Talk:Robert Gray's Columbia River expedition

Discussion of a proposal to merge this article into Robert Gray (sea-captain)

Moved to Talk:Robert Gray (sea-captain). (For the reason that merge discussions normally go on the proposed destination's talk-page, and to keep discussion of this from getting split between talk-pages.) -- Lonewolf BC 04:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal ab initio

Moved to Talk:Robert Gray (sea-captain). (For the reason that merge discussions normally go on the proposed destination's talk-page, and to keep discussion of this from getting split between talk-pages.) -- Lonewolf BC 04:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Broughton

Obvious reasons? No where on Broughton's page does it say he was the first. It says he went into the river in October 1792. If Gray had not been there in May of 1792 then it might be relevant. Also, NPOV says you leave the competing claim in place, then add. Not to mention something like this claim would need to be discussed here first. Aboutmovies 16:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; it was the wee hours and I was at the box 'cause I couldn't sleep; shot from the lip after leaping to conclusions, partly all fired up by the tone in the source I was reading, which as I commented to LoneWolfBC is fairly emotional in tone; Helen B and GPV Akriggs' British Columbia Chronicle, where they're constantly inveigling against US claims and behaviour (like many BC historians...even worse than me ;-) ); I'll quote the whole passage later on my sandbox, when I get time, just out of interest and also for details which may be useful for a putative Exploration of the Columbia River article.....Skookum1 20:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Heceta and Meares

I just made some changes to the section of Heceta and Meares, mainly adding info but also changing a couple things, which I thought I ought to mention here. The page claimed that Heceta did not attempt to enter the river, with a citation to HistoryLink.org Essay 5688. But that page only says "the poor health of his crew prevented him from navigating it." This doesn't mean he didn't try to enter. The book I cited instead describes his failed attempt to enter and explains that he could not anchor and wait for better conditions because his crew was so reduced they could not handle the anchor! Also I changed "may have mistook the mouth as an inlet" to a more detailed description of what he thought.

For Meares, I added the fact that he had a copy of a Spanish map showing Heceta's entrance and searched for the river at the latitude shown on the map. I changed "unable to enter the mouth" to "unable to find the mouth", since the first statement implies that he saw it and tried to enter but failed while it seems that he didn't see it at all, as the quote about "no such river" suggests. I removed the footnote to Cape Disappointment State Park since all the info in the paragraph is already sourced in the historylink and Hayes sources.

Hope that I didn't mess anything up! Pfly 08:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. If you still have the sources you might want to expand the Hecta and Meares articles if you haven't already. Aboutmovies 15:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

rename

The title as it stands sounds like it came from a high school history textbook. I suggest we rename it to the more sober title of: Robert Gray's Columbia river expedition or similar. Even if this doesn't happen, the article needs to have the arbitrary caps removed per the Manual of Style. VanTucky ^Talk 02:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. At minimum, "sails" should be de-capitalized. "River" should be capitalized, though - it's part of a proper name. -Pete 18:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that only the Columbia part is a proper noun, and that river is not. It's the description of the type of edifice, rather than a unique part of the pronoun. This is especially true in the colloquial sense, since people often only refer to it as "the Columbia". VanTucky ^Talk 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

historical dispute re Broughton/Gray

I guess it was on a related talkpage, maybe Talk:Oregon boundary dispute or Talk:Robert Gray (sea-captain), that I'd raised the BPOV disputation of the veracity of Gray's journals; I found one of the items in question just now, on Page 433 of British Columbia from the Earliest Times to the Present by Howay & Scholefield, an old time Big History tome; unfortunately I can't link the page directly, so you'll have to use hte pagefinder to get to 433. It has to do with Broughton's party finding that where Gray said he'd taken on fresh water was instead saltwater. Somewhere else I remember an analysis of the actual geography of the Columbia vs what Gray says it was, but it wasn't in this book like I thought it was (not in that section anyway).Skookum1 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Did the writer do much research on the topic? Remember that Broughton went in October, near the low flow point of the Columbia after the dry summer period, Gray was there in early May, during the spring rains and run off. Thus the river flows were likely drastically different between the two time periods, thus the salinity level/boundary would likely be drastically different between the two time periods. So the "discrepancy" likely means nothing. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

