Talk:Mount Shasta, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the priority scale.

[edit] Individual businesses

It is not proper format to list individual businesses under History unless you can provide documented references to their importance in the development of the town. 67.117.25.179 (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on Commerce and tourism section

Suggestion to the anon editor who simply deleted a recent entry - if your interest is in improving the grammar and writing style of any part of Wikipedia, that's what we are all here for! In the future, please don't delete an item that you feel could be improved upon, instead, please do feel free to adjust the grammar and writing style more to your liking! I'm replacing the material with some changes. If you still don't like it, please do improve it, don't delete it! NorCalHistory (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please proof read before you post! When an addition is so poorly written, it should be removed. Put the time into your contribution PRIOR to adding it. Don't expect others to come along afterwards to clean up your entries. Especially, as in your case, we can only guess what it is you are trying to say.

In addition, could you CITE valid references to your edit? Your edit sounds like a promotional piece from a Chamber of Commerce and falls short of the wikipedia goal for useful information. The issue is not whether a person 'likes it or doesn't like it'. The issue is if it is a valuable edit.

If you want to add a new section, you could start a discussion here first and have others help. The 'sand box' is for trail edits. Thank you for understanding. 66.122.185.83 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear anon editor - first, welcome to Wikipedia! If you like it here, and would like to become a regular editor (and please, all points of view are welcome!), perhaps you would like to adopt a Wikipedia name - that's a pretty easy process, and makes conversation about this type of thing a bit easier.

At the risk of maybe explaining something you feel you already know, the standard that we normally adopt here is that if you feel that an entry is not up to your writing standards, you are encouraged to upgrade the writing style and grammar so that it is to your taste and liking. We're all used to that and encourage it! However, I hope you won't mind my saying so, it's not really expected that you will simply delete an entry because you don't like the grammar or writing style! May I ask that you not delete the entry again? Please do fix whatever writing style and grammatical flaws that you see!

Second, if you feel that some part of an entry has insufficient citation, there is a "citation needed" system or "tag" that we typically follow, out of courtesy. That tag allows the original editor to provide back-up information. Finally, if you don't like the citation that is given, again, we welcome your looking for a better citation! Alternatively, I suppose, you could look for counter-citations to disprove the point asserted. Also, you might not be aware that information which is non-controversial and which may be discerned simply by looking at a map (such as that local lakes, mountains and rivers are nearby) do not need citation.

I will cheerfully collaborate with you on grammar, style and adequate citation before I return the material to the article. Of course, if you chose not to respond (or don't respond constructively), I will return the material as well.

So, once again, welcome to Wikipedia, and in my years here, it has been a grand time! Good editing! NorCalHistory (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional thought-perhaps this will help you. If you go, for example, to the San Francisco article, you will find this in the intro section:

"San Francisco is a popular international tourist destination renowned for its steep rolling hills, an eclectic mix of Victorian and modern architecture, and famous landmarks, including the Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz Island, the cable cars, Coit Tower, and Chinatown."

You will also find in that article quite extensive and detailed descriptions of places and things to do that a visitor would find of interest.

If you look around Wikipedia, I think that you will find that a section describing local landmarks and activities is a standard part of city articles. Although you may not recognize this, the San Francisco article is a "Featured article" - that is, one that meets Wikipedia's highest standards.

Again, I hope that this helps! NorCalHistory (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You might also take a look at Chicago, Sacramento, Fresno, Redding, as well as your home town of Chico, California, and literally hundreds of other city articles for similar sections. NorCalHistory (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I put the section back in with some minor changes. In particular, I took out value-judgment words that did sound a bit too promotional. The cite I found is not ideal, but it's from a widely respected internet source for outdoor tourism, and it shows that the activities mentioned in the paragraph are indeed ones that people do. It would be good to find a cite which was more specific about what tourist activities are most popular, and exactly how important tourism is to the town. But it's a start.

