Talk:Grand Canyon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
A Wikipedian removed Grand Canyon from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}
Wikipedia CD Selection Grand Canyon is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Awesome picture with some good informaion. I wish you could get a balance though, simple info gives way to overly confusing info, MAKE IT SIMPLE!!!

Great picture -- if we have confirmation that it is PD (like, you took it) it would be good to cite that below the picture. Thanks! ClaudeMuncey, Tuesday, April 2, 2002

The picture (I placed it) is from the www.nps.gov website, and is PD. I'll place a note below the picture. jheijmans


Removed from article:

The details of its development are still somewhat controversial. The most likely scenario is that a large lake overflowed the Kaibab Plateau about 5 million years ago, following the route taken by the Little Colorado River up to 70 million years ago. That accounts for the narrow lower (western) canyon and the much wider upper (eastern) canyon, as well as several other lines of evidence.

In all the 7 references I've used to write about the canyon's geology here, I have not seen a single reference to this. Citations needed. --mav 23:56, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

what to do with that link - http://print.google.com/print?id=2t4N1fEy88EC&lpg=15&prev=http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3Dhistory%26sig%3DZvOhQweN0RFQSRjBsyz9tDUGSls%26ie%3DUTF-8%26id%3D2t4N1fEy88EC&pg=0_1&sig=611DvvzSBnPiFQxbdpdJPjFzwtI  ? I can't add it!

What about giving the Creationists view a bit more of a real something that could have happened rather then just act like it never did happen and is a silly idea?

JCP

Contents

[edit] Sky Walk Project

Could someone find some information and pictures on the Sky Walk project, scheduled to be completed this year? It is a clear walk-way offering an interesting view from directly above the canyon and is connected to the visitor center. There was recently an article about it in Popular Science Magazine. Thanks, Greenblade99 01:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism

Removed:

Creation scientists, such as Kent Hovind, dispute this view of the canyon's creation, claiming instead that it was created in only a few days during the Great flood, which, they contend, took place a few thousand years ago.

