Talk:Paisley Caves

Oregon Mid‑importance

	Oregon portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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).

Archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Caves

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caves, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of caving and cave articles 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.CavesWikipedia:WikiProject CavesTemplate:WikiProject CavesCaves articles

National Register of Historic Places Mid‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 11 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isaacsj3, Chloemors (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Beck Woollen, MJ Fielder-Jellsey. Along the Klamath River? Not by a long, long shot. All the water in that area is landlocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.83.4 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORE[edit]

Didn't know if it was fair to put {{Template:WikiProject Oregon|WikiProject Oregon}} on it or not! — Martha (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. —EncMstr 00:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy you ARE fast! As you'll see, I didn't do it "right" at first - am still not sure if leaving the "stub" thing there too isn't redundant but actually it says more than the template does, so I did. — Martha (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distance from Eugene?[edit]

Yay for starting this article Martha! So was it the NY Times that stated the distance from Eugene? That might be helpful if you're not from 'round here, y'all, (to paraphrase a small-town sheriff of my acquaintance) but surely we could leave that part out, since with clickable links, the curious can easily find out more about the location.* Associating the area around Abert Rim with Eugene even in terms of distance seems odd. Maybe its mentioned because the researchers are from the UO? Perhaps it would suffice to say that it is in Eastern Oregon, or if we can't agree that Lake County is in Eastern Oregon, just say the caves are in Lake County. Progressively zooming in on a map that only labels the largest cities (i.e. ones people might have heard of), we have Medford (slightly closer than Eugene and more regionally compatible, perhaps?), then zooming in closer we have Bend, K Falls and Lakeview. Suggestions?

*I was wrong about this being in the archaeological district (wrong side of Abert Lake). Fivemile Point is in GNIS (check it in GoogleMaps on the terrain setting--pretty cool!), so would there be any problem with putting those coords in, in terms of it being a protected archaeological site, since it's not the exact location? Katr67 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see this. Obviously I don't think there's anything wrong with publishing the location. It was a bit of a hassle to figure out.

As far as encouraging traipsing through the caves, well that can go either way: if there's a whole bunch of people camped out interested, perhaps they'll discourage damage and looting. On the other hand, it's been 70+ years since it was first documented as having prehistoric human evidence. Given the remoteness of the location, I don't foresee too many evil-doers will bother traveling there. Besides, BLM enforcement and federal law apply. —EncMstr 02:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I was busy writing the above, you were simply posting the coords. :) Yeah, I think it's probably OK too. I remember reading some horror stories in my archaeology class about looters, but I don't think bones, seeds and fossilized crap interest those folks so much... Katr67 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of horror stories, there was a great story in the Oregonian (and by "great" I mean "tragic") about an Oregonian looter...I think the site he looted was in Nevada, but it's conceivable it was Fort Rock Cave or even Paisley. Ring any bells for anyone? I don't know what terms to search on to find this bad, bad dude. -Pete (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me shine a flashlight under my chin while we sit around the campfire. .... And it still goes thump, thump, thump, thump every time the wind blows....

How about some more details? What was looted? When? What happened to him? When was it printed? —EncMstr 05:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's got my golden arm!?!? Katr67 (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I looked a bit for the looter but w no success)
Back to Katr's question that started this thread, of why state the distance from Eugene - maybe it has relevance in the NYTimes article because the expedition that found the evidence was from U. of O. (in Eugene) (but maybe that doesn't justify saying it here)? I'd have to go back and look, but I'm gettin' tired! so I leave it to you other sleuths. Peter told me I should start the article and I "might be surprised" at what happened - he was so right that I wonder if he pointed youse other guys at it! -?- or did you just find it, because Oregon stuff's Your Business? Best, Martha (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after suggesting you create a stub, I naturally watchlisted the article. When it appeared, I did some easy additions. Of course everyone at WP:ORE knew about it.

I just now advertised for input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology‎ and Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, so maybe some depth to the article will be forthcoming. —EncMstr 07:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! An encyclopedia article in the making, right before my eyes! I want to add something about the interpretation of the results being somewhat controversial but have to find that text again in the linked articles. And let's hope for some results from the projects you contacted. — Martha (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I thought I saw something about controversiality, but anything I can find now is too mild for me to insert, seems to fall within the realm of "reasonable caution". — Martha (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty fun to see what happens, huh? I promise you, I did no more nudging than you saw with your own eyes...sometimes stuff just strikes a chord, and people jump right in. It can be tough to predict, though! Articles like Robert B. Pamplin, Jr. and Peter Courtney have been languishing for years, even though they're both pretty well-known folks around here. Go figure! Anyway, glad you made that, and that it's shaping into a decent little article! -Pete (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this need some kind of Infobox?[edit]

Location?

Something more specific? Maybe {{Infobox Cave}}?

I tried looking into templates but got lost in the welter - I mean the wealth! But seems to me there should be something to show WHERE these caves are. — Martha (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added your suggestion, but it doesn't seem to be a 100% fit. Perhaps there's a more pertinent infobox for archaeological sites? —EncMstr 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around pretty hard for a more appropriate template, but didn't come up with anything convincing. There is Template:Infobox archaeological site but it doesn't really seem better to me. I like the feature of {{Infobox Cave}} that lets you say how many entrances, for example. But what's anybody else think? —Martha (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such fun to watch this grow![edit]

Every now and then I check back and see what people have done to this article. It's such fun to see it (still) growing before my eyes! Thanks to all who encouraged me to start it. — Martha (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coprolites[edit]

Were the feces found at the site actually fossilized? If so, how would they have retained any organic material of any kind, much less, DNA? I see a question of accuracy. --Virgil H. Soule (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what a coprolite is. And all the references say that is what was there. —EncMstr (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coprolites aren't actually "fossilized", they're just dessicated, which preserves them, (similar to how you can get DNA from a mummy, I'd guess) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.197.246.30 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such fossils are often terms subfossils. Answer.to.the.rock (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dating[edit]

Quote: "...places these coprolites between 12,750 and 14,290 calendar years before the present, probably..." - does that mean BP? I mean, is it counted backwards from 1950 (when the BP-Range starts as far as I know)? sorry for my english -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 13:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klamath River?[edit]

Speaking of location, isn't a little misleading to put the Klamath River in the mix without a short explanation why? While it's possible that peoples may have wandered up the Klamath to its headwaters and then shifted east across the Sycan flats and the surrounding hills into the headwaters of the Chewaucan and down into the Abert depression, the Klamath is about 100 miles or more to the west. Just sayin', accuracy is accuracy.Euonyman (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Euonyman (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OE source[edit]

https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/paisley_caves/#.WUFcQBiZNo4 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some text[edit]

There was repetition throughout the article, which I started to fix. I placed location information in the top paragraph and removed the reference to the Klamath River (though it is reasonable to think people moved into the area via the Klamath...there are many possible routes!). I changed "fossilized excrement" to subfossil excrement. Answer.to.the.rock (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]