Jump to content

Talk:Grand Canyon/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Comment on protection

So.. "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."? Clearly not! You can't add information that is not scientifically correct, and then go "protect" it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.133.82 (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What information in the article do you wish to remove? —hike395 (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you should remove the part about the Grand Canyon being 17 million years old. It's just not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777fold (talk • contribs) 15:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.133.82 (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The 17 million year age is well supported by the reliable sources cited, so please bring forward similarly reliable sources that give a different age. Mikenorton (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
My assumption is that the above blank statements complaining about the stated age being 17 million years, was made by those religious nuts who believe that the earth is only about 6 thousand years old. Frankwm1 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction to distance from Grand Canyon Village to the Hualapai Skywalk

The skywalk is approximately 80nm west of Grand Canyon Village... the article suggest 24sm and is very incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.21.124 (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

the grand canyon is big. cool hun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.128.204 (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Age of Grand Canyon

The assertion that Grand Canyon is 17 million years old is neither popular nor well supported. The generally accepted number is between 4.4 and 6 million years old, but probably closer to 5.4 million. Only one source suggests the higher number. Local drainage in an area at the western end of Grand Canyon does not count as earnest downcutting by the Colorado River along its present course. I support changing the number in the early paragraphs, while allowing for alternative ideas further down the article.

http://www.durangobill.com/Paleorivers_preface.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zencowboy27 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Zencowboy27 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a better additional source: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5896/1634.2.full

Zencowboy27 (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to change this, cause I'm a linguistic, not geologist, but new studies are suggesting it's 70 million years old. I think that should be in there, when the gurus who know anything about it, glance at the new research. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/29/us-grandcanyon-age-idUSBRE8AS16320121129. kipruss3-not logged in. 174.51.249.185 (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 February 2013

In the Grand Canyon Wiki there is a mention of Sky Walk being built and receiving mixed reviews-

1: The price is not 85$ it is 26$ for the Bus pass and 32$ for entry (plus taxes and fee) 2: It is mentioned that the Skywalk is in South Rim which is wrong it should be changed to West Rim. Advar 06:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done If you can find a reliable source that confirms your information, I will grant your edit request. Camyoung54 talk 14:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What are the boundaries of the Grand Canyon?

My understanding, based on Wikipedia and other reading, is that the Grand Canyon is composed of a central canyon and numerous tributary canyons. Is there a more precise definition, e.g., does this include every tributary? Does the canyon end at the rim? I've failed to find anything great on the web, other than a document which talks about the "physiographic rim of The Grand Canyon," along with a VERY LARGE PDF file ( http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of99-30/gcrim.pdf is over 5 meg). It seems to show boundaries, but I'd be a lot more comfortable if I knew how in the bleep "physiographic rim" relates to definitions in the real world. Can anyone help? --Larry (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We need a new section which talks about the canyon in popular culture, for example, MI2, Independence day etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:7900:ADE1:A1DE:250:56FF:FEA6:404 (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Temperature Inversion photos

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1rxdfj/the_grand_canyon_experienced_a_onceinadecade/ http://i.imgur.com/BuD9jia.jpg • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Enviromental issues

It is not very clear on why there is a debate with the indian tribe about uranium. It could be outdated but it is definitely incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricEMckinley (talk • contribs) 06:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comparison with Capertee Valley

Hi All -- This article says in the Geography section "Capertee Valley in Australia is about 0.6 mi/1 km wider and longer than Grand Canyon." The Capertee Valley article says it is "shorter and shallower than such canyons as the Grand Canyon". The Grand Canyon can't be both shorter and longer than Capertee Valley. ☺ The articles should agree, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about either. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 13:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed. Vsmith (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Two deaths in one week

I undid the addition referring to two deaths in one week. Much of the text was not supported by the specified citiation (e.g., "Rarely will there be more than one fatality in a week period."). The remaining text isn't noteworthy enough to be included, as compared to the other deaths -- it's just too much detail, more like a news item than an encyclopedia item. --Larry (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Profound? Or deep?