i'm only saying what howay said about what someone else said. howay - you know the guy, right? you used him as a cite all over Ft Defiance. sorry have keyboard problsSkookum1 (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Did the writer do much research on the topic?" jumped out at me again when re-reading this section; your arrogance is unbelievable Aboutmovies, given the stature of Howay & Scholefield in regional historiography. Research? Oh yeay, out the ying-yang, far more than you've ever done. You're an obfuscator and tub-thumper here, just as you were on Talk:Hollywood North and all your obstructionist/obfuscatory edits there. Questioning Howay and Scholefield. Why not just say "who was this Bancroft guy anyway?", or "Gibbon? = never heard of him". Try reading more than one book before writing an article sometime, OK?Skookum1 (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, just took the time to read what you linked above, and as covered on your talk page long ago there is no dispute about whether Gray crossed the bar and entered the estuary of the river. As it talks about in the source you posted above, the dispute has nothing to do with how far Gray did or did not sail up the river, or if he did sail up the river. It has nothing to do with the "veracity of Gray's journals" as you say. It has to do with, did Gray sail far enough into the river for "discovery" rights. Nobody in the source you gave questions how far Gray sailed up the river. The claim has been, and has always been as far back as an 1846 publication of an 1818 or 1826 letter during negotiations over the region, that the British simply claimed Gray did not sail far enough up the river to have discovery rights. Not that he did not sail into the mouth and crossed the bar. They only claimed he did not go far enough inland: "...and that Lieutenant Broughton was the first to reach the real river,..." Nothing about Gray's journal being inaccurate or some sort of hoax. The British counterclaim to Gray's discovery has always been that Gray didn't sail far enough into the river, not that he didn't reach the river. Nothing more. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Howay/Scholefield's account says hte British dispute was whether Gray even entered the river at all, given the saltwater issue; they only account for the dispute, not take a side on it.Skookum1 (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[uninent] Your snide and dismissive manner in which you dump on the questions/issues I raise smacks of hte arrogance on the Oregon Question which typifies US propagnda on the matter; not surprising, as you were raised in the culture of lies that US expansionism and self-justification is built on. The British dispute about the veracity of Gray's claims is laid out in Scholefield & Howay's British Columbia: From t he earliest times to the present pp. 433-434, and is no doubt covered by H.H. Bancroft and other American historians; even though you pooh-pooh that such a dispute even took place. I'm not saying that the British claims about this were correct (though sentinemtally I think they may have been, given the scoundrelous nature of Gray's behavoiur elsewhere), only that such a dispute existed and was in fact part of the British position on the Oregon Question. So go ahead, dump on me again, but why don't you read the full Oregon Question chapter in Howay & Scholefield (begins on p. 427) before you do too many more USPOV edits, OK? You can also read the previous marine fur trade section as to information on other vessels than those form the Us which engagted in the marine fur trade, since your article ("your" article, as you are clearly demonstrating an intent to "own" this article) mentions only US vessels/traders, as if that was all that was going on.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OWN? Pfly has been editing this lately and I have not reverted their edits. You know why? As always, their edits are sourced, which is a core Wikipedia policy, its called WP:V. Add sourced material from WP:RS and there is no problem. As to mentioning non-US items, first look at the title, so yes Gray is the focus, feel free to write the other articles you want as I have encouraged several times before. Second, reading the article I see mentions of Vancouver and the Discovery, and an entire section title Previous explorations which only mentions non-US folks/ships. As to Gray's behavior? You mean his attacks against natives? Sorry, but I don't think I've seen much in the way of attacks on his crediability like I have on say Meares. What's more, why would Gray lie? Aboutmovies (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, chill. Skookum, if there are problems with the article, your first job should be to FIX them. Maybe it is worth mentioning the British claims; if so, lead on. But the bottom line here is, you make a strong claim, the kind that would need to be cited, and meanwhile acknowledge that you don't have the citation. You cite a different source, which really doesn't have any bearing on the claim you make. There's not much that can be done with what you're bringing to the table -- not until somebody finds a better source. Is it any surprise that AM is a little irritated after digging into the citation you DID provide and finding that it doesn't really get us anywhere?

Our primary goal should be to write articles, not argue on the talk page. -Pete (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter, I found the cite, which was the point of my most recent post; it's clear as day in Howay & Scholefield and I have no doubt it's in Bancroft as well, adn other major histories dealing with exporations and the oregon question; as issues they can't be separated. Originally I posted only a query about the saltwater thing here, as I didnt' want to add it without citation; instead I got snot blown in my face by this page's non-owner (if it walks like a duck....) - even after I provided the cite concerning thet existence of the dispute as to the veracity of Gray's log and the British position that Gray's account was, therefore unreliable. I came to the talkpage to discussion the addition; not to have it shoved in my face adn be gold "go write your own article". The information is there; that others than American hagiographers have somethign to say about Gray that doesn't jibe with American nationalist mythology is not my problem, it's an American problem - the inability to admit to the existence of other accounts than the ones some peopel apparently were not only spoonfed on but gotten near-religious about. The British had doubts about Gray's validity because of Broughton's findings; that's all that Howay & Scholifield were saying, that among the Britihs issues over regional claims was that Gray's voyage had, among other issues, osme doubt cast on it by Broughton. Aboutmovies is hostile to the idea (see above in his first response) and doesn't think what the British thought og Gray matters. Sorry, what any of his contemporaries thoughyt of him is relevant; including and especially those from the power/empire whose interests in the area Gray's voyage was used to confound. Yes, our primary goal is to write articles, not argue about them; but when a suggested addition is met with contempt and "go write your own article".......oh, I'm sorry, I just can't help but rise to the occasion. This article is essentially a POV fork from the Gray bio article anyway.......all I wanted was a brief mention of back-then British reservations about Gray; instead I got insulted, and the issue - and my citation of it - shoved aside, yet again. Similarly, the selective nature of Aboutmovies' article creation is obvoius elsewhere, as in the creation of Fort Defiance (British Columbia) without any mention of even the name of the people whose territory the putative "fort" was on, or otehr associated events that have been added since; but that article wasn't thrown down gauntlet-like as this one was, fully-written and hard to add to. Again, all I did was raise an issue, then find a cite. Only to be insulted and the issue dismissed, yet again. yes, I have a verbal temper, and rightly so when someone clearly "polices" an article in teh way Aboutmovies does with this one, including keeping out information that casts doubt on Saint Robert Gray and his misssion to bring America to the pacific Northwest.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