A fringe viewpoint, however vocal its proponents may be, belongs on the viewpoint's own article, in this case Creationism, which should serve as a repository for creationists' claims. I can conceive of exceptions to that idea for some of the more bizarre claims (e.g. the idea that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaneous should probably get a mention on Dinosaur). However, practically no one of any academic standing seriously believes that the canyon was formed only some thousands of years ago, so a reference to this is not appropriate for this article. Moreover, quotations from individual contemporaries are only one step up from original research and are rarely encyclopedic, being more suited for magazine articles and the like. Jeeves 09:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It may be a fringe viewpoint, but it has gained some traction recently, especially with the National Park Service stocking the creationist book "Grand Canyon: A Different View." [1] Even if no one of academic standing accepts this view, it is a contemporary controversy (at least politically) and seemingly relevant. Perhaps a separate section on this controversy would be appropriate. -- Temtem 19:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in the article, in the same way that Earth doesn't describe our planet's shape as "round, or maybe flat". The bookshelf choices of the NPS in the United States don't affect the content of the English Wikipedia, only popular acceptance by academia can do that. Kent Hovind may have thrown together a thesis at a diploma mill, but he hasn't gained any support from legitimate fields of research. See Jeeves's comments above for the appropriate place for this content to be placed. --brian0918™ 19:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, but I had already seen Jeeves's comments. I wasn't arguing that Kent Hovind has gained any academic respect, and I wasn't suggesting that the article should say that the maybe the Grand Canyon was formed 4000 years ago. Your reference to the Flat Earth hypothesis is off-point virtually no one is pushing for its acceptance, and it isn't a current controversy. But there are people, and a good number of them, in the United States who are pushing for this young-earth view of the canyon's creation. Your position seems to be that a Wikipedia article can contain (or even reference) only academic viewpoints. I admit, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policies, but this cannot be a correct statement of the policies. If that were the case, the article on the Hale-Bopp comet could not contain a reference to the mass suicide of the Heaven's Gate cult, the article on elephants could not contain the section "elephants in pop culture," and the article on cattle could not contain a reference to the Hindu belief that the cow is holy. There doesn't need to be a suggestion in the article that the creationist view is valid, scientific, or academically accepted. But it is a view that has current, real-world effect. -- Temtem 20:10, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
I see part of your point, but this article seems more akin to the Earth article (which does not and should not mention flatness) than to the article on cows or elephants. It would be equally inappropriate to insert references to every other fringe religion's unsubstantiated ideas of how the canyon was formed. Incidentally, if Earth contains creationist references, they should be removed. And if certain people with creationist leanings (or bona-fide creationists) feel like they're being gypped, they should be invited to establish their own reality-denying fork of Wikipedia. Jeeves 20:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not Wikinfo. If you want to post minority viewpoints about a topic, go to Wikinfo. Also, people speak English outside the United States. (3.5 times as many) --brian0918™ 22:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was already aware that there are people outside the United States who speak English. I'm not sure how that's relevant, as I was simply locating the majority of creationists, not claiming that their location in the United States gave any validity to or increased the relevance of their views. I've noticed you've tagged me as a "creationist" on your watchlist. How you reached this conclusion is beyond me, as I've never once argued in favor of creationism. You might as well assume that someone who makes a lot of posts related to Commmunism is necessarily a Communist. I fully understand if you disagree with some of my edits, but it is disturbing that you've apparently diagnosed me as a creationist and decided to revert all of my edits on the topic, even where clearly relevant (as in the case of the link to the Islamic creationist website in creation-evolution controversy), based on some NPOV (though of debatable relevance) insertions I've made in some articles. -- Temtem 23:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
You've provided no sources for your claims that the majority of creationists believe the Grand Canyon was formed in a relatively short amount of time. You've simply stated it as fact. The only way information like that could be included in the article would be if accepted groups of academia are arriving at conflicting conclusions (with one of those conclusions being that the Grand Canyon is young). This is the situation on articles such as circumcision, where conflicting reports from legitimate journals have stated contradicting conclusions about the benefits of circumcision (one saying that it is highly beneficial, the other saying it isn't). Simple conjecture among a minority of individuals isn't going to cut it. As for my watch list, the label "creationist" was just to remind me what sort of topics you edit. I only put you on the watch list because you've been adding POV to various articles. You're assuming that I think the label "creationist" is a bad label. As for your external link, only 38 other sites on the entire internet link to it. The other external links at least have a modest 600-2500+ other sites linking to them. Short of analyzing the entire contents of the site, this is the only way we have of determining if sites are legitimate, or invalid, original research. --brian0918™ 00:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I saw on a national geographic special that the grand canyon was carved out of the the empty lake bed that is behind the colorado river as a new thoery of how the grand canyon was formed and also the dry lands. They did experiments on a smaller scale and found the same features as if it were on a larger scale. It was supected that there was a glacier that melted and let the water outa of the lake bed that casued a large engofh food that made the grand canyon. It may also have of been a larger flood that flushed that lake that used to be there but currently we dont know there might be some evidnce for this. Anyways all i am saying is that a flood is a reasonable idea of how the grand cayon came to be. idk if it was on national geogrpahic or discovery.Barry White 04:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You are probably confusing the program on the catastrophic emptying of Glacial Lake Missoula, which created the Channeled scablands of Washington state, with the Grand Canyon. A flood is not a reasonable idea of how the Grand Canyon came to be; no scientists find evidence to support the idea.Geologyguy 13:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ur right it is just that the show was showned a long time ago anyways dont you think its weird where the river enter the grand canyon is like a big diffence from the elvation of the grand canyon(the canyon being much higher than where the river enters it?) and the entrance.Barry White 15:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki

The de & fr interwiki links to the National Park, not Grand Canyon itself. Shall we delete them (or if possible, replace them with the correct links)? --Wingchi 17:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] link removal

A few days ago, I found that a multidisciplinary presentation I placed on the web for public access was listed on a Wikipedia page, by someone who is an active contributor to that page. That is what led me to the Wikipedia website. I subsequently looked into Wikipedia and learned that articles can be added at will, to be evaluated by users as to their worthiness.

