Talk:Grand Canyon National Park/Archive 1

Grand Canyon and Glen Canyon
The Grand Canyon National park article says in its second paragraph that the creation of GCNP was motivated by the creation of Glen Canyon Dam. How can this be, given that the park was created in 1919 and Glen Canyon Dam in the 1950's? I hesitate to edit the article directly because I am not intimately familiar with the history of either, but it seems misleading to me.--Wallyneb 10:30, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * It might have been more accurate to say that expansion of the park was motivated by the creation of Glen Canyon Dam. That still does not get it exactly right, as preliminary surveys in the 60's outside then-park-boundaries near Havasu Creek and within Marble Canyon (a separate National Monument until 1975) for future dam projects led to the compromise between the Sierra Club and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to allow construction of the dam in Glen Canyon.  The expansion of the park to its present-day boundaries now encompases the areas where dams were once proposed.
 * This appears to be moot as the language you mentioned has been deleted since your original comment. A larger article about the park should include a section on its expansion in the 1970's, and could include a rehash of the above text.  I am working on articles about the trails within the park, and can help expand this article as my book research continues.  Notary137 18:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Seperate article for trail listings
I propose creating a section for listing the hiking trails within the boundaries of the park. A second oprion is to create an article named List of trails in Grand Canyon National Park, with a link somewhere from this article. The trails to be listed are:
 * (trails listed removed by author)

There are a large number of redlinks there today, but I'm working on it. I've already created four of the articles listed since mid-August (Hermit Trail, Tonto Trail, North Kaibab Trail and Cape Final Trail) and hope to have all but a couple created by October 7th.

A separate article will keep the main one small, and allow for description of the trail system and its interconnections in the List of... article. Any thoughts? Notary137 19:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * After a bit of thought, I advocate the creation of a new article versus a section only. See strikeout text above.  Notary137 19:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and created the 'List of...' article stated above, and added a link in the 'see also' section of this article. Trails without articles are simply not linked to eliminate redlinks.  Notary137 06:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical Opposition to Park
There was opposition to the Park by Arizona's congressional delegation, need verifiable sources for this but issues are mentioned in this article: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/nrepa_local_interests_and_conservation_history/C73/L38/ which states: When President Teddy Roosevelt established the Grand Canyon as a national monument in 1908, Arizona’s Congressional delegation successfully prevented any federal funding for the park operations and tried unsuccessfully to legally challenge Roosevelt’s monument designation. I'll get to researching this when I can, finding verifiable sources, but thought such opposition may be useful for understanding the history of the park's formation. Just wanted to throw this out there for folks that may be interested in looking further into developing a section on the history of the park. Nnoell (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

grand canyon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.116.225 (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Split or Merge?
Shouldn't Grand Canyon and Grand Canyon National Park be merged into one article? I previously made an article on Death Valley National Park and talked a great deal about just Death Valley -- the two are inseparately linked (Death Valley is a redirect to the Death Valley National Park). The same is true about the Grand Canyon and the National Park it is within. You cannot really talk about the park without going into detail about its most prominent feature. --maveric149


 * I wouldn't make them redirects, because they're not the same thing, and the Grand Canyon isn't entirely within the National Park. I'm generally an advocate of breaking up articles rather than merging them. --The Cunctator


 * Just as important though would be a careful redirect of Grand Canyon to Grand Canyon of the Colorado River -- Yep, it is by far the most commonly referred to "Grand Canyon" but the term is acually used quite a lot on many rivers -- for example the Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne River is in Yosemite National Park while I have seen the Grand Canyon of the Kings River for Kings Canyon in Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park -- ClaudeMuncey, Monday, April 1, 2002


 * I disagree. If Grand Canyon is to remain its own article, then it must be about the Grand Canyon that is within the Grand Canyon National Park. This "grand canyon" is by far the one known worldwide as simply, the Grand Canyon. A link at the bottom of the page to Grand Canyons or better yet, Grand Canyons of the world would suffice for the other much less well know "grand canyons". This is similar to what has been planned for the Paris article (as soon as other Paris, X articles are written). --maveric149


 * No problem maveric -- set it up one way or the other -- I would suggest then the main Grand Canyon link with the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River as a redirect to catch the odd stray link or search. ClaudeMuncey, Monday, April 1, 2002

The more general problem remains about articulation between articles on historic sites or natural features and articles on the parks or reserves that enclose them, completely or partially. (In some cases, there is no difference -- Vietnam Veterans Memorial is an example) The Grand Canyon is a good case (as you and TC have pointed out). In another case, all the material in WP on Yellowstone, is now in Yellowstone National Park. Another case is Yosemite National Park, an article I am working up (I live just down the road in Merced). Yosemite Valley is entirely in the park, is entirely identified with the park (or rather vice versa), and could easily deserve a substantial article of its own (with excellent PD images supplied by me, of course ). There are other significant and famous natural features that are both completely within, and partially within the park. Death Valley National Park is another. (Nice start maveric -- I would like more articles from direct experience -- any pics?)

