Talk:Columbia River/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Situated

The article starts off with: "situated in British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest of the United States."... think it odd that British Columbia is mentioned first, given that the majority of its length, including the stretches best known, are in the PNW US". Probably just quibbling though. -- AAA User:151.132.206.146 15:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What's stopping you from improving it? Wahkeenah 23:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the river does START in BC does it not? How about "stretches from British Columbia into the Pacific Northwest of the United States"? - User:142.179.156.118 12:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

 Done -- phrasing utterly changed at this point. -Pete (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

History - "Ouragan"

The article states: "Ouragan" is the original name for the Columbia River. Native American and First Nations stories hold the "Ouragan" as a very spiritual place.

I'd like to see a reference for this. I'm a local and have never heard this. As I recall, L. McArthur in "Oregon Geographic Names", does not ascribe the name "Oregon" to a native american name. That would seem the obvious choice if "Ouragan" was the original name for the Columbia. It would be exciting, if true. -Jill K 05:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In George R. Stewart's book "Names on the Land" there's a couple pages on this. There was a "great river of the west" on many old maps, named something like "Oregon", and located more or less where the Columbia River turned out to be. Stewart points out, "Over the source of this name [Oregon] more controversy has raged than over any other on the continent," and goes on to list some of the theories, but thinks the "most likely" source is the one he tells at some length: "Among the French explorers of the west was the Baron Lahontan. He was not a man of integrity, and told a tale of a certain Long River which did not exist. But he wrote charmingly and his book with illustrations and maps was published in French and English in several editions. Most of these contained a map on which appeared Wisconsin River, spelled in French fashion Ouisconsink. But for the French edition of 1715 this map was redrawn by a careless engraver who made many mistakes which names, such as Magara for Niagara. He wrote Ouisconsink as Ouariconsint, and he broke the word with a small hyphen because the map was crowded, and put "sint" beneath. So anyone looking at the map a little carelessly would think that there was a river Ouaricon, flowing toward the west." ...then, summarizing, in 1760 the British soldier Major Robert Rogers went west to receive the surrender of the French posts at Detroit and elsewhere, where he heard the old tale about a great river flowing to the Pacific Ocean through a break in the Rocky Mountains. Whether or not he believed the story (the French were fairly skeptical themselves), in 1765 Major Rogers petitioned the King of England for a commission and money for searching for the Northwest Passage by way of this river. At the time the (still wholly mythical) river was generally known as "the river of the west", but in Major Rogers' petition he added that the river of the west was called by the Indians Ouragon, Ourgan, and Ourigan (spelling back then was pretty loose), supposedly taking the river Ouaricon from the French map and mistaking it for the "river of the west", and spelling it in a slightly more English style, substituting the French c for an English g. Rogers was denied the commission and was instead posted to command Michilimackniac. From there, Rogers sent Jonathan Carver to explore west, and the word "Oregon" was firmly established by Carver's 1778 publication "Travels through the Interior Parts of North America", a work that has often been called a "work of fiction".

A complicated story! Other theories are simplier, like, as Stewart puts it, "wild guesses" that "Oregon" comes from Spanish "oregano", or "origen" (origin); or from the old Spanish kingdom of Aragon; or from the French "ouragan" (storm); or the Shoshone "ogwa-peon" (river-west); or the Chippewa "owah-wakan" (river of slaves); and much else.

Stewart's book is a classic on placenames, but getting a bit old now, so maybe there is new information about the origin of the name. But I suspect it is still a bit of a mystery. Whether or not Stewart's story is true, it is a good one -- that a misspelling of the French spelling of Wisconsin could be the origin of Oregon is pretty amazing. Unless there is a good source of the origin, references to it should probably say something about the controversy and uncertainty about it. - Pfly 01:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a fairly detailed discussion of the proposed sources for the name at Oregon.

