Talk:Kootenay River

Comment on my posting of this: if anyone has any questions or wants to debate any issues relating to Oregon Country/Columbia District/Pacific Northwest history/historical geography, please feel free to drop by the forum and start a thread/topic, or just butt in at yer leisure.Skookum1 05:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

In the 1970s, it was proposed that the Kootenay River be diverted into the Columbia River (the two rivers are separated by a distance of no more than one mile in the Rocky Mountain Trench in southeastern British Columbia). This would allow for the generation of increased hydroelectric power. The proposal was strongly opposed by both environmentalists as well as local residents.

It wasn't just the 1970s; this was a critical point in the deliberations/negotiations over the

I'm back, and looked at that again, came here to comment, realize I already had. The diversion proposal was the original pre-Treaty scheme advanced by the USACE; no British Columbia politician in their right mind would have supported it; certainly not the NDP 1972-75, and WAC Bennett had fought hard for the Two Rivers Policy - the meaning being htat hte Columbia and Kootenay would be kept as separate rivers, not merged into one, and while the

MiniWac regime from 1975 onwards were very radical in a lot of policy changes, the Two Rivers Policy was Bill Bennett's inheritance from his father; I can't see him proposing dropping it. Who proposed this, in what year? I don't remember the media mileage on it, but 'struth I was out of the province in Europe and California in 1975-76 and 1977 respectively, os may have missed it. But I don't miss much. Either this information is not dated correctly, and the 1950s are meant, or some fringe engineering proposal that never made it to the govt planning stage.Skookum1 (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I know nothiing about this matter. sfs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.183 (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That surprises me; you're more of a heavy industry;engineering/mining type? i.e. than hydro and/or old era politics (often there wasn't a diference, as with highways....well, anything in BC is political no? Apparently neither of us are old enough to remember the Two Rivers Policy as current affairs; it had to do with WAC's threat to withdraw from Canada if he didn't get his way on the Columbia River Treaty; I don't fully understand it, in some references it seems to be about tying the Peace proejct into the treatyff - as compensation for not allowing the US to dam the Columbia higher, i.e. for more power; I thought always the reference meant to keeping the Columbia and Kootenay as two rivers, rateh than one; or it means the Columbia and the Peace; was hoping you'd know....Skookum1 (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been making maps of tributaries of the Columbia River, like

What I actually meant is the cumulative drop from source to mouth, the Kootenay's about 2000 m from the Beaverfoots to the Columbia, the Columbia's about 600m from Columbia Lake to the Pacific. But apparently I didn't consider that the Kootenay passes so close to Columbia Lake, and yet the elevation difference is only 3m or so. However, at Columbia Lake the Columbia starts north and has nearly 800km to go before it reaches the Kootenay, and at Canal Flats te Kootenay has already flowed about 100km, and has about 680 km left to run, so the riverbed slope is ... Oky, I'll not go on, but I will correct anything else in the article that mentions something like that

^talk _contribs 02:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The expansion is very nice but its wording is problematically USian, mostly because the Percells (the range known in Canada as the Purcells) and Selkirks are considered part of the Rockies in US usage, and they are not in the Canadian context; mostly this applies in the Watershed section, though I removed a whole sentence elsewhere. "To the east are the Columbia Mountains" only applies in the Creston region, but the Columbia Mountains also lie to the west there (the Purcells and Selkirks respectively). The range divides the Purcells/Percells from the Cabinets and Salish, that's about all that can be said; and it traverses the Selkirks between Nelson and Castlegar; can't remember what the range grouping to the south of Nelson is - the Nelson Range maybe - to the north I think it's the Kokanee Range, but both are part of the Selkirks....even the phrase in the lead about "the north-central Rocky Mountains" is entirely USian in context (the Rockies extend another ten degrees of latitude to the north; a more acceptable wording might be simply "central"). Please be more mindful of the two-country context of your expansions.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This caught my eye:

Although people of the Salish and Shuswap tribes lived nearby in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille and upper Columbia areas, the Kootenai were the only tribe on the Kootenay itself.

