the canvas irrigation tubes they used to lay down during the summer. They ran down the edges of the streets, blocking off some residential streets so you had to drive around to arterials where they ran through culverts to let traffic pass. One of the canvas arteries ran right by my grandmother's house, and we used to go out and lay on them when it was hot. I wonder if such systems were used elsewhere? My grandmother also had an early map of the valley, now lost, that showed the big (seasonal) shallow lake that used to exist. You can see on flood plain maps where it must have been.

[Good heavens, you must have lived next door! I was just thinking about how we would catch turtles in the ditches on Sharp, and how we used to lay on the wet canvas tubes in the summer on Walnut road. . . which ran in front of my grandmother's house! And I wrote the section of the article about the shallow lake based on a map that hung in my grandmother's garage!! Although I also remember some of the old wooden structures that diverted the water inflow to allow the lake to be drained. And finally, right in back of my house on Oberlin road was a large apple packing house that was torn down when I was a kid. Next you'll tell me your mom was named Lucille, and your first grade teacher at St. John Vianney was sister Bebeanna. . . ]

It would be great to add demographic information as well as add area and population info to the infobox, as most cities' articles have this. It will be difficult, though, since Spokane Valley was incorporated so recently and there's probably no 2000 Census data.Tfosorcim (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

LOTS of work needed
This article doesn't even begin to meet encyclopedic standards. It needs citations for its information (there is only ONE in the entire article), most of the history in the article is redundant with that of the city of Spokane (come on, people, this city is less than a decade old), and opinions need to be left out, such as your "interesting fact" or your unsubstantiated comparison to Sandy Springs. There is a lot of cleaning up to be done here. DuckFerret —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.131.9 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you call them?
What do you call someone from the city of Spokane Valley? --165.236.228.81 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I generally hear them called "valley residents." There has never been a single community in the valley prior to incorporation. It is generally a collection of several smaller communities which have lost much of their separate identities (with exceptions, such as Ponderosa and Greenacres). This is probably why we don't have a single adjective for them. Brian Sayrs 21:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Awkward Naming Convention?
I removed this: "(with its somewhat awkward naming convention)" It is named according to state law in Washington. All cities are named "City of (named)." What's odd is that the state department of transportation put "Entering City of Spokane Valley" at the borders rather than "Entering Spokane Valley" which is what they normally do, and more appropriate. Nevertheless, the naming convention is not unusual. Brian Sayrs 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Geographic, demographic, and other data
I added a reference for the 2010 population total and put area data that I found from the 2010 Census gazetteer files in the infobox, if that's okay with everyone. I noticed most city articles have geography and demographics sections with standardized info from the 2000 Census, but obviously not Spokane Valley because it didn't exist until 2003. I'm thinking that as the 2010 Census data comes out, there will be an organized effort to replace old data in all U.S. city articles, and hopefully we can get some information for Spokane Valley in the process.

In the meantime, feel free to add/change whatever you want, and please do try to find references for the long history section. 71.113.35.235 (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thousands of years?
Really? Says that the early residents had lived in the valley for "thousands of years," and then proceeds to talk about first contact with fur traders less than 250 years ago. "Thousands" is plural, suggesting that these tribes lived in the area since or before the time of Christ. I'm skeptical. Does anybody have a reference to corroborate this? (Also, the article lacks references, generally.) Hexedar (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep thousands. The first humans to live in the Spokane Valley (ie the Valley formed by the Spokane River) were hunter-gatherers that lived off plentiful fish and game; early human remains have been dated to 8,000 to 13,000 years ago. --Katrazyna (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857?
The only Indian Rebellion of 1857 is the one that happened in the Indian SubContinent. There was a war called the Coeur d’Alene War which happened in 1858 in which the Spokane people fought in. LegioV (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and fixed, "the Spokanes protested the loss of their lands by joining in the Coeur d'Alene War of 1858." with references.--Katrazyna (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Scope of History
Originally the article included information about the native inhabitants of the Valley. After protest that this was too broad, the article was edited to limit the history of the native population to events that specifically took place in the exact location of the future City of Spokane Valley. Magnolia677 edited to eliminate mention of the pre-European occupants of the area. Should this article start at the "beginning"? The European conquest? 1900 when it actually had a notable population? the 1990s when the debate over a new city in the valley began? 2002 when the successful vote occurred? 2003 when this city actually existed? Should a city that is only 17 years old have a history section? --Katrazyna (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, congrats that you and have not engaged in edit warring and instead taken the issue here to the talk page. As an hitherto uninvolved person, I'd like to give my opinion:


 * a) The history section is far too long atm, even at the current revision without the parts added by . Imo it needs to either be trimmed down by quite a bit, or expanded into its own article, leaving only a moderately long description on the main article here.


 * b) Large parts of the history section are not supported via inline citations. This applies especially to sections like this:
 * [...] caused it to be called "Spokane Valley, the Valley Bountiful".
 * Such a quotation has to be verified! If any of you two have access to sources that confirm this and the other paragraphs' content, I think the article could benefit greatly.


 * I agree! Reason I started editing this page was to add sources. But when I found them, they disagreed with the article, so then I edited article, and here we are.--Katrazyna (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Spokane Valley, the Valley Bountiful": best answer so far - It was ad speak, in a 1912 pamphlet by "Spokane Advertising Club" (which became Spokane Chamber of Commerce) when they invented, "Miss Spokane", to attract businesses/new residence/tourists. It continues to be used or rather quoted by the current visitspokane.com, and various real estate and recreational entities. Exact quote from current site, "Our community was once known as "Spokane Valley, the Valley Bountiful," because of the beauty of the surrounding area, fertile farmlands, business opportunities, outdoor sports and activities and local recreational areas." But it appears that it "was once known as..." by they themselves or rather their predecessors. If the quote predates Spokane Valley (regional) propaganda, I can't find it. imo the quote is superfluous.--Katrazyna (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * c) Related to a), the history section occasionally contains indiscriminate descriptions of detail, for example here:
 * The truck farms were successful in raising strawberries, raspberries, tomatoes, beans, peas, watermelons, asparagus, squash, cucumbers and thousands of acres of Heart of Gold cantaloupes. Dairy, poultry and fur farms [...]
 * There is no need to list every single crop that was farmed - it does give no special information about the place, and I can personally vouch that a lot of farmers planted (and still plant) these crops elsewhere as well. Information such as this might fit into a separate "agriculture" section that deals with locally important crops, but it does not add anything important to the history (unless there are sources that stress e.g. the importance of Heart of Gold cantaloupes, if it had first been grown there, had been eaten by a president or whatever <- these are all just made-up examples, I know of no source that states this).


 * d) Quite naturally, there is a bit of overlap between the populated place and the valley. I understand that these are sometimes hard to separate, especially in historical times before the incorporation. This issue seems to be the main point of conflict, if I understand correctly.
 * And I feel that both of you are partly right here:
 * , I do think your edit regarding prehistoric inhabitants is valuable information - though I should add that the page seems to be off, as I can't find the claim on page 75 when looking at the source in google books.
 * , I do agree that the additional information does inflate the article's history section beyond scope - again, imo it was already far too long before.


 * So, what to do then?
 * I believe the solution might be one of two things:
 * 1) Make a spin-off article called "History of Spokane Valley, Washington", make it an article with a slightly broader scope that includes information from prehistory and the surrounding valley. Keep only a condensed fraction of the new article in the history section of the city, and link to the history article.
 * 2) Condense and provide with inline citations the existing history section, and put any information that goes outside the scope of the immediate city in the article about the valley: Spokane Valley. That one is currently just a stub, and could certainly use some expansion.


 * Well, I hope I could add something to the discussion, and not have upset anyone. Of course all of this is only my opinion, so feel free to disagree and discuss this further.
 * --LordPeterII (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Townships
The early government of this area centered around townships. When I found the article, it had a dozen inaccuracies about these early governmental bodies. After editing the first paragraph on that topic to clarify the townships purpose and power my edits were reverted because "out-of-scope". I'm hoping for permission to remove the inaccurate statements about townships and continue to edit the surrounding paragraphs to come into agreement with authoritative references on the subject of the townships.

