Talk:Mount Garibaldi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Mount Garibaldi is currently a good article nominee. An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article, and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Date: 19:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Mount Garibaldi is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
May 22, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
To-do list for Mount Garibaldi: edit · history · watch · refresh
Improvements needed to nominate for Featured status
  • Resolve redlinks and non-links by finding existing articles or creating new ones
  • Add more text (with refs) explaining the mountain/volcano, its history, relationship to other similar Cascade volcanoes, climbing, recreation, discovery, etc.

Contents

[edit] Photo

The photo (1140IM002323.JPG) in the info box with the caption "Mt. Garibaldi in July 2001" appears to actually be a picture of "The Sphinx" with Garibaldi Lake in the foreground. I removed it from the infobox. Also the Photos in the Gallery section were just general Garibaldi Provincial Park photos none of which appear to be of (or taken on) Mount Garibaldi itself. I've removed them all from this article. All pictures are still available in the Garibaldi Provincial Park article. Kilrogg 03:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Garibaldi

Mount Garibaldi is NOT in the Cascade Range; it is a member of the Cascade Volcanoes GROUP, but it is not part of the Cascade RANGE. Since I changed this someone has done a rever to the last (incorrect) version. I repeat, Mount Garibaldi is NOT in the Cascade Range. Skookum1 02:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

here is a USGS description of Mount Garibaldi which states that it is part of the Coast Mountains. The USGS also list Garibaldi as one of the "Cascade Range Volcanoes". In Canada, NRC refers to them as the "Cascades Volcanic Belt" or the "Cascades volcanic arc". NRC lists Mount Garibaldi as part of the "Garibaldi Volcanic Belt" which it describes as a "northern extension of the Cascades Volcanic Belt". It seems the confusion may be coming from the fact that the USGS is not using the term "belt" or "arc" but instead uses the term "range" to describe the group of volcanoes. Kilrogg 07:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the refs; note that the phraseology used on the USGS list is "Cascade Range Volcanoes"; not "Cascade Range" by itself; there's a semantic difference in that shift of syntax; not that cascade range volcanoes hangs together all that well when you analyze it. Surprised to see Mt Meager in the list; on the other hand that sounds somewhat familiar, as the fault line from there to Harrison Hot Springs is part of the Garibaldi formation/geostructure. It's north of Meager, from the Bridge River Volcanoes northwards, are part of a different systemSkookum1 02:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

Is there some reason why Garibaldi Volcano exists simultanously with this page? 70.71.155.24 07:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I never noticed that, but I'd speculate it's because of the old USA-centric version of the Cascade Range article which listed Garibaldi as being in the Cascades. It's in the Cascade Volcanoes, a certain breed/family which of course runs down to Shasta and Lassen - but Cayley, Meager and the others to the north are not part of the same system, y'see. Tried to untangle the Cascades article as best I could, but as with a lot of cross-border items in this region (Oregon boundary dispute, Alaska Boundary Dispute, Graveyard of the Pacific and quite a few others) the content was heavily from the US perception of things; which, of course, often enough is very wrong (and still is with the various boundary articles and connected history items, although I've worked over some of them a bit e.g. Oregon Country, as in the case of Garibaldi being in the Cascade Range, as opposed to being in the Cascade Volcanoes (which doesn't have a separate article and if it exists is a redirect to Cascade Range,which it shouldn't be IMO).Skookum1 08:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing there to merge and nothing links to it except this talk page, so I just changed the page to a redirect to Mount Garibaldi. It should probably be deleted. And Skookum1, your speculations are incorrect. If you glance at the page history, you'll see that "Garibaldi volcano" was created by a Canadian. Please don't blame the Americans in this case. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skwxwu7mesh history

I reworded that part that was written for human history. I will note, we do not call it Grimy One, Dirty Place. We called it Nch'kay. And, "At the time of European contact, the river valleys and other areas near the mountain were inhabited by many Pacific Northwest tribes who hunted and gathered berries in the forests and mountain meadows", is not completely true. The mountain is in Skwxwu7mesh territory. There are property rights to families on trap lines, hunting grounds, and gathering places, not to mention spiritual places for training and ceremonies. This isn't "in the past", but still exists. Just for those you didn't know this.

