Talk:Chinook wind

Archives

Satellite Pics and References Coming Soon

I'll add satellite photos illustrating the coastal Chinook (the sections I've just put in) when I can find them, copyright-free somewhere. Suggestions?

References also forthcoming for the Chinook-Wind First Nations story; the weatherman usage is common enough on the local airwaves to not be able to cite anything other than excerpts from newscasts, or some guy you knew on a pier or a ferry somewhere who used the word. Searching the newspaper archives is an option, but they charge for that these days.

PS I'll admit my style is a bit too casual or chatty (and sometimes verbose) but hopefully it's readable and not outside the desired neutralities of wikification etc. I'm working on writing wikifully more and more as I go on.

Skookum1 04:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Photo revert war

Okay, please stop the revert war on the photos. Since there are two options that are currently being selected, why don't we just have a quick poll as to which one people prefer? Please vote in the support section below your favourite option. -- JamesTeterenko 05:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the quick poll, as it is very clear we are not ready for it as per comments below. -- JamesTeterenko 21:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

CalgaryWikifan and Elpoca both seem to have reverted each other's edits to their own versions. Please note that wikipedia has a Three-revert rule against excessive reverts. The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. Usually, when you can expect that somebody has not changed his or her mind about what should be in the article, you can expect that your revert will cause another revert of the other editor. The strategy to revert until the other one gets bored and goes away is not recommended. Are you satisfied with JamesTeterenko's approach? I'd prefer to hear your opinion before the voting. --Fasten 6:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't want to be difficult, but I have problems with a vote. Because this article is not very popular, it is unlikely that many people would submit a vote. In other words, it is likely that any such vote would basically be a popularity contest between myself and CalgaryWikifan. My preference is to have an impartial mediator decide (with rationale) on which photos (mine, the others, or all) best conform to Wikipedia policy or best improve the article. Unfortunately, this places an unfair burden on the mediator... Elpoca 17:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I guess I jumped the gun on the poll a bit. I didn't realize that a request for mediation had started. I figured it was simple enough to go straight to a poll to get some other people's opinions quickly. Remember that a straw poll is not a binding decision, it is just one mechanism to get people's opinions. I don't believe that it would be a popularity contest. Previous to this conflict, I have not had much contact with either of you. So, that does not effect my personal opinion on the pictures. Whatever pictures end up in the article, maybe we should put ALL of the pictures on a Wikimedia Commons page and link to that page from here. As a side note, please remember that a mediator is not a decision maker. The mediator just helps facilitate the discussion in order to reach consensus. -- JamesTeterenko 19:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I still have reservations about a vote (Wikipedia is not a democracy). Although I also realise that a mediator is not a decision maker -- any other suggestions? ;-) Elpoca

If what you need is a decision maker I can make a decision for you. If you want to vote you can vote. The policy does not prohibit voting it merely states that intelligent arguments are the preferred way to resolve a dispute. If a minority refuses to be bound by the outcome of the vote the vote means very little. That's why I wanted to hear both sides before proceeding with the vote. --Fasten 15:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I am not in favour of a vote. I am, however, happy to accept the decision of a mediator. Elpoca 19:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Full disclosure -- I placed the following message on CalgaryWikifan's talk page (in response to him terming my edits an "ego-trip" on my talk page): Elpoca 21:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a general repository for photos. My photo better illustrates the concept of a chinook "arch"; indeed, the other photos do not show this at all. So, even if I had not put mine in, I still believe yours are inappropriate and should be removed. This is not an "ego-trip"; rather, it is an attempt to make the article more relevant.

I don't have a problem discarding the vote. So, I have actually deleted the voting sections above. Let's have a discussion about it to reach consensus. I should have started this way instead of initiating the vote. I do agree with you that Image:Chinook arch, Calgary, Canada.jpg does a better job conveying a chinook arch than the three current pictures. I am willing to listen other arguments to change my opinion. As for getting other people's opinions, that isn't too hard. We could post a notice on relevant Wikiprojects (e.g. WikiProject Ecology or even the Canadian wikipedians' notice board. There are a lot of people willing to toss in an opinion around here. -- JamesTeterenko 21:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I have posted a notice on the Ecology WikiProject. -- JamesTeterenko 21:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. If the prevailing opinion of a reasonable number of people is that my photo doesn't belong in the article then I will gladly have it removed. So, opinions (and rationale), please! Elpoca 00:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There is always another photo that will be deemed "better" by some, but that does not rationalize simply removing existing photos. If we could do that, then photos in the "Tornado" article could constantly be replaced with "better" photos, and there would be no consistency in the article's photos. I am willing to have all photos, but I definitely am against removing the three perfectly good photos of two people in favor of just one. The other three show different aspects of the Chinook arch and are valid. I already told Elpoca that I have no problem with him/her just adding his/her photo (not replacing older ones), but he/she has to do it him/herself; I will not do it for him/her; I will only keep the original three. Point being that the original problem of removing our photos wasn't in good Wikipedia spirit. So if Elpoca adds his/her photo as the fourth one, then fine. If the admins feel four photos are just too much for the Chinook arch section of the Chinook article, then I will make a separate article for Chinook Arch. CalgaryWikifan 05:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, at no point have you indicated that keeping my photo was acceptable. Secondly, removing the other photos was very much in keeping with the "Wikipedia spirit": my photo better illustrated the article's concepts, hence I replaced the existing photos with it. Again, Wikipedia is not a general repository for photos (perhaps you should read this link carefully). The whole idea of Wikipedia is that articles are improved through incremental changes -- not incremental additions! By your logic, it would also be unacceptable to remove any text. The articles would just keep getting longer and longer, and any irrelevant text could never be discarded. Elpoca 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you had bothered to check your discussion page, you would see in my comment left yesterday, to "simply ADD yours, not OVERWRITE existing ones", which obviously implies acceptance of the photo, while not accepting your "me-first-others-next" attitude. The solution is simple, and I'll spell it out for you, since you don't seem to understand: Simply add your photo, without removing existing photos, and there is no problem. CalgaryWikifan 13:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, CalgaryWikifan added the following to my talk page (please continue the discussion here, rather than continuing to engage in name-calling on my talk page): Elpoca, you are not an authority as to what is worthy and what is not for inclusion in Wikipedia. Hence, the fact that you think you are the final authority shows that you are on an ego-trip. No name-calling here.

Since the photos you seem to hate were included months ago, and yours is the newest addition, please indicate why your photo and only your photo belongs. Your opinion that your photo is "better" is further ego-tripping, and not based in fact. It is no justification whatsoever to just arbitrarily delete photos you did not contribute.

The onus is on YOU, not me, to give justifcation to delete pre-existing photos from this article in the way you wish, and since you can't, it is up to you to ONLY ADD your photo back in to the article yourself, and quit messing with the Chinook article - leave our other photos alone.

