Talk:Ravenna Park

message: From Chapter 8 of Dr. Mary J. Ruwart's book "Healing Our World" at http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html.
"In 1887, a couple bought up the land on which the giant Douglas firs grew, added a pavilion for nature lectures, and made walking paths with benches and totems de-picting Indian culture. Visitors were charged admission to support Ravena Park; up to 10,000 people came on the busiest days.
Some Seattle citizens weren't satisfied with this non-aggressive arrangement. They lobbied for the city to buy and operate the park with tax dollars taken at gunpoint. In 1911, the city took over the park, and one by one the giant fir trees began to disappear. Concerned citizens complained when they found that the trees were being cut into cordwood and sold. The superintendent, later charged with abuse of public funds, equipment, and personnel, told the citizens that the large "Roosevelt Tree" had posed a "threat to public safety." By 1925, all the giant fir trees were gone. (34) The superintendent could personally profit from the beautiful trees by selling them."
Her reference (the 34) comes from "Free market environmentalism" By Terry Lee Anderson, Donald Leal, pages 51-52, (but actually 47-48 in the version on google books, and unfortunately they are not part of the preview).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.164.113 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Owners 

message: There's a May Day event in the park, but I can't find any info about it on the web. Could someone add info about it and other park events to the page? Edit: I found and added something about it. 69.91.144.167 (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  may day event 

message: The Ravenna Neighborhood article has a more detailed section on the history of Cowen-Ravenna Park than this article. I think this should be corrected by merging most of that section out of that article, leaving behind a  pointing here and add a history section to this article. Anyone have a strong opinion on the matter or want to perform this task?<BR />—Asatruer 13:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: Talk:Seattle, Washington/Archive 2#Primeval discusses several possible sources that would be useful  on the topic of the destruction of the old growth trees in the park in the 1920s. - Jmabel | Talk 03:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived discussion of possible relevance 

message: Ravenna park originally contained a grove of old growth, thousand year old Douglas Fir, up to 15 feet in diameter, and over 300 feet tall, The tallest named the "Robert E. Lee" standing "nearly 400 feet" (120 meters) in height was secretly removed in the mid twenties, amid opposition; a fate not unlike Vancouver BC's 415-foot Fir felled in 1902. You could say, Seattle once contained some of the tallest trees on the planet.
--71.215.152.104 05:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources follow (from Talk:Seattle%2C_Washington/Archive_2#Primeval):
* 
*http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Environment/PBMontagueForestLandTrusts.html
*http://www.paghat.com/douglasfir2.html
*"Beautiful Trees Cut To 'Line Someone's Pocket,'"  The Seattle Times, June 29, 1977; "Removal of Trees Protested," 
*Ibid., November 23, 1926; "Removal of Giant Trees Would Be Crime," 
*Ibid., November 24, 1926 --Walter Siegmund (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Growth Douglas Fir 

message: Should the name of this article be changed to "Ravenna-Cowen Park" or "Cowen-Ravenna Park"? It seems like one of these would be a more fitting name, as the subject matter of the article encompasses information about both parks and the general area in which they exist. Thanks! --JSquish (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since these are two separate parks, inventing a new name for the article would not be appropriate. Generally we title articles according to verifiable, reliable sources. There are local news sources which use terms like "Ravenna/Cowen parks," but that construction still makes it clear that they are two separate parks that happen to be contiguous. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Cowen-Ravenna Park (and variants) barely appears on the Parks website. "Ravenna Park" and "Cowen Park" are much more common. I found no support for Cowen-Ravenna Park (and variants) on Google Scholar. So I agree with Orange Suede Sofa. Please see WP:TITLE for further guidance. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

text: If they are, in fact, two separate parks, why is the name of the page just "Ravenna Park"? This seems to be a mistake that is not usually on Wikipedia, which is known for its closeness to detail when naming places correctly. To have "Ravenna Park and Cowen Park Contiguous Area" as a name would be unnecessarily long and a bit of a mouthful, but if "Ravenna-Cowen Park" (and variants) is not suitable and not found in enough sources, at least a more detailed name (or even two separate articles) would seem more accurate. Thank you, --JSquish (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change