Which is a tribally-generated falsehood. There were definitely wars over the Lower Kootenay in the last few centuries, with battle sites in the Creston and Goat River area (possibly with teh Pend'Oreille, I'd guess) and in more recent times with the Sinixt for the last stretch of the river between Nelson and Castlegar; these wars were not over by the time the fur traders came into the area, though by the start of the silver-mining area smallpox had effectively wiped out the Sinixt presence in Canada, though only a generation before they had been in pitched contest for the lowermost Kootenay River, and in previous gneerations had also been fighting over the Kootenay Lake area; implicitly with other related allies helping out, e.g. the colville, Pend'Oreille, Sanpoil and Okanagan, though prior to the smallpox plagues of the 1780s through 1860s they were very numerous in their own right. The passage given is part of the Ktunaxa propaganda machine; if you were to find Salish-peoples' sources in Colville, or even to read up in various "white man's histories", you'd find that they were NOT the only people "on the Kootenay itself".Skookum1 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard that as a way to refer to Brilliant before....the usual term for Doukhobor settlements is "colony", no matter what size. It strikes me as odd because of teh anti-urban nature of Doukhobour colonization. Did Verigin use the term? It certainly wans't incorporated as a city, or a town or any other municipal status.Skookum1 (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your inline comment, Shannon1, and just noting that there's a model for a Thompson expedition article,

Seemed to me that there were actually fur trappers for the HBC or another Canadian company way before Thompson, who at least entered the region; maybe around the Lake Pend d’Oreille-Clark Fork area or the northern Columbia area, not sure. Also about that one guy, John Palliser, not sure when he came to the region but there is a tributary, Palliser River named after him. But I’m still bent on that there must have been somebody before Mr. Thompson and probably explorers/surveyors/prospectors after him as well. And as for the proposed article on Thompson I note on the section of his article that describes his ‘Columbia travels’ it already describes the explorations in great detail but not detailed enough to warrant a split; further research could be done on that before creating a new article. Shannon^talk _contribs 20:56, 15

Oh yeah, there's lots to be done and researched to make such an article, it's why "we" have avoided it so far....; if you're interested in available groundwork drop by User talk:Pfly who has a lot of background done; Palliser was west of the line of the Rockies, maybe to Flathead Lake but I'm not sure; as noted above, the first known two, by name (there may have been others) were Lagace and Macdonald, but I'd have to do some digging for their first names; they were North West Company traders; and while all fur company employees had trapping skills, and some forts operated lines in their vicinity, by far the trade was with the Indians, who were the ones largely doing the trapping; I'm just observing the language-usage referring to Thompson or Fraser as "trappers" would sound odd from the Canadian context; and NB the US usage "French fur trappers" is always (west of the Great Lakes anyway) about employees of the British-owned Hudson's Bay Company; they spoke French (as would have MacDonald, who was with Lagace) but they were French by language and culture; some US histories of the Oregon Country even refer to the bulk of HBC employees as French, i.e. not English/British, though they don't say so directly....I won't go into it, it was politicized language in the context of the disputed territory; i.e. not admitting to British presence/control....Skookum1 (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so, yea, I've been noticing the editing going on here, Shannon's tireless work on this and a bunch of other rivers. I almost feel like giving him a barnstar or something, but never gave one before and don't know how. I haven't been reading the pages and edits much though--been busy for a month or two hammering the

French Canadian. Anyway, I'll take a closer look. It is quite possible that other traders/trappers predated the famous and oft-claimed first in a region, like Thompson--but in many cases the historical record is patchy at best. A lot of these "lower rank" traders/trappers left little historical documentation. Also, for areas like Clark Fork, Lewis and Clark were there before Thompson, and fur traders/trappers followed their lead very quickly--although I'm not sure if they "quickly" got to the Clark Fork area. I also vaguely recollect reading about HBC forays into what's now southwest Alberta and northwest Montana--east of the Continental Divide, in the general area east of Glacier National Park, I think. Even if so, I'm not quite clear on what this has to do with the Kootenay River, which is west of the Divide (and if you've been to Glacier NP you'll know is it a most imposing Divide!). Pfly (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I know I saw somewhere that there were fur trappers (Not traders) that came into the Kootenay River area earlier; or some other obscure explorer or someone wandering, or .. ahem: The reason I brought up John Palliser was because in the book of his records, he describes with some substantiality the Ktunaxa (he calls them Kootenai or Kootenay, which one I forgot). However I failed to pay attention to the dates; I'll have to look for that book again. And yeah, 'French Canadian' was the term that I was thinking about but never got around to fixing the article. I'd prefer using pronoun 'she' to refer to myself. although I wouldn't say my gender Shannon^talk _contribs 00:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, concerning the Snake River; it passed GA a few days ago, although with the slightly untidy state of the article I don't think I can throw it for FA, which was my eventual goal. Shannon^talk _contribs 01:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence left me wondering: The Kootenay is one of the only major rivers in North America that begin in one country, cross into another, and return to the first. I can think of a number of rivers that flow from Canada into the US and back to Canada, or vice versa. The