What would you think about a brief guideline, perhaps in Talk:National Parks (United States) suggesting how to keep this generally disambiguated, that we and others could wiki into shape? I was already thinking of putting a general invitation on that page, with suggestions for material, with a note on the announcements page to get some more people to jump in. Good idea/bad idea? ClaudeMuncey, Monday, April 1, 2002in 1999 when i was born i didnt know anything about the Grand Canyon and now I knnow every thing and you dont


 * It's been a while since the issue of 'merge or split' came up. It thus appears that there is no interest in merging these two articles: Grand Canyon and Grand Canyon National Park.  I can live with that, but -- and I thinks it's pretty big.  Some of the sections in the Grand Canyon article related to information that is specifically related to the existence of the park.  So, do we just let people flounder over the lack of information in the park article, redirect them to the 'geologic formation' article (which I've done), duplicate information in both articles, or move information in an organized manner to between the two articles so that they compliment each other?  It's obvious I'm in favor of the last item.  By the way, while the park and the canyon are not exactly the same, to the public there is no difference, since they believe the only access it through the park.  Yes, we can split hairs, but who is the Wikipedia for?  the writers or the public?--Chris Light (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw your edit here when I checked my watch list. I think you have a good point. I've only browsed the two articles but I really think the main article should be the National Park article and most of the material should be moved there. Other articles about large National Parks in the U.S. don't seem to have this problem. For example, the Yosemite National Park article is the "main" article although there is a Yosemite Valley article which is contains information specifically about the valley. The valley is, however, a relatively small part of the park. The solution is problematic. Maybe the Grand Canyon article should be restricted to information that is too detailed for the "main" article. Maybe you should be bold and just do it. Sometimes the problem is that nobody really cares that much. – droll   &#91;chat&#93;  05:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I just finished adding some citations. This article needs a serious copy edit. – droll   &#91;chat&#93;  06:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

potential NYT resource
Parks Chief Sets Conditions for Plastic Bottle Bans by FELICITY BARRINGER published December 15, 2011

"The decision reflects a tug of war within the park service over the idea of prohibiting plastic bottles, which make up a significant portion of park litter."

A version of this article appeared in print on December 16, 2011, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Park Service Relents on Ban of Water Bottles. 99.19.45.160 (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Largest canyon in the world?
The article currently claims "The Grand Canyon itself—really an extensive system of tributary canyons— is neither the largest or deepest canyon in the world,"

So which canyon is the largest? Which canyon is the deepest ? Is the Grand Canyon the largest and deepest canyon in North America ?