"Fray Francisco Garces, a Franciscan missionary... described the Canyon as 'profound.'" I wonder if that's a good translation. He wrote in Spanish, and the Spanish word "profundo" can mean "deep" in both the sense of "profound" and the sense of "a long ways down." I suspect he meant the latter. However, I can't find his writing about this on-line. Mcswell (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

typo

Under Biology and Ecology > Life zones and communities > Lower Sonoran, the first word of the last sentence of the last paragraph reads "Solpugids," which ought to be spelled Solfugids - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solifugae

CALESCiENCE (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Did a google search for "solpugids". Looks like it is a common alternate spelling. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 02:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You're right and what a shame. Sol + fugit = Sun runner (perhaps fleer), an appropriate name. Pugit, on the other hand does not have an equivalent and the closest in spelling is pugis/pugium which is apparently a type of dagger or dirk. Much less elegant. Alas, English is ever-increasingly a messy language. CALESCiENCE (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's variation of the common name. We can either uncap the common name, or link directly to the order Solifugae. Which do you prefer? Or, I guess it's just as well to change to your orginal request of "Solfugids" or better, "Solifugids", except uncapped. I will do the latter now. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 02:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it the first word of the sentence though? CALESCiENCE (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I had my blinders on. Fixed. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 03:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 03:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The boundaries of the Grand Canyon?

Larry had a good point about boundaries. The Grand Canyon geographically starts at Lee's Ferry and runs 277 miles to the Grand Wash Cliffs. That's the easy bit. The rim escarpments on the north side of the Colorado River mean that at places like the land below Sowats Point in the Kaibab National Forest and the Lone Mountain esplanade bench, managed by Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, are also lands identified as having Grand Canyon National Park values, just managed by different agencies. For supporting information see Jeff Ingram's discussion of Grand Canyon boundaries. RRFWTommartin (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Name of Grand Canyon translated to Yavapai

I've provided a source for the Hopi name (Ongtupqa). It was trickier to find something for the Yavapai name. In fact, the one document I've found (click here) specifies a different name - Mahđ K’illa - than currently in the article. Does anyone have any insight? I'm tempted to replace the current entry, since it's unsourced. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ground listening stations

Wiki fails when it comes to sound recordings of this place; Considering the technology in America and the fact the NSA listens to everyone its quite amazing that there isn't any kind of resources devoted to sounds of the Grand Canyon (like echo's)

PS: Robots can dig holes in national parks for radioactive material and some Governments have developed deployment platforms that can deliver such a robot underground and at a considerable distance into the earth with very little ground level disturbance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.48.79 (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

it is a very big and fun place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.116.2 (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

For you trivia nerds: "South Rim" versus "south rim"

Thanks to SchreiberBike for fixing a number of capitalization errors with respect to "canyon". However, it brings up a trickier issue with respect to "South Rim" (upper case, i.e., a proper noun). The problem: "South Rim" has a different meaning than "south rim". From a reading of the article, I believe that in some cases the proper noun is appropriate, while in other cases the common noun is appropriate.

The common noun "south rim" refers to the plateau that is adjacent to the southern side of the canyon. The proper noun "South Rim" vaguely refers to a portion of the south rim that is adjacent to Grand Canyon Village and the most common viewpoints; it's a relatively new term, originating at some point after establishment of Grand Canyon Village. Thus "south rim" includes "South Rim", "West Rim", some Havasupai territory, and some Navajo territory.

Impact on the article: where the article says "In September 1540...traveled to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon between Desert View and Moran Point", I believe it should use the common noun, since the term "South Rim" didn't even exist at that point. There are several examples like this. To me, the options are to either (1) convert all occurrences to the less specific common noun ("south rim"), or (2) use the common noun where appropriate.