Kettle River! And it crosses the boundary THREE TIMES! I wonder how I couldn't think of it … but there are no more rivers that do - right? (I might be wrong; there might be some obscure stream somewhere that meanders right along the US-Canada boundary and crosses the line three hundred times.) Just kidding; apparently the

Milk River (Montana-Alberta) also does. And then there is this tributary of the North Fork Flathead River which I didn't have the patience to boot up ACME mapper to find the name of; that also crosses the border three times. And another tributary of the Red River of the North that starts in Canada, enters the USA, and via the Red, flows back into Canada; the Souris River also crosses the border twice, starting in Saskatchewan, ending in Manitoba… I guess that kind of invalidates the point of saying that the Kootenay is one of the "only major rivers" that crosses the boundary more than once! Anyway, the claim"one of the only major rivers" came from the old version of the article - and it was in the lead, so it somehow stayed… Shannon^talk _contribs 01:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmph, maybe a better iteration of the phrase: "The Ktunaxa were the first tribe west of the Rockies to capture and use feral European-introduced horses for their own use". But the Shoshone and Blackfeet and other Plains tribes, the way they got horses was through contact with Europeans - I'm not sure where … well anyway... Shannon^talk _contribs 23:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the history and ethnography in here is more extensive now than in other related articles, e.g.

uh; actually much controversy has ensued from my editing on the Kootenay River article, as seen on this talk page; apparently I have inadverdently put a lot of somewhat irrelevant information while trying to add content Oops, seems like I got caught up by some of the points on the Columbia River talk page, but anyways: Looking at many other GA or FA river articles (ALWAYS MY ROLE MODELS)- especially those concerning the smaller streams and rivers (there has been a lot of testing the 'article minimum length limit' for river GA's lately) - I see that not all the information has to exactly relate to the river, especially in the History and Geology sections. Giving a description of the more general area (i.e. blurring the watershed line) would help readers' understanding, in my opinion. Again, it might not, maybe it adds to the confusion, but who knows. And I agree about creating a separate page concerning Doukhobor settlement in BC; it's a very far reaching and interesting topic; I agree on the Silvery Slocan article as well. (Oh boy, took me a long time to figure the name of the silver rush.) Besides, it says so on the Kootenays article that the region can be defined by the Kootenay river's catchment…urp Shannon^talk _contribs 01:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Kootenays article is wrong, then; because the Columbia basin is also included re the West Kootenay and the East Kootenay; and of course the term "the Kootenays" doesn't include the US stretch of the river; and the somewhat archaic term "North Kootenay(s)} referred to Revelstoke and the Big Bend. which is Columbia River-only. The "definite definition" of "the Kootenays" is the Kootenay Land District, which is literally defined by being the basin of the Columbia in Canada exclusive of the Okanagan and Kettle basins. As per the name "Silvery Slocan", it also refers to the region as well as the period, but can be used as as "period" title IMO. It tends not to include locations from Winlaw and Lemon Creek southwards; it's really from Slocan City northwards and includes places like Sandon which are not in the Slocan Valley as such....Skookum1 (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Kootenay River/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 22:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(beginning review)

Lead

• "... is a major river in southeastern British Columbia, Canada and the northern parts of the U.S. states of Montana and Idaho. It is one of the uppermost major tributaries of the Columbia River, and the largest North American river that empties into the Pacific Ocean. The Kootenay River stretches 781 kilometres (485 mi) through the central Rocky Mountains in a region known as the Kootenays."

This part seems out of sequence to me, as it ends with the Kootenays, which are part of Canada. Seems like the description should follow the river's course.

Names

• I am left confused over whether you are referring to Canada or the Unitied States. For example, which Native Americans are meant?
• Too many short paragraphs in this section. The prose does not flow.
• "Thompson confused the Columbia to be the Kootenay" - not well worded
• "in Canada, where two-thirds of its length" - going by the map, that doesn't seem to be true.

Course

• Same complaint about too many short paragraphs.

Watershed

• Repetition: " Many other tributaries join" followed by "Many other river basins border"
• "the Bow River and Oldman River take rise." - is that common river terminology?
• "The underlying rock is generally stable and contains more outcroppings of metamorphic and igneous rock as one progresses westwards." - do you mean "additional outcroppings" or "increasing number of outcroppings?
• " The glacier that formed Kootenay Lake caused the river to back up into an enormous body of water that stretched all the way to Libby, Montana, near where the Libby Dam now stands, and possibly even connected to Lake Pend Oreille," - so the glacier ... possibly even connected to Lake Pen Oreille?

Geology

• "heavily connected to the geology of the Columbia, Selkirk and Rocky Mountains" - would "strongly connected" or "deeply connected" be ok? Somehow "heavily connected doesn't sound right.
• " heavily shaped the peaks and valleys one sees today" - is this the right use of "heavily"?

First inhabitants

• "The first peoples of the Kootenay River valley were the Ktunaxa people (often referred to as Kootenai) from whom the river's name derives from." - repeat "from". Also, would it be more accurate to say "for whom the river was named"? - since they did not name the river after themselves, others did.
• "In some written records from the early 19th century, also by the French" have the French been mentioned in this section? Why "also"?
• Shuswap needs disambiguation
• What about the
  Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation
  ? Do they have a role?
• I don't like the way the pullquote messes with the page format. Can you move the pics etc around so that doesn't happen?

Exploration

• "where he established
  Clark Fork
  " - would it be correct to add "respectively"?

Doukhobor settlement

• "eventually brought down the flourishing empire" - is this POV?
• This section, as interesting as it is, may become slightly off topic.

Ecology

• Alpine needs disambiguation
• This section is massively overlinked, per
  WP:Overlinking
  that common words a reader of English is expected to know should not be linked
• By the way, black bear, buffalo, David Thompson, Goat River, homestead, watershed, and White River need disambiguation also.

Economy

• Much over wikilinking.

General comments

• The prose size of this article is very long "76 kilobytes long". I think some attempt should be made to cut down the size and perhaps spin off daughter article.
• File:Pacific Northwest River System.png has details that are too small to be of any use.

(I am wearing out, but will add more as necessary.)

Xtzou (Talk) 18:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comments, I have transferred the blockquote in ‘First inhabitants’ into prose, and cropped the PNW dams map to as to emphasize the Kootenay River basin. Shannon^talk _contribs 00:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Give me a chance to look at it tomorrow. In general, it is a fine article. Xtzou (Talk) 01:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment

• I have made some cosmetic changes which I hope you agree with. I also tried to reference the author's name in the footnotes. You are, of course, free to revert anything you don't agree with. (Mostly, I felt the list of parks should be alphabetized and presented as a list. Perhaps a table, but I don't know how to do that.) The references should have more clarification and systematization. It is a fine article from my point of view. Very interesting and thorough. Xtzou (Talk) 19:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clearly written; grammatically correct

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with basic MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Sets the context

   B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   :

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

A wonderful article. Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 19:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph the last sentence states: "The Kootenay River stretches 781 kilometres (485 mi) through the central Rocky Mountains in a region known as the Kootenays." Locally, however, you will find that Kootenay is the proper name for the whole are and is thus not pluralized. Proper usage would be East Kootenay and West Kootenay but together it is simpley the Kootenay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.63.188 (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it's just "Kootenay", as "the" name, it's "the Kootenay", e.g. you don't go to Kootenay, or to Kootenays, you go to the Kootenay, and to the Kootenays; so if you're going to insist on what you think is the only correct term (it's not), you could at least get the usage right ;- The plural has been around long than you've been alive, let me assure you of that; the context is the East and West Kootenay when referred to collectively; plus the Arrow Lakes and, often in the past, Revelstoke (the "North Kootenay", including Arrowhead and Trout Lake etc.), and the Columbia Valley; it's plural because there's two of them, not one valley (because of the "other" valley in the US linking them). "To Kootenay" would be like in the context of a town - namely what has since been renamed

West Kootenay articles, as they're really very distinct regions; the issue is confused nowadays by the current government's creation of the Central Kootenay RD, and the coining of that once-unheard usage (Nelson etc have always been "West Kootenay"). "The Kootenays" is the most widespread common usage; look up any newspaper in the area and see what they use.Skookum1 (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The Kootenay River stretches 781 kilometres (485 mi) through the central Rocky Mountains in a region known as the Kootenays.

to fill in the river's presence in Montana and Idaho; not by county I think, maybe by National Forest/Park - or would Bonner's Ferry and Libby have a name for themselves, collectively; I doubt you'd hear/see "this is the Kootenais" but maybe....just think there should be something there because "the Kootenays" (or "the Kootenay", old-style) is I think purely a Canadian usage; I think whatever the suitable American parallel name is, if any, should be there.Skookum1 (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any US equivalent name to the Kootenays (I've always thought of that name as plural for some unknown reason). There's the Kootenai National Forest, although that doesn't seem quite right--it would not technically include Bonners Ferry and Libby, for example. Pfly (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "mostly in a Canadian region known as the Kootenays" would suffice? Shannon^talk _contribs 18:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more like "a region known in Canada as the Kootenays. The US portion of the river traverses the Kootenai National Forest and the Cabinet-Salish National Wilderness" (or whatever it's called). And it's actually a good portion of the river that's in the US; the longest single length in Canada is the distance from source to the US border; the actual river footage of the lower portion, between the border south of Creston to Kootenay Lake, then from the outlet of that lake's West Arm to Castlegar, is actually quite small. Again, makes me wonder what newspaper and/or travel/recreation writers use to refer to the Kootenai River region; maybe there's a colloquial name, though not "the Kootenays" (esp .because they have only one).Skookum1 (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We road tripped through the region a couple years ago, to Glacier National Park via Sandpoint and Libby. Made a point to stop at Kootenai Falls. We still have two of the travel guides we used: the Moon Handbooks guides to Idaho and Montana. The Idaho guide predictably refers to the region as "The Panhandle", which it subdivides into several areas including Coeur d'Alene,

Silver Valley

, Sandpoint, etc. The section about the Kootenai River portion of Idaho is simply titled "North to Canada". No general term for the region is given. Meanwhile, the Montana book refers to its part of the region as "Missoula and Northwestern Montana", which it subdivides into things like the Bitterroot Valley, Missoula, Mission Valley, "North of Flathead Lake" (Kalispell, Hungry Horse, etc), and so on. For our Kootenai area the book uses the section title "The Northwestern Corner". The book pays very little attention to this "Northwestern Corner". Our drive from Sandpoint to Libby and on to Kalispell was almost eerie--it took a long time, the land felt vast but nearly unpopulated. We didn't go via Bonners Ferry, which I guess is basically tied with Libby as the largest town on US part of the Kootenai River (where "large" means 2,500 for Bonners Ferry and Libby's 2,600 or so). I doubt Bonners Ferry attracts a lot of tourists, but it probably gets more than Libby, known infamously for its criminal corporation asbestos Superfund mess.

Anyway, my impression is that the Kootenai River in the US does not define a region very much. Rather it flows through a few different regions which are more strongly connected to other areas. The Libby area seems more linked to the towns of the Rocky Mountain Trench north of Flathead Lake (Kalispell, Whitefish, etc) than to Bonners Ferry. The Rocky Mountain Trench serves as a corridor linking a number of towns, from areas far north in British Columbia to Flathead Lake and on south through Missoula into the Bitterroot Valley. Meanwhile, Bonners Ferry is in the Purcell Trench (a page that needs making), a broad flat corridor running from Coeur d'Alene north through Lake Pend Oreille to the Kootenay River at Bonners Ferry and north into Canada, apparently almost all the way to Golden. These north-south trenchs seem much more developed and unified as "regions" than the southern east-west segment of the Kootenai River. We drove along a portion of the river there, and there's nothing but forests and rugged terrain. The only time we saw other people was at Kootenai Falls. I suppose one could refer to the Kootenai region, or the Kootenai National Forest region (I can't recall hearing the term used without the "national forest" bit), or maybe the Purcells, although usually that term refers to the Canadian Purcells. Pfly (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout "northwestern Montana and the northernmost