I later personally placed a link to the presentation on the Grand Canyon page--not to a page on my own website--to a page on a huge website that is hosting the presentation out of Australia that doesn't "need" the traffic: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/fractals/grandcanyon/. The deletion comment follows.

"link claims to explain fractals in the grand canyon, but the examples are: fractals in clouds above the grand canyon, in lightning that strikes it, in snow that falls in it. nonsense = revert)"

From the start, this presentation was put together with the input of the GCNPS Division of Interpretation and Resource Education, and went through multiple stages of review and change. The criteria I had to meet was from their "Primary Interpretative Themes" document. The GCNPS is obligated to strictly follow this criteria. After many months of discussions via telephone and in-person meetings, and the series of revisions that ensued, I presented it as a special program at GCNP, but that was the smaller part of the plan (the part that ensured it was credible from a Canyon standpoint; from a math standpoint, it has also been heavily critiqued in academia). The bigger plan was always to place it on the web and make it accessible to individuals and teachers. It is true that I have a math agenda, but the GCNPS understood this from the start, and I had to walk through fire with them to pass muster with this. Two big sections address the Canyon itself, one is about the Canyon walls/Rim, and the other is about boundaries. The example sections cited as inappropriate were clouds, lightning, and snow. The clouds section is miniscule: 2 images; there is one image devoted to lightning; and I actually wanted to remove the snow section but the Division of Interpretation and Resource Education wanted it to stay in. One of the things they like most about the presentation is that it touches on so many aspects of the Canyon. (I keep saying "the Canyon" because I can't correctly say the Grand Canyon, it is technically incorrect to call Grand Canyon "the Grand Canyon", so I often say, the Canyon, and Grand is implied :-).) When I finally gave the presentation at the Park, several rangers were present. They were very enthusiastic about it, especially rangers who inhabit the bottom of the Canyon, and several of them made relevent connections with their own experiences. These connections, some of them, are going to be incorporated, mostly into the boundaries section, probably in the fall months based on conversations with the Division of Interpretation and Resource Education that will take place in an informal meeting in Tempe on June 23rd, a few days away. A section on the river is also planned.

Now, I understand that my presentation may not be appropriate for your Grand Canyon page, in that it has an agenda above and beyond Grand Canyon, but I believe that the decision should NOT be made without due diligence, in a summary judgment that does not include an accurate assessment of the materials. Grand Canyon is a topic of world interest. I'm trying to make romantic math-in-nature connections, to woo the general public to see math in the beauty of the nature around them, whether it is at Grand Canyon or in the rocks and trees in their backyards. If you don't want it on your Grand Canyon page, that is fine. It is the spirit of the dismissal that I am answering. Hopefully, someone will take the time to actually look at the presentation at the above link. You might see things my way, or maybe not, but at least the decision will not be arbitrary.

[edit] Interpretive Framework

Interpretive Framework

Would it be possible to include an additional Interpretive Framework for the origin and formation of the Grand Canyon?

It appears that an Admin Brian0918 will not permit it.

Is there support for a broader interpretation? Considering the reputation of Wiki, I think and hope so.

Currently the Grand Canyon article is severely limited to the Uniform Process framework for interpretation of the great wonder we observe.

It is possible, and consistent with observable evidence (ie: Mt. St. Helens Spirit Lake and Canyon formations near-by), that a Catastrophic Event could have formed the Grand Canyon.

Allowing this additional/alternative Interpretive Framework yields explanations quite different from those currently provided in the eloquent article. The reader is left with the option of choosing the Interpretive Framework -vs- the current monopoly of thought that is provided.

Why is the Catastrophic Event Interpretive Framework eliminated /yea, forbidden/ from this Wiki article?