As for what the natives called the river before the rest of us happened along, I don't think they called it "Oregon". According to Lewis McArthur's Oregon Geographic Names, the first person to call the river "Oregon" was the poet William Cullen Bryan in his long poem Thanatopsis, written 1817. As for a native American name of the river, all that McArthur supplies that some thought for a while (ca. 1793-1810) it was Tacootche-Tesse or Tacootche, but that it was later learned this name properly applied to the Fraser River. I find it odd that there isn't more information close at hand: one would think that with all of the settler's memoirs & detailed records on various aspects of Native American life like Chinook Jargon, that someone preserved at least a few of the native names for this river. -- llywrch 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 Done, see Oregon (toponym) for more. -Pete (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Columbia River Gorge photo

The photo of the gorge in this article is somewhat deceptive...it is a photograph of the extreme west end of the gorge and thus is not very representative of how the gorge looks. This should be fixed... User:71.56.139.167 20:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 Done -Pete (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

History - Captain Gray on the Columbia

Captain Gray was still on the Lady Washington on May 11: according to the John Kendrick article, he was given command of the Columbia Rediviva on June 24th. As I understand it, the Lady opened the Columbia a few days before Rediviva showed up. User:66.93.40.145 01:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be important, and yes they didn't switch ships until June 24. Now had that been in 1792, then it would be worth mentioning. However, if you read the article you referenced it says the switch was in 1789.Aboutmovies 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

 Done -- apparently a misunderstanding of the source. -Pete (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

Some of the pairs of figures given for imperial and SI units do not tally: while "1,232 miles (2,044 km)" can be considered a rough approximation, "258,000 square miles (415,211 km²)" is a long way off. Tonyho 15:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

 Done -- using conversion templates now. -Pete (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Troubles with History section

The history section seems to have somewhat of a pro-American slant, or at least to be written too much from an American (non-neutral) viewpoint. In particular, the assertions about the effect of Gray's entry of the Columbia River on American claims to the whole "Oregon Country" seem much over-stated. Gray himself does not seem to have made much of it, beyond that it afforded him some good trading, and American territorial claims on its basis were not mooted at the time -- at least not that I have read. The whole idea that this one bit of exploration by a private trader should have given the U.S. territorial claim to so vast an area, an area that was being much more extensively explored by other nations at the time, seems preposterous, and all the more so considering that the U.S. only extended east to the Missisippi at the time, the Louisiana Purchase being over a decade away, as yet. American territorial claims in the era a little afterward were not always conspicuous for their reasonableness, and a hagiographic, hindsight over-emphasis on the effect of Gray would not be out of character for them, but this needs to be presented for what it is. I've added some material on George Vancouver's explorations, which balances matters out somewhat.
A couple of other points seem doubtful to me; I've tagged them as needing citations.
-- Lonewolf BC 01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Updated Infobox to Geobox and various edits and stats

Just updated to a "Geobox River" style and edited some stats. I changed the average annual discharge from 262,000 cfs (unreferenced) to 192,100, as given by the USGS and the Atlas of Oregon. The stream gage at The Dalles is the oldest and seems to be the default for measuring the Columbia's total discharge. The stream gauges below The Dalles are not as useful, and the USGS points out the problem of tides affecting measurements anyway. I also mentioned the historic high measurement of 1,240,000 cfs. Since the 1950s and all the dam building, the peak flows at The Dalles have never reached above 700,000 cfs, according to the Atlas of Oregon.

I left the basin size as 258,000 sq mi, as was already on the page. A reference source for that would be nice. All the US government sources (USGS, EPA, etc) give the drainage basin size for the US only. The USGS GNIS page goes as far as citing the river's "source" as the Canada-US boundary!

I changed the river's length very slightly, with a reference (there was none before). I also slightly changed the stats on Columbia Lake (which also were unsourced). Finally, since it seems unlikely that a page for Columbia Lake will be made anytime soon (if ever), I unlinked it -- the redlink bothered me.