All aggravating nonsense, and makes me more sympathetic to the anti-American comments hwich surface occasionaly in Howay, Akriggs, Begg, Kerr and other non-American Pacific Northwest historians about American bluster and grandstanding and the williingness to talk only of facts that further their position; the British-side historians, despite this, are far more magnanimous in including American content in their books; something strikingly absent from many American tomes....Skookum1 (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. Maybe I was wrong to single you out, Skookum. Bottom line, I just think that you're in the best position to "fix" the article up to your standards. Asking us or the world at large is not likely to lead to edits you'd find satisfactory. I would encourage you to add and cite whatever you think needs adding to the article; if there's anything that's controversial, then we can discuss it. But this way, everything is moving targets, and the circles we run around in on the talk page don't do much to serve the general readership of the encyclopedia. -Pete (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Insulted by what? Telling you what the item you referenced was refering to and reminding you that this had been discussed before? Or the "did the writer to much research?" bit, as unless you wrote the article you could not have been insulted, and I didn't see your name in the article you referenced and said was from Howay. I could probably give thousands of citations that say Gray sailed into the Columbia in May 1792, which would include say Vancouver's log and Beggs a Canadian on page 169 outlines the British arguments concerning Gray, which as I have said several times before only challenge how far up river he went. Or this that outlines the British claims, which again focus on Gray not going far enough and saying how could they have claims to the whole region based a few mile visit at the beginning of the river.

Now as to my selective choice of writing articles, hmm, interesting. I must really hate the Russians and South America and Europe too since I don't write articles on those places. Of course how many articles on Florida tribes have you written, or do you hate them and have a strong anti-Florida POV? Have you written any articles relating to Phoenix, Arizona, or do you hate them too?

Now as to Fort Defiance, no I didn't add their name, as the only name listed in the old sources I recall using didn't line up with any "band" I could find a current name for. I had a similar problem with the name of a bay on Hawaii or some other Pacific Island in another article.

As to British claims, I believe those are covered, where they should be covered, in the Oregon boundary dispute article. This article, which should be obvious by the title, is Gray's entering the river and the effects it had on boundaries (minimal and often exaggerated) but also on the geographic names sense. There is a reason why so many things in this region are named Columbia, and this event is why. Its not Meares County or Broughton County, Oregon, it is Columbia County, Oregon. It is British Columbia. It is the Columbia Center. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been slowing reading through an old book, available in full at Google Books: Oregon: The Claim of the United States to Oregon. I'm not quite halfway through, but so far it seems to be a collection of the letters and statements made by the US representatives on the Oregon boundary dispute after Polk became president. So far it seems to be only the US letters and none of the British, which gives it a definite US-bias in reading. But in responding to the British the US officials often quote British statements at length, in order to respond, so you get at least some of the British argument -- even if through the lens of US arguments against. I began to read this in order to see what role the Nootka Conventions played. So far I haven't come across anything much about Broughton having a better claim of "prior discovery" than Gray, but I will keep my eyes open. And anyway, this source is only one side of one of the later debates between the Americans and British on the issue, so it is far from exhaustive. One thing it does go into some detail about, which I found interesting, is just how the US could argue that it received Spanish claims of exclusive sovereignty and how the British could argue that the Nootka Conventions had already restricted Spanish claims to an effective "joint occupation", to use a later term. From the sound of it so far, and trying to read between the lines for a more balanced picture, it seems like both sides felt they had at least as good a claim as the other side and were basically unwilling to concede. The US claim to the whole all the way to 54-40 seems to be based on a strict legal reading of the Adams-Onís Treaty, in which Spain ceded to the US all its claims north of the 42nd parallel, along with a US rejection of the Nootka Sound Convention as being still in force -- or if still in force being irrelevant. Maybe the issues of Gray and Broughton had been worked over in earlier debates and neither side felt it worth arguing again. Anyway, it had always seemed to me that the US claim to 54-40 was almost absurd, especially in light of the absence of US activity in most of the region and the relatively strong British activity in the form of the Hudson's Bay Company -- but this book at least shows how the US could argue for 54-40 and dismiss the HBC's activity and the lack of US activity as irrelevant. And in light of the impasse that had remained without resolution for so many years, I can better see how in the end the extension of the 49th parallel, excepting Vancouver Island, was a compromise that worked precisely because it didn't take into account prior discovery or actual activity or really anything other than extending an arbitrary line. Anyway, perhaps a book worth looking at, for those interested in the topic. Pfly (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think much of the American claims via Spain is covered in the treaty and related articles, but not in the depth they need. Browsing through the book real quick I recognize the letters, which were reprinted in many books of the time. I think you will find the same arguments about Gray not sailing far enough/he was a private citizen so his "discovery" was not valid for US territorial claims, but again nothing saying he didn't enter the mouth. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the book's Appendices contain the British letters to which the Americans are responding. The first one contains a passage arguing against the validity of Gray's "prior discovery", saying, in short, that Heceta was first and that Gray simply explored more than just the mouth, but Vancouver explored even more than Gray, so it is "prior discovery" or "progressive discovery"? Something like that. Anyway I'm not arguing for or against either position (really both sides seem to get rather twisted in making their cases), but since I stumbled upon this passage I thought it worth quoting in full. If nothing else it is one of the arguments used by the British during the boundary negotiations, against the value of Gray's accomplishment in securing title to the river:

In that part of the memorandum of the American Plenipotentiary which speaks of the Spanish title, it is stated that the mouth of the river, afterwards called the Columbia River, was first discovered by the Spanish navigator Heceta. The admission of this act would appear to be altogether irreconcilable with a claim to priority of discovery from anything accomplish by Captain Gray. To one, and to one only, of those commanders, can be conceded the merit of first discovery. If Heceta's claim is acknowledged, then Captain Gray is no longer the discoverer of the Columbia River. If, on the other hand, preference is given to the achievement of Captain Gray, then Heceta's discovery ceases to be of any value. But it is argued that the United States now represent both titles--the title of Heceta and the title of Gray,--and therefore that under one or the other, it matters not which, enough can be shown to establish a case of prior discovery as against Great Britain. This may be true, as far as relates to the act of first seeing and first entering the mouth of the Columbia River; but, if the Spanish claim to prior discovery is to prevail, whatever rights may thereon be founded are necessarily restricted by the stipulations of the treaty of 1790 [Nootka Sound Convention], which forbid a claim to exclusive possession. If the act of Captain Gray, in passing the bar and actually entering the river, is to supersede the discovery of the entrance--which is all that is attributed to Heceta--then, the principle of progressive or gradual discovery being admittted as conveying, in proportion to the extent of discovery or exploration, superior rights, the operations of Vancouver in entering, surveying, and exploring to a considerable distance inland, the river Columbia, would as a necessary consquence, supersede the discovery of Captain Gray, to say nothing of the act of taking possession in the name of his sovereign, which ceremony was duly performed and authentically recorded by Captain Vancouver.

This is from page 7 of the Appendix of the above mentioned book. The Americans of course countered this argument with further arguments of their own. On the whole the back and forth points and counter-points on the boundary dispute in general strike me as verging on the absurd... but then I guess that is diplomacy for you. At least they avoided war. Pfly (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

452 in Scholefield/Howay:

It is worthy of remark in closing this episode that Benton, who was one of the most earnest in the struggle for Oregon, always regarded the claim of 54-40 as wholly unfounded, and the flimsiest pretence. The same may be said of many other leading Americans, as, for example, J.C. Calhoun and Daniel Webster. Professor Meany of the University of Washington is of the opinon that the cry of “fifty-four forty or fight” was a piece of pure Yankee bluster and in this he is, doubtless, right.