Respectfully, BrianH

  • We don't include it mainly because I, as the Admin Brian0918, will BAN anyone who does so! --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 19:24 (UTC)

Why is it orinigal reseacrh? becasue it is an observation that gave similar features but just on a smaller scale w/e anyways.Barry White 14:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link removal

I've added an outfitter guide link to the external links page that I think is relevant per Wikipedia policy that states: External links to commercial organizations such as thisare acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic. This is obviously contraversial as it has been edited a couple of times. I agree that irrelevant links can get out of hand, but to remove this link would require removing almost all links in the external link category. This link provides educational tours of the subject that is being mentioned, and is thus relevant in this category. Furthermore, the contraversial nature of canyon formation dictates juxtaposed opinions and heated debate. Please post any contrary opinions here before continuing with unproductive "edit wars". findbgs

First up, please add new topics for comments to the bottom of the talkpage, with a header, as it makes it easier for people to spot new discussions.
Second, sorry, but this link doesn't count as a "major corporation associated with the topic". This particular topic has no "major corporation" associated with it. Your link is solely a commercial site trying to sell something and serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. If we set the bar so low that this link is acceptable, than anyone anywhere trying to sell anything will use the same argument to get their own links on whatever articles they want. I know you would like to believe that your own link is somehow more worthy than the other million people looking for free advertising, but it just doesn't work that way. Sorry. DreamGuy 06:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that any link could be acceptable under certain standards, but who determines wheather you or I set the bar. I simply offer this link as an expert. I'm not associated with this company. I know who is good an who isn't. I've been at Grand Canyon for a long time. What makes you a Wikipedia cop? I stand by my edit that this is an organization at Grand Canyon that can further educate people. This is a public forum, is it not? I believe it is a corporation associated with the topic. If you disagree than continue with the wikipedia dispute rather than continue with your petty edit war. Findbgs 06:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

    • So, I think you've swung to the other extreme on some of the link removals. In particular, I think the National Park service link fufills #1 of what should be linked to. After all, it is a national park. The fact that the site we link to, then links to other sites that offer commercial services, is a little too communative to require it's removal. I also think some of the article text can be added back, but actually like most of your removals. Perhaps a new section on "Tourism in the Grand Canyon" might be appropriate? I also think the image of "El Tovar" is fine as well. It's an historical hotel, no real overt advertisement in showing it. Wikibofh(talk) 20:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It could be argued that the National Park Site is not an official Grand Canyon Site. It is an official "Grand Canyon National Park" site. Furthermore, the NPS is just the land management agency for Grand Canyon, and as such, their mission to: "provide for the enjoyment of the same" (See the Organic Act of 1916) amounts to a commercial license to sell entry "tickets". It should be noted that 80% of the fees collected at the gates go directly to the park unit (under the current fee demo management program). Therefore the NPS has a huge vested interest in selling these entry "tickets". Findbgs 18:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • So, are you arguing that? The fact is that it's a government site. The website has no advertising and is not are direct source of revenue. The Grand Canyon is within the national park, so that is a distinction without a difference. I seriously doubt anyone goes to the Grand Canyon because of the website any more so than I expect them to do so because of this article. Wikibofh(talk) 20:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Folklore?

What about a section for folklore surrounding the Canyon? Like various tales that attribute its creation to Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill? Kevingarcia 07:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Canyon removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

Grand Canyon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because Lack of refrences