If I get around to it, I'll check the discharge stats for the tributaries and provide references. The Atlas of Oregon provides some stats and I think they differ from the ones listed here. That is all! Pfly 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done Good work! -Pete (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Flows

I edited the volume. For this time of year mean flow is over 300,000 cfs. Total yearly mean flow is somewhat lower, but not less than 284,000 cfs, which makes the Columbia larger in Volume than the St. Lawrence and Mackenzie. Tides can affect the gaging, as when water is inflowing the discharge will read much lower. [1] - User:Peckvet55 05:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The 284,000 cfs value is not supported by the reference link you provided . . . unless you're referring to the median value given in the link, which is only for May 1. The 265,000 cfs value is referenced, and it's consistent with the value obtained during the 1941-70 survey (262,000 cfs). Furthermore, the Mackenzie and St. Lawrence discharges are both well over 300,000 cfs at the mouth (see their wikipedia article links as well as [2]).

User:Myasuda 13:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Largest Rivers in the United States, a USGS report -- much better than raw stream gage data. Pfly 15:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Missoula Floods

Did the Missoula Floods form the river, or did the Columbia River Gorge exist, cutting through the Cascades, before the floods? -Pete 07:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The river existed before the floods in essentially the same form as today, gorge and all. Pfly 20:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done -- thanks for reply. -Pete (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Geography

The geography section although i believe is all accurate does not flow logically. It jumps from beginning to end to middle and back to end again. When describing the flow you should start at the headwaters and flow all the way to the mouth. User:24.22.158.233 02:28, May 27, 2007 (UTC)

 Done -- section rewritten since then. -Pete (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image layout

Sorry Cacophony - the image rearrangement looked good on my small laptop monitor. Out of curiosity, what was the problem? Thanks for fixing it. -Pete 01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, the layout could use some fixin', but your changes looked bad at some resolutions. The table to the left of the images had images was partially obscured. Right now I don't like the big white space where you tried to put the images, that certainly needs to go. I think the dams and tributaries image should be moved out of the infobox and into this dead space. That might help some. I'm short on time right now, maybe I'll mess with it later. Feel free to try something else, I appreciate your efforts to improve it. Cacophony 06:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done -- completely rearranged. -Pete (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

French

Unless I'm mistaken the river does start in Canada, a bilingual (English/French) country. So I'm thinking the French name should go back? Aboutmovies 01:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the river doesn't start in Quebec, it starts in British Columbia. And if it's Quebecois French we're talking about, why didn't the parenthetical translation mention that to begin with? VanTucky 01:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Pacific Northwest was originally settled by both U.S. and Canada. Canada was much more French-speaking back then. The idea that it would have a French name, and that it would be notable, does not seem like much of a stretch. VT, why would you revert before discussing? Seems a bit aggressive. -Pete 03:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Where on Wikipedia does it mention "Quebecois French" in a parenthetical translation, since I'm looking at Nova Scotia and it just says French. I'm crroius how exactly that would look, plus what the point of that would be. And should we start adding notes for American vs. British English pronuciation like "about"? The fact that Canada has both languages and the river is just as much their's as ours I think would warrant the inclusion. On this side of the border we get accussed enough of nationalism that I don't think we need to throw more fuel on the flames. Aboutmovies 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what harm there is in including the French name. Since Canadian sources come in French and English, it may help to provide the river's French name. On the other hand, the French name is not unusual -- the spelling of "Columbia" is the same (unlike the French name of British Columbia, "la Colombie-Britannique"). So, while I'm ambivalent about the inclusion or exclusion of the French name of the river, I guess I'd come down on the side of inclusion, unless someone can explain how including it harms the article. Pfly 04:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, it isn't being "aggressive" to make edits (I didn't "revert" anyone's recent edits brashly, I made my own) and then reasonably discuss them. WP:Be bold people. But feel free to revert it w/o starting an edit war. per Pfly's comment, I don't particularly see how it harms the article. Personally, I just instantly thought it looked rather bizarre to have a French translation on an article for what is primarily (in terms of area covered and ratio of volume) a U.S. river which has its headwaters in a Canadian province that isn't known (to me at least, correct if I'm wrong here) as having an influential modern French-speaking population. It just seemed superflous. You're absolutely right about the Quebecois distinction though, I don't see it anywhere else on Canadian articles. Sorry if that was just the knee-jerk Francophobia of an American, but it looked out of place to me. VanTucky 07:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Van, I'm sorry about that remark…you're right, I was out of line. -Pete 07:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pete! VanTucky 14:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

