Talk:Fur trade in Montana/Archives/2015

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

Article clearly meets General Notability Guidelines

Have removed notability tag. Numerous reliable sources discuss the American fur trade in the territories that became the state of Montana. Those sources are now listed in the reference section. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We had a "tag-bomber" hit this article, he made a mess out of about a dozen others. Sigh....Montanabw(talk) 08:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sentence needs help

The sentence below needs help. I'm putting in a box to separate it from comments. Anyway, is it one sentence, or two? Is it a run-on? What clause modifies which, and so on? Right now it doesn't make sense. Do all the commas belong? There seem to be words missing. Since I'm not familiar with the facts, I can't fix this myself. Feel free to edit at will right in the box, until it is fixed. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Following another failed attempt in 1823, William H. Ashley and Andrew Henry began to establish operations on the upper Missouri River, an enterprise that would later be called the Rocky Mountain Fur Company, initiated the free trapping and rendezvous system.
checkY Fixed for now. I question the "Following another failed attempt in 1823". Was the failed attempt in 1823 or was the new enterprise started in 1823? -- Mike Cline (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, that begs the question, if you don't know, how can you be sure you fixed the sentence correctly? I have put CN tags on both sentences, since the second sentence has the same problem: Did the free trapping and rendezvous system come about after it was named Rocky Mountain Fur Company, or before? By the way, that article gives totally different dates and facts, so it looks like there's probably misinformation in both articles and a lot of cleanup and citing to be done. Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead section required

The article needs a lead section that summarizes the relevant content. See WP:LEAD Also needs some relevant images. Not quite C class yet. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It's C-class; it's sourced, it reads decently, and so on. (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Montana/Assessment#Quality_scale) The lead was helpful, but you don't need a lead or images for C. I've seen GAs pass without images. This couple proably be brought up to GA class in a few weeks. I also bumped importance to "mid" due to the significance of the fur industry to the opening up of the state to all that came after. Montanabw(talk) 08:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A resource

[1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

(untitled)

Someone else can play with it some more. As far as the 1823 date, it's not quite right either, because Henry send trappers from Fort Henry to Montana in late 1822. Those trappers came back in 1823 with the spring harvest, after which the Ashley-Henry enterprise abandoned the fort, choosing to work the areas further south instead. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This comment doesn't seem to be referring to the resource I posted, so could you create a separate subheading for it to avoid confusion? (You may delete this post when you do.) Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Nah. Easier to just fix it.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Date of sale of the Rocky Mountain Fur Company

The 1959 Toole book used as a reference states: "By 1824 Ashley and Henry had returned to the East—their fortunes made. The next sentence states "Smith, Jackson, and Sublette took over the Rocky Mountain Fur Company". The WP article simply assumes that 1824 was the date they took over. However the other book used as a reference (Malone, Roeder & Lang 1991) states on p. 51: "Ashley did so well at this that in 1826 he was able to retire a wealthy man. He sold out to three of his men, Jed Smith, David Jackson, and William Sublette". Multiple other sources are much more specific and all give 1826 as the date of the sale. For example:

