Talk:Mont Saint-Hilaire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Volcanoes

This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance to WikiProject Volcanoes on the project's importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.


[edit] A little better now

I've added tons of stuff to the article - a description of the mountain, lots of details to the history (although it's focused on the part of the mountain that belong to the McGill university - details on the quarries should probably be added at some point too). I plan to add somethin about the various myths and legends surrounding the mountain ASAP, as well as probably a piece on its role in the region, where it features on the flags and coats of arms of just about every nearby town).

I've also clarified a bit the section on volcanism. McGill university (which own the mountain) state clearly that Mont Saint-Hilaire, and I quote "did not originate as a volcano. The mountain was formed instead as a series of plutonic intrusions into the sedimentary bedrocks of our region, that is, through the upwelling of magma that never managed to break the surface as a volcano". The other Monteregian hills may (or may not) be the remnants of former volcanoes, but it seems quite clear this one, at least, is not.--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How do they know Mont Saint-Hilaire didn't break the surface to form a volcano? No one can't really tell if it reached the surface because the sedimentary rock is mostly eroded away. I agree the present-day mountain is intrusive and not made of volcanic material, but sedimentary rock is quite soft and would be easy for magma to reach the surface. The magma that creates the present day mountain is most likely magma that didn't reach the surface during volcanic activity, because magma pools in a magma chamber after an eruption has occurred. There's an extension of the hotspot track in Ontario connecting the Monteregian Hills which shows signs it reached the surface to form volcanic pipes, carring kimberlite and diamonds to the surface. The Lake Timiskaming kimberlite field is an example of this.
I know it's possible for a mantle plume to break the surface in continential crust as a volcano because there's another hotspot track in British Columbia called the Anahim Volcanic Belt which has been active as recently as 7,200 years ago at a small cinder cone called Nazko Cone. A series of <3.0 Magnitude earthquakes began October 9th, 2007 in the vicinity of Nazko Cone which could signal the resumption of intense subterraenean volcanic activity in the area. 34 such <3.0 Magnitude earthquakes were observed on October 10th, 2007 alone. Since than more than 1000 small earthquakes have been recorded.[1] These earthquakes are thought to have originated 25 kilometers below the surface. The cause of this seismic activity is believed to be the upwelling of magma because the area is not close to any faults or tectonic plate boundaries.[2] Black Tusk 05:23, 05 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but the speculative volcanism bit you added reads as WP:OR. I have removed it from the article. Yes, some of the intrusions "may have" breached the surface - either within the hills or to the west in the Oka carbonatite area, but without reliable sources saying so and discussing the subject - we simply don't state it as so. Vsmith (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
And here we go again. The source you (Black Tusk) quoted does not make an explicit statement on Mont Saint-Hilaire as a volcano; only a general statement about the Monteregian Hills. In fact, it even goes out of its way to make it clear that "In some cases, magma erupted at the surface". Some. Not all, some. That doesn't contradict the explicit statement (from McGill University, which again owns most of the mountain in the first place, and operate facilities there) that Mont Saint-Hilaire was NOT a volcano.
Also, do we really need the long bit about the Anahim mountains et al here? It seems added pretty much only to point out "See, this is LIKE some volcanoes!". Which only muddles up the issue more; even admitting McGill is wrong (which I see no reason to at present), Mont Saint-Hilaire most certainly is not a volcano today, unlikes the Anahim mountains! --Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I added the Anahim volcanoes because it's a good example of what it would probably look like if there was any hotspot-related volcanoes in the area. I found more volcanism-related stuff about the Monteregian Hills here which states alkalic magmatism in the Monteregian Hills though not Mont Saint-Hilaire. First of all, the reference about Mont Saint-Hilaire being formed under the earth dosen't even tell you how do they know it formed that way. A statement saying something about uncertainess would be a lot better. Black Tusk 06:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
And I don't see why we need an example of what things would look like if there were hotspot volcanoes nearby, since, whatever the case, there are none today, and we don't know whether this ever was an hotspot volcano.
Plus, givern certain circumstances (IE, how every school children age anywhere near the mountain plus a goodly number of adults too) believe the Monteregian are in fact dormant/extinct volcanoes (and not just remnants thereof), it seems awfully irresponsible on our part (from where I stand) to draw comparisons with active volcanoes!
Regarding the source, it may not be perfect (indeed, I would rather have a look at why they are able to claim that). But it's still a pretty much scholarly, serious source, and one that is very specific and clear on the mountains - unlike any of the sources you've quoted to date, none of which openly make any statements regarding Mont Saint-Hilaire --Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the volcanology infomation. It would probably be better if there was a map of the New England hotspot track, like the one I used as a reference for the volcanic activity in Ontario. It's definately a question why they are able to claim that the entire mountain formed under the earth while hundreds of meters of rock have been removed. The volcanoes (if there were any) would lie on the sedimentary rocks and would be eroded along with the sedimentary rocks, making it most likely impossible to find out if there were any volcanoes. Black Tusk 15:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the map of the hotspot would be better off in the overall Monteregian Hills article, than in the articles on the individual mountains. I agree with you that it would definitely be something to find out HOW they reach that conclusion; perhaps we could try emailing them. If that fails, I can always do it the hard way, ie, go ask them which studies state this. It's not like McGill's on the other side of the world, or even Canada (for me) In the meantime, I think the current wording ("No evidence of ever being in an erruption") is fine. .
Also, thanks for the added bits in the infobox. Wasn't too sure what I was supposed to put there.--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I ment, putting the hotspot map in the Monteregian Hills article. I wouldn't say volcanic activity was NOT involved in making Mont Saint-Hilaire because the mountain was formed when upwelling magma solidified under the sedimentary rocks, which is subterraenean volcanism but not eruptive activity. It's similar to what I was talking about above at Nazko Cone. Black Tusk 18:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plans

I'm not done on this yet by any stretch of the imagination. I will likely add more stuff on the mountain and various cultures, the legends, and the ecological value of the mountain. Just now now. Also probably try to make the geology section cleaner.--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)