Talk:Columbia River Treaty

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: British Columbia / History / Geography Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia. This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada. This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada. United States: Washington Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Mid-importance). Oregon Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical). Cascadia This article is part of WikiProject Cascadia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Cascadia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CascadiaWikipedia:WikiProject CascadiaTemplate:WikiProject CascadiaCascadia articles Energy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Could someone give me some advice on adding pictures to this article? I have a number of great pictures that would significantly improve the presentation, but need some guidance on the process to follow. Thanks.

Depends on where the pictures are from. If they're your own, no problem; if they're from another source, depends on what the source is and the copyright situation attached to it. (post was by User:DAR56, id added by User:Skookum1

Here's the code to use to put in a picture:

[[Image:xxx.jpg|thumb|300px|right|This is the caption]]

Wikipedia formatting prefers PNG and certain other formats; JPGs are common but apparently there's a patent issue like there is/was with GIFs; PNGs are better for certain things like maps, also. Anyway, copy-paste that code into the article, putting in whatever your image filename is in place of "xxx.jpg", and save the page; then on the left below the go-search window you'll see "Upload file"; click on that and follow the directions; the best copyright tag to use (they're in a drawbar on the page that opens up) is the one that says "I created this work and release it into the public domain" - that's if it's your own, though.Skookum1 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to edit the first sentence, it needs clarification. The treaty does in fact stipulate the terms of construction and operation of dams in the Upper Columbia basin, but production of the Canadian entitlement occurs in the lower Columbia basin, so it is not accurate to characterize the treaty as involving the upper Columbia basin. I'll kick around some ways to phrase this clearly, and post the edit to the main page in the next couple of days, barring any objections. Comments appreciated. Smithe26 03:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'll have to study up on this, as I haven't examined the treaty in detail; is it in WikiSource or otherwise online? The Canadian treaty dams are clearly in the upper Columbia (Mica, High Arrow, Duncan) and AFAIK are the result of WAC Bennett's insistence on the "Two Rivers Policy" (which meant that the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers would remain separate, rather than one big lake. I think what you're referring to are the "Downstream Benefits" which he secured during his stonewalling for a better deal for BC (Ottawa was prepared to sell us down the river, quite literally....), but I thought that referred to the production of power from Mica, High Arrow (Keenlyside) and Duncan, but I guess, given your comments, also involve American-side production facilities. Bennett's vision was that when the treaty "matured" the downstream benefits, meaning a certain reserve of power, could be used to develop advanced industry in BC; the treaty matured during the NDP era of the 1990s and the NDP sold off the benefits rather than used them for development in BC, i.e. the power continued to be sold south instead of being applied to develop an industrial economy in BC (i.e. more than resource sector, which was Bennett's intention); not blaming this on the NDP; the Miniwac Socreds and the current Campbell regime would have done the same; only Gordon Wilson objected. I'll be back; my library free-time is about to expire and if I don't save this it'll be zipped. Please cite the relevant passages and if it's not the downstream benefits that you're meaning, please explain further. Recommend Paddy Sherman's book Bennett, if you can find a copy, which gets into the Socred finagling/stonewalling on the treaty.....Skookum1 15:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this have the Dams in Canada category? Or not, because it's not about any one dam in particular?Skookum1 17:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see RE