Talk:Chehalem Creek

Beavers

Let us try and corral this all onto this page. First, I apologize for not making my reasoning better understood by the new editor. After hundreds of incidents like these, one forgets that not everyone knows how to read an edit summary and what the acronyms stand for.

Regardless, please take note that two editors, myself and tedder, have concerns about the content being added here (and what had been at the Newberg article). These are two editors uninvolved in Newberg related things, and at least for me, did not know about nor really care about a beaver dam threatening a road and the evil plans to kill them. I say evil, because as an uninvolved editor that is what these series of edits come across as: "Evil Newberg government seeks to stupidly kill wonderful and cuddly beavers when it is far cheaper to do other things since they will only come back to haunt city leaders". Now, I exaggerate, but not by much. This poses several problems. First, we are required to maintain a neutral point of view (NPOV), and this section does not do that. It is clearly in favor of a flow device and is advocating for it.

To be neutral, it would not have used selective reading. For instance the study (which was not conducted by VDOT, they only paid for it) clearly states "Removing beavers and dams may be the most cost-effective approach to mitigating beaver damage in cases where it is unlikely that immigrants will re-occupy trapped sites." and mentions other instances where beaver removal is more optimum - e.g. due to topography. Here, the reader does not know if the topography would allow for the use of these devices, nor do we know if the beavers would be back within a few months or not (a rather interesting question since beavers were mainly gone from the valley for about 150 years after over-trapping). Plus, the study has some flaws, and it even cites some other studies that had much less success. For one thing, I think it is odd they would include the cost of repairing the roads along with the beaver removal on one side to compare to the flow device items on the other side. As in, if you spend your money and eliminate the beavers (even if you have to do it each year) then there should also not be any damage to the roads to repair. Otherwise its like including prenatal care costs along with your condom costs to compare that to the costs of the pill. In both of those cases if things are not done right you will have prenatal costs, and if both are done correctly you will not have prenatal costs. But as to being neutral, here is where we would introduce the other side of the equation and present the arguments for removal.

Now, all of that assumes this should even be in this article. All of the debate over flow devices is cited to sources that do not mention this creek. Which is why that section should not be here, as it is a more general topic. For instance, we do not have a section on the problems with or even definition of sexual harassment in the Bob Packwood article. We don't debate whether the acts were criminal or anything like that, as those are topics that should be covered at sexual harassment. For beaver items, something like Pest control#Natural rodent control would be the proper venue. Sort of the same problem with the image of the jumping fish. On an article about that species, or the location of that picture, or of beaver dams and the like would be the proper place for that image, not in an Oregon article (it would be like using a picture of Main Street in Sandusky, Ohio, to substitute for one of Newberg's Main Street just because they are both cities in the United States with about 25,000 residents and have a Main Street).

Moving on. Next, the amount of info on beavers in the Newberg article (prior to my trimming) and on this article (prior to my trimming) further violates the NPOV rule as it creates an undue weight problem. As in that topic dominates the article, far more than in proportion to the amount of published material on the topic. For a community with roughly 150 years of history, this is a small episode, and ditto for the creek. Is it worth mentioning, apparently so by the media attention it has received going by the citations, but this is not the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Only on Wikipedia is where I have heard of this issue about the beavers, and my daily new sources are ESPN, CNN, and OregonLive. Going by that, missing hikers on Mount Hood get far more attention than this (this being not covered as far as I can tell on those news sources), and we don't go into paragraphs of details about every incident at Mount Hood climbing accidents, even though these often receive national news coverage. Its about proportion.

I think that covers most of the issues. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

May 10 - Thanks for the thorough explanation. I agree that flow devices are not the right solution for every creek but they are so inexpensive (there are do-it-yourself webpages that teach how to install them just with a visit to your local hardware store) that it should be mentioned at least as an option. It is literally just putting a pipe through the beaver dam with a wire cage around the pipe's mouth so the beavers cannot plug it up. The exact words I used, and still use, are "a third option might be to consider". I don't see how that comment is steering? (Although I'm admitting here that regarding my other comments it took a bit of head-kicking to get my biases out...)

Regarding undue weight, I created the page on Chehalem Creek because you instructed me that it was not relevant enough to the Newberg, OR page. Because it is a creek I put up the geobox, some history and references and the creek's ecology - usually there isn't much else people care about a creek unless there is a big flood. This issue has gotten the city, the county, Fish and Game and the Yamhill Basin Council pretty wound up. And trust me, there's not a lot else exciting going on in Newberg. Shouldn't the news be weighed on its RELATIVE importance to the persons involved, no matter how local? For example, using your "missing hikers on Mt. Hood" logic, you could argue that 90% of the small towns with a Wikipedia page should be deleted. They aren't notable to most readers. But Wikipedia is much more than an encyclopedia or major news outlet, it's a reference for people to find information regarding the issues that concern them - and those issues are increasingly LOCAL. Therefore they will always be out of reach of CNN and FOX-TV. Where you guys have really helped me is to make sure my article is objective and balanced but if Wikipedia is just trying to create an online encyclopedia then it will become just as irrelevant to most of us as most hard copy encyclopedias - because frankly, we care more about our home town issues and controversies than we do about Mt. St. Helens. All that said, if you strike the flow device comment again, I'll leave well enough alone. I do appreciate the education and opportunity to dialogue with you guys and the time you have invested in helping me improve my work. Best, Schmiebel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmiebel (talk • contribs) 01:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, a mention of this controversy is fine. It's the out-of-proportion coverage originally in this article and the Newberg article that was a problem. Local coverage is fine, I do it all the time and advocate for it on Wikipedia. What I wrote was "we don't go into paragraphs of details". For an example of a local controversy, see this one sentence that covers something that received a fair amount of press locally: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. So five stories get boiled down into one sentence buried in the school district article. And why? Because over 150 years that is about all there should be, as we go with proportion. So covered, yes. Three paragraphs covering the pros and cons, no. Discussions about the urban growth boundary and traffic/travel times to schools, no. Potential lost property taxes and motivations, no. Clean, simple, and in proportion.

As to the flow devices, we do need a source that says a flow control device is an option in this case. As in a source that mentions this creek, otherwise what is happening is it is your opinion that is being expressed, which is original research. You are entitled to your opinion, and flow devices sound like a good alternative, but a Wikipedia article is not the place to express your opinion or advocate for your side. For that, write an op-ed piece to the Newberg Graphic or a letter to ODOT/the county. Then when the government adds a flow device as an option, it will get reported and could then be added to the article. Otherwise, for example, if I wanted to, I could edit the Oregon Zoo article and add that land in West Union is very well suited for elephants and that Intel owns some land there they don't seem to need, and that should be a nice option for the zoo's planned off-site elephant home. That all maybe true, but Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy in that way, and then it leaves us open to someone from Tigard saying Cook Park is great for that, or folks in Wilsonville pushing for using the old state training center for the elephants, etc.. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I get it. Your humorous example makes the point nicely and again I appreciate the time. I know someone expert on the subject and I'll ask them to write the Newburg Graphic in their own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmiebel (talk • contribs) 06:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

5/15/10 Tedder and Aboutmovies-I had my contacts write the Newberg Graphic as you advised and on May 12 they wrote a nice article!! Thanks for the advice, I just added it as a reference. Newberg hasn't had so much controversy in years...Schmiebel (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chehalem Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110034730/http://www.willamette-riverkeeper.org:80/WRK/riverforks1.html to http://www.willamette-riverkeeper.org/WRK/riverforks1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)