To which I must reply: Again, this is not an ego-trip. If another photo is found that better illustrates the article's concepts then I'm happy to have my photo replaced. You, on the other hand, are clearly displaying the very behaviour that you are incorrectly accusing me of! Also, I have given my justification. The older photos poorly illustrated the article's concepts, and should therefore be removed. Elpoca 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. You have already displayed anger at having your photos removed, simply because, in your opinion, your photo is "better" - and so you have repeatedly removed the other photos. So, it seems that even if a newer photo were to overwrite yours, you would still be angry and likely remove the newer photo. This is hypocrisy on your part. CalgaryWikifan 13:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My position has always been both clear and consistent, and I'm getting tired of repeating it... As I have repeatedly written, I'm always in favour of the best material in an article, regardless of its source. Also, and again as I have repeatedly written, I don't believe that articles should be general repositories for users' favourite images (please read: Wikipedia is not a general repository for photos). Both sentiments are very much in alignment with the goals and spirit of Wikipedia. Elpoca 19:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right! Wikipedia isn't a repository for users' favorite photos! Therefore, you won't mind if your too-large photo is not on the Chinook article, despite it being your favorite! Oh wait, this rule applies to OTHER people, not you. How silly of me. I should realize that even though the other photos were posted months before yours, the instant you posted yours, the others immediately became superfluous, worthy only of removal. We don't want those horrible non-Elpoca photos cluttering up Wikipedia! Your judgment alone suffices, and your photos alone are quality enough to be in Wikipedia. Shall I help you delete all photos in Wikipedia which you did not contribute? CalgaryWikifan 01:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will repeat this one last time, as you seem to be having tremedous difficulty understanding both my position, and the goals of Wikipedia... As I have repeatedly said, if a better photo is found, then I am happy -- indeed, prefer -- that it replace my own, just as I am happy if other users replace text I have written with improved text. For example, I put a rather poor photo in the Whitecourt article, and I have long hoped it would be replaced with something better. Of course, your irrational and emotional response to my edits to this article make me fear that you will soon be removing or otherwise vandalising any other photos or text I have submitted. I hope, however, that you will refrain from doing this.... Elpoca 04:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

But I think CalgaryWikifan's question is: "Who decides what is the better photo?" You? I'd hope that you would preclude yourself from any such determination, especially if it's your photo that could potentially be replaced. --Dogbreathcanada 04:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, if I'm willing to accept the decision of a mediator, then I'm willing to accept that my photo could be removed. So, "Who decides what is the better photo?" A mediator, of course! Elpoca 15:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have said (above) that I am willing to accept the decision of a mediator. Can you please indicate if you agree to such a resolution as well? Elpoca 04:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you even read my responses. I said way back on this thread, "If the admins feel four photos are just too much for the Chinook arch section of the Chinook article, then I will make a separate article for Chinook Arch." And accusing me of future vandalism isn't becoming of your holier-than-thou stance that you seem to crave, perhaps in your quest to become a Wiki admin. You already have sought to mediate other articles after you have shown that you can't even mediate properly over your own material. You do realize that Wikipedia has discussions and votes before bestowing adminship? Your actions in this thread don't bode well for you.

If I feel that four photos is too much for this article, then clearly I would feel the same about four photos in an even shorter article. Elpoca 15:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And you contradicted yourself again. You aren't ready to accept the decision of any mediator when you clearly demonstrate that you have an incredible bias for your work and against others, and that you believe the work of others isn't worthy of Wikipedia. You seem to believe our photos are garbage that is just cluttering up Wikipedia. Elpoca, it is just so simple. I have already told you how to solve your problem. Just post your photo in the Chinook article, without removing our photos. Problem solved. Can your pride handle it? CalgaryWikifan 13:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You are talking yourself into a corner.

I have repeatedly said that I'm willing to accept the decision of a mediator. I have also indicated that I don't believe the old photos illustrate the article's concepts, and should consequently be removed. Again, my position has always been both clear and consistent. Elpoca 15:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Come over here. This is getting unnecessarily personal. CalgaryWikifan: While Elpoca wasn't as calm as ve could have been your tone was more aggressive. Please refrain from personal attacks. You are not making any progress towards ending the dispute this way.

When Elpoca states that ve is willing to accept the decision of a mediator that is not in contradiction to the observation that ve may have a bias towards including vis pictures. You do appear to have the same bias towards including your picture and may accept the decision of a mediator anyway. --Fasten 14:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to bias, between Elpoca and myself, only I have previously stated I think both of our photos should be in the article. Rather than do Elpoca's work by just restoring the first photos, I returned the article to the pre-Elpoca state to see if Elpoca could have the same approach and just add theirs back in without pushing others aside. Obviously not. CalgaryWikifan 17:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not a general repository for photos. With regards to your suggestion of including all the photos, both your initial revert and your comments below clearly indicate that you don't feel my photo should belong. If you had felt that all photos should belong, then why remove my photo at all, instead of just restoring you own? Consistency, please!

You have not yet said if you are willing to accept the decision of the informal mediator. Please do so now, so that we can either decide the issue, or continue to the next level of the dispute resolution process. Elpoca 18:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You complain about having to repeat yourself, when it is you who can't get a simple point that I have for you. Yet again - I have repeatedly said your photo can stay and that I have no problem with that. Repeatedly I have told you that all you need to do is put your photo back in YOURSELF without me having to do your work for you. That's why I put the page back to before your photo showed up - to allow you to make the change properly, YOURSELF. I haven't changed my position one bit, while you have contradicted yourself numerous times. And, I have repeatedly said that I am waiting for the admins to decide this article, and that I am willing to make a new Chinook Arch article if four photos is too much for the Chinook article. That is clear acceptance of mediation. You do yourself a disservice by ignoring discussions. Do you really want to be a Wiki admin? CalgaryWikifan 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have said repeatedly that I don't feel your images don't belong, and so should be removed. If I edit the article, then I will edit in the manner which I feel is best in alignment with Wikipedia goals, and that results in the article that best communicates the information required. I also believe that Wikipedia is not a general repository for photos, and consequently feel four photos is too many for this article. Unfortunately, this means if I add mine, I would remove your photos (as I did in my original edit). You have indicated -- quite strongly -- that this is not agreeable to you, and this is why we have begun the dispute resolution process. For the admins to decide if this article has too many photos, this would, I believe, entail this dispute being taking to arbitration, the final stage in the dispute resolution process. I am willing to continue along the dispute resolution process, but would prefer that it is decided by an informal mediator now. So, one last time, do you agree to an informal mediator deciding on which photos should be included with this article? Yes or no is all the answer required. Elpoca 21:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to read responses to your posts before jumping to conclusions. I just said "I am waiting for the admins to decide this article, and that I am willing to make a new Chinook Arch article if four photos is too much for the Chinook article. That is clear acceptance of mediation." There's your answer. So I ask YOU, "Do you agree to having an admin mediate this dispute?"