there was a similar discussion on either the WikiProject British Columbia page, or about the British Columbia page, about the inclusion of the French name. Myself, in this case, I think it's irrelevant, as the French name is the smae as the English except for fleuve/river; it's an irony of Canadian political linguistics that French preserves the name of the river in its Latin form, but when the river's name, by way of its being a namesake for the Columbia District, became the basis fo the colony's name, and afterwards the province's, then it was deemed necesary to render "Columbia"->la colombie. Which to me is just another typical misapprehension of BC history by Central Canadians, though in this case it's the French Central Canadians. But we don't have "fleuve Fraser" or fleuve Skeena in the Fraser River and Skeena River articles, so I say nix any suggestion that just because this is a Canadian river it has to have French content. yes, there were Quebeckers here, among other kinds of French most were Metis from the Prairies who had never seen Quebec) but there were also Norwegians and Hawaiians here.....Skookum1 (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Skookum's point seems valid, that the river's name is identical except for the word "river"/"fleuve". -Pete (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed some specifics

I removed the following details from the main prose, it's all available in the infobox, or is an easy calculation from those numbers. I think this makes the article read better, and especially makes some points more readily apparent to readers who don't happen to be interested in the specific numbers.

By the numbers

• elevation drop: 2,700 feet in 1,232 miles (822 m in 1,982 km)
• length: 1,243 miles (2,000 km)
• average annual flow: about 265,000 ft³/s (7,500 m³/s)
• highest recorded flow was 1,240,000 ft³/s (35,113 m³/s), on June 6 1894
• area drained: 258,000 square miles (668,217 km²) (about 15% in Canada)

— USGS

(Note: I was thinking about putting it into a box like above, until I decided to just cut it.) Also, I'm wondering if we should do away with the "Tributaries" section, in favor of a bit of prose mentioning the biggest 4 or 5, and a link to the list. Thoughts? -Pete 00:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pete, if I'm not mistaken, the general guideline for infoboxes is that any information they contain should also be stated in the text of the article. I can't remember where I read this off the top of my head, but it seems to me a good policy. the infobox serves as a quick summary of the information available more in depth in the article. For example, the text you removed mentioned the date of the max flow. Trying to include such facts in the infobox would make it unwieldy, and best left for the text. Let me know what you think. VerruckteDan 23:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Verruckte, I would be surprised - and a bit disappointed - if there's a broad policy on whether infobox details need to be included in the prose, since the content of infoboxes varies so widely on different articles. I'd hope these questions can be resolved on their specific merits, rather than by an overarching policy.

I don't feel strongly about whether or not it's included in the article, but I do feel strongly that the details don't belong in the introduction. I came to that conclusion after showing the article to a friend - who's not a WP editor - and she stumbled on all the detail in the intro, and commented that it distracted from her ability to grasp the important points.

If you want to include it in the prose, could I suggest either the Hydroelectric section, or a new section devoted to statistics? -Pete 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving the information from the intro section sounds like a good move, I'll give it a shot. VerruckteDan 13:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I like what you did. -Pete 19:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dredging

Dredging of the Columbia has been a major political football in recent years, though I don't know the current status. The Port of Portland has pushed for the river to be dredged between Portland and the ocean, to make it deep enough for newer container ships, that they say will otherwise pass Portland by, damaging the economy. But environmental groups have strongly opposed the efforts. I just found an article from 1990 on this topic, but some research should be done into more recent developments. -Pete 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

DONE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteforsyth (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)