Talk:William Cooley

Tampa Photo

There is a supposed photo of Cooley's Store in Tampa, but it must be picked up in Harvard. If somebody has access, that would be fantastic, because it could prove he had a storeis already proved he had a store and this would be a nice picture, maybe with him on it.Legionarius 04:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: Harvard emailed me back and they may provide the picture in three weeks sent the picture.--Legionarius 00:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing daughter

This is not suitable for inclusion in the article, but is worth of note. There was an article in the a Tampa newspaper stating that Cooley had a will leaving money to "his daughter Fanny Ann Cooley Mathews". I could not find the will or the article. Fanny Anne actually existed and was in Hillsborough County during the time mentioned. If anybody can help, needless to say that this would be a great addition to the article.--Legionarius 00:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Found and added to the article.--Legionarius 02:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That source is problematic in several ways. The biggest issue is the date of death. He could not have served on the Tampa City Council in 1861 if he died in 1860. Either this source or the Tampa city archives are wrong, although it is possible that his term (which ended in February 1861) was filled by someone else after his death, or remained vacant. The thing that concerns me the most is his daughter and heretofore unknown wife, Christen. It is also curious because the name of his adopted daughter (Nancy) is the same as the name of the woman we have been citing as his wife. Are they the same person? We're going to need to straighten this out before this gets submitted as a GA, because right now there are too many contradictions. Horologium t-c 03:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This source is pretty bad, but is the only I have for the will today. Tomorrow I plan to go to the LDS to get his actuall will, although I think this will take a while. The source for the will (and most of the bad article from Gordon) is a 1958 article in the Tampa Tribune, which is part of a booke. There is the letter from Col. Alexander (which I would like to read). This is a mission.--Legionarius 03:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the original will as a source. The daughter is listed as Fanny Anne, but there is not a "Cooley" in the heirs anywhere.--Legionarius 02:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fanny Cooley is one of my great grandmothers Her father was William Cooley. She is buried in our family cemetery in Thonotosassa Fl. 2603:9000:A200:76B1:3560:BD1:F422:6346 (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Fanny Anne Cooley is my 5 or 6th great-grandmother buried in seffner (our family cemetary). SHe married Francis Mathews and had children. One son named WIlliam Cooley (w.c) Mathews who married Captian Richard Roberts and Amelia Curry's Daughter Josephine. They had a son named William Samuel Mathews who married...well on and on. But, Fanny Anne Cooley Mathews is buried in the Mathews Family Cemetary in Seffner Florida. How do we change the unknown daughter status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.254.135 (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cooley's Photo

I just talked to the Broward County historian, and they do not have any picture on file nor believe there existed any. Based on that, I am removing the photo needed tag.--Legionarius 19:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And nothing from the Tampa historians as well. Case closed.--Legionarius 04:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPrada (talk • contribs)

Informal review

As requested, I looked over this article and was very impressed with it. I only changed one sentence towards the end which read a little awkwardly (but feel free to change it if you disagree). I have a couple of things that might help the article reach a higher status in the future:

• The footnotes are excellent; it shows a strong and verifiable piece of writing. However, I found that editors frowned upon footnotes in the middle of sentences; they generally prefer them at the end. Although it's great to have thoroughly sourced facts, you may want to think about where the footnotes are placed. Also, it's good to have quotes sourced, for example "twenty feet by fifty feet, one story high, built of cypress logs, sealed and floored with 1-1/2 inch planks".
• Numbers (eg. 8, 95 etc) should be written in full (eight, ninety-five etc), except for dates.
• Any Americanised spelling (eg. rumor - rumour) should be addressed. It's apparently against Wikipedia's policy.