So your answer is yes, you do agree to the informal mediator deciding which images should be in this article? Also, I should note that if you create a separate article for Chinook Arch, then I will be adding my own image to it, and deleting any images that don't belong. As I've already said, repeatedly, and at great length, I don't feel the existing images illustrate a Chinook Arch very well, and four photos is too much for this article. Creating a new article won't change my feelings on this issue, and will only unnecessarily extend this dispute. Elpoca 02:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And what does, "I have said repeatedly that I don't feel your images don't belong, and so should be removed" mean? There is a direct self-contradiction on your part there. You just said here that you DON'T feel my images don't belong, so therefore you DO feel my images belong. So why do you want them gone? Did you change your mind yet again? Or are you truly confused as to what you want?

And one more for you. This is an example of how arrogance works. User E adds a photo to an article and erases previous photos. User E takes the stance, "If you want the old photos back, you must justify to my satisfaction as to why. This does not apply to my photo - it is beyond question due to its superiority." User E is unable to see how any of the old photos should remain. User E says they can edit Wikipedia as they see fit, but other peoples' editing is subject to User E's judgment and editing. User E claims to follow Wikipedia's spirit while ignoring the main point of Wikipedia - that Wikipedia is open for all to edit, not just User E. CalgaryWikifan 00:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, (obvious) typo. Rest assured, I still feel your photos don't belong. Elpoca 02:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications

Mediators and Administrators

CalgaryWikifan : You repeatedly stated (e.g. here) that you believe intervention by administrators and your stated acceptance for the ruling of an administrator is related to mediation. This is not the case. Mediators do not have to be administrators and administrators do not have to be mediators.

• Im a mediator but I'm only suggesting a course of action. I do not have any authority.
• To quote WP:ADMIN: Any user can behave as if they are an administrator (provided that they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions.. If you agree to be bound by the rulings of arbitrary administrators you need to read WP:ADMIN and re-think that position.
• Wikipedia:ArbCom makes binding agreements. Taking a minor disagreement to ArbCom makes you look silly.

I do agree that this matter is silly, but the solution was already offered to Elpoca, but Elpoca is trying to force it to ArbCom. *shrugs* CalgaryWikifan 02:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That is your personal view. Do you assume good faith when you make that claim? --Fasten 07:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Bold edits

CalgaryWikifan : You critized Elpoca at the fringe of making a personal attack for making a bold edit.

To quote WP:BOLD:

And, of course, others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be.

Please don't attack Elpoca for making a bold edit. The problem starts when somebody reverts, instead of discussing the issue, and does not anticipate a further revert by the other editor. You seem to have both reverted quickly. --Fasten 18:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

Actually, this has gone on long enough. Although I honestly don't feel it would be in the best interests of the article, I'm willing to compromise. How about we simply reduce the images to three: photo 1, photo 2, and photo 3? Would this be an acceptable? Elpoca 04:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to go with #3, then #2 is completely unnecessary, since it looks like a crop of #3 (even if it isn't). Just go with #1 and #3. --Dogbreathcanada 07:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've separated the compromise offer from the heated debate above with it's own headline, if you don't mind. --Fasten 18:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Photo number 1, and perhaps #3 as well, would be fine, but there are further logical arguments from today against #3 in the discussion underneath it that should be considered first. How critical is this to my agreeing to this? Not critical at all. If the newer comment is read and photo #3 is still included, I am fine with that. CalgaryWikifan 02:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

There has been the sensible proposal of putting all the pictures on Wikimedia Commons and add a reference to the content on commons, e.g. with {{Commons}}:

While you can do that this leaves open the question which pictures to include in the article. I do think the three pictures already look crammed and maybe we can try to reduce this to two pictures in this article?

Please add your reasons why any of the pictures is a candidate or why it is not a candidate to the individual pictures below and please sign your remarks. Dogbreathcanada: I hope you don't mind me reformatting your contribution to the debate. --Fasten 14:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I did some extra refactoring. --Dogbreathcanada 19:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture 1

Chinook arch over Calgary, January 6, 2003

• This first photo demonstrates quite clearly, and beautifully, the chinook arch. --Dogbreathcanada 09:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• It is not possible to tell from this photo if the cloud is part of an arch. Elpoca 15:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• This photo was taken during one of the more spectacular Chinook arches in recent years. The features of the arch (color, texture, sharp edges) are clear. CalgaryWikifan 17:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• I would keep this one for the colour and clarity. -- JamesTeterenko 05:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture 2

The extreme colors of a Chinook arch

• This second photo demonstrates quite clearly, and beautifully, the chinook arch. --Dogbreathcanada 09:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• It is not possible to tell from this photo if the cloud is part of an arch. Elpoca 15:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• This photo also shows the features of an arch which has taken on a different form. Showing a different face to the arch is good.CalgaryWikifan 17:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• This is a nice photo, but unnecessary. It would be nice if it was moved to Wikimedia Commons, so that anyone that wanted to see more pictures would see this picture. -- JamesTeterenko 05:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture 3