As NorCalHistory says, it would be nice if anyone wanting to change this paragraph drastically (or remove it again) first address the issue on the talk page. Non-drastic changes are of course perfectly appropriate without prior discussion. Thanks -- Spireguy (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! The section looks much more thought out. My point is that entries should at least be partially refined BEFORE posting and discussions can happen PRIOR. Thank you for your welcome and your suggestions for editing. I have been constructively editing this and other articles for almost two years and really enjoy being part of the community. 71.148.52.16 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the references (Cites) included in this section clearly are not allowed under WP:V 2.2. Promotional Materials are not allowed. These materials are published by organizations that profess a single point of view, or are paid to promote a single POV. WP:YESPOV These are self published and, in effect, are paid advertisements. They should be removed. If you disagree with this action, then discuss it here. QuinceTupper (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to only some of the cites, not all of them. I would agree that local tourist-board websites are weak citations, but I'm not sure if they need to be removed when what they are citing is not particularly opinionated or controversial. The only claim that I think needs a stronger citation is that the town is a "popular" destination; the other ones are just descriptive. However, maybe that means that fewer citations are necessary anyway. -- Spireguy (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear QuinceTupper (talk) - I see that your user page says that you have created a number of screen names, and that you are a long-time editor. I see that you created your user page and screen name not long before adding this comment (which is your sole activity using this name thus far (except one minor edit)).

As Spireguy mentioned, these are non-controversial claims, and the statements of local governmental and tourism boards as to what tourists do in an area are a perfectly valid source of information. The WP:YESPOV item you refer to doesn't seem apply to citations, but rather to the content of the article itself.

To give you just some of what are likely thousands of similar examples in WP, in the Tourism section of the Chicago article, footnote 24 is a cite to the "self-published" Navy Pier website, as a source for what tourists do at the Navy Pier. Similarly, in the Entertainment section of the St. Louis article, footnotes 12 through 16 are "self-published" websites about activities available to visitors in St. Louis. The article on Chico, California has a number of "self-published" websites used as references relating to things for visitors to do in that city. As I say there are likely thousands of similar references throughout WP.

Where the statement made is controversial, then more rigorous standards apply, but for something as non-controversial as what tourists do when they visit a particular city, these types of citations are univerally viewed as acceptable (when they are even used at all!). NorCalHistory (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also - take a look at the Seattle and San Francisco articles (both FAs). Both articles routinely use the word "popular" in the sense that visitors do or attend the event or site described. Similarly, the Redding, California site (and hundreds of others) uses the word "popular" in the same way. The word "popular" is used in the same sense here, and does not need any special citation. NorCalHistory (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on Climate section

Dear anon editor(s) (IP 69.238.198.131 and 67.117.25.5) - first, welcome to Wikipedia! If you like it here, and would like to become a regular editor (and please, all points of view are welcome!), perhaps you would like to adopt a Wikipedia name - that's a pretty easy process, and makes conversation about this type of thing a bit easier.

In Northern California, a coastal weather pattern is characterized by mild (not hot) summers, cool (not cold) winters, and rain and fog (and little if any snow). A continental weather pattern is charaterized by hot (not mild) summers, cold (not cool) winters, and snow. The reasons are that regions on or near the coast benefit from the moderating effect of the Pacific Ocean. Inland regions do not have this moderating effect, and the highs are higher, and lows are lower, etc.

Please see the following summary of coastal weather from Arcata, California (roughly the same latitude as Mount Shasta):

Arcata's climate is dominated by marine influences associated with Humboldt Bay and the Pacific Ocean. On average, Arcata experiences 40 - 50 inches of rain per year, mostly falling between October and April. Northerly winds keep the springs feeling very cold, and create a coastal upwelling of deep, cold ocean water. This upwelling in turn results in foggy conditions throughout the summer, with high temperatures commonly in the 50's and low 60's. Yet just a few miles inland the temperatures may be up to 50 degrees warmer in the summer and fall. Winter high temperatures average in the low 40's to mid-50's, with lows in the mid-30's to lower 40's. Temperatures rarely dip below 30 °F (−1 °C) in winters, and infrequently climb to the 70's Fahrenheit in late summer and fall.

Weather averages for Arcata, California
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Average high °F	53	54	54	55	57	60	60	61	62	60	57	55	57
Average low °F	42	42	42	44	48	51	52	52	51	48	45	43	47
Precipitation inches	8.6	6.3	5.3	2.5	2.3	0.9	0.1	0.2	0.8	3.5	4.9	6.7	41.9
Average high °C	11	12	12	12	13	15	15	16	16	15	13	12	13
Average low °C	5	5	5	6	8	10	11	11	10	8	7	6	8
Precipitation cm	21	15	13	6	5	2	0	0	1	8	12	17	106
Source: Weatherbase^[1] May 2007

And also see the weather pattern of Crescent City, California (again, roughly the same latitude as Mount Shasta).

As you can see, both Arcata and Crescent City have classic coastal weather patterns - summer highs in the low 60s, winter lows in the 40s, not much snow, lots of rain and fog.