Apart from this, an excellent article. Well done. PeterSymonds 17:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in review

I would like to apologise for suggesting that Americanised spelling is against Wikipedia's policy. I had an email from "Ron" (no username) informing me that no such policy exists. I read somewhere that it was, but apparently that person was mistaken. PeterSymonds 08:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles that deal with topics wholly in the US should use American spelling, just as articles dealing with topics wholly within the UK use British spelling. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured

Thanks to all who contributed!--Legionarius 05:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• The article is still on the list of requests for copy-edit from the League of Copy-editors. Now that it is FA, should it be removed from the request list? Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Requests Congrats on FA, Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is FA, but there were complaints still. Do you think the article is good now?--Legionarius (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Another copy-editor left notes at the copy-edit request page that the smoothness and flow could be improved. On brief inspection, I agree, and will try to copy-edit it within the next few days. Unimaginative Username (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking better already. Thank you!--Legionarius (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Going to try to plunge through and finish now. Of course, further feedback on the copy-editing is always welcome. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy-edit complete

I left a few content questions below, but the copy-editing is complete and the article has been moved to the "Ready to proofread" section at the copy-edit request page. I hope that this helps with the post-FA complaints mentioned above. Congratulations to all involved for a fine Featured Article! Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You are very kind. Thanks for your excellent job.--Legionarius (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

<kidding> Tipping for good service is always appreciated :) </kidding> You're very welcome. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Precision as to number of soldiers?

"On December 28, 1835, Dade and 106 soldiers were ambushed... " The source article refers to "over a hundred men." Is there another reference in that source, or another source, for the exact number of soldiers? (saw during copy-edit) Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at the article on Francis L. Dade, and it states that Dade was in charge of 107 men, and that three men survived the massacre, which would mean that 105 men (including Dade) died. Unfortunately, there are no inline references in that article, and the only reference cited is a book, with no specific page numbers. I also discovered Dade's Massacre (which I think I will move to Dade Massacre), which has the same numbers cited, but it also has no inline citations, and its only reference is to a geocities cite of unknown reliability; that source lists "approximately 100 men and eight officers", which squares with the cited total of 107 + Dade, but the "approximately" throws the number into question. In any case, the 106 dead figure cannot be confirmed from the reference available online; I will check with the UF Florida History collection on Monday to see if they have the book cited in the Francis L. Dade article, and see what it says. Horologium t-c 03:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Will leave as is for now; if the figure cannot be confirmed, then "Dade and over a hundred of his men" would probably be the best. Thanks for researching! Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference.--Legionarius (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a great reference for the battle. --Legionarius (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Section name, "Death and afterward"

It's probably just I, but on first glance, it sounded like this section would discuss Cooley's afterlife (life after death). If anyone else gets the same reaction, then perhaps it should be titled, "Death and legacy". Or perhaps it's just I. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Here I was borrowing a WP Biography's template for the structure (can't find it now). No particular reason to keep the naming (or change)--Legionarius (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

After a *very* brief search, I don't find a standard layout for bios, either. "Legacy" was the first thing that came to mind, but I'm open to other suggestions -- or to leaving it as is. Do you want to see if anyone else weighs in on this in the next couple of days? Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "Legacy" as well. Horologium t-c 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Legionarius, do you agree or disagree with changing it to "Death and legacy"? Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing against it :-) The original source for the title is this template.--Legionarius (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That page is very strange, because it links to Charles Darwin as an example of a bio, yet the Darwin article does not follow the template (perhaps it did at one time) and does not even have a "Death" section. Darwin's death is in a section entitled, "Descent of Man, sexual selection, and botany", which hardly seems appropriate. I was going to leave the same comment on the template discussion page, but there was no discussion page, and no obvious place to go to for discussion. Since there are no objections here, I'll change it. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wording question re: "living with slaves"