and again, elsewhere in Howay/Scholefield is the account of the dispute about Gray/Broughton which someone else here needs to claim is irrelevant....because they're inconvenient to the putative importance of this article. There's a Vancouver Expedition article separate from George Vancouver, but Capt Gray was no George Vancouver and a global scientific/mapping expedition is an entirely different matter than a one-week sail up a river alrady known of......Skookum1 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And your point with the 54-40 or fight? I think everyone would agree 54-40 was bluster and untenable. But the claim for that was not based on Gray alone, it was a variety of claims including the convoluted acquisition of Spain's claims that entered the mix and would have been used for much of the more northerly claims. Gray's trip and naming was one of several used to justify US territorial claims in the region, but those were focused mainly on rights to the Columbia River. Even the Oregon boundary dispute article says: "Polk’s bluff had been called" regarding the full extent of the US claims. But again, nothing about Gray not crossing the bar and naming the river. As to a "one-week sail up a river alrady known of" have you read the entries of Vancouver's logs when Gray and Vancouver met off the coast prior to Gray going back? Or perhaps Meares name for the cape around there, I think its called Cape Disappointment for a reason. Some people already knew there was river there, but then again the natives had known for a few years about it and everything else discovered along the coast prior to European exploration of the region. Even Gray from his first trip thought there must be a river around that spot. But in the geopolitical world where only the white folk matter when it came to discovery rights, Gray crossed the bar first. Then likely Broughton, though I saw an entry somewhere that said when he crossed the bar there was another ship already there waiting for favorable conditions to exit. You may not see the importance, but then again I don't see the importance to Rock Creek Gold Rush, since it really didn't have an impact down here in Oregon. Same with Armenian Genocide, no real effect around where I live, but its likely rather important to people around there. Gray is an after thought to Canada, and he should be, except that whole name of the western province thing. But around the US Northwest, he is important for the name legacy. Back east in Boston he was really only celebrated for the circumnavigation for the first trip. That received press coverage, the Columbia River entry didn't. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Skookum, do I understand you right, that you're contesting the claim that Gray entered the river? If that's your concern, can you please tell us where you understand the mouth of the river to be located? -Pete (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying, again, is that Howay & Scholefield mention the freshwater/saltwater thing as a question about the validity of Gray's journal (whether or not Vancouver believed him); it was an issue, that's all I'm trying to say, and I found a cite describing the issue (which remained unresolved). Howay & Scholefield do not redner a verdict either, they only raise the fact that thet issue was an issue that the British tried to use in diplomatic arguments.....please read the cited pages......Skookum1 (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As for Rock Creek Gold Rush I don't see the Oregon history cat on it so I don't know what Aboutmovies is whining about; ostensibly, though, it should be either in Category:History of Washington or in Category:Washington Territory - as the participants were largely from that side of the line and, as with other cross-border gold rushes and similar matters, the adjoining parts of Washington werre involved/affected. As for American Genocide not affecting where Aboutmovies lives it makes me wonder which continent he's on; both Oregon and California were scenes of some of the worst carnage of all the anti-Indian Wars (California was more like an extermination campaign, as in Newfoundland where the Beothuk were hunted down like game....). Aboutmovies may be blissfully unaware of the genocidal history of wherever he lives...but if it's in Oregon, Washington or California he's blissfully wrong....Skookum1 (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Skookum, you missed so many of AM's points that I can only assume you posted very quickly without reading his comments closely. Also, the only specific edits you've made to the article clearly call into question whether or not Gray entered the river: [1] and [2]. While there may be an appropriately nuanced way of treating the subject, I have yet to see a sensible suggestion from you, and this discussion is not getting us anywhere closer to improving the article. Instead, it's getting increasingly personal between you and AM. I wish you'd both just give it a rest, and come back when you have a serious suggestion for how to improve the article. After some careful thought, rather than off-the-cuff and incomplete suggestions. -Pete (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

American Genocide? Huh, only you are talking about American Genocide. Please read, it says Armenian Genocide, different continent. The point is, what is important to you, does not mean it is important to other people, and vice versa. I doubt too many people in Oregon care about or have even heard about a gold rush in BC. The Yukon, yes. Please note this is only tangentially in a BC category and there is no Canadian or BC wikiproject tag here.

It was 2:30 am and I have bad eyes/glasses, and scan-read; I read it as "American Genocide", so sorry for that mistake. As for whether modern Oregonians even care if there was a gold rush in BC, that's completely irrelevant; they don't know most of their own history. 19th Century Oregonians did care about gold rushes in BC, and descended on them in large numbers; particuarly the near-border rushes like Similkameen, Rock Creek etc. The gold rush era in particular is an era when the border was still largely fictional and the reality on teh ground was one big region/culture/economy; that latter-day historians on both sides of the border tend to ignore connections from one side to the other doesn't mean old-era people did; anything but. In fact, I wager that if you look at oregon's population figures pre-1858 and post-1858 you'll find a huge through-flow from California towards BC that boosted oregon's own population as well as Washington Territory's; the histories are all interlinked. I don't see what your plaint about Rock Creek has to do with anything anyway; there was no oregon history cat or WP template on that page; although I did note that on this page there was no WP Washington until I added it, even though the Lower Columbia is clearly as much part of Washington's history as oregon's.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As to the salt water question and your months ago assertions about latitude or longitude being off, again, basically every historian agrees these do not mean he didn't enter the river. There are explanations to both, which may not have been available or thought of by Howay & Scholefield, these are after all rather old sources and historiography has come a long, long way the last 50 years. It would be like me re-introducing the claims of Gray going ashore to plant a flag and claim the region. Its covered in old documents, but nobody these days seriously believes he actually went ashore and claimed the river as such.

One other thing, which I raised before, why would Gray make this up. Remember it would have to be him, since within a few months he told the Spanish who told Vancouver, and Vancouver is the person historically to memorialize it in writing in his logs which were later published. Gray was only out to trade, and unlike say Meares or Kendrick, he wasn't interested in land and land claims. He entered the river to trade for pelts, that's it. Notice how Gray's discovery and Vancouver's log book entry comes before Broghton was sent to the river. That is, its not like the Americans years later during negotiations decided to make this up to try and have better discovery rights after Broughton went up the river. Gray could have cared less, that's why there is an entry in this article that says: Upon Gray’s return, though, little was thought of his discovery. He did not publish it,[20] and the long-term consequences to which it contributed were unforeseen.[2]

This was added because another Canadian editor insisted that it be mentioned that Gray and Americans at first didn't think much of it, and Gray never published his journal (others did later). Gray was not out for God & Country. He was out for himself. So again, why would he lie? His "glory" for the feat would not have been recognized until after he died. The crossing got him nothing but some more pelts, and maybe the satisfaction of proving Vancouver wrong. But he didn't get any land, so the discovery didn't mean much to him. Only later did it mean much to Americans for territorial claims, and up to this day for namesakes in the region. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

on page 433 that you point us to: “The British further disputed that Captain Gray had really discovered the Columbia River. On this point they drew a fine distinction between the mouth or estuary of the river, and the river properly so called.”