Kootenay, British Columbia (Fisherville/Wild Horse Creek), which was the only major non-native settlement in the region in the 1860s (such as it was) other tahn the Big Bend mining towns a couple of years later. The settlement of Kootenay takes its name from the river, as do the Kootenay Ranges of the Rockies, where the river rises, and it is named for the Ktunaxa/Kutenai people....BTW the Rocky Mountain Trench is only a corridor for planes; there's no road connection between Mica/Boat Encampment and Valemont, nor am I sure there ever was, and there's none, other than mining/logging roads and a bit of the John Hart Highway, in the Rocky Mountain Trench as it continues north from where the Fraser leaves it east of Prince George....th Purcell Trench yeah needs an article, and it does go to teh upper Columbia, via Duncan Lake and Beaver Pass, it's the division line between the Selkirks and Purcells, also; read this re the thing-I'd-never-heard-before that Kootenay Lake vessels also traversed Duncan Lake's 30 miles for a while (now impossible due to Duncan Dam). Skookum1 (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Yea, I realized as I wrote that the Rocky Mtn Trench is hardly a transportation corridor along its entire length, especially in the north. The southern end though, from the Bitterroot Valley to north of Flathead Lake, and perhaps north to Cranbrook, even the Windemere area and north to Golden, seems like a transportation and settlement corridor (at least by the standards of the region). True enough, the "corridor" aspect doesn't hold so well farther north, although after the gap near the Big Bend of the Columbia area the "corridor" picks up again, from Valemount north to somewhere around the "Big Bend" of the Fraser, at least (although I drove a portion of this and man, was it the middle of nowhere). But yes, I didn't mean to suggest the entire trench had a regional unity--just that the southern part from Cranbrook or so to Flathead Lake, Missoula, and the Bitterroot Valley seems to be a relatively cohesive region--especially between the Kalispell and Missoula areas, including the wide fertile farmland plains of the Flathead Reservation south of Flathead Lake (a surprinsgly beautiful area, with roadsigns in English and Flathead (complete with the odder sort of Salishan transcriptions--letters in super- and subscript, and various IPA-like characters. Every little stream bridged by the road had a little sign IDing the stream in English and some kind of Salish, I think). The Purcell Trench is similar. The northern end is occupied by Kootenay Lake and Duncan Lake (not sure whether this helps unify or separate the people of the Purcell Trench. But south of Creston clear to Sandpoint the landscape of the Purcell Trench is striking. At least I was struck driving through it--the valley's floor is rather broad, flat, and fertile, and supports a largely rural population--few in asbolute numbers, but for the general region, a population center! High mountains rise up dramatically on either side of the Purcell Trench. Plus, the Purcell Trench continues south to Coeur d'Alene and beyond. Unlike most of the other towns in the "Kootenai" region, Coeur d'Alene is the Big City--although of course it is the metaphorical eastern anchor of the Spokane metro area.

Anyway, I see no problem with "northwestern Montana and the northernmost

Idaho Panhandle", as long as it is terse enough for the context. Pfly (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This is not a demand to change the name of the article or anything like that. But I was wondering why the article is called "Kootenay River" instead of "Kootenai River". Is it because the source of the river is located in Canada, where it's called Kootenay? -Reelcheeper (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also because the majority of its length, and its outlet, is in Canada. The reverse situation applies to the Okanogan River, the bulk of which, and its outlet, is in the United States (Canadian spelling is "Okanagan").Skookum1 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because English wikipedia isn't specific to a single country, and the name of the river changes as it crosses the border, it's incorrect to refer to the river as "Kootenai" in Canada and "Kootenay" in the US. I've modified the name of the river in the few spots it's referred to solely in the US. Most of the river as a whole is in Canada, so I've left the name "Kootenay" when referring to the entire river. This should keep all parties satisfied without having to create a redundant second article. I've added this to the disclaimer and some more information in the naming section. Dswdon 20:17, 21 Nov 2021 (MST)