Talk:Yosemite National Park

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ellenmbruce (talk | contribs) at 23:36, 14 February 2022 (Update Environmental Ethics and the National Parks assignment details). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:36, 14 February 2022 by Ellenmbruce (talk | contribs) (Update Environmental Ethics and the National Parks assignment details)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Yosemite National Park is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 20, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 18, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
February 13, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
May 8, 2007	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted
December 11, 2021	Featured article review	Demoted
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 25, 2004, September 25, 2005, October 1, 2007, October 1, 2008, October 1, 2009, October 1, 2010, October 1, 2011, October 1, 2015, October 1, 2017, October 1, 2018, and October 1, 2020.
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Protected areas High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

California Top‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is a selected article on the California Portal.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

World Heritage Sites

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States History Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject United States History To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention
Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes
Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs
Other :
- Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess:
  - {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}}
  - {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Old West High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Climbing High‑importance

	Climbing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climbing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climbing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ClimbingWikipedia:WikiProject ClimbingTemplate:WikiProject ClimbingClimbing
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 28 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emnh133, ChrispinPerez (article contribs).

Hantavirus

Very well, an editor has requested that this be discussed here. I have also requested an admin to review this. There seems to be opposition to mentioning this statement in the U.S. National Park Service subsection of the History section of this article: "In August 2012, Yosemite experienced an outbreak of hantavirus, a rodent-borne virus which killed at least two people, and according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, placed about 10,000 more at risk.". The fact that I'm "just" an IP address shouldn't have any bearing on the fact that a major public health risk involving 10,000 is notable and should be mentioned. An editor mentions that there have been over a thousand deaths at Yosemite - even if so, those have virtually all been attributed to falls off cliffs and other accidental or traumatic causes. Hantavirus is different, actually an infectious cause and apparently putting 10,000 people at risk, according to an authority no less than the CDC. It would be remiss to simply ignore such a major issue as if it never existed. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

True, but it's also dangerous to try to get precision out of the somewhat sensational reporting going on right now. I would describe the "10,000 at risk" claim as part of the sensationalism. I would prefer to wait until the sensation fades from the reporting. Of course if news develops rapidly, with more deaths (let's hope not) then maybe something would be needed in the article quickly. HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"At risk" simply means that - at risk. And this is the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) making this assessment here, so I doubt it's sensationalism. The statement is also well-cited and simply states that the CDC has stated that 10,000 are at risk, not that I myself am declaring that 10,000 are at risk. Hopefully there are no more deaths, but that will never change the fact that an exceedingly unusual event has occurred at Yosemite with major potential consequence, and this is what cannot be ignored or dismissed as having never existed. And since when does Misplaced Pages wait for news to "ripen" before being recorded? 173.63.176.93 (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a long way away in Australia. My local "reliable source" is reporting this. But I'm still concerned that it stands out just because it's at a well known place rather than elsewhere. My reliable source tells me "Since the disease was first identified in 1993, there have been some 60 cases in California". Six more cases in California would not really be huge news. It's just that they happened somewhere famous. As for waiting for news to ripen, while I wouldn't have used those words, we do have Misplaced Pages:Recentism. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you're located in Australia, perhaps you may not appreciate the weight of a U.S. CDC declaration such as this one - this is significant, no matter how one tries to spin it. The source I cited indicates that at least five of the cases were associated with tent cabins at Yosemite's Curry Village - therefore, this becomes a very pertinent issue from specifically a Yosemite standpoint as well as from a public health standpoint. Again, the statement is simply indicating a highly unusual event as documented by no less august an institution than the CDC - it is not expressing an individual opinion or sensationalism, but a relevant statement from a reliable source. It's late here in the U.S., I will have to read your response and continue this discussion afterward, thank you. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand the Yosemite perspective. I just wonder what we do if we add content to the article now, and this is the last we hear of it in mainstream media? HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that will be a problematic issue. Look at the line before where this would go, in that same subsection - it's about something less consequential, namely about roads being closed. ("Roads have been closed in California before (even in Yosemite) - this just happened in a famous place." - just being facetious!) Another line could always be added on eventually that fortunately there ended up being no futher significant casualty count. However, please look at the Misplaced Pages traffic statistics for the past several days - there's obviously been a tremendous viewership spike during this story. To not capture the reason for that would represent terrible journalistic standards. So it sounds like you are open to having it in and modifying it as necessary - therefore, I will place it back, and you or I or anyone else can further add to it or modify in whatever way the story develops over time, thank you. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