Chinook arch panorama

• This image, while very nice, is too darned wide at a viewable resolution (obviously thumbnail is inappropriate as a size option). Drop this image. --Dogbreathcanada 09:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Even at thumbnail resolution, the arch made by the edge of the cloud is visible in this photo. Elpoca 15:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• This photo is distorted by the fact that it is a wide-angle shot covering many degrees of horizon, and then is put on a flat surface such as the screen. This exaggerates the arch and doesn't truly show how it would look to the naked eye. CalgaryWikifan 17:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a "wide-angle shot". It is a horizontal section of a spherical panorama. There are, of course, distortions, but not the arch-exaggerating one of which you speak. Indeed, quite the opposite. Consider trying to stretch a sphere onto a flat surface. Areas along the horizon would experience no distortion, while areas away from the horizon would have to stretch if they were to remain contiguous (see Mercator projection). In other words, it is actually the clouds at the top of the image that have been exaggerated. Of course, because the vertical field-of-view of this image is quite narrow, even this distortion is relatively minor, and any reasonably intelligent person can understand it. Elpoca 18:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • ...just as people can tell from the older three photos what a Chinook arch can look like. You don't need to see the whole arch - which, by the way, your photo also doesn't show. Chinook arches can stretch for hundreds of miles. Oh, and by the way, there is no need for personal attacks or name-calling by questioning intelligence, Elpoca. In other words, practice what you preach.CalgaryWikifan 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not questioning your intelligence, so please quit taking offense where none is given. I believe you understand what this image is conveying, just as I believe anyone else would. Elpoca 21:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Elpoca: any reasonably intelligent person can understand it can easily be understood as a provocation. --Fasten 09:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
        • CalgaryWikifan: your tone hasn't been less provocative. There is really no point in getting angry because somebody makes bold edits to an article. Elpoca is convinced vis picture is better but your claim that ve is merely trying to promote the picture because it is vis own contribution is your own interpretation. You don't know how ve would react to another picture. If you try to take a nonpartisan view you will notice that your own promotion of your pictures looks similar, only slightly more aggressive. Your primary argument, why you claim there is a difference, seems to be that Elpoca removed your pictures and you only wanted them to stay. Exactly that is not something Wikipedia allows you to demand, at least not in general and without defending your position with sensible argumentation. The rationale behind this is, of course, that you cannot keep adding content (pictures or text) in a non-discriminatory way and expect a result that deserves the name encyclopedia. It is not only Elpoca's (and your) right to remove content considered obsolete it is actually a necessity. --Fasten 09:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• I really like this shot. I would have to be at a wider resolution (e.g. 650px). This would not take too much room, as this would give it about the same height as the other pictures. -- JamesTeterenko 05:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Another problem with this photo by Elpoca is that it bears strong resemblence to a squall line. The classic chinook, where there is a band of stationary thick cloud to the east, and clear sky to the west, with a relatively straight edge to the cloud, is not at all evident in this photo. Is that clear sky on the other side? You can't tell - it looks quite dark past the cloud. The classic cloud-sky boundary with the chinook arch is very evident in the first and fourth photos. Also, the chinook arch is thousands of meters above the ground. This photo makes the chinook arch look close to the ground. If you want to confuse people as to what a typical chinook looks like, include this photo. Bottom line: If you showed photo #1 and photo #3 to 100 southern Albertans, most would recognize #1 immediately, while far fewer would know what #3 even was. CalgaryWikifan 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Photo #2 isn't much better in this respect. And concerning your "ask 100 southern Albertans" comment: complete pointless unverifiable hyperbole. I don't personally like #3 because it's too darned wide and will break the formatting of the page, but it does demonstrate a chinook arch well. Your opposition to this photo is now bordering on the childish. --Dogbreathcanada 10:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I know people want this issue settled. I feel this should have been wrapped up days ago. I personally hope #1 and #3 go in, and my above arguement was really to use Elpoca's medicine against Elpoca (That is, one person's argument against the "offending" photo/s are all that is necessary to remove them). In other words, it was a sarcastic argument to prove a point. CalgaryWikifan 16:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think your point has been understood but still it is perfectly acceptable on wikipedia to make bold edits. Please try to avoid personal attachment to your articles and try to enter a discussion instead of reverting when you think relevant material has been removed. --Fasten 13:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I can't hold out any longer. I put my vote in for #3 as the best photo of a Chinook Arch. It is a great photo showing such a large band of sky. I am new to Calgary and new to Chinook arches - if someone showed ME all 4 photos, I'd pick this one out as the best depiction of a Chinook arch. If you include two photos - I'd suggest #3 and #2 - #1 just looks like a cloud bank at sunset, IMHO and #4 - it's not the greatest photo overall. CWood 02:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with including #2 and #3 is that the two are remarkably similar, from cloud composition to cloud colour. #2 simply looks like a crop of #3. Two more distinct images should be chosen, which is why I suggest #1 and #3 (or #1 and #2, which would be preferable in my opinion, but if that happened this retarded fight between CalgaryWikifan and Elpoca would go on forever). --Dogbreathcanada 10:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe they may be from the same morning, but #2 was much closer (note the closer rooftops and tree in #2 compared to #3). CalgaryWikifan 16:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I realize it is not an actual crop, but to the casual viewer it will appear to be. Like I said, the photos #2 and #3 are too similar, thus should not be chosen together. --Dogbreathcanada 18:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Welcome to Calgary. As you see more chinook arches, you will see more resemble #1 and less resemble #3. Until then, a bit early to judge. CalgaryWikifan 16:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture 4

The extreme contrast of a Chinook arch

• Whereas this fourth photo is a chinook arch, it doesn't demonstrate the "arch" component well enough. I'd drop this photo. --Dogbreathcanada 09:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• The cloud in this photo appears to be arching up, not down as a Chinook arch should. Elpoca 15:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A Chinook arch doesn't need to follow any rules as to what form it will take. I have seen thousands of Chinook arches; I know what they look like, and the above photo is definitely one of them.CalgaryWikifan 18:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• This is another face of the Chinook arch. Another way to show that each arch is unique. CalgaryWikifan 17:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Given the other photos, I really do not believe that the article needs this one. Again, I would like to see this in Wikimedia Commons. -- JamesTeterenko 05:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

There seems to be a preference for pictures #1 and #3 and the arguments for pictures #1 and #3 seem more conclusive.

• #1 is not showing an arch in full but shows interesting details.
• #2 is too much like #3 and seems redundant.
• #3 indeed seems to show the phenomenon as a whole (or a very lage part of it).
• #4 doesn't appear to be showing details of an arch.

Is anybody against selecting pictures #1 and #3 for inclusion into the article? --Fasten 14:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. In light of the comments made for photo 3, I'd suggest that it is made larger than it originally was, but if this will cause further ill will then I'm not bothered. Elpoca 18:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That remark was entirely unnecessary, what made you think it was worth making? --Fasten 20:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you're misunderstood the sentiment behind my reply. Expressing it differently, because of comments made above under photo 3, I think it would be good if photo 3 was larger. However, if CalgaryWikifan or anyone else feels that it would unfairly be promoting my own image, then I'm happy to have it restored at its original size. This cannot possibly be construed as mean-spirited or rude! Elpoca 04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would I care what size it is? Go with the larger size; it is easier to see. *rolls eyes* CalgaryWikifan 19:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I seem to have misinterpreted that statement. It sounded to me as if you wouldn't care if you were causing further ill will. --Fasten 10:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's go with #1 and #3 CalgaryWikifan 23:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with including #1 & #3. I believe that the width of picture #3 should be about 600px. -- JamesTeterenko 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to need mediation anymore. Case closed. --Fasten 20:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for mediating this disagreement, and thank you to all users who gave their opinion on this article. Elpoca 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

An additional image has been added to this article in the interim. To avoid another disagreement about which images are "best" (or about how many images are appropriate for this article) I've removed my image and will place it in Wikimedia Commons. In other words, I give up! Elpoca 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation and references