[edit] info

[edit] Gallery

I had some photos to add but that sent the row of photos too far below the text, so I set most of them into a gallery. The three I left out I thought were pretty good, but maybe we should come to a consensus about which photos to 'feature' (keep full size). Maybe set up a poll - use the photos added so far as candidates and vote for your top 3? Zaui 20:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for throwing out the gallery (see WP:NOT point 4). We have commons for this purpose. --Dschwen 21:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
100% agree. All the images stuffed into this already poor article make it look worse than it really is (I can say that since I'm one of the main authors of this article and the person who look several of the photos in it). Much more text is needed and the images need to compliment the text by illustrating places, things and concepts mentioned in the text. Most of the images in this article don't seem to have a logical purpose for being there other than being pretty. That they are so big makes it even worse (I almost always just use the stand thumb width of images even though I have high res screens). --mav 06:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Moved it to the bottom of the page for now. I agree it should be removed, though. // Habj 07:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to throw in my support for trimming the images--this is way too cluttered at the moment. RobthTalk 13:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There are simply too many images. The Grand Canyon is a visual thing and should have a few choice photos to accent its article, but this is way overboard. Most importantly, having six on the lead is unacceptable. I also agree with the general poor state of the article, much in contrast to the subject. Maybe this will sound cynical, but perhaps we need a category for Poor Articles to identify articles in this kind of disrepair. The subject is a good one, so the article can be good; nay, it must be good. If no one else wants to clean this up I'll take to the task, starting with the images, this week. I would appreciate any help with the text. Notary137 05:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't forget, just been working on a template all day. Will try to wade through the gallery on Sunday. If any are appropriate to the context of article sections, I will move them first. Notary137 03:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Added a couple of <!--comments--> to the article to try and keep more images from coming in. Someone added one Friday. Notary137 03:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's a really good quality one I found: Image:Rim of Grand Canyon.jpg. I think it stands above a lot of the existing images in terms of quality, so I'll let you hombres decide on what to do with it. Black-Velvet 09:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeological?

This article is in the category of "Archaeological sites of America" or similar - it is not an archaeological site really, more of a geological feature. Archaeology refers specifically to civilisation as far as I am aware. It is certainly fairly widely accepted that archeology refers to historic or ruined or buried cities/artefacts thus specifically something man-made. Unless someone is hiding a very impressive secret, the Grand Canyon is not man-made! I contend that it should be removed from the category(ies) relating to archaeology - that goes for anything else so-listed. Superbfc 21:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Archaeology takes place in many places at the canyon, both above and below rim. The easiest to see is the Tusayan ruins near Desert View in the southeast corner of the National Park. Another site place that is below rim is in the Unkar Creek area near the Colorado River. The short explanation is: Human history at the canyon goes beyond the (relatively) modern Native Americans tribes, and certainly beyond European settlement, meaning that evidence of the existance of lost settlement is there (I have seen it myself). Solution: If the article does not list or describe such places, I will either add them or remove the cat (should not be in the category if one cannot find anything about it!) I'm going to do some cleanup this week and will take care of it. Notary137 05:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why do people go to the grand canyon?

why do people go to the grand canyon?

[edit] Link Suggestion

This site allows you to travel interactively along trails and roads at the Grand Canyon, using over 7,000 images: http://www.UntraveledRoad.com/Grand-Canyon-National-Park.htm KelvinSmith (talk • contribs)

Comment This user either owns or is affiliated with this advertising-supported site; note previous spamming campaign. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

All of these were freak upsetting accidents, most loved ones were lost


Why go to the grandcanyon? why go to the grand canyon if so many people die from that by freak accidents,just think you could be one of them.

[edit] POV edit

I removed a sentence from the Activities section that constitutes POV:

"Park service forecasts are rarely accurate and often inflate adverse conditions as a deterrent to canyon hikers."

This line will likely never be confirmed in print and should not appear in an encyclopedic article. The park service actually posts forecasts from the National Weather Service, Flagstaff Office in various places around the park, even at the Bright Angel Campground at the bottom, making the statement untrue. Notary137 21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Correcting external link above to provide website name. Notary137 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism has been put back in.

I'd ask someone with more wiki privileges than me to pull the last paragraph under Geography.


removed the following nonsense - Garry

Many people believe that the Grand Canyon was "formed billions of years ago by the Colorado River." This, however, is impossible for the simple reason that water takes the path of least resisitance. If you look at the Canyon from "a side" view, you'll see that the north east rim is LOWER than the south west rim; which means that the water would have been flowing "uphill" for "millions" of years as it "carved" out the Canyon. Utterly impossible! The Canyon was formed about 4,400 years ago after the worldwide flood which is described in Genesis chapters 6 - 9.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/a/Talk%7EGrand_Canyon_07e2.html"