Talk:William Mulholland/Archive 1

Revision on 23 August 2012 at 12:29
If any editor believes that the present revision is not correct then the correct action would be not to merely undo it as that will not only delete my work, but all work and supported material which has been added by other editors as well. I believe that a better approach would be to bring your concerns to here first where they may be discussed. Thanks Imveracious (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that many of your edits are simply rewriting. Some of them are OK restatements, and some are not.  An editor then has a choice of either removing the whole package, or of laboriously going through the article restoring better bits.  How about trying another tack: instead of an entire package of changes, how about making changes by paragraph, or section, so that editors can have the choice of keeping them or altering them without having to deal with the entire kit and kaboodle. As I mentioned in our discussions about the St. Francis Dam article, sometimes your rewites change the meaning, or the nuance of meaning, of what's being said, and I'm not sure you're always aware of that, or that you actually intended to make that kind of change.  So, please, take it a little slower, do it bit by bit, and perhaps we can avoid butting heads unnecessarily.  Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that it was easier to undo than discuss first.. In total, four or five rewritten statements, a few added words and a changed quotation (so that it would read correctly) is 'laboriously going through the article restoring better bits'? Even if that be, are you alone the sole editor who makes these choices as to what is the best? Yes, I am well aware of what when on in the past. The would vs could, possibly was vs defiantly does, all which then led into your tirade that of what I wrote was OR. Alright, I will take it slow and yes, we need not be head butting unnecessarily although, again, you do come across as if I must submit any changes for your approval. That is not what Wiki is about, it is not just I nor is it only you, correct? Oddly, all of this would not be taking place if whoever may be 109.150.226.5 had not taken the time to read my talk page and then post on your talk page that I had edited here.. Be well and thanks Imveracious (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please make your edits in parts, for the convenience of editors (myself included, but three other editors have already reverted your changes) who wish to evaluate them. You are, of course, free to do what you will, but if continue to make all your edits at one time, you should expect that your edits will most likely be deleted wholesale -- other editors are under no compunction to accomodate you when you make no effort to accomodate them.  It's your choice.  Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Any and all future edits will be in the manner you ask. "Three other editors"? It would be most interesting to know how you arrived at that figure, do please tell. Addition, if an editor should wish to only "evaluate" an edit, the manner in which it was done is of no concern.. For the convenience of the editor[s] I will shortly re-edit all that I have in the past, in the manner you ask, so that it may be seen. Although, these will, with almost certainty, be re-edited by within a very short time. Let us hope that the Edit summary will reflect the true need for such. Thanks, Imveracious (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Imveracious: Thanks, I am very grateful to you for doing it this way. At this point I have only undone one edit, and I think you'll see from the edit summary why I did so -- althought it may have been Reisner in Cadillac Desert who used those specific words, I think it's generally the case the historians would say that the purchasing of the Owens Valley water rights was generally done through supterfuge, so that Reisner's specific words can legitimately stand in for the more general consensus.  Labelling them as simply or only the words of one writer undercuts them too much, given the general view of Mullhollands actions. What I'd like to do is to pull out a couple of books from my library that deal with this subject and see if we can't reach a compromise in wording that is supported by more than "one writer." I will do my best to do that tomorrow.  (Unfortunately, the books are piled in a corner, so I'll need to do some digging to get to them.). Again, thank you for doing things this way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The link which was removed as inactive is not. As it is from the source (LADWP) which others would have derived their material, it would be considered more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imveracious (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It didn't work for me the first time, but did when you re-inserted it. Perhaps a typo?  In any case, it's now good and I've integrated it into the later section which cited a 1928 retirement date. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I wouldn't put too much faith in the LADWP site, at least for anything which is in the least controversial. The department has a long history of, let's say, "skewing" history to meet its own purposes. Take a look, for instance, at their page on Mulholland (see External Links), which doesn't mention the St. Francis Dam disaster at all, and only speaks of his accomplishments in the most general and glowing terms.  I'm sure they can be relied on for retirement dates and so on, but almost anything else has got to be considered suspect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a typo, they happen, in any case, thank you. I agree, for the most part, with your statements regarding the LADWP. As have other historians, journalists and researchers found when seeking information on the St. Francis dam and disaster, as well as other LADWP goings on, they have a rather "convient" memory. This does not mean that accurate records and information are not to be found, it does though mean far more work to retrieve such. Again, thanks Imveracious (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Who created this rubbish?
The California Water Wars were the result of Los Angeles' aggressive acquisition of groundwater rights in Owens Valley for the municipal project to build the aqueduct overseen by Mulholland. Although the scheme by the Los Angeles Water Department[3] was publicly debated before it began (because it needed voter approval for its bond financing), once passed, ex-Mayor Frederick Eaton, who had also been the superintending engineer of the Los Angeles City Water Company for nine years, stopped at nothing to acquire water rights. Eaton, Mulholland and J.B. Lippincott used underhanded methods to obtain water rights and block the Bureau of Reclamation from building water infrastructure for the residents in Owens Valley.[12][7][13] The regional engineer of the Bureau, Lippincott, was a close associate of Eaton,[14] and allowed him access to inside information about water rights. He could also influence Bureau decisions that would be beneficial to Los Angeles.[15] As a respected public figure, Mullholland also influenced public opinion in Los Angeles by dramatically understating the amount of water available for Los Angeles' growth.[16] Mullholland also misled residents of the Owens Valley, by claiming that Los Angeles would only take water for domestic purposes not for commercial irrigation.[17] Initially some residents in the Owens Valley were willing to sell and move south because of the hard economic times in California,[12] but many were not. Those that resisted the pressure to sell until 1930 received the highest price for their land. However most farmers sold out between 1905 and 1925 receiving much less than the price Los Angeles was actually willing to pay. '''In 1904 Eaton, with the help of his friend and local chief of the United States Bureau of Reclamation, J.B. Lippincott, begin buying up land in the Owens Valley under the pretense that the land would be used for the reclamation project. By July 1905, Eaton had bought up enough land to secure the land and water rights to build the aqueduct.[18] In 1906, the Los Angeles Board of Water Commissioners voted to undertake the aqueduct project on the recommendation of Mulholland, and decided to use the Department's own resources to purchase Fred Eaton's land and water rights options. In the same year, a bond issue was approved by city voters to proceed with a feasibility study for the construction of a new aqueduct. Water Commissioners created the Bureau of Los Angeles Aqueduct and appointed Mulholland as Chief Engineer.[4] On June 25th President Theodore Roosevelt signed into law a Congressional bill which gave Los Angeles the water rights to Owens River water. The next year voters approved the bond issue for the aqueduct's construction.[4] In the fall of 1908, The Bureau of Los Angeles Aqueduct began construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct.[19]''' By the 1920s, the aggressive pursuit of the water rights along with the diversion of the Owens River precipitated the outbreak of violence known as the California Water Wars. Farmers in Owens Valley attacked infrastructure, dynamiting the aqueduct at Jawbone Canyon, and opening sluice gates to divert the flow of water. Eventually, the city administration was forced to negotiate. Mulholland was quoted as saying he "half-regretted the demise of so many of the valley’s orchard trees, because now there were no longer enough trees to hang all the troublemakers who live there". By 1928 the water diversions had completely drained the 100 mi² (300 km²) Owens Lake.