Anyone care enough to comment on this silly issue? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Traveling Man: I missed the subtlety you mentioned above. My mistake. I think you are right that the south rim in 1540 was not the proper noun South Rim. Onward trivia nerds! I'll fix that.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@SchreiberBike: Thanks for humoring me ;-) . I was a bit embarrassed to even bring up such a minor issue. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2017

your suggested changes, preferably in a "change X to Y" format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined. 2601:1C0:8100:EA71:A8AE:6FE2:FEAA:4D72 (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK Discuss 07:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The Grand Canyon National Park superintendent

The Grand Canyon National Park superintendent is no longer Steve Martin. He retired in 2010 and replaced by David Uberuaga who was forced to resign in 2016 because failure in handling sexual harassment cases (Grand Canyon park’s 15-year failure on sexual harassment). The current superintendent is Chris Lehnertz (NPS veteran Chris Lehnertz takes the helm as Grand Canyon National Park superintendent). The whole purpose of writing the short history of the Grand Canyon National Park superintendents is just to state the fact that during a time period of about ten years there were 5 different GCNP superintendents (lets not forget to include Joe Alston who was replaced by Martin in 2007). To write in a Wikipedia article about the current superintendent at the time of writing of the article is wrong. Within a short time that piece of information will be obsolete. I suggest to delete the statements about Steve Martin. אביהו (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. The name of the current superintendent or any historically significant ones might be appropriate at Grand Canyon National Park, but at this article about the geographical feature it doesn't seem either relevant or easy to keep up to date. Be bold and make the change if there's no further objection.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Done, אביהו (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Grand Canyon. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 16:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

What constitutes the Grand Canyon - Contradictory statements in the lead

The second paragraph defines Grand Canyon as up to 18 miles wide. This implicitly excludes the rim of the canyon. However, the first paragraph says that Grand Canyon is contained within a bunch of areas, some of which are only on the rim (Kaibab Forest, Grand Canyon-Parashant). One of these claims needs to be changed. I propose changing paragraph one, sentence two from:

It is contained within and managed by Grand Canyon National Park, the Kaibab National Forest, Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, the Hualapai Tribal Nation, the Havasupai people and the Navajo Nation.

to:

The canyon and adjacent rim are contained within Grand Canyon National Park, the Kaibab National Forest, Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, the Hualapai Indian Reservation, the Havasupai Indian Reservation and the Navajo Nation.

I changed some awkward wording as well: the phrase "contained within and managed by" did not correctly describe the remainder of the sentence. Comments? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I like it. Go for it. Onel5969 TT me 02:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Done! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking--some have been corrected, but problems still exist

I took a first pass at reducing WP:OLINK. The changes shouldn't be controversial, as they're covered pretty well in the guideline. I'm sure I've missed a bunch, but it's a start. However, the more important remaining issue is the huge number of links in the Biology and ecology section. The last paragraph under Upper Sonoran and Transition has 13 such links. The next paragraph has 16 links. This doesn't help me understand the Grand Canyon better -- it just makes my eyeballs ache. I'll avoid changing this for now, as this is more of a judgment call, and I don't want to drag the already-made changes into the fray. However, if anyone else agrees, feel free to hack away. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

While I don't mind the bulk of the delinks you've done, I haven't checked most of them. However, there are ones that if they are the only link in this article, should have remained, e.g. Mary Colter, links to other cities (like Grand Canyon Village) and Phoenix, and to certain concepts like mining claims. Regarding the links in the flora and fauna section, they appear to be the types of links appropriate. Just my .02.Onel5969 TT me 11:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
For those cases where we agree on keeping links, I hopefully removed only duplicates, e.g., there's still a link for Mary Colter under "Settlers in and near the canyon". For cities, I took my cue from at WP:LINK, unlinking "The names of major geographic features, locations (e.g. United States, London, New York City, France, Berlin...)". Did I misinterpret that? For "mining claims", I thought that fell under "Everyday words understood by most readers in context". However, if you disagree, feel free to revert and I won't dispute it. Lastly, as to flora and fauna, I guess I'll just have to live with it. Thanks for taking a look! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

How many sections are there of the Colorado Plateau province?