Further sources for the 1826 date can be found in the following books: [2], [3], and [4] (all from university presses and academic publishers). Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The RMFC was not sold. Ashley and Henry became Ashley and Smith part of which was divested and acquired by Smith, Jackson and Sublette in 1826. Ashley continued to be involved in the businass, just not directly inbolved with harvesting furs. In 1830. Smith Jackson and Sublette sold out to Bridger, Fitzpatrick and Sublette, who took the name Rocky Mountain Fur Company, which is now commonly used as the name for the previous companies. http://www.thefurtrapper.com/Sublette_William.htm Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. One of the above sources (can't remember which) does talk about the buyout as "what was to become the Rocky Mountain Fur Company". The Rocky Mountain Fur Company article should probably be changed/expanded to clarify that. Anyhow, at least the previous sentence in this article: "In 1824, Smith, Sublette, and Jackson took over the company [...]" has now been corrected. It had been rather glaringly at odds with the dates in William Sublette, Jedediah Smith, and Rocky Mountain Rendezvous which would be quite confusing to the reader. Voceditenore (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
A lot of the fur trade articles need work. I make corrections here and there as I find easily fixable errors as with the 1824 date in this one, but many of them need major revisions. Maybe I'll eventually get to more of them, but right now I'm pretty consumed with Jedediah Smith. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is apt to be more accurate than the others, as Mike Cline and KingJeff1970 did most of the work; the others are rather weak and their sources not as solid. The solution on this bit is probably a more specific rewrite - significant events occurred in each of the years mentioned, and there is probably no shortcut. If it's horribly complex, then a timeline spinoff article might be needed. But I've also pinged the main editors, I'm not going to put more work into this than the people who should be watchlisting it more closly than I. Montanabw(talk) 02:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, Voceditenore, I guess we've just been put in our place. Guess we'll see what the A Team can come up with. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Rocky Mountain Fur Company is a weak article; Rocky Mountain Rendezvous is start-class at best. On what's been added to this article, it's made it worse, not better. this isn't a RS by any stretch of the imagination, it's just another wiki. (It also hasn't been formatted properly, thus making work for others). And this source is pretty marginal, the fellow at least cites his sources in a research list and appears to have some experience writing and researching the topic, but he's a veterinarian; the source would not pass muster at FAC, though the works he cites might. There are enough more scholarly sources on this topic that you don't need a wiki and an amateur historian's web sites as sources here. Montanabw(talk) 21:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
So, fix it yourself then. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
This mass revert, which I assume was the "fix", restored the 1824 date for the takeover by Jackson, Smith, and Sublette. As per the numerous academic sources which I listed above, not only is that date incorrect, it was not supported by either of the references given. I have changed the date to 1826 and re-referenced it to The Settlement of America: An Encyclopedia of Westward Expansion from Jamestown to the Closing of the Frontier, Routledge 2015, p. 439. I have not touched any other aspect of the revert. Hopefully that is acceptable. Voceditenore (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe a wp:rfc is in order, to get input on whether a paragraph with numerous tags is preferable to one that has a source that one editor does not approve of. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I think a better solution would be for all editors involved in editing the article to edit collaboratively, use RS sources rather than wikis, help search for reliable sources (some of which may already used as footnotes on these articles, or listed on this talk page or the other articles' talk pages), and assist when a number of errors or problems are pointed out rather than replying in terms such as "So, fix it yourself then." If we are here to build an encyclopedia and are here to write accurate and well-written articles, we need to collaborate with all of the other editors that are on the same article trying to do the same thing. I would like to ask that all editors remember that and demonstrate an ability to edit collaboratively and a genuine interest in making the article as accurate and well-written as it can be while complying with Wikipedia policies. Please keep any talk-page discussion focused on content and policy and on how to improve the article. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Collaboration doesn't consist of just sitting back and criticizing other's work. None of us asked for a FAC or GA review, and so if someone comes on and starts critiquing as though we had, yes, the absolutely correct response is "so fix it" Seems like there's even a template for it. So, yes, let's step away from the condescending lectures, and keep the discussion focused on improving the article Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:MOS compliance exists independently of GA or FA status. WP:RS is a policy. WP:NPOV is policy. Correctly formatting citations in a matter consistent with the rest of the article is a courtesy to the other editors. Montanabw(talk) 18:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes and focusing on Indian-white interaction