Who ever wrote this to make some sort of statement not think the smartest thing to do was write it into the narrative already there? Instead you have tautology after tautology with no semblance of chronology. Just random statements that go back to the beginning. The problem is that User:Imveracious has been allowed, like they have done to other articles, mess things up to the point where changing everything is more work than should be necessary! This article should be rolled back to 2011 when it was stable for months and had little of this person's "random" contributions all over it! Not happy  :-(  86.160.107.189 (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * While part of the information was added by myself and other contributors, it appears by the history that much of the editing of this section was done by User:Beyond My Ken. If in comparing versions, you do not like the way he did it and feel that the section is in need of more editing then that is up to you to do. No others have expressed any problem with this other than yourself and your wording makes it most clear that you have an odd strong dislike toward my editing of most anything, this is not the area to discuss this subject. Imveracious (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you are mistaken. As I have pointed out to you before, you are not a very good writer, and with great frequency the changes you make to the page are just not very good.  After awhile of fighting you to maintain the quality of the article, I more or less gave up and only fixed the worst of the material.  I'm afraid that you, alone, are responsible for the poor quality of the writing in the article. (You also edited it extensively as an IP before creating an account.) I have tried to convince you to stop, but not only are you "veracious", you are also incredibly "tenancious".  The criticism of the IP above is legitimate (which is why I reverted your attempt to delete it) and is properly focused on you and nobody else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Let all who are interested read the article history, compare versions and judge for themselves how the section came to be as it is now.
 * Thank you for your compliment, I am veracious. Imveracious (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Events right?
The article's "Owens Valley" section says the following:


 * In 1904 Eaton, with the help of his friend J.B. Lippincott, began buying up land in the Owens Valley under the pretense that the land would be used for the reclamation project. By July 1905, Eaton had bought up enough land to secure the land and water rights to build the aqueduct. In 1906, the Los Angeles Board of Water Commissioners voted to undertake the aqueduct project on the recommendation of Mulholland, and decided to use the Department's own resources to purchase Fred Eaton's land and water rights options.