This article is lacking references (one link to xmas snow statistics and one to an amateur website?). I am particularly skeptical of the claims regarding the tsh- pronunciation on the west coast. At least nowadays, I think that pronunciation has all but disappeared in favor of sh-. Pineapple Express, on the other hand, is a widely used term. heqs 11:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the whole article warrants a rewrite/restructure/reference verification. But that'll have to wait for another day. Williamborg 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah. I grew up in Washington (the state!), and lived 25 of my 26 years there. Never have I ever heard a Washingtonian or Oregonian say it as in church! Chinook is a very common word in the Northwest. In place names, commercial products, casinos, the salmon, etc., and is just part of the local vernacular in general. I find the etymology to be of note, but we even referred to the tribe as IPA: ʃɪnʊkʰ. It sounds like a francophile maybe added this stuff so I'll be forgiving and take no offense. But will emphatically make it clear that another Northwesterner, who isn't as sensitive as I am, might not have been so kind. Also, I can't speak for British Columbia, but we shared more in common with them than with the rest of the US it often seemed, and while I can't confirm or deny the claim of their pronunciation, I can't ever recall hearing anything of the sort in the many trips we took to Victoria. The waitress would never say "would you like to try our tshinook salmon special?" And yet the pronunciation of 'about' and 'sorry' and such would still be distinctly Canadian. But while I can make no definitive claim on B.C. pronunciation, I can speak for Washington and Oregon with explicit confidence! And yeah, as far as weather terms go, Pinapple Express and the subsequent "liquid sunshine" are far more ubiquitous. Khirad 13:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It was me, actually, and although I speak French that wasn't why I put that in. I know First Nations/Native American users of the Jargon, where of course this word came from, and I come from "old country" up around Lillooet and in the Valley (Fraser Valley; Ruskin, British Columbia, went to Mission High); I'd always said the name of the language with the "church" sound, and it happens that the surviving creole form of the Jargon spoken in Grand Ronde, Oregon spells the name of the language out as Tshinuk-wawa; which is the original form of the pronunciation - the word migrated from the Lower Columbia to Alberta, and to here, with the fur trade, which of course was largely run by French-Canadian and Metis guys, even though the bosses were Scots and the occasional Englishman. When I've heard newspeople in BC use it (for either the fish or the wind) with the shinook pronunciation, I'd assumed it had been imported "back over the mountains" from the frenchified Albertan pronunciation; but I guess it's so entrenched in BC now - and even in Washington - by whatever reason, that the sh pronunciation is a given here now as well. I'll ask whatsisname that does the Global weather broadcasts what he uses; the CBC implicitly uses the shinook pronunciation, partly because of the francophone context of the Holy Mother Corp; I'm actually meeting with Mark Forsythe of CBC Almanac tomorrow about something else but I'll check with him. The "church" pronunciation is definitely the older one in BC/PacNW, though....(btw I've often noticed a French affectation in the US, notably in New York where French usages are popular in business names, and not just for restaurants; I always get a kick out of it because in some ways the Americans find French more fashionable to use (until freedom fries came along), or use/adapt it in a different context, than Canadians do; this indirectly applies to the shinook Seattle pronunciation; or I'm guessing it does. Back with more on this after some legworkSkookum1 17:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC) And re Khirad's comment on WA and OR, maybe the "church" pronuncation is decidedly Native American in flavour down there; it definitely is the "correct" pronunciation to Chinook Jargon linguists, that's for sure.Skookum1 17:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many sections?

15 sections seems like a bit much for this article. Can some sections be combined? —Rob (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest naming reference

I have lived in the Pacific Northwest nearly all of my life, and have never heard of a "Chinook Wind" ... I've heard of "Pineapple Express." Further, I've asked my local friends and family in the Puget Sound region, and they -- as I -- think of the Chinook salmon when someone says "a Chinook." None thought of the wind (nor were any familiar with the 'pineapple express' wind being referred to as a 'Chinook wind.' --Chibiabos 02:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely a modern Canadian media usage though not as common anymore as pineapple express has become; but I know I've heard it on KVOS-TV Bellingham, albeit that has a largely Canadian viewership and carries BC news content. Apparently there's a difference, technically, between a pineapple express and the classic coastal Chinook, but this last round of rains (the real wet stuff a week ago, not the intermittent stuff since) that came definitely out of Hawaii in a big stream, rather than across the Pacific as in the model in the wiki article on pineapple express. I don't know the provenance/origin of the term except that it was a reference to the wind coming from the direction of the country of the Chinooks (southwest, even from Vanc BC, at least in nautical terms if not compass-lines) as likewise its context in the Prairies/Great Plains, where it also named because it comes from the country of the Chinooks; I think the coastal usage is near invariably "a Chinook" as opposed to "Chinook wind" - "a Chinook" refers to the weather system, the volume of rain and where it's coming from; it's not a wind that's being described. Try it - out on some of the guys down on the fishboats as it may yet survive in maritime slang down there, i.e. what "chinook" means when it's weather that's being talked about vs. fish, as it certainly does on the BC Coast, even in the yacht-y set. And yes, when we're talking about fish if we say "Chinook", we mean a salmon too.Skookum1 02:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am increasingly confident that throughout the Pacific Northwest, USA, a majority of the population would associate the term "a Chinook" with the salmon more than the wind, and perhaps the helicopter as well. Out of some 20 people I've queried thus far within the area, zero even knew there was such a thing as a Chinook wind (and thus, none associated 'a Chinook' with the wind and all identified it with the salmon). The article, as it reads, implies that a majority of all Pacific Northwest residents know that 'a Chinook' refers to the wind and not the salmon which I increasingly feel is incorrect, though nothing wiki-ishly referenceable and thus I don't feel comfortable modifying the article myself to reflect this. I have not been to British Columbia and thus cannot speak to whether the majority of the British Columbian population would identify "a Chinook" as the salmon or the wind. Would like to visit someday, but not for the purpose of researching of course, heh. --Chibiabos 15:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But there's another article including the salmon meaning, although perhaps it could be expanded (the Chinook disambiguation page). This article is titled "Chinook wind" and that's why I put the info about the wind here; I'll come up with a rider to the phraseing that most people on the Coast would tend to mean the salmon, or even other meanings; but definitely "a Chinook" still refers to weather here, when it's used by the weatherman; in regular speech it probably only survives in maritime/fishermen jargon. Cites for all this are hard to come by, but I'll find one, even if it's a broadcast/newspaper styleguide for the region. The wording can say clearly that this is an increasinbly obscure usage; but it is a usage, and at least on this side of the border, to somebody who's been here longer than 20 year, it's still in use to mean a stretch of warm, very wet weather. BTW how's it pronounced in the Washington area - soft 'sh' as in French, or hard 'ch' like the original Chinook?Skookum1 18:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Have lived in Southwestern British Columbia for my life and have heard it occasionally in the media and more frequently in casual conversation referring to weather here. It is also noted on page 300 of the Canadian Press stylebook (1995, Canadian Press), and defined for media usage here as: "A warm, dry wind which mainly affects the foothills of the Rockies. Can raise temperatures 20 degrees within minutes." Its usage in popular and media culture here extends to Canada's west coast on occassion. Actually, Chambers Dictionary (Chambers-Harrap Publishing, Edinburgh, 2003.p.265) offers a definition for chinook as: "A warm moist wind, blowing onto the NW coast of the US from the Pacific." as well as the more common Rocky Mountain definition. If I find any other relevant usages, I'll post.--Keefer4 21:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, but perhaps not altogether relevantly, there is a Seattle-based double wind quintet known as The Chinook Winds. Also, Environment Canada's definition is interesting as it doesn't make specific reference to the Rockies, but simply to "mountains", which I imagine what weather people here are going by.--Keefer4 21:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Worth quoting the Environment Canada entry:

Chinooks occur when mountain ranges are exposed to strong prevailing crosswinds. Moist air is forced up the mountains bringing both cloud and precipitation to the windward side. The descending air becomes warmer and drier as it is forced down the leeward (sheltered) side of the mountains. The relatively warm, dry gusty winds that occasionally occur to the leeward side of mountain ranges around the world are known by many names. In Canada and the northern United States, they are referred to as chinooks. In the southern states, they are known as Santa Ana and in parts of Europe, foehn winds.