 * Hells Canyon is usually regarded as the deepest canyon. If you want to know about a REALLY big canyon, check our Valles Marineris. --Nebular110 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A park ranger told me once that Grand Canyon is not the deepest (at 5200 feet), nor the widest (at 12 miles), nor the longest (at 277 miles) canyon in the world; but it is the largest. When I asked him about the difference, he mentioned volume of air below the plane between the rims.  I'm sure I read it somewhere too, so if I come across it again I will cite it in the article.  (Hopefully, the actual cubic mileage can be included.)  Notary137 19:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, Copper Cañon in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico is the deepest (highest average depth) in North America, but I think Grand Canyon is the deepest in the U.S by the same criteria. I'm not going to add that to the article since I do not know for sure, I would have to see a citation before doing so.  The deepest portion of Grand Canyon is measured between Yaki Point and Bright Angel Point down to the Colorado River near Phantom Ranch.  Notary137 19:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I read this unsupported statement and also choked on it. The Wikipedia article on the Grand Canyon itself gives information at odds with this "ranger information" given here: The canyon ... is 277 miles (446 km) long, ranges in width from 4 to 18 miles (6.4 to 29 km) and attains a depth of more than a mile (1.6 km). Since the data obliquely alluded to isn't suppored or clear and, since technically it should probably be mentioned in the atticle on the Canyon itself rather than here, I'm just going to remove the entire phrase. If someone really thinks a reference to Hells Canyon or some other deep or "largest" hole in the ground (on EARTH!) really needs to be here, please support the statement somehow before restoring it because I'm just confused by this apophatic generalization.Economy1 (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that references to other large canyons should be in the other article, but here is an article on another very large canyon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarlung_Zangbo_Grand_Canyon. There are too many factors to consider when comparing canyons and gorges. For example, Hell's Canyon in Oregon and Idaho is deeper, but between mountains, whereas Grand Canyon is carved into a relatively flat uplifted plateau, so the view is more dramatic, and the depth more consistent. Also, Hell's Canyon is only 10 miles long, versus Grand Canyon's 277 miles. The Copper Canyon in Mexico is actually a series of canyons (difficult to measure), whereas Grand Canyon is definable and measurable as a single geological and geographical entity. To my personal knowledge, whereas there are longer, wider, or deeper canyons, there is no single canyon in the world as long, wide, and deep as Grand Canyon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zencowboy27 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Added information about helicopter tours related to landing in the Grand Canyon National Park
I added a short paragraph and video to the Activities section on this page - however, I'm not sure if I did it quite right. At first I wasn't going to list anything about being able to board helicopter and planes in Vegas and Phoenix, in addition to the Grand Canyon National Park Airport. And I wasn't going to list the landing in Hualapai Indian Territory but after reading and re-reading the existing article, I noticed that there are references to other points inside of the Grand Canyon but not limited to inside the National Park. I hope that I have interpreted this information correctly. Please let me know if you would like me to make any changes. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandi111777 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Should climate info be added
Being naturally lazy, I thought I'd ask before going to a lot of trouble: should climate info be added here? The to-do lists for some Grand Canyon trails (Bright Angel Trail, North Kaibab Trail, South Kaibab Trail, and perhaps others) include tasks to add climate information. If this is going to be added, it seems to make more sense to add it here: it applies to all trails, and also to off-trail activites.

Question #1: should this info be added here? If yes: Question #2: what form? I'd think that a brief descriptive paragraph would be good (for South Rim, inner canyon, and North Rim), followed by temperature and rainfall data, by month, for those three places. A {Climate chart} might be best. It's more compact than a {Weather box}, which is good since there will be three charts. Comments?--Larry (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm an idiot. It never occurred to me to check Grand Canyon, which has some climate info. I'll slink back into my hole now ;-) --Larry (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent change from Hualapai people to Havasupia [sic] people, part 2: both or neither?
Should the helicopter flights to Hualapai territory also be included? Perhaps (with a proper citation, of course) -- but those flights are not scenic flights. They're very, very short, and are strictly for the purpose of transportation between the village of Supai and the canyon rim. My inclination would be to omit the Hualapai flights.

Another issue: this article is about Grand Canyon National Park, and NOT the entire Grand Canyon (there's a separate article for that). Neither Indian reservation is within Park boundaries, so I'd say that neither tribe's flights should be mentioned.

Comments? For the moment, I'll leave the reference to Hualapai flights in place, but wouldn't argue with its removal. --Larry (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Grand Canyon National Monument
I first visited Grand Canyon National Park in the early 1960's on a family vacation. We paid our entrance fee to the park and were given one of those wonderful map books that National Park Service used to hand out for each National Park upon entry, with an Ansel Adams black-and-white photo on the cover. The two center pages displayed a map of the park. I distinctly remember that there were two entities on that map, (1) Grand Canyon National Park and (2) Grand Canyon National Monument. The National Monument was downstream along the Colorado River and had fewer visitor amenities than the National Park.

I note that in the article, it states that "Marble Canyon National Monument" was merged into the park in 1975. Marble Canyon National Monument was upstream from the National Park. (The Colorado flows from Marble Canyon into Grand Canyon.)

I think what must have happened is something like this:

Grand Canyon National Monument was established in 1908. In 1919, Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Act that created Grand Canyon National Park, but only part -- a very large part -- of the former Grand Canyon National Monument was upgraded to National Park status. The rest of Grand Canyon National Monument, downstream remained Grand Canyon National Monument. At some point, Grand Canyon National Monument was upgraded to National Park Status and unified with the previously existing Grand Canyon National Park. I wonder when that happened. The article doesn't mention that part of the park history and I can't find a record of it. I know that Congress upgraded some National Monuments to National Park status during Bill Clinton's administration and I wonder if that didn't happen then with Grand Canyon.Toddabearsf (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)