Is this right? My vague recollection is that the story is something like the opposite of that: when Mulholland found out Eaton had bought the water rights to the aqueduct route Mulholland had had in mind, Mulholland revised the route, because he thought Eaton was trying to take advantage of the city. I can't commit to working on the article, but maybe someone who is inclined to work on it will check this.108.52.13.217 (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the article's version is correct. BMK (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Having just checked some links at Wikipedia's article about Eaton, I've concluded that the account I was vaguely recalling had to do not with the route of the aqueduct but with the siting of the St. Francis Dam. Thanks for your reply.108.52.13.217 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem, it's always worthwhile to have the facts in out articles checked for accuracy. BMK (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

March 24, 2014‎
How's this add to the article because it really seems just to spin it off course from the idea of being a bio Shyncat (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you referring to? It's not clear to me from your comment. BMK (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the material added on that date by IP 108..., I'd say it's quite germane, as it's a contemporaneous comment on Mulholland's personality. BMK (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you think it's germane, BMK. As the person who posted it, I do, too, obviously.  I must tell you, Shyncat, I think it's more than germane.  I think it's critical.  I confess I'm at a loss to understand why you think it "[spins the article] off course from the idea of being a bio."  A large part of the article is the St. Francis Dam collapse, which the collapse of the Calaveras Dam prefigures.  You'll notice that, without my addition, the article's "Water Superintendent" section ends with hagiographic remarks about Mulholland's honorary degree from Berkeley and his having assisted in the work on the Panama Canal.  Not a word—not a word—about the Calaveras Dam collapse, which, as I say, prefigured the St. Francis Dam disaster and which was all but predicted by O'Shaughnessy.


 * The full text of O'Shaughnessy's letter to Freeman is at the link I included in the footnote, but I'll post it—with my own emphases, in boldface—immediately below, to dispel any doubt about what I've just said. Note that it was written, as my addition to the article indicates, before, not after, the collapse of the Calaveras Dam.