I will also working on adding the indigenous history to this article in the nearby future. Obviously it's seriously lacking. OldManRivers (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just remember not to blame that kind of content on Black Tusk, who's making huge efforts to be sensitive/inclusive. A lot of Wiki articles get contributions/additions from people referring off brochures and guidebooks and CoC bumpf; just yesterday there was some crap about Princess Royal Island having not only kermodes but grizzlies, neither one of which is true; but it came from the Great Bear Rainforest types; with Garibaldi it's a "popular mountain" so you get all kinds of tourist brochure-folklore stuff. As you may have noticed from a lot of my edits I'm constantly either specifying the nation/people or asking that someone do so, esp. when "the Coast Salish people" or "the Salish people/tribe" are mentioned; this is on any number of pages you may not be aware of, also. Also commonly seen and quoted, because of media usage, is "the Coast Salish language" or "thte Salish language"; makes it more difficult that not only the major media will use those same terms nowadays, but "serious publishers" as well as the academics writing for them who should know better. And I do agree with you about the past/present thing....Skookum1 (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to blame it on me OMR, I'm just trying to expand the article to get it GA or FA status. If there's more history about the mountain please add it (with inline citations), especially because of the large gap in the history section, which is why I ordered the infomation from glaciers, geology, hazards, human history, subsidiary peaks, and volcanic field insted of human history comming first. I thought the "At the time of European contact, the river valleys and other areas near the mountain were inhabited by many Pacific Northwest tribes who hunted and gathered berries in the forests and mountain meadows" was true because I know lots of other Casacde volcanoes have the same history (Rainier, Baker, St. Helens, etc). Black Tusk 18:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my backhanded remarks, but I just get frustrated by the arrogance and ignorance in all this stuff. It boarders on racism and prejudice. Barely anyone thinks about the indigenous history, ever. It goes into details of all this colonial history, like about early white explorers, and naming places from white dudes, and yata yata yata. Now I know it's a context of Colonial education system which predicates this mess. I just lash out because I get so annoyed by it. And so I apologize for lashing out on you when I know it's something larger then just some dude on wikipeida who likes mountains. OldManRivers (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'm also ancy because this mountain is super important to my people. But our history and existence in articles like these is completely ignored. OldManRivers (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
With that being said, that's probably why I can't seem to find lots of infomation about your people. I only found a few sentences about the Skwxwu7mesh when I was searching for Garibaldi history, which is why I added only a small amount. But if there were more infomation about your people I could add lots more to the article and not just about early white explorers. Black Tusk 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It was me who moved the Human History section up, Black Tusk; the lead already talks about volcanism, thten there were these huge long sections talking about nothing but vulcanology; th'ats NOT waht most peple come by such articles to read up on. You do this to a lot of mountain articles and other items; e.g. the little bit on Alert Bay, as if people around there even know about it and as if the volcanic field wereepart of town In this case it was just overwhelming, so I moved it;if it' a question of only one line, then tweak the line.Skookum1 (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I know volcanology is not what most people don't come by for, but I usually do that because there's more infomation about volcanology and not human history or whatever the mountains have. For example, if you search info on Meager, you will mostly find geology; the only website I know that has human history for Meager is Bivouac, which is already covered in the article. If there were more people interested in BC mountains/volcanoes it wouldn't be just about volcanology; there would most likely be more on history, climbing, etc. In case you didn't notice, volcanism is actually a large part of the BC landscape; look at the formation of BC and you will probably be surprised. I don't just create volcanology articles, I have created standard mountain articles as well; see Insular Mountains, Arctic Cordillera, Baffin Mountains, Challenger Mountains or Prince of Wales Mountains, Interior Mountains, Adam Range or Byam Martin Mountains and that's not all of them. Black Tusk 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Meager, Silverthrone, others, are all remote mountains; Garibaldi is a major local landmark, like Baker or Ranier. 'Nuff said, I hope....Skookum1 (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Do the Skwxwu7mesh still call Garibaldi Nch'kay? The BCGNIS website here says: Traditional Squamish name was in-ch-KAI, meaning "dirty place", "....because the water in the stream [Cheekye River] at that place was muddy. Today we call this place Mount Garibaldi". The current infomation says it is "still" the name for the mountain. Just want to know in case this is false; the page has a source for that infomation so it's harder to tell if it's true or just jargon. However, I don't think jargon would be appropiate for the BCGNIS website because it's a geographical names infomation system. Black Tusk 16:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we still call it Nch'kay. "In-ch-KAI" is just a spelling because there was no standardized orthographic spelling. I'm not sure about the reference to the river. The reasoning I heard was because after the flood, the mountain was dirtty from all the water that covered then receded. One of the citations I have there says this. Could be both? OldManRivers (talk)
Possible. The mud at the Cheekye River would most likely originate from the flood if the mountain was muddy from the flood as well. I also remember reading something about Garibaldi being higher before the flood occurred, which is easy to see because it's heavily eroded. Black Tusk 17:23, 28 April (UTC)