Skookum1 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Another, from my perusing of dictionaries at the second hand store today. From Winston's Dictionary (for Canadian Schools), 1966. Besides the usual Rocky Mountain/east warm wind, there is another definition of: "A warm wind occuring on the coast of British Columbia". Sorry that's not exact quote, as I didn't actually buy it and had to memorize it. I might buy it next time I'm there, as I doubt it's gonna fly off the shelf.--Keefer4 | Talk 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I live in SW Washington. I have heard of both the fish and the wind, but I hadn't known what the wind was before I read the article. I had noticed that most of the high winds in the area bring warm weather. As for pronunciation, I have never heard Chinook with a hard "Ch." All the Chinooks, whether winds, fish, helicopters or Indian tribes are referred to with a "sh." A rather interesting turn of events, if the Fort Vancouver area used to pronounce it "correctly."

Oh, for sure, it's "tshinuk" in the aboriginal-original, and also quite often how it's pronounced up here (fish or wind or whatever). The creolized Chinook Jargon in Grand Ronde OR uses, for example "Tshinuk Wawa" to mean the Chinook Jargon. As for Fort Vancouver, and OR non-natives in general, it could very well be that the French influence there "hung on" in the new settlers, who picked up the Metis way of using local words, of which shinook is obviously French, given its native and definitely tshi- original form; that in and of itself is interesting if true - that American settlers picked up the French/company way of pronouncing the word, as opposed to the native way. Either that or the media inundation from Alberta/Eastern Canada of the frenchified shi- pronunciation somehow got transmitted south of the line...in BC people seem to use both; the tshi- sound, though, my guess, marks somebody from BC rather than somebody who encountered the word as part of the Canadian national mythology, i.e. as part of the Alberta landscape; few non-BC Canadians realize we have a different meaning for Chinook in the weather sense; they think it's about Alberta to the point where most people believe the myth that it's an aboriginal word for "snow eater" (even in the CBC style guide, it seems) No Peiganor Tsuu Tina that I've met has ever owned up to it, though....Skookum1 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

From Funk and Wagnall's Standard Encyclopedic Dictionary (a U.S. dictionary), 1970. First definition of Chinook: 1. A warm wind of the Oregon and Washington coasts.--Keefer4 | Talk 03:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I challenge the assertion that Chinook in any usage refers to the windward wind which subsequently produces the Chinook wind on leeward slopes. I find no Canadian source online that supports the "coastal Chinook" usage. The passage which claims this has no reference, and I propose it be deleted until such time that a reference is provided.

I'm going to guess that someone has misunderstood a discussion in which a warm front-associated coastal wind is associated with the subsequent development of a Chinook. Tmangray (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

the inadequacies of online sources can't be helped, and the domination of Canadian media usage by the Albertan context is typical of Canadian homogenization. You must not live in BC or you'd be familiar with CBC, Global and CTV newscasters referring to the coastal Chinook, very commonly. One of the BC project editors has an old CBC or CTV styleguide which resolved other issues, e.g. the definition of Lower Mainland. But this one is classic - a coastal usage, transferred to Alberta by the Metis, which since has become more famous in its second location; but its origin is coastal, as are the Chinook people it's named after (sort of). Unless you want to claim that "snow-eater", because it's cited on-line, is a valid translation and the word's origin; that's on the internet all over the place, it doesn't mean it's true. I'll oppose your deletion of this, since I'm from coastal BC and know its origin as well as know that it's STILL in use in BC media. If you don't believe me write the weathermen at any of Vancouver's TV stations. Mark Madryga for starters, maybe he can provide you the citation you think doesn't exist.Skookum1 (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See User:Keefer4's comments farther up this section, which include a print (not internet) citation for the coastal version of this wind.Skookum1 (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also relevant to "proving" the coastal context is the aboriginal story of Chinook-wind, which is from the Lil'wat people of the Lillooet River/Birkenhead River valley and refers to a warm, wet wind bringing snow and rain to the cold climate inland; this is coastal reference (Lil'wat territory is just inland from Whistler). As explained elsewhere, the Chinook Jargon context "Chinook wind" means "wind from the direction of the country of the Chinook people", and this is an example of its usage/origin in native storytelling usage. This is so obvious it's bizarre that you could claim it to be otherwise. Unless you can point me to an Alberta native language where "Chinook" means ANYTHING to do with wind/weather, you might have a point to start; but you can't, as it's historically a FACT that the term has to do with "wind from the direction of the country of the Chinook people". In Alberta this happened to be winds coming through the passes of the Rocky Mountains; but on the Coast, it meant from the southwest (andI'd venture that you'll find usages in Douglas' and Helmcken's and RE journals).Skookum1 (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

Media usage isn't as authoritative as meteorologic usage. The media often get such things wrong. I find no Canadian meteorological definition that accords with the coastal wind. If you can find a media source that demonstrates such usage, the text should clearly state that it is such, and that the overwhelming meteorological usage is confined to the lee wind.