San Francisco, October 14, 1913 Mr. John R. Freeman, 815 Grosvenor Building, Providence, R. I. CALAVERAS EARTH DAM Dear Mr. Freeman: I have read with a great deal of interest your thoughts and views on the present Calaveras Dam project now being constructed by the Spring Valley Water Company under the jurisdiction of Mr. William Mulholland of Los Angeles. For unknown reasons the company has prosecuted a policy of great secretiveness with regard to this project and only took me into their confidence about six weeks ago to the extent of inviting me Saturday afternoon to see the progress of their work, possibly with a view to inviting any suggestions or criticisms I might offer as to the propriety of their methods. I think Mr. Eastman, the Vice-President, is amenable to suggestion and desirous of doing things right, but I am afraid Mulholland and Hermann are so intensely conceited that they imagine all they might do should be immune from criticism. As the City has no official knowledge of the progress of this work, its officials can assume no responsibility for the outcome of that undertaking. The project is of such great importance, however, that its successful completion and operation is of vital interest to the survival of this community for the next seven or eight years, or until the Hetch Hetchy project is completed, that I took it upon myself to criticize severely the sloppy way in which this outlet work is being undertaken. There is great hesitation on the part of our engineering profession to hurt the feelings of our brother members by adverse criticisms on their methods, but I did not refrain in this instance from almost overstepping the limits of politeness by emphasizing my objections to the reckless manner in which the construction of this outlet culvert was contemplated. It is usual in such construction to provide collars at least 2 feet thick, projecting every 20 feet from the exterior of the culvert. This precaution against slipping and seeping was omitted from the intended plans, but restored at my suggestion to Mr. Eastman. I also emphasized the importance of putting a hydraulic jet and digging out all the rotten rock along the foundation of the outlet, so there would be an absolutely uniform bearing and perfect contact with that structure. The method of finding and washing the gravel and making provision for the voids was, in my judgment, slipshod and crude, as no proper provision had been made for segregating the different quantities of ingredients for the concrete, so that a uniform mix could be secured. Another feature which made objectionable impressions on me was the flippant manner in which the young college boys in charge of the work and Mulholland, with his swollen ideas of accomplishment, have undertaken this very serious engineering project. With ordinary care there are several points in its favor, as outlined. The first is that they have a very good bedrock support for this culvert, in which they have excavated for a foundation for the permanent outlet from the reservoir. I agree with you that a tunnel through the solid bedrock is a proper means of exit and I have suggested the practicability of plugging and filling this enormous drain culvert when the dam is finished, as such a large cavity through a structure in an earthquake country is a source of danger. Work on this project will necessarily be slow and undoubtedly they will see their way to adopt various precautions to insure its safety. One which I suggested was placing a large mass of rock on the downstream side of the dam to afford protection and facilitate drainage. This was sneered at by Mulholland as unnecessary, as he felt that all the coarser materials would stay on the outer slopes of the dam and furnish natural drainage, whereas the clay and sands floated to the center and settled, making a solid, uniform mass of impervious clay. An earthen dam has been finished about a year in New Mexico, which was built under my directions and on which is provided a thick layer of rock on the downstream side, which helped to save it from destruction from one or two severe floods which passed over it while it was being constructed. Both Mulholland and Lippincott have made a sad mess of much of their construction work on the Los Angeles Aqueduct and I warned Eastman that the reputation of the company would be damaged except that same high standard of construction were followed in the present work as the previous high standards followed by Mr. Schussler. The latter's nose, by the way, is out of joint and will have nothing to do with and will not even look at the proposed structure in Calaveras Valley, as his plans and advice were ignored in the project. Considering the extent of values of life or property over $10,000,000 between this damsite and San Francisco Bay, it would seem to have been prudence to have put another million dollars into this structure and allay public fears as to any catastrophe which might follow from disaster following a failure. The action of the San Andres dam under earthquake conditions, which straddled a fault line, impresses me strongly with the merits of this type of dam in an earthquake country. If properly built, with all precautions against failure, including an impervious, watertight core, a downstream support of loose rock for drainage, ample spillway capacity, and most experienced and conscientious trained supervision in the construction, there is no reason why this type of dam should not be a great success. Unofficially I am going to keep a watchful eye on this proposition so that the City will not inherit a "gold brick" if it should take this property over. Very sincerely yours, M. M. O'Shaughnessy, City Engineer108.52.13.217 (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * First off if you really -read- it what it sounds like is a one engineer who's not too happy about another engineer on a job in his city. Yes Mulholland had an -attitude- and most people know that. If you've read page 68 you'll see O'Shaughnessy didn't think much The Spring Valley Water Company where he wrote -..The Spring Valley has been guilty of many sins in the past, and I have little sympathy with many of its operations..-. Also on page 26 you can read he was already angry at Muholland for helping The Spring Valley Water Company fight the application for Hetch Hetchy. So where is the harm in this? Did it hurt his feelings when Mulholland apparently -sneered- at him or he was treated in this discribed -flippant manner-? (both are opinions) Why is it wrong that the section -Water Superintendent- ended with that? That was within the scope of that section. Your idea that the St. Francis Dam disaster was all but predicted by O'Shaughnessy is far flung at best.
 * I just don't see how all this, which is just the thoughts and opinions of one person, just as yours are with the parts you want in, as you say (—with my own emphases, in boldface—) be in a bio. Thank you Shyncat (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I simply disagree with everything you've said, Shyncat. I think you're the one who has not really read O'Shaughnessy's letter; moreover, you've not really read what I myself wrote, above.  I didn't say O'Shaughnessy all but predicted the St. Francis Dam disaster; I said he all but predicted the Calaveras Dam collapse.  You demonstrate an incapacity to recognize the salience of O'Shaughnessy's letter.  The man's criticisms of Mulholland's methods were borne out by the Calaveras Dam's collapse.  While UC Berkeley was busy giving Mulholland an honorary doctorate, O'Shaughnessy had his number.  If you think Berkeley would have given Mulholland that degree at any point after the Calaveras Dam collapse, you're mistaken, I'd day.  Mulholland should never have been given authority over the St. Francis Dam project, as O'Shaughnessy's letter makes clear.  To be blunt:  without my addition, this Wikipedia article may be filed with countless other internet pages, in a folder labeled "Mulholland, William, blather regarding." 108.52.13.217 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * O'Shaughnessy is supposedly to have written this during mid-October of 1913? Imveracious (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes—October 1913. The letter, as it appears above, with the date October 14, 1913, is copy-and-pasted from what appears -- at  http://archive.org/stream/hetchhetchyitsor00osharich/hetchhetchyitsor00osharich_djvu.txt -- to be an optical-character-read of the book itself.  (The letter looks to have been on pages 68 and 69 in the book.)  In an introductory paragraph, O'Shaughnessy says it was written in October 1913, the year construction of the original Calaveras Dam began.108.52.13.217 (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would highly doubt that date to be correct as Mulholland was occupied at that time on the Los Angeles Aqueduct project. Moreso even is that this time period is less then one month from when the the aqueduct was completed and the dedication ceremonies took place. Imveracious (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the date given. O'Shaughnessy seems to be saying he met with Mulholland and the others at the Calaveras Dam site on a Saturday six weeks before that, which would be August 31 or September 7, 1913.108.52.13.217 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then it is incorrect as he left Los Angeles during approximately the first week of September on a final inspection tour of the entire aqueduct. Before that he was engaged in the activities I have mentioned prior. But, there is a more fundamental error here which has not been addressed. Mulholland was not in charge of this dam project, he was a consulting engineer. The engineer in charge was G.A. Elliott,Engineer of Spring Valley Water Company. The resident engineer was T.W. Espy and the workforce consisted of day labor, hired by the Spring Valley Water Company..This may be read at- http://books.google.com/books?id=mm83AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA27&dq=Cause+of+the+Calaveras+dam+failure+1918&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VVI0U7-EKojfsATN8IGIBQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Cause%20of%20the%20Calaveras%20dam%20failure%201918&f=false
 * Further, there is the REPORTS on the CALAVERAS DAM and SPILLWAY. In this report Arthur P. Davis, Director of the U.S. Reclamation Service and Daniel W. Mead who was the consulting engineer, wrote in a manner highly approval of the work which they inspected...This may be read at- http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3121264;view=1up;seq=3 Given these now known facts, discrepancies in time and a question as it relates to responsibility, I as well question the including of this in the article. Imveracious (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What O'Shaughnessy meant when he said the Calaveras Dam was being constructed "under the jurisdiction" of Mulholland, I can't say; I don't know the details and haven't the requisite background. The title page of the report you link would seem to indicate Mulholland was consulting engineer at that report's date, July 1917. If you think it a good idea, I'll change the wording in the Wikipedia article to indicate that—consulting engineer—though I'm not sure we know that that was Mulholland's position in 1913.