Compare those coastal weather patterns with Mount Shasta:

[I]n the winter, Mount Shasta gets 104" (264 cm) of snowfall despite its low 3,600 ft. (1,097 m) elevation ([1]). ...

Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Monthly Normal and Record High and Low Temperatures
Rec High °F	65	71	80	86	94	98	100	105	103	93	80	72
Norm High °F	44.2	47.6	52.1	59.2	67.3	75.5	83.2	82.6	76	64.4	49.9	43.8
Norm Low °F	26.4	28.7	30.3	33.3	39	44.9	48.9	47.5	42.9	36.6	29.9	25.8
Rec Low °F	-2	1	11	14	21	25	31	34	25	19	9	-5
Precip (in)	7.06	6.45	5.81	2.65	1.87	0.99	0.39	0.43	0.87	2.21	5.08	5.35
Source: USTravelWeather.com [2]

As you can see, Mount Shasta's summer highs are in the 80s (not the coastal 60s), winter lows in the 20s (not the coastal 40s), over 8 feet of snow in the winter (!), and no fog worth noting - a very different weather pattern! In fact, the weather pattern in Mount Shasta is more similar to that in Reno, Nevada (clearly a continental weather pattern) than it is to coastal California.

Further, to state the obvious, Mount Shasta is about 100 miles from the coast, with the Klamath Mountains between Mount Shasta and the coast -- with many miles of terrain over 4000 feet high, reaching to over 9000 feet high just west of Mount Shasta, blocking any coastal effect.

In summary, Mount Shasta is plainly very cut off from the moderating influences of the Pacific Ocean (the defining charateristic of a coastal weather pattern). Instead, it has the hot summers and cold winters of a continental weather pattern.

I won't revert back to continental without giving you an opportunity to respond here explaining how the moderating influence of the Pacific Ocean shows itself in Mount Shasta's weather.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! NorCalHistory (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Some twenty-four hours have passed without comment by the anon editor(s) (IP 69.238.198.131 and 67.117.25.5). I'll give them some additional time before reverting back to "continental." NorCalHistory (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objection ... I'm reverting to the proper continental. Please do not change back to coastal without explaining the reasons here. NorCalHistory (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for making this clear. -- Spireguy (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, the anon editor has weighed in with a citation, which is appreciated---thanks. However I think that Britannica's treatment of the topic (as quoted) may be imprecise or even inaccurate. They characterize all of Northern California as having climate types Cfb or Cfc (Cfb being Maritime Temperate or Marine West Coast) whereas the Köppen climate classification map shows that Mount Shasta is in a region where types Csa, Csb (both Mediterranean) and Dsb (Warm Summer Continental) meet. Certainly the northeastern corner of California is not a Maritime/Coastal climate, so one can't take Britannica's statement about all of No. Cal. without qualification. The issue is where the transition from coastal to continental occurs. The Köppen map seems to show that some transition (from Mediterranean to Continental) occurs around Mount Shasta; it would be nice to see a more precise map, or have some other, more precise citation that addresses the climate variation in the area.

Also note that Britannica's Marine West Coast Climate article characterizes such climates this way:

"mean annual temperatures are usually 7–13 °C (45–55 °F) in lowland areas, the winters are mild, and the summers are relatively moderate, rarely having monthly temperatures above 20 °C (68 °F).

In North and South America, Australia, and New Zealand, north–south mountain ranges backing the west coasts of the landmasses at these latitudes confine the marine west coast climate to relatively narrow coastal strips...."

Clearly the first paragraph is in great contrast to Mount Shasta's actual climate stats, as NorCalHistory has noted. The second paragraph also supports the argument that Mount Shasta is unlikely to truly fall into the Maritime/Coastal classification. So, I think all of this brings the citation currently used into question.

Responses on this talk page would be much appreciated, before more revision of the article. -- Spireguy (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The most recent change by an anon editor is revertable for quite a number of reasons. I don't have time for the next several days to fix this. I'll be able to address this in a couple of days. Anyone able to put their finger on the WP policy about citing another encyclopedia in the interim? NorCalHistory (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR talks about secondary versus tertiary sources, and notes that WP is primarily based on the former. They don't explicitly preclude quoting tertiary sources, like other encyclopedias, as long as they are reliable. But they do note that tertiary sources tend to have a broad approach to a subject---in this case, I would say clearly an overly broad and imprecise approach, as I noted above. -- Spireguy (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am removing the new material posted by the anon editor and placing it here for further discussion for the following reasons:

1) After there has been a request on the talk page that there be no further changes to a portion of text without further discussion on the talk page, it is plainly not appropriate to make changes to the text without further discussion on the talk page. This recent change was not consistent with that standard.
2) The new material appears to be simply a direct lift of the text of EB (with little or no change). As such, it is plainly a copyright violation, and is subject to immediate deletion (WP:COPYVIO). Interestingly, the only substantive change by the anon editor was to change the word "cool" in the EB article (describing marine summers) to the phrase "quite hot" - which of course correctly describes Mt. Shasta summers, but is completely inconsistent with marine summers.
3) The information posted is simply incorrect or at best marginal and misleading.
- First, primary and secondary sources are preferred, and a tertiary source like EB is not preferred where primary and secondary sources are available (WP:PSTS) - here primary and secondary sources are available.
- Second, even based on the text of the tertiary source, Mt. Shasta's climate does not match the description of the "Marine West Coast" climate (see extended discussion above why Mt. Shasta's climate does not meet the definition of "coastal" or "Marine West Coast."
- Third, even based on the text of that tertiary source, Mt. Shasta's climate does not fall within the "Marine West Coast" zone - or is so on the margin of that zone, that it is misleading to include it within that zone (again see discussion above).

There is more to say about this issue, but I will post that additional information shortly (removed material below)

"This area of California lies within a zone that climatologists call Marine West Coast. Winters are raw, overcast, and drizzly with subfreezing temperatures restricted mainly to the mountains, upon which enormous snow accumulations produce local alpine glaciers. Summers, by contrast, are often cloudless and can be quite hot at times. ([3])"

... more coming.NorCalHistory (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear NorCalHistory, could you please provide a source to back up your conclusion that the Mt. Shasta area is a continental climate. I see valid authoritative sources that categorize mountain ranges farther east (Rocky Mountains) as being a continental climate. The snow has less water content and the temperatures are much colder. I have never seen Mt. Shasta classified as continental by any source other than you. Thank you for letting me join your discussion. 67.121.224.74 (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am combining these two sections because they are the same discussion. You should not demand short time frames for the discussions. They can take place over a greater period of time. Be patient. 209.77.230.155 (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am starting this new section since the anon editor has now joined in the discussion.

First, 67.121.224.74, let me welcome you again to WP - it's a grand place, in part because discussions such as this can take place!

Second, the etiquette here is that when text is under discussion on the talk page, it is often removed from the article text itself until "consensus" is reached about what the text will finally say. That bit of etiquette helps prevent what are known as "edit wars" in which versions of the text are altered back and forth without getting anywhere. Would you do us all the courtesy of not addressing this issue in the text of the article (or replacing the removed material) until a consensus is reached here?

Third, let's take a look at the actual text of the EB "United States" article about "Marine West Coast" zone (MWCz) and see if it applies to Mount Shasta:

"[The MWCz] is crammed into a narrow littoral belt to the windward of the Sierra–Cascade summit"

- Well, there's the first problem - "littoral" means "immediately adjacent to a coast." Not by any stretch is Mount Shasta immediately adjacent to the coast. It is some 100 miles inland, and separated by many miles of 4000+ foot mountain ranges from the coast. Here's another site that also emphasizes "The marine west coast climate is found along a relatively narrow strip of coastal ... North America." (see climate discussion.)

- There's also the second problem. Although the phrase "Sierra-Cascade summit" is ambiguous as applied to this part of Northern California, the intent of the language is obviously that significant intervening mountain ranges will cut off the flow of marine air. Here, Mount Shasta is leeward of lots of high mountains (reaching over 9000 feet high just windward of Mount Shasta).

"dominated by mild Pacific air"

- Mount Shasta is plainly not dominated by "mild Pacific air" - as noted repeatedly above, the marine influence does not stretch this far inland - the summers are too hot and the winters too cold, etc.

"Western Washington, Oregon, and northern California lie within a zone that climatologists call Marine West Coast."

- Again, another ambiguous phrase in this general tertiary source. The adjective "western" must apply to all three of the regions noted: "Western Washington," "western Oregon," and "western northern California." For example, eastern parts of all three of those regions are dry desert-like environments - again, plainly not MWCz.

"Winters are raw, overcast, and drizzly ... with subfreezing temperatures restricted mainly to the mountains."