I'm not sure if the story of my people surviving the flood is published anywhere. I was raised hearing the story, and like most of my culture, it's still in oral formate. I'll see if there is anything and think it would be cool information to add here, perhaps? Anyways, the gist of it is the people were going bad, were not listening to the elders and spiritual leaders, so the Creator sent the flood. OldManRivers (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the archaeology pdf paper that's one of the citations also has a ton of information about the cultural uses of this area prior to contact and to this day. OldManRivers (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be added from here? What's Nexwyuxwem? Black Tusk 18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Mount Fee area is Nexwyuxwem. There is a lot of information about supernatural people from my people history and such in there, as well as plant, animal, and cultural uses for the Mount Garibaldi area. OldManRivers (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be added in the article? (See the article's featured article candidate page if you haven't.) I don't know anything about the subject so someone with better knowledge should probably add it. Black Tusk 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For an FA....

This article is already GA level. However, in order to become a FA, it needs the following:

  • References Y Done
  • One image or two Y Done

Once we get there, I'll see what else we need. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nch'kay

As per my own complaints and other requests, I'll see what I can do about adding more information of my people history. Right now I only have this bad boy, so I'll have to find other references/sources for information. Some things that can be added:

  • Cultural uses for the area. Animals, plants, and such gathered from this area.
  • Pre-contact history. The flood story, as well as other supernatural characters from my peoples history.
  • Current uses. Things like cedar bark gathering, hunting, fishing, etc. A picture would be good here to actually. This might be a harder one to find sources for, but I think I know of some.

I am quite busy right now, but I'll see if I can devote 20-30 minutes a day to finding and adding stuff and that should build up over a couple weeks into a sizable contribution. Okay cool, have my work cut out for me. = ) OldManRivers (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We now have two good sources from Rudy Riemer, Archaeologist.
Along with a few links to the Wilderness Committe:
I still would like to find some published book references, or articles in newspapers. OldManRivers (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you know if the Skwxwu7mesh have/know anything about Garibald's most recent eruption? Just curious to know because you mentioned material appears in sites dated 10,000 years ago while Garibald's most recent eruption was about 9,300 years ago at Opal Cone. Black Tusk 04:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know of anything and I asked a couple people and they don't know of any oral history about the erruption. Their may have been, their might be, but it could of also been lost in the holocaust. OldManRivers (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About "top" status

I think this particular page should be "top" status for WikiProject Volcanoes because it's notable, a major local landmark, British Columbia's if not Canada's best known volcano, sacred to indigenous people and it's the only major Pleistocene age volcano in North America known to have formed upon a glacier, which is relatively rare. Also, I have noticed Canada doesn't have any volcano articles rated "top" status while other countries in North America have at least one volcano article rated "top" status (e.g. Mount St. Helens in Washington, United States and Colima in Mexico). Black Tusk 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "mid" would be more appropriate. It's clearly not "an extremely important and famed volcano" (=top), or even "a very important and noted volcano" (=high). (See the descriptions in the project's importance scale.) The factors you mention do make it more important than its low prominence and lack of recent activity would suggest, so it does qualify as "a moderately important and notable volcano" (=mid). -- Avenue (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The number of references suggests Garibaldi is a noted volcano and it's one of the most recognized peaks in southern British Columbia. The volcano has activity but no eruptive activity which is explained in the article (i.e. earthquakes and high heat flow). The importance scale for high importance mentions any volcano with eruptions that have killed numerous people or produced large-scale environmental consequences should be no lower than this level while for top importance it mentions Includes volcanoes of great historical importance. Garibaldi was formed by significant explosive behavior (i.e. violent eruptions) and is very sacred to indigenous people because it plays an important part of their history (i.e. if it's very sacred to indigenous people it is extremely important). And being British Columbia's best known volcano, I think it deserves something. Therefore Garibaldi fits top status. It's also a major volcano; see other major Cascade volcanoes and they're rated high or top importance. Most of the volcano articles rated top importance I'm not familiar with either. Black Tusk 16:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm supporting "top" status (even though not a member of WP:Volcanoes); fame in the Unitd States is an irrelevant measure of importance in other countries. GAribaldi is easily the most famous of hte mountains in Canada that are volcanoes, if less famous to hte public as a volcano. I can't think of another Canadian volcano that would merit this status above Garibladi; Meager or Edziza maybe because of their high public profile, and also the 2350bp eruption of Meager which destroyed nobody how knows human communities; Tseax and Minto are also recent eruptions, but remote from major population areas as well as remote from the public eye; and Tseax Cone's prominence is negligible relatively speaking of course. The sacred-to-native peoples thing isn't quite enough to warrant "top" status all by itself; otherwise Cayley would automatically get it if Garibaldi does; Tsisutl and the other Rainbow/Itcha/Ilgachuz volcanoes would also qualify (and Tsisutl may warrant "high" because of its prominent location anyway). There are hundreds of volcanoces adn volcanic features in BC/Canada....surely one of them is worth "top" status, and if any is worth that rating, it's Garibaldi.Skookum1 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about the same thing Cayley being top status. Edziza, Cayley and Meager are definitely notable as being volcanoes as well. Like I said, Canada is the only country in North America that doesn't have a volcano rated top status which isn't right. Garibaldi is also popular for tourist attraction like Mount Rainier which is also top status. Black Tusk 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And what's Baker, I wonder? Reason is it's certainly better-known as a volcano to BCers than Garibaldi is; also higher and higher-prominence, but in "that other country" despite dominating Vancouver's SE skyline...so what's its rating? high?Skookum1 (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm the one that originally rated Baker and Garibaldi actually. I gave Baker high status because it's a major and notable volcano like Garibaldi and others. Maybe Baker deserves top status as well I wouldn't know; I don't know Baker as well as Garibaldi, Cayley, Meager, Edziza etc. Minto is a perfect cone [1] and has a higher prominence (1392 m) than Garibaldi. Black Tusk 22:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way Avenue, how do you know Garibaldi is clearly not "an extremely important and famed volcano" while I know you don't know lots about Canadian volcanoes? Just because you don't know or barely know the volcano dosen't mean it's not top status. There are more than 100 potentially active volcanoes in Canada and surely one of them is worth "top" status, and if any is worth that rating, it's Garibaldi. I think it's better to let someone with better knowledge about the subject vote. The lack of recent ERUPTIVE activity, which is probably what you ment, dosen't matter; see Mount Mazama, Olympus Mons and Long Valley Caldera which have not erupted for more than 4,000 years. But 4,000 or even 25 million years is not old in volcanological terms, it's young; see here. Black Tusk 02:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