(1850) "... he lived with seven slaves..." To this reader, "lived with" has the sound of living more or less as equals, as one lives with one's family, girlfriend, etc. If so, that would be very commendable for this time and place. However, if he kept them as slaves, then distasteful as it is, the phrase should probably read, "... he owned... " or "... he had seven slaves...". I'm not changing it now, as I don't know the relationship. Clarification would be appreciated - I can re-write the sentence if needed, with the appropriate info. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This comes from a primary source, the census; what it means is that the census employee went there and counted eight people living in that particular house, seven of them being slaves; it is not clear if he actually owned all seven of them as well. --Legionarius (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. But the thrust of the paragraph seems to be about Cooley's accumulation of wealth. "By 1850, he ... ". Slaves were in fact one symbol of wealth in that time and place. But if the source isn't clear about whether he owned them, then it doesn't seem to reflect on his wealth -- so, is it still relevant? Not sure, just asking. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is interesting to show his economical situation. Although it is not certain that he owned the slaves, it is very likely. It is a fact that he owned slaves, which can or not be those mentioned

.--Legionarius (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, will leave it as is. Thanks for clarifying. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it can be changed from "living with" to "cohabited" or something similar. My broken English is to be blamed.--Legionarius (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you accurately summarized the source (and your English is fine, by the way. "Cohabited" is just fancy talk for "living with", used by census bureaus, not real people :-). The source might not be specific, but in that time and place, it would be very unusual for an affluent white man to live with slaves that he (or someone in his household) did not own. So, readers (including us) can draw their own conclusions. You are to be commended for not imposing your own conclusions on the raw source. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wealth in present-day terms (please add with citation)

"Cooley estimated his personal wealth at $10,060.00 in 1860.". That doesn't sound like much today, so I converted it to 2006 dollars using this source. The suggested revision is:

"Cooley estimated his personal wealth at $10,060.00 in 1860, equivalent to approximately $233,000 in 2006 dollars."

However, my strengths are more in English than in Wiki markup, citations, etc., so I would prefer that someone who knows how to do that would make the edit and add the citation. Thanks! Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is not as simple as that, and it is a bit misleading. $10k in 1860 could buy slaves, lots of properties, a business, and be influential in local politics. And in the "Wild South" it looked like a lot of money, maybe not much in New York for example... Today 233k can barely buy a condo. I think it is better to leave the actual value and let the reader do the correlations if necessary.--Legionarius (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Taxes were a lot lower then also, and the income tax didn't exist. So yes, the dollar-conversion charts don't show the real picture. I just wasn't sure if non-US readers would be aware of the dramatic difference, but it sounds like it's pretty obvious. Scratch the suggestion. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Proofreader's comments

The article was a pleasure to work on. When I finished, I had two unresolved questions. The first paragraph of the Politician section, says, "He became involved again in local politics, this time against General Jesup, who wanted to remove all Indians from Florida. Judge Steele, a newcomer from Connecticut, was with him in this fight." The "him" is slightly ambiguous. I would recommend changing it to Jesup or Cooley, whichever is correct. I'm pretty sure it's Cooley from the context. Also, please review the small changes I made to the Death and Legacy section. I meant to clarify not falsify, but I feel uneasy about these changes. Finetooth (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You were correct re: Cooley and Steele. I clarified (and slightly reworded) that section to eliminate the ambiguity. Your rewording in the last paragraph clarifies what was intended. AFAIK, you didn't change the meaning with your slight rewording there. Horologium (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Could somebody please semi-protect the article just for today?--Legionarius (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Gimmetrow 04:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see how it goes, so. Thanks!--Legionarius (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

This article needs improvements on wikilinks throughout the article, and some improvements on capitals in the infobox. – Ilse@ 09:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