They go on to the point about the water, not claiming that he didn’t actually enter the mouth (i.e. crossing the bar), that the only reason he had fresh water was because of the “abnormal” water conditions that allowed him to get fresh water in the mouth where Broughton was not able to. Again, nothing about him lying in his log or any discrepancies, just that he did not go far enough into the river and that the only reason he had fresh water at that point was due to river conditions. Nothing about him not crossing the bar. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not in H&S, no, but the point is there was at least the water issue; I remember, not sure where, another set of disputes about his voyage having to do with observed vs. real terrain, and also various large native villages that weren't mentioned. I'd thought this was in the Chinook listserve but I just searched the archive there and can't find a citation in the debates; it's out there somewhere, I dont' make stuff up even if I can't rememnber where I read it....one thing to ask why Gray might have made things up, compeltely another to suggest (as you constantly do) that I have. As for Gray, ship-captains and others have often made stuff up, particularly back then, e.g. de Fonte and Maldonado whose maps/accounts were all fabrications; again, the allegation is not my own, but gleaned from somewhere in 30 years of related readings.... Skookum1 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to resolve this argument I just made an edit to the page, bringing up the idea that Gray's voyage was used to support the US claim while being rejected by the British in various ways as having significant value in establishing sovereignty. This much at least is true, I think. There's no need to get into the details of the points and counter-points argued, just the mention that it was an issue that, as far as I know, remained unresolved. Like most of the points about the claim to Oregon Country, it was left unresolved while the dispute in general was resolved by a rather arbitrary compromise. So I tried to say this tersely, and linked to the book I've quoted from above, which is peppered throughout with points and counter-points about Gray. In making this edit I removed some text that seems worth explaining -- Gray's entering of the Columbia eventually was used in support of American claims to the Oregon Country, together with the later Lewis and Clark Expedition. -- as I rewrote I left the reference to Lewis and Clark out, not because they were not an important part of the US claim, but because there were quite a few other factors besides Gray and Lewis & Clark. This sentence seemed to say those were the only two factors. So I just mentioned that there were many other points raised. I also rephrased this bit: ...was resolved by the Oregon Treaty of 1846, to undisputed American possession of the Pacific Northwest south of what became the Canadian province of British Columbia. -- because the way it is worded struck me as a bit US-centric, what with stating the undisputed American possession and not the equally undisputed British possession that resulted. Finally, the passage I edited was footnoted with a link to this HistLink page (used elsewhere on the page as well). I checked the page and didn't see anything of great importance to the bit I changed, so I just left the footnote out. The last sentence on that page might be an issue however, because it says: Indeed, by entering the river before the British, Gray not only determined the name of the river, but gave the United States its strongest claim to the Northwest Coast of North America. -- this is quite a statement and I'm not sure I believe it. The HistoryLink pages are a great resource, but sometimes they verge into rather bold statements. Anyway, I hope my edit seems fair to both sides. Please feel free to change it if need be. Pfly (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have the undisputed part, but just add that Britain then had undisputed (or similar type words for both) possession north, that way the reader isn't left wondering. Also I would prefer a more standard footnote to something that has obviously been contentious. As to the strongest claim statement made by the History Link author, I would agree with that author that it was the strongest claim pre-1840ish, which is why I think the British spent so much ink trying to diminish it. Gray came before L&C, and both were only temporary visitors, and the inherited Spanish claims were way out in right field. I think ultimately the reality of more US citizens than British citizens beginning around 1843 and with that disparity growing greater each year, the 1846 compromise was more about settlement than explorers. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to reply in full, but wanted to just say I agre that the footnote is non-ideal -- it was just what I had at hand that addressed the British and US arguments for and against. I'm sure it could be better footnoted, I just didn't have the time -- and don't right now, gotta run! Pfly (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar enough with the topic to be able to say much about these points. My impression on the significance of Gray's voyage to US claims is based mostly on vague impressions without much to back it up. It does seem likely that the growing disparity of settlers around the 1840s probably played the most important role in getting to a solution, even if the diplomats felt the need to stick to things more legally tangible, if that makes sense. So as I said, please feel free to edit -- I have no great desire to see the particular words I wrote to remain -- more a desire to see less bickering. In the same way, please restore something about "undisputed" however seems best. As for the footnote... being relatively unversed in the topic I don't have another source on hand to use (I admit I've barely skimmed some of the sources mentioned here on the talk page -- sorry, just been spending time elsewise). I'll keep my eyes open for something better, but again, please change as seems best if I don't get to it. Pfly (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pfly; I made a similar adjustment to hte intro. As for Gray's voyage being the strongest claim (that putative reason for the existene of this overblown article), howay & Scholefield state claerly that the Treaty of 1818 was the critical factor of any legalities. but in the end it wasn't about legalities, and while active fomentation of American settlement precipitated the crisis of the mid-1840s, that settlement was the result of bully-blustering by Aemrican policians and other operatives; in fact, Howay & Scholefield point to US Secret Service involvement in the agitation to settle Oregon to defy "British tyranny" (when in fact, as H&S point out, Britain scarcely had anything to say during some of the most critical moments). The secret service stuff is of interest to the Oregon boundary dispute article so when I find those page refs, I'll add it there. Britain's point that it was Heceta who really discovered the river, and named it the Rio San Roque, should however definitely be here, as should the near-misses which preceded heceta's observations.Skookum1 (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the United States Secret Service that was formed in 1865 after Lincoln was killed was involved in something in the 1840s? Aboutmovies (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting it, Howay & Scholefield speculate upon it, although they use small-s "secret service". I suggest you read their chapters on all of this (that's in teh Oregon Question chapter).Skookum1 (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Then use the small 's' to reflect what the source says. I wouldn't doubt secret agents being used on both sides or even a predecessor agency to the Secret Service. But not the "US Secret Service" as you wrote. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not article-space and I wasn't quoting Howay & Scholefield, and automatically capitalized something I'm used to seeing capitalized in modern usage; I wasn't aware that thte capital-S Secret Service was chratered only after Lincoln's assassination; clearly from the context they were talking about agitation/spying activites rather than imperial-presidency security details;they were writing c.1905 I think so by then the term "secret service" was at least current, though it may not have been the usage in the 1850s/1840s. Again I wasnt' quoting, only mentioning....rather than quibble, you shoudl just read the passage....Skookum1 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would I read some circa 1905 conspiracy theory about secret agents and spies, something that has nothing to do with Gray sailing into the river. I've read enough BS and POV stuff from the era. For the upteenth time, every reliable source in the world says Gray went over the Columbia bar in 1792, the only dispute is if he went far enough for territorial claims later used by the US. That's it. Period. Unless the secret agents used a time machine to go back and alter Vancouver's log books and printed journals, it has nothing to do with this article. Period. Does it have something to do with Oregon boundary dispute, maybe, but this ain't that page. So take it to that page, as it has nothing to do with this page. With the water issue, as I explained, the source you gave still backs up what I've been explaining to you about there not being a discrepancy. They mention no discrepancy, they don't say Gray lied, they don't say he made it up. Nope, they say he didn't sail far enough. Same claim that's been floating around for nearly 200 years. See, the British said Gray didn't reach the river, so the US countered that he had, that's why he was able to get fresh water where he was. The British then countered that his ability to get fresh water was a aberration of the water conditions, not Gray's log book, or as they say: "abnormal condition prevailed". Again, nothing about the log book being incorrect about being able to fill up with water where he did. Just that he was only able to do this in May after a bunch of runoff from the melting snowpack and rainfall moved the "freshet" further towards the ocean and allowed Gray to fill up where normally (i.e. when Broughton arrived) you cannot. And with your old assertion about the coordinates being off, again, as I showed you last time, that was normal and includes Mr. Vancouver's coordinates on his voyage. So keep raising this if you like, and then head over to the Moon landings page and talk about how that was made in a studio in some desert.

