Talk:Celilo Falls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
B This page is rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article is rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Celilo Falls is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.

To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

Date: 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] More history

this link has some good info. -Pete (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • FYI, the falls and related history were the big topic in the 12/22/2007 issue of Oregon Historical Quarterly. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TRIBES

Why is there NO mention of the Tribes that normally inhabited Celilo and the Middle Oregon territory? These Tribes and bands consist of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, the Yakama Nation, Umatilla and the Nez Perce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.162.30 (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the tribal history should be the focus here. I edited the article to include the tribes and put more emphasis on the original fishing site. I also took out the Nixon photo, which really belongs more with the The Dalles Dam. The dam is obviously an important part of the story, but this article should place emphasis on the falls themselves and the 10,000 years of native history. . Northwesterner1 (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Does anyone have the Lewis & Clark journals? I couldn't find the "emporium" quote online, except for some sketchily sourced places that look they might have taken their information from the earlier Wikipedia article. It would be good to get the citation from the primary source here. Northwesterner1 (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Try here, not sure why I can't access this without using Google's cache, maybe you'll have more luck. Here's another reprint.
It's not there. There's a quotation from Lewis & Clark calling it a "Great Mart" and a quotation from Alexander Ross calling it a "great emporium." Nowhere can I find the second half of the quote about the assembly of nations. Someone out there at WikiProject Oregon must have the LC journals, I'm sure... Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I posted a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon. Hopefully someone will come along with the answer! -Pete (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Good work in general! Lots of new citations, I'm very impressed. I do think the Nixon picture was worth keeping in, though; maybe not as huge as it was, but an important moment for the region. Also, I love the idea of the video, but it doesn't seem to work on my Mac; loads a few seconds, but then just perpetually tries to buffer, and never seems to actually load more. Hmmm. -Pete (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed your comment above. I agree, it might be more appropriate to use the photo there. -Pete (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Pete. I'll work on adding some of this information to The Dalles Dam, including the Nixon photo. It's a shame the video is not working on your computer. It's really neat footage. It works on mine (albeit after a bit of buffering). I added a video help link, and I will try a smaller file to see if it works any better. Otherwise, I guess we'll just have to hope Wikipedia's coding improves. The .ogg files are buggy all across the site. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll make a point of watching it from another computer when I get the chance. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be complete version of their journals. —EncMstr 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a great link for future reference. I read the sections on Celilo Falls, Oct 22-25, 1805, but the quote isn't there. It must come from a later report. In any case, I found a citation for it in a journal article, so I think we're good now. Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

Per request this has been reviewed and upgraded to B class. A few notes below should help towards GA:

Should mention U.S. in the lead to provide a global context. Also in the lead I would clarify it was the filling of the reservoir (Lake XXX) after the completion of construction on the dam that submerged the falls, otherwise one might think the dam was built over the falls. I would add some geologic history to provide breadth and context of how the rapids were formed with links to the Columbia River Basalt Group, and there should be a link somewhere to the Columbia River Gorge. The bulleted list should be converted to prose. Treaty quote is unsourced, all quotes need a source at the end of the quote. The last sentence of the article looks more like advertising than encyclopedic content and should be removed. Footnote #7 needs to be expanded to a full citation.

That’s about it for a quick run through. A thorough copy edit is always a good idea before GA nomination. Great job improving a key cultural place in the NW’s history. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some issues