Hey, thanks folks for engaging with this article. It definitely has room for improvement. I am also concerned about some of the recent sources added and I'll see what I can find that can "beef-up" those sources. It would be helpful to get formatting of those sources correct, too (see WP:SRF). I also want to point out the fact that the larger section that was edited includes the words "indigenous peoples." I hope we can try to include their side of the story more in the future, rather than delving into more details about the fur trappers, most of whom have their own articles elsewhere on WP that probably should be improved first before this fairly small paragraph gets over-edited. I do appreciate most of the changes that were made and we should certainly get the dates right. I didn't appreciate a couple sentences that were unceremoniously dispatched early-on in recent edits that touched most directly to the change in the indigenous-white relations brought on by Henry and Ashley's enterprises. I'll try to work that stuff back in. I'd rather get the balance right in talking about the interactions between whites and Indians in the fur trade in MT than trying to get the exact years correct and listing the details of where particular fur trappers travelled. Save the details for the other specific articles on fur companies, trappers, etc. --KingJeff1970 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. By the time Henry and Ashley implemented the rendezvous system, they had pretty much abandoned Montana. That's the point of the correct dates. The first Henry rendezvous was 1824, and then Ashley took it from there. The reason they didn't trade with the natives in Montana is because they were hostile, not because Ashley had transitioned from contract trappers to free trappers. And, Ashley and Henry's strategy from the beginning was to use contract trappers, which is why Henry originally took 150 men with him, and Ashley an additional 100. So, the statement "Through trial-and-error, their strategy came to rely predominantly on individual trappers and depended far less on direct, formal trade with indigenous groups." is misleading, which is why I removed the original statement: "Ashley and Henry's strategy came to rely predominantly on individual trappers and depended far less on formal trade with indigenous groups." It didn't evolve to less formal trade, it was planned from the beginning, probably because of Henry's earlier bad experience in Montana. I really don't see how there was a "change in the indigenous-white relations brought on by Henry and Ashley's enterprises" The indigenous-white relations were bad when Ashley and Henry got to Montana, and they were bad when they left. Had nothing to do with their business practices. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
So, I went back in and corrected the erroneous cause and effect, but tried to keep your language. I think the whole section flows better now. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I see your point as far as their strategy not evolving, thanks for the explanation. The "trial and error" should have been more geared toward their focus on the central Rockies rather than the Upper Missouri and in their move away from trading posts. The revisions work for the most part. I disagree with your contention that there was no change in indigenous-white relations at the time. Sure relations were often "bad," or perhaps difficult is a better word, but from the point of view of the Piegans and their allies, Henry and Ashley's use of contract trappers was a threat and they acted accordingly. When the American Fur Co. came along several years later with a less provocative approach some Piegan were ready to deal with them. That's what I'm trying to get at. Anyway, I found a good source that I'll try to work in to this: White and Gowans, "Traders to Trappers: Andrew Henry and the Rocky Mountain Fur Trade," Montana The Magazine of Western History 43 (Winter 1993): 58-65, and (Summer 1993): 54-63.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
"I disagree with your contention that there was no change in indigenous-white relations at the time." It's not my contention, it's what's reflected in the article. It says that Manuel Lisa left, due to Indian attacks, and when Henry got there 12 years later, nothing had changed. In fact, the source says something like it was no surprise when Henry was pushed back by the Blackfeet. Sounds to me like the hostility from the Blackfeet may have had a different root cause. Barbour contends that it may have been the British inciting them. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
American trappers and media of the early 19th century argued the British incitement case. It would be great to bring Barton's points into the article, though; Barton's Fort Union book should be a source in this article. I haven't read Barton's book yet, but I need to. Also, take a look at Binnema's work (two journal articles are cited in the refs), since he tries to uncover the Blackfeet's interests, independent of the British or Americans. There's much work left to do on this and other fur trade articles, but unfortunately little time to do it. Thanks again for your interest in improving this article and I look forward to collaborating.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I REALLY didn't mean to get this deep into this. I just did a fly-by edit of the incorrect date, and it turned into a quagmire. I'm happy to help, but I'm TRYING to stay focused on the Jed Smith article, which was in REAL bad shape, and, I may be having to do a major editing job soon to an article I submitted to the Rocky Mountain Fur Trade Journal. So, I'm really not in a position to find and review sources that are kind of off on a tangent, but if I come across something helpful, I'll definitely let you know. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well, since I left my Jed Smith references behind for the weekend, I decided to spend a little more time with this. I'm looking at Toole, and he made several errors in regards to the Henry-Ashley-Smith partnerships, so I removed him as a source for that section altogether. BUT, he also wrote, on page 51, about the Missouri Fur Company having been revitalized in 1821 by Joshua Pilcher, how Pilcher had been in Blackfoot country in the winter of 1822-23, and, after trading with the "strangely amicable" Blackfeet through the winter, had been attacked by them as they set to leave in the spring, with all his furs and equipment lost. This was just before Henry reached the area-also intending to trade-and was turned back after some of his men were killed. What might have incited the Blackfeet to attack? Well, while Pilcher's men were trading with them, Jed Smith and other men had spent the winter along the Musselshell trapping. Maybe word of this had gotten to the Blackfeet and they attacked Pilcher's and Henry's parties in revenge. Maybe that's the tie-in you need to be looking for. Because, as Toole also points out, in 1818, a treaty had been signed with England establishing the Blackfoot lands within U.S. territory, so, whereas the British may have been guilty of inciting the Blackfeet and other Montana tribes east of the Rockies earlier, they no longer had incentive to do so. As far as I can tell however, Smith's 1822-23 trapping venture was the only one in Blackfoot territory by the "Rocky Mountain Fur Company" until 1829. Then there was one in both 1829 and 1830 and a failed one in 1831. Starting in the winter of 1826-27, trappers with Smith Jackson and Sublette sent trappers into Montana, and the Rocky Mountain Fur Company continued in 1830 and 1831. Maybe the Blackfeet were seeing the writing on the wall, and realized their best bet was to engage in trade, rather than losing out altogether to trappers, so when the American Fur Company came onto the scene, they were ready to trade. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, Whereas Smith's 1822-23 trapping expedition was illegal under U.S. law, the movement of most of the Henry-Ashley trappers to the region west of the Continental Divide may not have been, since that area was not firmly in the hands of the U.S. The southern portion was Mexican territory, and Oregon, Washington and western Montana was in the hands of the British, but the status of the Snake and Green River region was unresolved. So, the fact that Ashley took most of his trappers to that area region may have been an attempt to keep his activities legitimate, and not so much to avoid the Blackfeet. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