For example: "A few Spokane Valley townships were developed for residential... Trent ... Millwood... Dishman... All other Valley townships were developed as irrigation districts" 1) Trent, Millwood, and Dishman were not townships. They were towns. 2) Irrigation districts started before the townships. Some have overlapping names and areas, but the townships, according to the state legislature and the county decisions on them were formed as rural governing bodies, and functioned as such until the state legislature took away their taxing ability, and they died from lack of cash to fulfill their purpose.

The end of same paragraph includes: "Pasadena Park is a populated place located in Spokane County at latitude 47.697 and longitude -117.283, North of Millwood across the Spokane River that existed at least as early as 1916." Pasadena Park is not in the City of Spokane Valley. Perhaps this bit of trivia belongs with the region "Spokane Valley" or in the county "Spokane", or no where?

The only reference for this paragraph currently listed is "Home Town Locator" (which is questionably authoritative) and it is for Pasadena Park, which as stated above is the part of the paragraph not in City of Spokane Valley.--Katrazyna (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments please? Can we fix the section about townships? And add references? (I have five currently on my clipboard.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katrazyna (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I deleted large sections of history that were not specific to this city. A general history of the surrounding area is out of scope and would be best placed on the county article. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you . I agree that this history is too long and partly off-topic. I disagree with which parts you said were out-of-scope.--Katrazyna (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The sections you deleted as out-of-scope were about 1) the prehistoric inhabitants which archeological digs have pinned on this location, as well as the surrounding region, but here in this spot, none the less. 2) The mention of the Spokanes and Coeur d'Alenes, which did, do, and there is evidence have since before records, lived in this exact spot, as well as the larger area. But here, none the less.  3) The actions of Col. Wright (ie the two Battles which occurred not in a stationary location but from here to far south of here; and the death of 800 horses which because of the nature of a herd that size occurred from right here to the now Idaho boarder, plus the surrounding negotiations and treaty which occurred in the cabin of A. Plante, which as I edited to explain, is absolutely in this city) did occur right here within the now city limits of CoSV but does spill over into the surrounding regions. 4) Mention of A. Plante, which as I edited to explain, is absolutely here in the city, although the park/recreational area north of his house has been carved out of the city because of contracts and ownership, reference city of Spokane and County of Spokane, etc.  But his cabin, or rather its location, is in the city. 4) The accurate explanation of the townships, which I was in the process of fixing when the reverts occurred. The townships (at least the ones specific to CoSV) are absolutely pertinent to CoSV history because the existence and timing of the CoSV are a direct result of the Twps that make it up.[Yes I am aware this is *too much detail*. But the brief descriptions without caveats is what started this discussion]
 * The sections you did not delete, which imo need review include, 1) the 8 (now 6) mentions of Millwood. The CoSV does surround Millwood on 3 sides, and Millwood is one of the *incorporated* sections not included in the "new valley city proposal". It probably needs mentioning once. But Millwood wasn't a township (reference township paragraphs which need editing). I have heard of rivalries/hard feelings amongst some in both communities, but they really aren't the same thing and Millwood's history really isn't CoSV's history. They are neighbors, that's it. 2) You deleted A. Plante (in the city) but not Kendall (not in the city, rather on the Idaho boarder as stated in the article). Kendall may or may not be in scope, but he is less in scope than Plante who was deleted as out-of-scope. 3)Didn't delete the paragraph after Kendall that repeats reference to Plante and Kendall as compared to City of Spokane founder, which imo is unnecessary. This isn't a contest between Spokane and Spokane Valley (again I am aware of hard feelings between individual residence of these two cities but that is also not in the scope of the article. They are neighbors, that's it). 3)You also left the long explanations of the Irrigation (entire valley) and the railroads (entire valley especially Spokane). *Because of their effects* on CoSV history, they probably need mention but the detail, especially of areas not CoSV, probably is superfluous. 4) You deleted new paragraph on townships which replaced the previous inaccurate and unreferenced paragraph on same subject, but left the following paragraph intact, which lists the "townships" (only five entities in that list are townships, 3 of which are part of CoSV) most of which aren't townships, and many of them aren't in CoSV.  This paragraph is definitely about the region not the city.[Aside: this paragraph is a summary that verges on a direct quote, or rather misquote, that I am hoping for permission to fix, but I'm not spending the time to fix if its just going to be deleted when I finish. If nothing else, it needs the reference, quote marks and the missing words replaced, ie "townships" was in direct quote "small townships, mercantile hubs, irrigation districts, and railway stops." Imo this paragraph should be rewritten to be more concise, on-topic, referenced, and taken from multiple sources.] 5) The paragraph on Sandy Springs remains. I agree with the topic above on this talk page. It's at least superfluous.
 * There are probably more paragraphs that need eliminating or condensing. As in above discussion I agree that the history section is way toooooo long, partly because it is part CoSV and part Region. Needs overhauled.  Can we do that?--Katrazyna (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Solution
,, others concerned:

Issues: Possible Solution:
 * History too long
 * History of CoSV is a subset of the region Spokane Valley, this article covers region
 * Few inline Refs
 * Neutrality is questionable: tourism propaganda, and rivalries with neighboring cities
 * Unnecessary detail
 * 1) Move the existing (or rather the pre-editing) history to the Spokane Valley regional page. Fix and edit there for inline citation, accuracy, and concise.
 * 2) Add link in CoSV to the history of the region
 * 3) Add a very brief paragraph or three summary of CoSV's part in that history, with citations.
 * 4) Add a few brief paragraphs about history that is CoSV but *not* regional (hence not on the regional page), with citation.
 * 5) Move all that info about the vote and merger into the new much shorter history section.
 * 6) Optional: Make a separate new section where you could list the subdivisions that came together to form CoSV, with a very brief (sentence or two) history for each that is unique to the parts and pieces.
 * I cannot guarantee submission before Tuesday, but I will try to write a sample "very brief paragraph or three summary", so we can preview & comment on what should/shouldn't be in such a summary.--Katrazyna (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yup, that sounds like a possible solution.
 * There's no need to rush this (there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, thankfully!), just ping when you are finished. I will then try to take a look at the new setup and comment on it. Just bear in mind that I can only rate the readability and perceived balance of the article(s) to an outsider; you and Magnolia677 will have to find consensus on included content, as I don't know anything about the area. But I guess the "article scope" issue would be resolved with the approach you outlined. --LordPeterII (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks to all! Magnolia677 (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Do Not Panic. I moved the History Article to its new home on the regional page. So far, no complaints. I am removing the history from this page. I think its existence; with few citations, neutrality issues, and length; are bringing less-interested but active editors out of the woodwork. I think the editing on the other sections will be more constructive with this behemouth out of the way.--Katrazyna (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Photos and Additions
and anyone interested: While collecting refs and verifying info, I came across pertinent photos which I added. I also found more info on community activities (events, arts, etc.) which I tentatively added. I added the art council. Haven't added anything else, but there appears to be community theaters (which are c19 closed at the moment), farmers market, etc. Should we/Can we add more of this stuff? Other city articles include them, and they would be more informative about the current City than all that history stuff. Just trying to make the article better. Please comment.--Katrazyna (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, looking good so far! SounderBruce also seems to have shortened some needlessly detailed paragraphs, and your new additions are definitely well done . I feel while the extended history (which now is located at the page about the valley) will still need some cleanup, this page here about the city is in quite good shape now; and thus I believe the "multiple issues" warning about neutrality and references can be removed. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Updated city hall photo
I've uploaded a new city hall photo, as well as a photo of the fire station nearby (I also found the SVFD logo as a vector and uploaded that). Currently not adding the Engine 1 fire station image, but was thinking an article for SVFD might make sense at some point, and that image may assist with fleshing that out. Ideas, comments, criticisms welcome! —Locke Cole • t • c 01:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)