How about WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This is simply put, two more deaths in literally thousands. Making them out to be more notable than they are is giving them undue weight. And for the record, I'm in California, so theres no problem with my perspective. This is not an "epidemic" or "pandemic". Its a few people who caught a rare decease that has also claimed lives outside of the park, so no reason to make a special note of it when it happens in Yosemite. And as far as the CDC is concerned, this is the same organization that actually and officially sent out a Zombie Warning a few years ago, so you can't claim that they don't sensationalize.--JOJ 13:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but JOJ appears to be missing the main points:

1) It's not the number of deaths that matter here, it's the cause which is different. 2) It's also not the number of deaths but the number of people stated to be at risk by the CDC, which is one of the most reputable and authoritative U.S. national public health organizations of record, no matter how one tries to spin it. 3) It's stating a relevant, current, and well cited fact that is certainly more consequential than the statements before it about roads being temporarily rendered unusable - now THAT is undue weight. So if those statements remain, this should remain. 4) For now, given my good-faith understanding of the apparent OK of the reviewer of this article with the caveat that the coming days and weeks need to be monitored and the statement modified as necessary, I feel comfortable re-instating this statement. In the meantime, I have also sent this for admin review, so please do not engage in another edit conflict before he has a chance to review it. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You are edit warring over this trivial issue. You have no right per WP:BRD to feel comfortable to re-add information that two separate editors have removed. This is not a notable event, no matter how you wish to spin it. It's not an epidemic, it's not something that has only happened at Yosemite, and its not something that is going to have a lasting effect on the park. And did you "add" my signature to the text of your comment?--JOJ 16:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I am NOT edit warring - see my talk page. If anything, it appears that you are the one engaging as such. You are the only editor who has had a sustained objection to this "trivial" issue - even the reviewer of this article appears to agree with me. And as far as your "signature" goes, how else would/should someone state your Username if that's how you characterize it yourself? - please enlighten, your question sounds bizarre. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Who is this "reviewer and where is it that says they agree with this trivial inclusion?--JOJ 16:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop it with the games already and let it go to the admin - there's nothing more to say unless you have some vested interest in not including a pertinent and noteworthy while perhaps unpleasant fact. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can't provide any evidence or a diff of anyone else agreeing for this inclusion, then it shouldn't be included. Its trivial, undue weight, not notable, and too recent to be included. There is no notability in these two deaths than in any of the others. And the CDC claiming that 10,000 people are at risk, is another example of the CDC sensationalizing a situation. They have done it before. Unless this becomes an epidemic in the park, its hardly notable enough to mention.--JOJ 16:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of prolonging this discussion, HiLo48 (talk) above has given his conditional OK, and his edit summary in the edit history states, "Understand". You, on the other hand, are in apparently bad faith attempting to subvert release of pertinent and properly and reliably cited information validated by the highly authoritative CDC. And please look up WP:CRYSTALBALL - what may or may not materialize is irrelevant. I really feel uncomfortable continuing with this conversation any longer - please let the admin sort this out. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel that you may have misinterpreted the "understood" comment as some sort of agreement with inclusion. There is nothing in any of the above comments that would lead me to believe that HiLO was agreeing with you. I'm only following Misplaced Pages Guidelines and policies, which I am very very familiar with and am able to easily spot problems with content that seems to violate these policies.--JOJ 16:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed as undue wt and notnews. Also took out the spring 2011 storm bit for the same reason. Vsmith (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I had the storm on my radar as well.--JOJ 17:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes, a little too much was read into my earlier comment. My point was that although I'm Australian, I have been to the Curry Village at Yosemite (hence this being on my watchlist), and can see the immediate issue from the Yosemite perspective. But I'm still concerned that this is hopefully and quite likely going to be the last we will here of this story in mainstream media. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please check this out: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/06/health/yosemite-campers-hantavirus/index.html?iref=allsearch ..and then please check this out: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/zombie-alert-issued-homeland-security-article-1.1154245 (the Zombie alert was just a humorous tactic to alert the public of threats far more important - it wasn't meant to be taken for real - even I could tell. 173.63.176.93 (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Hantavirus story has been sensationalized a lot in recent global media, but I don't think excluding it from this article is going to help anyone. I don't understand why we don't have a section acknowledging the situation, showing evidence and explaining the normal dangers of the disease, and linking to Curry_Village,_California#2012_Hantavirus_outbreak. I've seen this implemented in other Misplaced Pages articles in the past while looking up more information about hoax-like or questionable news or events online. If anything, I think this would would deter further "vandalism" from unknowing Misplaced Pages Users who think we're overlooking or purposefully hiding this entire issue at hand. Airelor (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Because we don't add every single death that occurs in the park. That logic would open the flood gates for adding other deaths. This isn't a epidemic or something catastrophic.--JOJ 12:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read my last comment more carefully... I'm not trying to suggest writing about the Hantavirus risk as a large epidemic or serious "zombie" attack like some news outlet might. Three days ago I didn't even know this or any other Misplaced Pages Talk Page existed in this way. I tried to make an edit about the Hantavirus risk on this page without knowing other people had tried to this before and had my action reverted also by you. If you already had a section already referring to Hantavirus disease, you might actually be making your job easier. I'm going to try to appeal this to another administrator. I hope you realize that I'm not trying to antagonize you, the National Park, or the reputation of Misplaced Pages by doing this. Airelor (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point of Misplaced Pages. It's not the mission of the project to make places look good or bad. These articles are not fan sites, nor are they a repository for every single snippet of information that has ever been written about them. With so many deaths in the park during its existance, its best not to give too much weight in the article for just a few recent ones.--JOJ 17:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