The current article says there are "19 distinct physiographic sections of the Colorado Plateau province." The claim is unsourced. However, article United States physiographic region lists six sections (see source "PHYSIOGRAPHIC SUBDIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES"). Article Colorado Plateau lists seven, based on source "New Mexico’s Environment (Physiographic Provinces)", which specifies a "newly defined physiographic unit". Nowhere do I see a list of 19 sections. Options:

  • Change the number to 7, as documented in the above source for article Colorado Plateau.
  • Change the number to six. This is well documented in United States physiographic region, and seems to follow a long standing definition. I can't judge the quality of the source naming a seventh section.
  • Delete it. There's no source for the number 19, and the real number is uncertain -- plus who cares?

Opinions? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

In IP editor changed the number from 6 to 19 back in April, 2011. Thanks for catching this. —hike395 (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I missed that. Thanks for figuring that out! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Canyon. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Canyon carved by the Colorado River

Scientist now affirm that it would be impossible for the Colorado river to have carved this mighty canyon. The amount of water to carve through the rock would not be available. The best "theory" would be the giant lake theory. That the Missoula lake burst through the walls and washed away the dirt and rock. That is still a theory not a fact just as the "Flood" people say this all happened when God flooded the earth is not a fact that can be proven by empirical evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:d1e9:2020:45c:7d58:88f:a5b1 (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of newly added climate chart

There are problems with the recently added climate chart, which have caused me to remove it.

  • Two references are provided (to different pages of the same website), but the second reference (for location 0088) contradicts the numbers entered into the chart.
  • The website actually provides three sets of numbers for the Grand Canyon. The figures greatly vary among the three. I don't see where the website specifies the location for any of the numbers, although I didn't spend much time looking for a key.
  • As partially shown by the three sets of numbers, the Grand Canyon's climate varies tremoundously from place to place. A set of figures without a location is of little value, and potentially misleading.

Even if the location were known, in order to have a chart that isn't misleading, we'd need at least three sets of figures: South Rim; North Rim; inner canyon. That would still paint an incomplete picture, but at least would portray the very large differences in different areas (temperature differences of 30 degrees or more; rainfall varying by a factor of three). While I wouldn't object to such a chart, do we really need something that complicated? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

Would like to add a new discovery related to the formation of the Grand Canyon right after "geology" as follows,

Formation

A new theory called the Miocene Glacier [1]attributes the formation of the Grand Canyon to this glaciation 5.6 – 5.33 million years ago as the primary cause. The Miocene Glacier has been theorized to create abyssal rivers (channels), submarine canyons, vast salt formations in the Red Sea, the Mediterrean Sea and Gulf of Mexico and to lead to rise of human race, etc. Dr. John Reed (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Far too early to know if any credence can be given to this theory. Mikenorton (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Mikenorton, far to radical to be included with a just a link to a book on Amazon. The idea is indeed interesting but one has to wonder why has is not been advanced in peer-reviewed geological journals. –Lappspira (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I just Googled the author's name, and found nothing relevant. My politest suggestion is to wait a bit to see what support (or otherwise) arises elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ The origin of abyssal rivers, the Grand Canyon and man, March 30th, 2018, Thomas Tao, amazon.com, ISBN-13: 978-1732015012.

Tramway across the canyon

I understand that a David Rust built a tramway across the Grand Canyon sometime in the 1910s and that Theodore Roosevelt not only rode it several times but even worked the winch that brought the 'cage' from the halfway point to its 'landing.'

How come no mention of this nor how long the tramway was in operation?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You are presumably talking about the aerial tramway used by the Bat Cave mine, where you can find more details. As to whether it is of sufficient importance to add to the main article, I'm honestly not sure. Mikenorton (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Canyon/Archive_2&oldid=1142357375"