I'm trying to work out some details on the rapids below Celilo Falls for addition to this page and will try to add stuff as I can. But looking at the text I see some issues right away. First, the claim that there is a drop of 83 feet over a half mile can't be right. I see it referenced to the World Waterfalls Database, which does indeed say just this. But every other source I have disagrees. The 83 foot drop should be for the entire stretch of rapids below Celilo Falls, which is on the order of 20-30 miles long, not a half mile. The text says the total rapids was 11 miles long. My understanding is that it was more, but I'll check. Also, the info on the rapids below the falls is a bit confusing as currently written. I'll try to rewrite more clearly, although I'm still trying to figure it all out. I'm skeptical about the term Celilo Falls being used for the whole of the rapids -- I can believe someone has used it that way, but it seems odd. The USGS in any case does not include Celilo Falls among the many variants names for the rapids as a whole. Anyway, just a heads up that I may be editing a bit here, and that I'm a little skeptical of the World Waterfalls Database page. Pfly (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Pfly. Fire away. I did some cleanup on the article a couple months ago and have been meaning to do more. The World Waterfalls Database stuff was already here before I came along. I tried to fix some of it but ran into conflicting info myself. I haven't been able to get ahold of K. Barber's book on Celilo Falls -- the library up here in Vancouver BC doesn't have it. But if you can get a copy, I think it would be an authoritative source. A diagram (such as we've been talking about Columbia River would also be very helpful if you find a good source. I am in favor of moving away from the Waterfall database.Northwesterner1 (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I made some changes. The one book referenced seems quite good and covers quite a lot, so I just used it for now. It is in general agreement with other books as well as the USGS GNIS. I'll try to bring in a couple other sources to either add to or expand a few points. I'm sure improvements can be made, and perhaps my additions are choppy. Hopefully it isn't contradictory at least. Anyway, will try to keep poking -- and will try to make a little map if I can. Pfly (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Great additions, Pfly. I reorganized a bit. The numbers don't seem to add up though. We have the Long Narrows located 10 miles below Celilo and 3 miles long. Then we have the Dalles Rapids "immediately below" and 1.5 miles long. The total length would seem to be 15 miles or so, which doesn't add up to a series of cascades and rapids 30 miles long.Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yea, something isn't quite right. A map in another book shows another rapids after the Big Dalles, called "Three Mile Rapids". The book I cited didn't mention it, other than a vague something about more obstacles and "Gibraltar" or "Dalles Rock", near the present day city The Dalles. Still trying to figure it out, comparing a few more good sources on it, etc. But perhaps not today. Pfly (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
And actually, the USGS page, {USGS GNIS: The Dalles (historical), says 12 miles long and 81 foot drop. Hmm. Pfly (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format

I think the first thing one should see is an image and not the black video screen. Can we move one of the images up and the video lower down? Katr67 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do for now. I'll also look for another image. I get weary of the dipnet fishing image as it is used so often across other articles on WP:ORE.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Don't have time to go through all this right now, but this seems an excellent source for detailed info about the various rapids and falls around The Dalles and Celilo: Lewis and Clark: Leaving the Gorge, also the following two pages ("continue"). Some particular maps/photos of note: The Dalles, Three Mile Rapids, The Dalles to Three Mile Rapids, The Dalles, 1858, Photo of Five Mile Rapids aka The Dalles. I'm posting these here to remind myself if nothing else. Pfly (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This one too: The Evolving Landscape of the Columbia River Gorge. Pfly (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aerial photos?

Are there any aerial good photos of the falls from before the flooding? I'd love to see exactly where it was, its layout, etc. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I'm of the school of thought that infoboxes are not always necessary in articles. In this case, I feel the addition of the infobox detracts from the article by (a) creating white space in the lead section, and more importantly, (b) putting the emphasis on Celilo Falls as a waterfall rather than as a tribal fishing and trading site. The primary encyclopedic value of Celilo Falls is its status as the oldest continuously inhabited community in North America, not its status as the 6th largest (former) waterfall in the world. For me, the article has more in common with, say, Bridge of the Gods or Kettle Falls or Rattlesnake Mountain than it does with Niagara Falls. The infobox puts an emphasis on flow rate (which was highly variable) and ranking among other waterfalls (6th largest in the world) that takes something away from the main point of the article. Moreover, I don't feel it adds any useful information. The coordinates and photo can be used outside the infobox, and the other information is more appropriately restricted to the geography section at the top of the article. Other thoughts on the infobox? Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's too prominent as it stands. Rather than remove it, what about demoting it out of the introduction, under "Geography" instead (where this sort of content is more relevant). I'd also suggest keeping the photo in the introduction, just as a good orienting illustration, and removing it or finding some other smaller illustration for the infobox. --ScottMainwaring (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)