My local media has stopped reporting this (which reinforces my original concern of Misplaced Pages:Recentism), so I ask those geographically closer, have there been any more deaths this month? If not, this does not go into the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Three have died , which matches the death toll on a single day last year when three hikers were swept over Vernal Fall at the same time. Coincidently, I was actually in the park last year when that happened. My family and I were hiking up to Upper Yosemite Falls when the deaths occurred. We had actually been at the lip of Vernal Fall two days previous, so the deaths of those three hikers kind of hit me hard. But I still didn't think it notable enough to add to the article, because it's undue weight.--JOJ 23:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

References

"CDC: 10,000 at risk of hantavirus in Yosemite outbreak". © 2012 NBCNews.com. Retrieved 2012-08-31.

Rim fire

I started a stub at 2013 Yosemite fire since the event seems to meet notabillty criteria for events per WP:GEOSCOPE. --DarTar (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Vernal Fall

This old photograph of "Vernal Fall" might interest someone. Is it the same sight as the one pictured in the article? This angle isn't quite as dramatic. Also, the area looks more cleared out in recent photographs? Park service? Fire? Just the angle?

Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Website links in infobox

Currently, the infobox contains three links. Even assuming they all belong in the EL section, I believe the Infobox should only contain the URL to the official http://www.nps.gov/yose/index.htm per the usage guidance at Template:Infobox protected area as well as per WP:ELOFFICIAL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% and have removed the websites of Yosemite Conservancy (which I support financially myself) and Delaware North (whose facilities I have patronized many times). I have no problem including them as external links. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yosemite as part of Northern California

To avoid the issue of edit-warring, let's discuss this debate here. As our own article on Northern California notes, the counties encompassing Yosemite National Park are commonly referred to as being part of Northern California, and the park is commonly referred to in external publications as being in Northern California. For example, "Wild Northern California," a guidebook to designated wilderness in the region, includes and describes the Yosemite Wilderness. . This is likely because while Yosemite may be closer to the "geographic center" than the northern extremity, in common practice California is roughly geographically divided in half rather than in thirds. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Controlled use of fire by Ahwahneechee Native American Indians in Yosemite

I think somewhere this view should be mentioned, that the Ahwahneechee before they were killed or driven from the park would manage it with controlled fires and that many of the problems with wild fires are due to this absence of the resident humans who used to be part of the ecosystem there. Perhaps a short summary of this article could be a starting point for it?