White

I've noticed the term "white" was swapped with "American." This is probably a good thing, as the Spanish, who colonized there before other Europeans, are white, too. Still, American might be misleading as well. I'm sure there were Spaniards having children in the area, then settling elsewhere, making them American. So, the term I will change it to, for this rare case of racial/nationality classification, is non-Spanish European-American. People with problems with this term should just ignore it and pretend it's not there. I think that would be best for everyone.Mexicomida (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there were no Spaniards in the area where Cooley settled. The Spanish never attempted to colonize the area around the New River, and their settlement in Miami was abandoned shortly after it was established. Their remaining missions were in the northern third of the state. I have reverted your change because it's irrelevant in this case. Horologium (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, (this is a more minor point), people who were born in North America to residents of the Spanish colonies are not Americans. The term "American" refers to people from the USA. If they were born into a political entity not attached or part of the USA, they are not Americans; they are Spanish people who were sent by Spain to N. America and were still citzens of the Spanish Empire, so they are still Spanish, even if born here. thanks for your suggestion though. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, horologium, my statement was meant to agree with yours. sorry if this was not more clear. thanks for your reply. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In what way does this refute what I said? Cooley was born in Maryland, a part of the United States (two years after the conclusion of the War of Independence; he was never a subject of the Crown of England). The other leaders of the settlement were either also American (such as Fitzgerald) or Bahamian whites (such as the Lewises). Spain never had any settlements in Broward County, and their only settlement in South Florida were a pair of missions near present-day Miami, both of which were abandoned shortly after their establishment (in 1567 and again in 1743). Horologium (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all just be happy that White was taken away--the most ambiguous term of them that could have been chosen!Mexicomida (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Research

I have located an article from Key West that might shed some light on a couple of the situations in the article. Firstly, according to http://digitalcollections.fiu.edu/tequesta/files/1943/43_1_01.pdf, there may be a connection with an Indian, in this wiki article named as Alibama, who was killed by two people whom he believed had been responsible for stealing furs and skins from his tribe's huts.

journals.fcla.edu/browardlegacy/article/download/79233/76578

Also, Richard Fitzpatrick did not buy the land from William Cooley. He actually bought it from the widow Frankee Lewis, in 1830 or so. Now, the Lewis' ( Charles and Frankee ) had been on a piece of land further down the river since the revolutionary war ended, and were visited by Spanish troops who mapped the area where their settlement was. Both Charles ( sometimes written as Sarles or Sarly , due to spanish pronunciation ) and her son were lost at sea, thus she was widowed. Cooley had settled on his plantation the year before she was given the Frankee Lewis donation, thus, Cooley's land was actually given to her, and she then sold it. There were caretakers on her property on the New River at the time, and she was living on the Miami River. It's possible that she was unaware of the mistake which had occured when she was given deed to the land. The law at the time dictated that once an area was settled, that it couldn't be taken and sold the way it was, so, in actuality, Coooley was a victim.

Fitzpatrick paid Cooley for the improvements that he had made to the land, and not for the land itself. It shows in a copy of his personal ledger from the time.

Hello IP 74.233.30.7. Interesting connection with Alibama! I will try to uncover more information about it and see how it connects with the New River attack, as it is six months later.

Regarding Fitzpatrick/Lewis, there are two different transactions. The first is the one you mention, directly from Frankee Lewis, and another later, from Cooley. Both transactions are in the article. Legionarius (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Cooley. 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/20060920074643/http://www.lib.usf.edu/ldsu/digitalcollections/S57/journal/v19n1_93/v19n1_93_003.pdf to http://www.lib.usf.edu/ldsu/digitalcollections/S57/journal/v19n1_93/v19n1_93_003.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Cooley. 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/20070930153840/http://www.tampagov.net/dept_City_Clerk/Information_resources/archives/previous_city_council_members/Tampa_City_Council_Members_February-1856%20_June-1904.asp to http://www.tampagov.net/dept_City_Clerk/Information_resources/archives/previous_city_council_members/Tampa_City_Council_Members_February-1856%20_June-1904.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on William Cooley. 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/20070502222817/http://www.tennessee.gov/tsla/history/military/1812reg.htm to http://tennessee.gov/tsla/history/military/1812reg.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070502222757/http://www.tennessee.gov/tsla/history/military/tn1812.htm to http://tennessee.gov/tsla/history/military/tn1812.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)