As to associating the wind with the location of the Chinook people, this is a confusion of how winds are typically named. Winds are usually named for the direction from which they come, not the place where they are being experienced. The Chinook people do not reside in the ocean, so it would not make sense to name a wind from off the sea for them. Tmangray (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're located or what you know about the history of the Pacific Northwest, or how much of the particular special lexicon around here you may be aware of. But let me tell you this, really loud and clear -= a certain warm wet southwesterly, typically days in duration, is called a Chinook by fishermen, sailors, ferry crews, loggers and yes the weathermen, who use the term as part of the loca argot in the same way they commonly use "out on the chuck" meaning "out on the water" (and that's not in Canadian meteorologic usages either). The media in this case are not incorrect, but rather using the existing local tgerminology, often kinda proudly (as also with the saltchuck/chuck references); it's not the first time that standard Canadian usages are completely clueless or heedless of British Columbian usage. It may not in fact be the same wind, there being in the old days no way to call what is now Alberta and let 'em know the tropical air mass was on its way over; all I know is the term IS part of the marine and weather lexicons in BCand, at least, in Whatcom County (where KVOS-TV 12 is, one of the stations who use the term). As fort the directional thing, it's pretty clear with the Prairie version of the wind that the direction "from the country ofthe Chinooks" IS the origin, especially when you consdier that the fur traders' HQ on the Pacific Slope was in Chinook territory (Fort Vancouver). The directional thing on the coast is clear if you've ever seen a satellite video of a Chinook, which looks like a big thick band of white cloud streaming in from the general direction of Hawaii, but more specifically SSW even SSWxS, pretty much in a line over the Olympic Peninsula, Greater Victoria, andheadingto into Greater Vancouver from the direction of Tsawwassen, which incidentally if you draw back in scale you can see is also roughly the direction of the mouth of hte Columbia, i.e. the coujntry of the Chinooks. But compass-exact directions aren't hte issue, nautical ones are. And it so happens that Chinooks arriving in Nuu-chah-nulth teritory would be coming from the southwest, i.e. around C ape Flattery, but nobody in those days was splitting hairs like you are; they came to use the term Chinook to mean a warm wet wind from that general direction. The same as Squamish (wind) means a cold, harsh northerly outflow wind, which in the Georgai Strait/nortthern Puget Sound happens to be from the north and the direction of the country of the Skxwu7mesh people at what is now the town of Squamish. Anyway, aside from all that, I've vgot requests in to Gobal, CBCand other weriters I know of hoping for a proper cite or at least a news item from the vancouver sun. I don't care about your objections, you're just plain wrong. And if Canadian meteorologic usage hasnt' included this term, it's their fault, not those of the BC broadcasters who still use it ("still" because it dates back to the old days); it's nopt the first time that Canadian publications of any kiknd have omitted BC perspectives or simply gotten things all wrong. And if you ask a Chinook person, you'll find out that the correct pronunciation of the original word IS "Tshinuk"; the Albertan prononciation is a frenchified affectation..Skookum1 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're definitely going to need an authoritative citation. Then the text will require editing to specify that the particular usage to which you refer is localized, and also not the accepted definition for the meteorological term "Chinook", which is clearly a fohn-type wind, and not a warm moist southwesterly ocean wind. As for the proper pronunciation, I make no argument one way or the other, so I'm baffled as to why you bring it up as to this particular discussion about general versus local usages. Tmangray (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it did occur to me that, given the two distinct phenomena and that one is a wind, the Foehn-like Prairie Chinook, and it's considered a wind; in BC a Chinook is more of a weather system, a "way things are" as a combination of windfall, cloud cover, temperatures. So wind's a wind, the other's a type of weather system, and really they're different articles necessarily, just as the aboriginal legend of the Chinook Wind is a separate article (although that legend is "about" the coastal Chinook). They may or may not be related; often enough it follows suit that warm tropical air would have to be stripped of its moisture before becoming a moisture-absorbing wind, and that's what happens when the streams of tropical air hit the Pacific Northwest Coast before they reach Alberta and Montana. That warm air doesn't just come out of nowhere, and since it's coming from the west and warm currents it's going to be a moist wind instead of a dry one; depending on continental and other ocnditions, a coastal Chinook need not become a Prairie one, e.g. if the continental air mass holds it off or the jet stream diverts it, but a Prairie one - a big one, lasting days - would have been a big warm storm before it hit BC or OR or wherever it hit. A big warm wet one. We get all kinds; the cold ones - big wet cold ones - come down from the Gulf of Alaska, not the southwest, and is there ever a difference. I'd almost rather the Gulf of Alaska storms...the Chinooks are days and days of heavy rain, that's what they're like. The coastal Chinooks, they're definitely citable, especially in BC literature like Timothy Findlay and Charles Lillard and Terry Glavin and others who write about coastal life; Terry may have something online himself I'll ask him; intersting btw that when we get prairie-chinook-type effects in the Interior of BC we don't cal them Chinoks; we just gloat that the coast is getting soaked; the effecct isn't quite as intense as once it's crossed the Selkirks/Columbias and Rockies, though). I'll see what I can dig up like I said even in news archives and hope to hear back from the weather broadcasters - it's definitely in their style guides, as Keefer4 pointed out already I believe. Anyway it would seem Chinook (coastal weather system) or something less cumbersomely-titled is needed; the term may have only ever come into use (outside4 of native legend) north of Puget Sound; I daresay in any port in the Juan de Fuca or nothern Puget Sound it's a known word for sure. If you live in the PacNW, like I said, go down to the fishboats and ask 'em if they've ever heard Chinook mean anything other than fish, or ask them straight about "does it mean a big heavy rainstorm for days on end?". But again, it's a weather system not so much as a wind, so a split article seems best; thte Chinook-wind aboriginal legend article used to be here, too...and THAT is the original usage (other than as the name of hte people), with the French/Metis-transmitted one inland maybe the primary usage, but the coastal system its equal but diferent; but both coastal and prairie usages are historical and originally local; that one has become a national standard does not mean it has become a priori the standard, even though it doesn't even get translated correctly ("snow eater" indeed). Hell, the people who use it don't don't even know its etymology (it's not the name for the wind in Peigan or Tsuu Tina either; I know I've asked to make sure there's no accidental similarity). On the open waters, by the way, my fishermen buddies speak of a Chinook with a certain dread; sheets of heavy rain, zip visibility and with a strong southwesterly - very dangerous depending on where you are on the BC coast...yeah, they're out their catching chinook salmon sometimes; but when the radio says "we got a Chinook coming in" they know it's not about fish. yeah, it's not the same as the prairie meaning of the Chinook wind; but given the warm air mass thing, it'll likely wind up as one Skookum1 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a modern reference but see 'http://coastsalishmap.org/north_wind_and_storm_wind.htm this] for another aborignal usage, here clearly for a warm south wind. And as for polling 20 people, it's not like you should ask at hte mall or the starbuck's; go down to the fishing docks or a marina and ask the sailors/fishermen.Skookum1 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My challenge stands. I find no references at all that support the usage, except for a few sites that derive their information from this Wiki article. I don't doubt that there may be some misuse of the term by individuals and the media based on their misunderstanding explanations of the Chinook wind. Since it originates in a warm moist coastal wind, it is concluded that the name also applies to this "phase" of the wind. This would also mean a fohn wind is a warm, moist wind off the Mediterranean. But it is not. Authoritative citations, editing, or deletion. Tmangray (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The only pladce where your challenge has any ground to stand on at all is the current lack of citations; this doesn't mean they won't be found or don't exist. Your tone and attitude here have been that this is made up or spurious, and your challenge's denigrative context is furthered by your suggestion that the people I know who use the term are mistaken in their usage and that they share my observation that a coastal Chinook likely leads to an inland Chinook (provided the air stream makes it across the mountains, which it might not). There's no WAY that BC authors and broadcasters who've used this term for all of my lifetime and longer are mistaken; they will include Charles Lillard, Terry Glavin, Timothy Findlay, Allan Fotheringham, Paul St. Pierre, and Earle Birney, and I've asked a few other BC wikipedians to dig up what they can; at least one has access to the online archives of the Pacific Press newspapers. Come to think of it BC Yachting and similar magazines/publications will have someone who knows the term and uses it.....Your attempt to rejig my logic again, and getting it wrong, is further evidence to me that you're a pooh-pooh artist. I didn't think skookum referred to a kitty-kat either, and got showed up for it; I suggest you back down with your arrogance about this because the citations will turn up. That the ORIGINAL usage here cleaerly is from COASTAL native legends indicates that the coastal term for a warm, wet wind FAR predates the Prairie usage, which could only have arisen after; that it was popularized and "standardized" with that meaning does not mean it's the only meaning, does not mean it's the original meaning, and does not mean that it's correct and that no one else can be. The absence of citations on the internet - where lots of completley untrue stuff can have hundreds ofthousands of hits, no less, and actual events and things sometimes aren't searchable - is a fault of the internet, and of those who input what t hey think they know into it. Let me repeat - your challenge is childish and arrogant, treating me as if I don't know what I'm talking about and that only the Albertan meaning stands as a result; that's just stupid, and your challenge is a house of cards and an annoyance; it WILL be shot down, and I'll expect an apology as well as a retraction.Skookum1 (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The only arrogant tone comes from youI only ask that you put up or shut up. If you have cites, show them. Tmangray (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not being arrogant, I'm calling you out. If I sound arrogant it's just I'm just being pithy and shoving your lack of logic back in your smug face. There's a BIG difference between something not having citations on the internet and it not existing at all; all I'm doing is telling you, over and over and giving examples of probable places citations will crop up, that the Coastal Chinook is REAL and I didn't make it up. It IS citable, I just don't know where yet, other than in various BC novels and poets and histories; the weather citations are harder because they're part of oral culture but I also know I've seen it in print in the Vancouver Sun. The issue here is not whyether I'm right or wrong, but where to find the citations; I've sent out feelers and am doing what I can from here in Nova Scotia. But you're wrong, and your attitude that I'm wrong is what's arrogant. Put up or shut up indeed. I have put up, if only hearsay evidence, but you might as well start grappling with the fact that I won't be alone. Unless you're going to tell me taht the Native American/First Nations use is also mistaken, and they must have been meaning a warm dry wind and that, other than that, the term never got used on the Coast even though it was first coined there. I'll repeat it - the wind exists, the cites are hard to find as they're not as popular and oft-repeated as the Albertan/pan-Canadian usage, but that doesn't mean the Albertan/PanCanadian usage is the only correct one. It's just a shortsighted one, and includes the nonsense factoid about "snow eater", which to me if anything is proof the term doesn't originate in any area where people think that's what it means.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