Fire Over Ahwahnee: John Muir and the Decline of Yosemite

Robert Walker (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Confusing redirects

The Yosemite Park and Curry Company redirect is targeted at this page, whereas the effectively identical Yosemite Park & Curry Company is redirected to the Ahwahnee Hotel. Could someone who knows about this sort out that mess? (I'm posting an identical note in the talk section of the latter page, too.) MrRedwood (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Curry Company doesn't even have a page, and isn't a redirect to anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRedwood (talk • contribs) 23:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

History: "first to tour the area"

"In 1855, entrepreneur James Mason Hutchings, artist Thomas Ayres and two others were the first to tour the area." This needs clarification, because indigenous people clearly "tour the area" long before any Europeans entered N America. Acwilson9 (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily.

If the reader doesn't know that, besides parts of the polar regions, there aren't many places on the planet that hadn't seen a human by 1855 (and most of them remote islands), the preceding section begins: "Yosemite Valley has been inhabited for nearly 3,000 years, although humans may have first visited the area as long as 8,000 to 10,000 years ago."
Nobody would say that Native Americans "toured the area". They didn't "tour" anything.
How best to clarify? "First Europeans"? Hutchings had apparently been an American citizen since 1848, and Ayres was born in New Jersey. "First people of European descent"? "First white people"? "First non-natives"? In any case, strict adherence to WP:V would require source support, and the cited source, being a book, is not easily accessible. So you'd have to go find a copy of the book or another reliable source that says what you want the article to say.

There is such a thing as "over-accuracy" – i.e., accuracy that is unnecessary and tends to hinder reading comprehension. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Superintendent

Any interest in a having a sentence mention the national park's superintendent? Cindy Muldoon was named yesterday as the park's new superintendent, becoming just the second woman to hold the position. I think it's worthy of inclusion, and I'm happy to post it if there's consensus. https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/Yosemite-gets-new-superintendent-in-bid-for-15678961.php Pistongrinder (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

FA criteria

There is significant unsourced content in the article, including no less than 27 {{citation needed}} tags. The article will need better referencing in order to remain a featured article. (t · c) buidhe 21:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, Mav is no longer editing, might you be interested in bringing this back to standard? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I will have to put it in cue. Would like to see it updated but not sure I have time. I'll try.--MONGO (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I like chasing down references. I'll take a crack at it. — hike395 (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm willing to work on it too. Pistongrinder (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hike395, @Pistongrinder, @MONGO: can I bring this to FAR, or do you still plan to work on this in the medium-term? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I'll get back to work on it. — hike395 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hike395, Pistongrinder, and MONGO: still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the reminder, @Z1720. I'll have some time next week to work on researching and adding appropriate citations to the article. Pistongrinder (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Awesome. Feel free to ping me when improvements are complete and I will conduct a more thorough review. Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I've added several citations to the article over the last few weeks as you can see in the history section, but I'm not finished yet. There are still a dozen or so more tags to tackle. This is just an update to say that I'm still working on them. Pistongrinder (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Disputing the origin of the name Yosemite and "grizzy bear"

In the Etymology section, it is stated that the name Yosemite "itself is from the Native American word 'uzumate,' which meant grizzly bear", which was taken from the source https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/travel/national-parks/the-origins-of-place-names-in-yosemite/

However, from another source http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/origin_of_word_yosemite.html, it is explained that this name was a mistake. The one who named the National Park, Mr. L. H. Bunnell, heard the story from Major James Savage, who had a conversation with Chief Ten-ei-ya and mistakenly interpreted Ten-ei-ya. It is further explained in http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/discovery_of_the_yosemite/04.html#page_63 that Ten-ei-ya was describing his band, which consisted of the outlaws and refugrees from other tribes, is called "grizzy bear", but not the area itself. The word "uzumate" (bear) and "yosemite" (killer), although sound similar to those who is not familiar with Miwok language, are totally distinct to native speaker in Miwok .

Therefore it is not persuasive to use the explanation provided by the Hachette Book Group. I recommend a discussion and revision (if applicable) on this section.

BrainchildHo 🧠👶Ho 💬 08:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Erwin G. Gudde, California Place Names, 1949, s.v.

2. Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics, Memoir 6 of the International Journal of American Linguistics, 1951.

Categories: