# Talk:Celilo Falls

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

celilo salmon poster  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteforsyth (talk • contribs) 03:45, 12 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)

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)

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)

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)

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, {U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: The Dalles (historical), says 12 miles long and 81 foot drop. Hmm. Pfly (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)
I agree too -- removing the infobox (or deprecating it as Scott suggests) would be an improvement. -Pete (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
As part of an attempt to address the GA concerns, I have removed the infobox for now, as a way to refocus the article on the "tribal fishing area" rather than the waterfall itself, which is rather more difficult to define. See my comments below. Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a very interesting article--I recall reading an article about the impending completion of The Dalles Dam in one of my father's old Popular Mechanics magazine in the early 1960s when I was 5 or 6.  The article even had pictures of the fishing platforms with the caption:  The Dalles Dam will soon bury these platforms forever.  
I'm an electrical engineer (retired after 30+ years with Alcoa), and I consider it usually a good thing to generate hydroelectricity.  I now find myself wondering whether it was really necessary to bury Celilo Falls for the sake of Seattle, Portland, Hanford, Los Angeles (through the DC Intertie), and the aluminum plants. 
What's bothering me in the article is the caption describing orientation of the color picture of the falls at the top of the article.  The river is descending as it flows westward, so it would be implied that the view of the falls and platforms is looking to the east, as captioned. 
However, in the background, the through truss spans of the Oregon Trunk Line rail bridge--which are known to be on the south/Oregon side of the crossing--are to image left.  This would imply that we are looking to the west.  
From what I can tell, the river appears to have made a bend to its left in excess of 90 degrees before plunging over the falls, and then had to turn back to its right by about the same amount to continue flowing downstream.  Is that how it used to flow before the falls were drowned?
NW and Pete--when you see this entry, please don't think I'm being critical of your work.  
Call me Mikey.  
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.110.250.86 (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC) 

I found a map of fishing sites at the falls, here. That photo's description page says it was taken at the "Cul-De-Sac of Celilo Falls". The fishing site map doesn't show Cul-De-Sac, but it could be near one of the upriver sites such as "sound of the falls" or "gaffing place". Given the complex form of the rapids and falls over quite a stretch of river length, the view in the photo could be westward, downriver, yet still have that sense of looking "up the rapids". But I don't know for sure. The caption in the article says the view is to the east, but I think that used to just say Cul-De-Sac and was changed at some point. Maybe it is wrong? Pfly (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm the one that put "east" in the caption (and "west" in another caption). I probably assumed it was east because the view looks to be upriver, but I agree that the bridge is perplexing. I took "cul-de-sac" out of the caption because I couldn't verify it when I was trying to beef up this article and source it. I'm removing east and west too until somebody can figure this out. That's an awesome map Pfly -- can we get that information into the article? Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Celilo Falls. 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/20080209225523/http://www.critfc.org:80/text/yaktreaty.html to http://www.critfc.org/text/yaktreaty.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.warmsprings.com/Warmsprings/Tribal_Community/History__Culture/Treaty__Documents/Treaty_of_1855.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226134500/http://www.umatilla.nsn.us:80/treaty.html to http://www.umatilla.nsn.us/treaty.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515145832/http://www.critfc.org/wana/legacy.html to http://www.critfc.org/wana/legacy.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121013604/http://www.historycooperative.org:80/journals/ohq/105.2/fisher.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/105.2/fisher.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612213810/http://www.historycooperative.org:80/journals/ohq/108.4/fredlund.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/108.4/fredlund.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202182940/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/108.4/editor.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/108.4/editor.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 13:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Celilo Falls. 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/20080215200136/http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/celilo.htm to http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/celilo.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.critfc.org/text/yaktreaty.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.umatilla.nsn.us/treaty.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.salmonnation.com/essays/recalling_celilo.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/105.2/fisher.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/108.4/fredlund.html
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) 22:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Celilo Falls. 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/20070927093831/http://www.worldwaterfalldatabase.com/database.php?s=N&t=W&orderby=avevolume&sortLimit=5000 to http://www.worldwaterfalldatabase.com/database.php?s=N&t=W&orderby=avevolume&sortLimit=5000
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) 03:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Celilo Falls/GA1 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 8 § Celilo Falls/GA1 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Regards, SONIC678 01:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I was surprised to hear this name pronounced, because it's not pronounced the way I expected based on the spelling. Someone should definitely add pronunciation guidance to this article! Charolastra charolo (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)