As for the timing, you haven't proved anything. You say Mulholland left for a tour of the aqueduct in the first week of September; "[b]efore that," you say, "he was engaged in the activities I have mentioned prior." I don't know what activities you're referring to, but August 31 is not the first week of September. Beyond that, there is no reason to think O'Shaughnessy was hallucinating or fabricating the presence of Mulholland at the dam site six weeks before he (O'Shaughnessy) composed that letter. Construction on the dam began in May 1913 ( http://books.google.com/books?id=mPc9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=original+Calaveras+Dam+construction+1913&source=bl&ots=yzHIfjrhRO&sig=4Xo5epLTyj38PsoILWnuWFmcZaw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GXEzU7CYI8vjsASHg4KICg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=original%20Calaveras%20Dam%20construction%201913&f=true ); O'Shaughnessy indicates, in the letter, that some time had passed before he was shown the work. We have no reason to think he was misremembering the date, approximate or otherwise, of his visit there. As for Davis and Mead's approval of the work they inspected at Calaveras, you should add that to the article if you think it important. Events proved their judgment worthless.108.52.13.217 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of statement not supported by citation
I believe the statement -Mullholland also misled residents of the Owens Valley, by claiming that Los Angeles would only take water for domestic purposes not for commercial irrigation.- is not supported by the citation given. The citation is #24-"Fred Eaton" PBS: New Perspectives on The West Retrieved October 8, 2011. The url is-http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/d_h/eaton.htm If support can not be found it should be removed. Imveracious (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the PBS ref does not support the statement, so I removed it and marked the statement with a "citation needed" tag. This is because anyone really familiar with the Rape of the Owens Valley knows that Mulholland misrepresented to the Owens Valley farmers what LA planned to do with the water; only someone whose entire Wikipedia editing career has been an attempt to whitewash Mulholland's reputation would think otherwise. BMK (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of that although, where you placed that ref does not support that statement either. You may say whatever you wish BMK, what you seek to tell is a "story". I deal in fact and verifiable history, not stories... Imveracious (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hardly, your "story" is that Mulholland is blameless, and all of your edits here go to support that contention. You are, in fact, a zealous SPA as dedicated to your counter-narrative as any propagandist.  I, on the other hand, am an editor with a wide range of interests which happens to include this subject, and I've done a fair amount of reading about it.  That makes me a fairly objective arbiter of what NPOV and what isn't. I don't say this to pick a fight with you, simply to help you see what you are doing in a different and more neutral light. BMK (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we craft a usable sentence from Karhrl at p.132?
 * It's hard to find sourcing that implicates Mulholland directly in the deception vis-a-vis the actual residents of the Owens Valley rather than implicating Eaton as his cat's paw. Perhaps the sentence needs to be rephrased ever so slightly, although I have no doubt that Mulholland was directly implicated.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's hard to find sourcing that implicates Mulholland directly in the deception vis-a-vis the actual residents of the Owens Valley rather than implicating Eaton as his cat's paw. Perhaps the sentence needs to be rephrased ever so slightly, although I have no doubt that Mulholland was directly implicated.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I must tell you, BMK, I am bothered by your initial declaration above—to wit:


 * [A]nyone really familiar with the Rape of the Owens Valley knows that Mulholland misrepresented to the Owens Valley farmers what LA planned to do with the water ....

If anyone really familiar with the Rape of the Owens Valley knows that, then it shouldn’t be hard to find a footnote to support it, especially since, as I’ve just checked, this article is more than a decade old. Let me repeat that: this article is more than a decade old, but the only footnote it provides in support of this story that anyone really familiar with the facts supposedly knows is—well, no footnote at all.

I'll have something more to say about this in a few minutes.108.36.82.122 (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do, because this comment doesn't seem all that coherent to me. Contrary to Imveracious's attempted whitewash of Mulholland's reputation, the record is quite clear that he was not simply a patsy, but was actively involved in misleading the farmers in the Owens Valley.  That I can't provide a citation for this well-known fact is a function of my library being boxed-up as the result of a recent move (including Water and Power mentioned above), not because such sources do not exist. BMK (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You say my statement is incoherent, then you respond to it as if you've had no trouble at all understanding it. Anyway—I'll continue my post, as I've said, in a few minutes.108.36.82.122 (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant the part about something being "a decade old" - I have no clue what you're talking about. BMK (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes—right after I indicated I didn't understand what you meant by incoherence I realized that the "decade old" thing was probably what had confused you. What I meant by the "decade old" thing is that there have elapsed ten years at whose end there is not a single footnote to support what "everybody knows."  Ten years—and nobody has seen fit, or been able, to provide a footnote for what "everybody knows."  That raises a question about what "everybody knows."  As I've indicated, I'll say more in a few minutes.108.36.82.122 (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But that statement hasn't been in the article for ten years, it's only been there since July 2012. BMK (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BMK, did you mean to imply that I was insinuating that he was a patsy, or do I misunderstand? I agree with you on this point, but I don't think it's so easy to find a source that states it since it seems that he used Eaton to do his dirty work.  I have no doubt that he was in on the planning.  But it's factually hard (for me) to find a source that states this directly.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I was not, and am not, insinuating that you believe that Mulholland was a patsy. It seems to me that the editing of Imveracious is based around on premise that Mulholland was a simple engineer who has been left as the patsy for the Owens Valley misadventure. I think this is a gross misappreciation of the facts of the case, and that Mulholland was very much involved in the misrepresentation of what the taking of the Owens Valley water would mean. BMK (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

SPOILER ALERT: Anyone who has not seen the movie Chinatown and would like to see it without knowing in advance anything of it should know that, throughout the following, I’m going to discuss, or, at least, mention, some  of the elements of that movie’s narrative.

Okay—there seems to be a widespread belief, supported, I think, by this Wikipedia article, that the Los Angeles Aqueduct had been intended all along, by a group of conniving land speculators, to bring water not to Los Angeles but to the thirsty San Fernando Valley, which had to be incorporated into Los Angeles to make use of the aqueduct’s water. That’s certainly the story that was presented in Chinatown. Posted at YouTube is the critical scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYMWkRrC7UY

At the following link is a 2009 interview with Chinatown screenwriter Robert Towne:

http://thehollywoodinterview.blogspot.com/2009/10/robert-towne-hollywood-interview.html

Towne indicates he became familiar with this putative history in the book Southern California: An Island on the Land. That book was written by Carey McWilliams, who is the subject of a Wikipedia article. Parts of the book may be read at Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=jcCrQC8rBPgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Southern+California:+Island+on+the+Land&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_nU7U5zPD8Sd0gGm7oDYDQ&ved=0CEkQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Southern%20California%3A%20Island%20on%20the%20Land&f=false

The book seems to have been published in 1946. If you will go to the link above and search, within the book, for the word “denied,” you will see that page 189 of the book contains the following sentence:


 * The facts of this amazing project have never been denied.

The “facts” of which Mr. McWilliams is speaking are what I was talking about above: the putative conniving that led to the creation of the aqueduct. I happen to know that only because Google Books used to present more of the book to read. Mr. McWilliams, as I recall, talked about the said conniving and indicated that a detailed article about it had been written by someone whose name escapes me—a writer with whom McWilliams had worked when he (McWilliams) was editor of The Nation, I think.

Anyway, that’s the story that “everybody knows.” Is it true? I don’t know. I’m not persuaded of it simply because someone made a really-good movie based on it. In Wikipedia’s article about the San Fernando Valley, there is a section about the aqueduct ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley#20th_century ). That section has a footnote with a link to page 92 of a book called Rivers in the Desert:

http://books.google.com/books?id=7lvRnuwxmUoC&pg=PA92&dq=h+j+whitley&hl=en&ei=4P5-TOT3Koa4sAO7yeX0Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=h%20j%20whitley&f=false

Though that entire book is not shown there (at Google Books, that is), that link does enable a reader to scroll back, without a gap, all the way to page 70. Those pages, 70 to 92, include remarks about the subject we’re discussing, the alleged conniving to get the aqueduct built. There is mention of the land speculators, and there are mentions of Mulholland’s denials that he had anything to do with them. What editor BMK is saying is that: Mulholland was part of the cabal. (Chinatown, interestingly, doesn’t present the story that way. In fact, it suggests Mulholland was an opponent of the cabal.)

I don’t know what is said in that book—or any other book—to prove the existence of the cabal. I also don’t know specifically what Mulholland said about the cabal. What is important, to me, at least, is that, as Rivers in the Desert reveals, this very subject that we’re debating at this talk page was being debated at the time Mulholland was alive. It’s not clear to me, in other words, that any of this is more than rumor, rumor that Wikipedia does little more than repeat. From my quick pass through the Wikipedia article, I have the impression the footnotes the article does present in connection with the subject are all from these sorts of books—secondary sources, at best.

You know I recently added to the article the Calaveras Dam material, which has to do with Mulholland's technical competence. That’s a separate subject from his integrity, which, to sum up what I’ve been trying to say here, the article blithely trashes. To say it again: this article represents ten years’ work—and what does a Wikipedia visitor learn from it about Mulholland? Not much, really. Not much that is verified, I mean.108.36.82.122 (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I had never seen Chinatown before reading about the taking of the Owens Valley water, so my perception is not in any way shaped by that film (I cannot recall if the film had not yet been made or released or if I just hadn't seen it). It was the case that some decades ago I was in LA for extended periods of time, and during their sojourns I naturally read about various aspects of LA history, and the Owens Valley/Calfornia Water Wars figured prominently in that reading.  It wasn't until well after I was conversant with the facts of the case that I saw Chinatown, which I took to be an excellent film but a not-very-good source of information,  My take on the Owens Valley case was shaped not by fictional portrayals, but by factual written history. Despite the claims made by Imveracious, I'm not spinning a "story", I'm reporting what I've read in authoritative non-fiction books. BMK (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) And just to repeat what should be obvious to any Wikipedia editor: Chinatown, as a fictional work, should not be taken as presenting anything like the 'actual facts of the taking of the water from the Owens River. It is a popular film, the primary purpose of which is to tell a story that attracts an audience, and to make money from it. It is, indeed, loosely based on the facts of the California Water Wars, but it is a highly fictionalized account, and should play absolutely no part in this article, aside from a mention of its existence in a "popcult" section. BMK (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Chinatown is an awful, artless, tone-deaf movie anyway, full of cliches tossed like fishes by Angeleno screenwriters to the trained seals in their non-Angeleno audience. Can we just leave the movies out of it and stick to the sources?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree totally with your assessment of the film -- I think it's very good, actually -- but agree entirely with your conclusion. BMK (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Can we just leave the movies out of it and stick to the sources?"—That was rather my point, alf, as BMK, at least, seems to have understood. What I was saying, to put it a bit simply, is that, when I read the Wikipedia article, I feel as if I'm doing little more than watching Chinatown, with a few dates thrown in. "Stick to the sources"?  Sounds good.  My quick check, just now, through the article's references, reveals that, with the exception of the St. Francis Dam casualty report, the primary sources cited in this ten-year-old article number exactly one:  the O'Shaughnessy letter I added the other day (plus the Calaveras Dam footnotes that Imveracious added to supplement it).108.36.82.122 (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * PS A weird thing about Chinatown is that it presents the aqueduct story as a kind of time-loop, in which the aqueduct exists before it's been built.  The movie is set in the 1930s; includes an oblique reference to a dam failure; and, in the scene I linked above, speaks of the Mulholland character (Mulwray) as having "made this city."  All of that suggests the story takes place after the construction and success of the aqueduct, yet the story is supposedly about the aqueduct's creation, including the putative conniving behind the annexation of the San Fernando Valley.  Mulholland, we're apparently supposed to understand, "made the city" before he built the aqueduct by which he made the city.  That is not merely "highly fictionalized" or "loosely based on the facts," as BMK says; it's crazy.  Well—maybe I missed something.108.36.82.122 (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * when I read the Wikipedia article, I feel as if I'm doing little more than watching Chinatown, with a few dates thrown in - I think you're misrepresenting both the movie and the article, which is not, in any way, based off the film -- and no one, I think, who's not predisposed to do so would confuse the one with the other. The fact is that Mulholland was intimately involved in stealing the water of the Owens Valley -- but there was no murder (as in the movie) involved in that.  I believe you've oversimplified things and are (effectively) saying "The movie was grossly inaccurate, so therefore Mulholland must be innocent".  That's not the case, the facts of the incident (with no reference to the film, which it would be best if  no one here ever mentioned again ) support Mulholland's intimate involvement with the deceptive taking of the Owens Valley water.  Regardless of what Mulholland did for LA -- which was substantial, if somewhat immoral -- his complicity in this incident is not contested by historians. I suggest you drop this line of argument. BMK (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And I suggest you provide a source. Try unboxing your library, which you had ten years to cite before your recent move.  On the happy day when this article will tell me more than Chinatown, I'll stop equating the two.  In the meantime, I'll continue to regard this heap of wiki-junk as almost wholly devoid of facts—or, as you spell it, facts.108.36.82.122 (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Annexation
The text says- This induced several independent towns[which?] surrounding Los Angeles to vote on and approve annexation to the city so they could connect to the municipal water system. These rural areas became part of Los Angeles in 1915. Twice I've added [where?] after "surrounding Los Angeles" and both times it's been removed by the same person. For it to say surrounding L.A. and not explaining were is vague. Shyncat (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You've got the "which" tag there, the answer to which would give you the "where", so the "where" tag is duplicative and therefore totally unnecessary. Don't restore it again, please. BMK (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * L.A. is a large area and just giving a name doesn't locate where. There's a lot who aren't familiar with the make up of the cities back in those times. I won't restore it if you will fix it in a reasonable amount of time. Thank you Shyncat (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not the point - I see the need for the names of the places, no problem with that. There's just no need for two tags which both ask for the exact same information.  Get it? BMK (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the big deal even if there were two, nothing to get all bent out of shape about, but fine. As long as we're both on the same page and as I said, it gets one in a reasonable amount of time. Ok? Thank you Shyncat (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no "big deal", and no reason to get "bent out of shape", which is why there was no earthly reason for you to edit war to restore an unnecessary tag instead of just asking about it. It's bad enough that articles carry necessary tags without carrying unneeded baggage that makes it harder for the reader to use. BMK (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Professionalism
What this article doesn't tell me is the qualifications Mulholland had to act as a civil engineer. Where did he study, and what degrees or certificates did he earn? --Clifford Mill (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not in the article because he didn't. BMK (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He was, as were many other notable engineers of that time, self educated. He was also a past president of the Los Angeles Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.245.90 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Mulholland. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121082056/http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/historyoflaa/aqueductfacts.htm to http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/historyoflaa/aqueductfacts.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Mulholland. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121082105/http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/historyoflaa/whoeverbrings.htm to http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/historyoflaa/whoeverbrings.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)