- Winters in Mount Shasta are not "drizzly" - they are snowy with many days of subfreezing low temperatures.

"Summers, by contrast, are brilliantly cloudless, cool, and frequently foggy along the West Coast and somewhat warmer in the inland valleys."

- Again, summers in Mount Shasta are not "cool and frequently foggy." They are hot with no fog worth noting.

Can we agree at this point, that "Marine West Coast zone" is not appropriately applied to Mount Shasta? I'm not wedded to "continental" as a descriptor; I meant the term primarily as a contrast to "coastal" and not in any technical sense. If you (or any other editors) have alternative ways of describing Mount Shasta's climate, please propose them here first, and see if consensus can be reached.

Finally. I do apologize that I'm under some time pressure in RL and won't be able to add more to this discussion today, but I do have more to say about this topic in the days ahead. If you have access to actual secondary sources, such as John Kesseli, "The Climates of California according to the Koppen Classification," Geog. Rev., Vol. 32, pp. 476-480, 1942 that would help move this discussion along. Perhaps the library at CSU Chico has this publication, or can get it?

Again, please do not address this topic in the text of the article until consensus is reached. NorCalHistory (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I can also add the following from the EB Climate article:

"Fog is common in autumn and winter .... These are equable climates with few extremes of temperature. Annual ranges are rather small (10–15 °C or [50–59 °F]), about half those encountered farther to the east in the continental interior at the same latitude. Mean annual temperatures are usually 7–13 °C (45–55 °F) in lowland areas, the winters are mild, and the summers are relatively moderate, rarely having monthly temperatures above 20 °C (68 °F).

Again, this description does not match that of Mount Shasta. NorCalHistory (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There is this imformation as well from Mediterranean climate:

"Areas of high altitude adjacent to locations with Mediterranean climates, such as the "Mesetas" or plateaus of central Spain, may have the cold winters that are characteristic of a continental climate; under Köppen's scheme such places might earn the designation Dsa (at lower latitudes above Csa), Dsb (either at high elevations in the lower latitudes or at lower elevations in the mid-latitudes above Csb) or even Dsc (just below the tree line). An example of a very humid Mediterranean Snow climate Dfsc is the highest summit on Orjen, Zubacki kabao in the subadriatic Dinaric Alps in Montenegro."

Also, hi there, 209.77.230.155, welcome to the conversation. Perhaps you misunderstood my comment - I am asking that this conversation take place over time, since I am only able to add a bit each day. (hmmm, are you the same anon edit as 67.121.224.74 (and the other IPs)), since you all show as logging in from Chico, California?) NorCalHistory (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This has clearly reached the unfortunate status of an edit war. So I'd like to respectfully suggest that we be exceptionally careful about what the climate section says. In particular, I propose that to start with, anything that is not explicitly sourced, from a source that is talking precisely about this city, be taken out, roughly as follows:

Mount Shasta gets more precipitation than the semiarid region to the north: for example, in winter, it gets 104" (264 cm) of snowfall ([4]), while Weed, also at roughly the same elevation of 3,600 ft. (1,097 m), gets only 20" (52.8 cm) ([5]). Winters are generally cool to cold, with many nights below freezing, and summers are hot (highs in the 80s F/30s C), as shown in the following table. This contrasts sharply with the more coastal climate of, for example, Arcata, which has much more moderate highs and lows.

Starting from that version, some of what was originally there could be added back in if carefully cited---e.g. the bit about the dip in the Klamath, etc. Whether the section actually needs an explicit label like "continental" or "Mediterranean" is dubious; however, it such a label is to be put in, it should be explicitly cited from a specific source.

All of the above suggestions come from my interpretation of WP:V and WP:NOR, which I think should be interpreted strictly in such a case, where editors are getting into these kinds of arguments. A lot of what seems to be going back and forth in the reverting and the talk page is irrelevant if those two policies are taken seriously: if there isn't a really definite citation for a claim, take it out, and don't replace it with its opposite unless there is a really definite citation for the opposite.

I won't put the proposed version into the article at this point, preferring comments and discussion. -- Spireguy (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be OK with actually going a step further - I don't see the need to contrast with Arcata. My suggestion is simply to remove all references to this "coastal/continental" topic until substantive research is done in solid secondary sources. If anyone wants to leave in a reference to Arcata or contrast Mount Shasta with a coastal climate, I'm OK with that too! I am removing the copyright violating material that is being disputed, until a consensus is reached. NorCalHistory (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)