here is a recipe you'll be needing.Skookum1 (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC) No modern-era bits yet, still waiting to hear from certain weathermen. But one of the online sites I contacted, the Weather Doctor Keith Heidorn, got back to me with [ http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/016/mwr-016-01-0019.pdf this] from the January 1888 Monthly Weather Review; note in the section above the section on the Chinook Wind, also, the bit on Oregon weather in the left-hand column in the upper page; that's a usage showing a coastal context to the Chinook wind, and in the Chinook wind section the term's origin in the Columbia area is stated. This goes along with the previous mention about being winds on the Lower Columbia, and jibes with the non-Columbia usages from aboriginal stories on the Duwamish and Lillooet River areass. There'll be more, including modern cites; but there's now two non-aboriginal sources/usages and two aboriginal sources/usages attested to. Probably not enough for you, and the modern usage I'm talking about obviously isn't current enough to turn up readily, but it's out there.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Pineapple express not welcome

This article states the pineapple brings welcome warmth in the winter, but this is not quite the case. The rain on snow quickly wipes out mountain snowpack, and if colder rains don't return, leads to a summer drout (very little rain in Seattle in summer.) In addition, in 1996, a pineapple express dumped huge amounts of rain on week-old snow and the weight on the rain-laden snow caused several roofs to collapse in the storm (including a school near Woodinville), not to mention street flooding due to ice-clogged storm drains.

Pineapple expresses are not usually a good thing as this article implies.

Sometimes neither is a coastal Chinook; and the terms I've seen/heard used interchangeably, often in reference to the same storm...Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed "snow-eater" claim again

The www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum reference and teh aasociated as-if-factual claim that "Chinook is a Pacific Northwest Indian word meaning 'snow-eater'" I've removed as a-factual, and yet another demonstration that an allegedly reliable source is not necessariliy a good source; and as it's a forum that's coming from it's not WP:RS anyway; and note this disclaimed on the forum's main page:

Archived forums do not necessarily reflect current scientific knowledge, theories or data. Older forums may contain outdated scientific opinion, and therefore should be regarded in a historical context. The original publication date is provided with each forum.

'Nuff said.Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside references

Right now, I feel as if the article gives too much reference to the Canadian/U.S. Northwest viewpoint. Would it be possible to incorporate Alaska and/or central European viewpoints into the article? Right now, it seems as if the European chinooks in particular are overlooked. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering that the term Chinook IS used in Alaska (and the Yukon), of course description of the areas it affects and particular figures for that region should be included. To my knowledge, however, the term "Chinook" is NOT uesd in Europe, where such winds are called Foehn winds (in German, anyway; whether there's a similar term in Czech or Magyar I wouldn't know). The Foehn wind's effects aren't anywhere near as dramatic, also (if the comparison is only to the Alberta/Montana or Alaska/Yukon Chinook. Only winds called by this name are relevant to your globalize template; similar winds by other names are other winds, and not relevant to this article. You do have me wondering about Telegraph Creek, Prince George etc but I'm not exposed to media from that region, although doubtless similar effects do occur. NB the outflow winds as well call 'em now on the BC Coast, the South Coast now, were at one time known as the squamish wind or "the squamish", which is still used, I guess in Washington state etc; a similar wind in Alaska is known as the williwaw, but I'm unsure if that's Alaska Panhandle only or might also involve the Copper River etc...Skookum1 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Physical explanation lacking

One critical aspect of chinook formation is overlooked in the explanation given in the article. There is a lot of energy (latent heat) tied up in changing the phase of water from gas to liquid. This 'latent heat' is released as water condenses (liquid water has a lower energy state than gaeous water).

As wet masses of air are forced up the windward side of the mountains, they cool adiabatically and water vapor condenses, releasing the latent heat of evaporation of that water into the air. Thus the air that arrives at the top of the mountain has less water in it, but is warmer than one would expect from adiabatic cooling alone. As the air is forced back down the leeward side, the relative humidity drops (as the air warms), and the air is warmed. Without the extra heat from the water vapor, the air would not be warmer on the leeward side than on the windward side rather it would undergo the same amount of adiabatic warming as it did cooling and would be the same temperature. Bobcat167 (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Locations

As someone who lives many hours north of Grande Prairie, I changed where the article had stated the northern boundaries of the chinook is. I live in the High Level region and we get at least one chinook wind annually, and this is several hundred kilometers north of Grande Prairie, the city initially named as the northernmost point of chinook.