As to importance and cats. This article is not in a BC cat at all. So the comparison to articles not in an Oregon category is perfectly valid. I use to care about BC history and Canadian history, but not after your persistent personal attacks in the past, and certainly not with your persistent claims about American POV. So, I don't care if you don't think this is important. But there are books and chapters in books about this event, thus it is notable, and needs to be included in Wikipedia. Again, it may not be important to you, but that doesn't matter. Rock Creek Gold Rush is not important to me, but again (here's the analogy for you) it may be important to other people such as you and people in BC so my lack of caring means nothing. Wikipedia is not about what you think is important, or what I think is important. Its about notability, and this clearly passes that test. This is not a POV fork as you like to claim. This is an article about a well documented event that had long-term consequences (again, what is the name of the province with the initials BC). Its not up there with Columbus' "discovery" of the new world, but I think it is above the Eliot Spitzer hooker scandal, and all three meet the guidelines for inclusion. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A late friend of mine, well-read and global in outlook in ways I fear you cannot understand, had a saying: "A mind is like a box. If it's open, things get put into it. If it's closed, nothing does." You challenged me on the s/Secret s/Service thing and I ansswered, then you reamed me out for doing so; I try to teach you something, you complain you don't want to know and don't know why anyone else should. Grow up, open your mind, and realize when your perspective needs to broaden, and the scope of the full materials about this pet little story of yours finally opns up; thigns about it are scattered across hundreds of book; Howay & Schoelfield are not "conspiracy theorists" but distinguishyed historians, and one of hte main sources for Northwest history not written in teh US, including events in Oregon. Give your head a shake, and open your eyes and eaers. Keep your mind shut if you want to, but dno't expect for people to confront you with thigns you don't want to know or deal with; the world's not like that, history in particular. Anything I find in Begg or kerr or Bancroft (all online now, among others) that relates here, belongs here; if it happens to shift teh story/article in a different direction, and you don't like it because you want to rant "conspiracy theorists", I'll go with Howay (a distinguished udge and scholar then you likely don't want to read Bancroft or other Northwest historians either....pity that, but your problem, not mine.Skookum1 (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto could be said for you. I have no problem with new information being brought to this or any article. The problem with your assertions, are that the citations to the distinguished scholars you make do not back up your claims. Period. If they actually backed up your claims that Gray never crossed the Columbia River bar and entered the estuary in May 1792, fine. But that's not what they say. They do not challenge this at all. I've read Howay (see the reference section to this and the Gray article, as well as related exploration articles), and in the 1941 book entitled Voyages of the Columbia to the Northwest Coast he does not question Gray sailing into the river. That books comes after the 1914 one you have been pointing to (the one where he also does not question whether Gray entered the river), so the later book would have included anything like that. But it doesn't. I've also read various things by Bancroft and cited him in articles such as Albert E. Wilson, Nathaniel Ford, Harvey L. Clark, Alonzo A. Skinner, Oregon Lyceum, Orville C. Pratt, Gustavus Hines to name a few. But Bancroft on page 260 doesn't challenge Gray entering the river (see the footnote too), and he even reprints Robert Haswell's log from the Columbia that contains many of the details of entering the river, and it doesn't include any disclaimers. Howay and Bancroft agree, Gray entered the river's mouth. Even that stalwart of British knowledge, The Encyclopaedia Britannica, agrees that Gray entered the river. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Might want to include this image

