Talk:Glen Canyon Dam

message: This needs text, not just collection of images. I have only vague memories of reading Edward Abbey, and don't think that's a good basis for my writing this.Vicki Rosenzweig 16:39, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs text

message: What's so "radical" about the Sierra Club?  The wikipedia's own article about that group doesn't characterize them in that manner.  There's no reason to paint them with the same broad brush as Earth First! or to revert the deletion of that word.
:I agree that "radical" is unjustified.  So is the removal of all the pro-draining external links.  Such a blatantly POV edit makes me suspicious of the same anon's unsourced assertions about the ecological aspects.  I will remove them unless a citation is provided.  The link about Lake Powell fishing information is in the Lake Powell article and doesn't belong here. JamesMLane 00:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Radical" environmentalists?

message: This page is for display worldwide, and more than half the world uses the metric system. Anyone on that?
:it's in the US, and US articles use the US system just like American English vs. British English. -Violask81976 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric system 

message: I removed the following text from the article:
:which provides more storage capacity than all other storage features of the Colorado River Storage Project combined. 
While technically true, I think this statement is misleading. The CRSP includes only dams on the upper Colorado River, and Glen Canyon is the last dam in the project. In particular, Hoover Dam is not part of the CRSP, and Lake Mead holds more water than Lake Powell. Links:
* http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/crsp.html
* http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/lakefaqs.html
* http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/sites/glencany/glencany.html
--R27182818 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The information about the dam's inclusion within the CSRP, and the purpose of the CSRP, is properly part of its history.  I've moved the reference there, restored the citation that you deleted, and quoted directly from the cited website to give the Bureau of Reclamation's take.  I agree with you that the specific point that Lake Powell stores more water than the rest of the CSRP is immaterial and need not be included.  Just in case someone else comes upon this fact in some other source and comes here for clarification, however, the quotation I've added imparts the key point you mention, that the CSRP applies only to the upper basin. JamesMLane t c 18:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colorado River Storage Project 

message: The extra quote of the Sierra Club leader adds a biased tone to the history section.  I vote to remove it to maintain the balance between the regret of the environmentalists/dam opponents and the satisfaction of the recreationalists/hydroenergists/dam supporters. Saa3567 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't remove valid, properly sourced information just to achieve a spurious "balance".  If you think that there's additional valid, properly sourced information about the pro-dam side's POV that could be added, go ahead and add it.  Note that, under WP:NPOV, we don't adopt opinions about controversial matters, but we report facts about opinions if stated by prominent spokespersons.  JamesMLane t c 23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Bias 

message: I have seen reports that the dams support (physical that is) has been eroded.  From what I heard, the dam was built on a porous stone that has allowed water past the dam.  That should be addressed in the article. Will (Talk - contribs) 17:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Water is actually supposed to seep past the abutments to reduce pressure within the sandstone. It is porous, but the calcium carbonate dissolved in the water is actually filling up the pores within the sandstone as it seeps around the dam. 67.60.15.221 (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the dam's structural integrity 

message: "Design
Structure and storage"
"were used for flood purposes only once in 1983" If I read the text above it states that the following year on august 12th 1984 they had to open the flood gates again.
they are also used for assisting the recovery of the damaged riverine ecosystem 1996 2004 2008 2012
The next paragraph needs to be rewritten the math does not compute
probably originally eight 155,500 horsepower aka 119MW generators totally more or less 930MW
upgraded to 5 * 165MW + 3* 157MW totaling 1296MW  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.171.178 (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  oddities in the text 

message: Good day, over the next couple of days I will be working on the article because I believe it can achieve "Good Article" status. I hope we can achieve this as a team. AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working to give it a GAN 

message: Hey folks, in some research I am doing, Sec of Interior Seaton poured the first concrete June 17, 1960. Can anyone state the reasoning for the June 16 date? Cordially yours, Tom (Cite "Dam Concretre Pour Needs 1,275 Men by Year's End," Arizona Daily Sun, June 17, 1960; "First Concrete Poured at Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona Daily Star, June 18, 1960 RRFWTommartin (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 16 or 17, 1960 

message: I noticed that the conversion template is inaccurate.  Can someone explain why it is not converting 710 feet to 216 meters?  The same thing occurs in the List of tallest dams in the United States article.
Xnatedawgx (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dam height conversion