We have rated 51 volcanoes as top importance. Why do you think Mount Garibaldi is among the world's 50 most important volcanoes? From the contents of the article, it doesn't even seem close to me. Perhaps borderline mid to high importance, but nowhere near top. For that, we want extreme fame, "great historical importance, or eruptions with the most devastating consequences". I'm happy to admit I know nothing about Garibaldi beyond what's in our article (and a few of its sources), but if there is more in its favour, why not add this to the article?
Yes, I did mean recent eruptive activity. And this does matter. Most of our top importance volcanoes have exhibited very recent eruptions (i.e. in the last two centuries). Many of those that haven't are known for exceptional explosive eruptions (VEI 7 or 8), including Mount Mazama and Long Valley Caldera. And Garibaldi is so far from being in the same league as Olympus Mons that words fail me.
There is no reason why Canada, while certainly a great nation in many respects, must have one of the world's most important volcanoes. One could say the same for Australia and China. It also doesn't matter that Canada has over a hundred "potentially active" volcanoes; what matters is how important this one is. (There are around 50 volcanoes in the town where I live - none rated above mid importance.) And being sacred to native peoples, while important in its own right, has little to do with volcanological importance. -- Avenue (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Who says there's only 50 most important volcanoes in the world? In my case that's opinionated. Not all volcano articles rated top importance are strongly important to everyone (e.g. look at our argument over Garibaldi). The contents of the article still need expansion. And what I can tell you is Garibaldi is definately not lower than high importance, same for the other major Cascade volcanoes. Canada is part of the Pacific Ring of Fire like any other country around the Pacific Ocean and therefore it deserves the same thing. And Canadian volcanoes are more active than mainland Australian and Chinese volcanoes by the way and so they have more importance. I don't know why you are against Canadian volcanoes and thus I should say the same thing for New Zealand volcanoes; I didn't know any volcanoes in New Zealand, especially Mount Ruapehu, until I noticed them on Wikipedia. As a result, there's no reason why New Zealand must have one of the world's most important volcanoes either. There's also evidence for some of the world's most violent eruptions at Mount Edziza.
I have seen volcano articles with VEI 7 and 8 that are mid importance (Aira Caldera, Bennett Lake Volcanic Complex, Campi Flegrei, Crater Lake, Reporoa caldera and Galán). Southwestern British Columbia is a highly populated area and volcanoes in this region, including Garibaldi, are highly explosive. Therefore they are probably the most dangerous of Canada's volcanoes; Mount Rainier in Washington has a similar history. Black Tusk 16:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, the reason for the importance ranking is to give us some way to prioritise our efforts. There's nothing majic about the number 50, but we should limit top importance ratings to those volcanic topics that meet the relevant criteria. I've explained why I think this volcano doesn't meet them. I don't think you've really addressed those concerns. Instead you've focussed on relativity within the region and versus other regions. I don't think that will be very productive. For one thing, I feel that the Cascade arc volcanoes have generally been rated somewhat higher than they should be.
On to your specific points. I think Campi Flegrei and Galán should be rated high importance, but I can see reasons why your other VEI 7-8 examples shouldn't be (e.g. age, other article on similar topics with top ratings). I don't see anything in the Mount Edziza article confirming that it's as explosive as any of these.
I don't think I have anything against Canadian volcanoes. I do admire your enthusiasm for them. But I don't think there's any sort of country quota for importance ratings. I gave Australia and China as examples of how silly that argument was, not because they are volcanic equals of Canada. (I agree they're not.)
There are many Ring of Fire countries without top importance volcano ratings; there are at least half a dozen between New Zealand and Indonesia, for example. I agree completely that there's no reason New Zealand must have a top-rated volcano article, and I personally would have rated Ruapehu high importance, not top. Lake Taupo seems to have a pretty compelling case, though.