Why?? Why not also te Union Jack, since Broughton actually invoked it in his just-later claims? Ws Gray claiming the river for the US, and did he plant this flag? Or was this just the flag on his ship? What does it have to do with the voyage up the Columbia?? That it was on his ship at the time? What's the point? Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Man, I guess I hit a nerve. I didn't mean anything by it, I just ran across the image (did not realize it had been uploaded by Aboutmovies, I just found it on the French Wikipedia actually and thought it might be of interest).

Sorry to inspire a panic attack. -Pete (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I was a bit over the top.....one of my problems with this article from its inception is the jingoistic nature of the importance placed on Gray's expedition, i.e. the political-propganada aspect of it, justifying the US' later takeover of lands it essentially bullied its way into acquiring; "flying the flag" on the article also seemed to be to be a bit much; do we put a Union Jack on the Cook or Vancouver expedition pages, or the French royal flag on La Perouse's? Just because it flew from Gray's ship during the expedition doesn't mean it's relevant to encyclopedic content; no doubt a picture of his ceramic bedpan would equally suffice? More relevant would be his chart/map, or a page from his journal.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There are charts of the lower Columbia made by Gray--Grays Bay and the mouth of Grays River at least (places that were given those names by Broughton--it's interesting how Vancouver and Broughton both respected and honored Gray, accepting his naming of things like the Columbia, and naming other places after him, while simultaneously working to undo whatever political claims might have resulted from Gray's activities). I don't know if there are copyright-free versions online, but I will look. I do understand why it would seem harmless, even relevant, to add the flag image, but also how it might cause annoyance for some Canadians. My impression is that a fair number of Canadians are still (and will always be!) at least mildly annoyed about the "loss" of the Columbia and lands to the north, as well as the loss of the San Juan Islands...not to mention the occasional, now mainly historic, aggressiveness of the US toward Canada ("historic" in the military sabre-rattling sense; maybe not in the current economic and political sense). Anyway, seems best to leave the flag image on the Columbia Rediviva page. Ship pages usually have flags, even if little icon-like ones, right? HMS Discovery (1789), Lady Washington, Princess Royal (sloop), etc. I would guess that the flag from the Columbia Rediviva was kept and photographed simply because the ship was famous and lauded in the early US and seen as evidence of America's future potential--and in those very early days of the USA people were thrilled to know a US flag had sailed around the world, to China, Hawaii, even into a previously unentered river! The flag became symbolic in a way that the flags of Vancouver's ships, or Cook's, wouldn't have. I would be surprised if the flags flown by Vancouver and Cook were preserved and later photographed like Gray's flag was. Still--the flag was meaningful to early Americans not only because Gray entered the Columbia but probably much more because Gray took it on the first US circumnavigation. I'm half-guessing half-remembering things read; if I'm not totally wrong it might be useful to add this kind of info about Gray's voyage, the flag, ship, etc, and its reception/impact on the early US psyche, to the page on Gray himself. Aaaanyway, I'll try to find one of Gray's charts. Pfly (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)