State-centric?

I have to question why this article is limited to rather arbitrary State boundaries, when it would make a lot more sense to make more about a geographic one. I would suggest moving the page to "Upper Missouri Fur Trade" Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It serves a particular audience looking for info about the impact of the fur trade on a very real, defined place today, Montana. Territorial and state boundaries may have been more or less arbitrary when created, but they've been around for 150 years now in the Rockies and they do have an impact on history and how it's told. The fur trade is essential to the beginnings of Montana as a settled place and this page serves an important purpose in telling the history of that place for today. If I was coming from the perspective of telling the whole story of the fur trade in North America, I would probably think an article on just the Upper Missouri Fur Trade would make some sense. However, my project is more focused on telling Montana history, and that was the motivation for this article. That said, creating an article on the Upper Missouri Fur Trade has some merit in and of itself.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay but it seems to me like the reason the article is stagnating is because a lot of context for the events occurred south of the Montana border, and due to the reliance on Montana-centric sources. Also, maybe the story you're trying to tell needs to be fleshed out in a MHS quarterly article. The body of the WP article doesn't support the lead and the conclusion. Redirecting it to "Upper Missouri Fur Trade" and writing a larger contextual article with less emphasis on cause and effect would give a broader perspective for the narrower focus of the impact on indigenous people. psssstt. Don't tell anyone, but I sort of use my wp editing to get facts in order, so that they are easily accessible when I'm writing. So, good luck with it, and feel free to ping me if you think I can help. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Lynn, no one is stopping you from creating your own article, go for it. Also WP isn't the place for you to create your own google notes page unless you want to use a sandbox. Montana history has a considerable influence from the fur trade and the title and (original) content of this article is entirely appropriate. The article is far from "stagnating," KingJeff and Mike Cline only created it last year, and it's been worked on intermittently since. Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure they appreciate your intervention on it. Since you're on the case, they certainly don't need any input from me. Once again, good luck. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Fur trade in Idaho

Montana just doesn't hold a candle

Seriously? One, it's very bad form to revert other's comments on talk pages, and two, maybe you're taking this whole Montana-centric thing a little too seriously. This video demonstates how, over one hundred years after the heyday of the fur trade, State wildlife agencies were still trying to reintroduce beaver and other fur bearers to areas where they had been decimated. Seems to me like it fit right in with your article.

Unfortunately, the version uploaded without an age restriction isn't as good of quality as the one uploaded by the Idaho Game and Fish Department, which for some reason put an age restriction on its upload. Here's that link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APLz2bTprMA Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
What has that video have to do with this article?--MONGO 22:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The article talks about the fur trade decimating the beaver populations in the Rocky Mountains. Plus, it's just an awesome video. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
And it has nothing to do with this article. So thank you for sharing, but there are more scholarly sources available. Montanabw(talk) 02:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fur_trade_in_Montana/Archives/2015&oldid=1136745855"