Your point about high population near Garibaldi is a good one. Together with its formation on a glacier, it's the main thing suggesting to me that it could be rated high, despite its low activity.
I'm not sure that all this debate is taking us much further, though. You seem adamant that this article should be rated high or top importance. I feel strongly that a mid or high rating would be appropriate. Would a high rating be a reasonable compromise? -- Avenue (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were against Canadian volcanoes because you said: There is no reason why Canada, while certainly a great nation in many respects, must have one of the world's most important volcanoes. I think a high rating would be appropiate as well for Garibaldi because that's what its original rating was (I'm the one that originally rated it). But the other major Canadian Cascade volcanoes (i.e. Meager and Cayley) are high important as well because they are close to highly populated areas like Garibaldi, they are highly explosive and because these volcanoes are likely to disrupt western Canada. (Read about the 2350 BP eruption of Mount Meager if you haven't). There's also an eruption scenario at Mount Cayley about Canada being vulnerable to an eruption, which is similar to the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. Meager and Cayley are also being searched for geothermal potential. What argument about Australian and Chinese volcanoes?
I know the importance ranking is to give us some way to priorities our efforts and that's another reason why I think top importance would be good for some Canadian volcanoes (i.e. Garibaldi, Meager, Cayley, Tseax or Edziza) because some still need much more infomation and lots of users don't give them the attention they need, which is why I focus on Canadian volcanoes the most. Canada is a country associated with the Pacific Ring of Fire (which is home to over 75% of the world's active and dormant volcanoes) that is seriously lacking compared to other large countries associated with the ring, sorry to say. We can do better than this, including the Garibaldi article. And from what I understand, one user is not enough for at least 100 volcano articles.
There's nothing in the Mount Edziza article mentioning it's as explosive like the VEI 7-8 volcanoes, but if its silica-rich compositions are similar to those associated with the most violent eruptions on Earth, my guess would be VEI-6-7. It's last eruption is believed to have been 1,350 years ago which is more recent than Garibaldi's eruption, but that event was followed by at least two younger, but still undated eruptions. (Possibly only a few hundred years old since the lava and ash in that area looks quite recent). Black Tusk 18:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me try to be clearer. I do not have anything against Canadian volcanoes as such. If there is one that clearly meets the criteria for top importance, I'm happy for it to be given that rating - I just haven't seen evidence of that yet. I do object to what I see as potential disruption to the global volcanoes project. If you want to recruit helpers, there are appropriate ways to do this, such as organising collaborations or just posting on the project's talk page. But boosting the assessments for topics in your area of interest without good reason is not an appropriate way to get more people involved.
There was no "argument about Australian and Chinese volcanoes". I was referring to your continuing argument that Canada deserves a top class rated volcano: e.g. "Canada doesn't have any volcano articles rated "top" status while other countries in North America have at least one volcano article rated "top" status", "surely one of them [Canada's potentially active volcanoes] is worth "top" status", "Canada is the only country in North America that doesn't have a volcano rated top status which isn't right". I brought up those two countries to illustrate why I don't accept that argument. It could have been any other pair of countries that justifiably do not have top rated volcanoes. The discussion should be about whether a volcano meets the criteria, not which country it happens to be in. -- Avenue (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand you don't have anything against Canadian volcanoes and I understand you haven't seen evidence for Canadian volcanoes being top importance which is why I asked you: ''By the way Avenue, how do you know Garibaldi is clearly not "an extremely important and famed volcano" while I know you don't know lots about Canadian volcanoes?" The more you know about the subject the more accurate it is to say it's top or high importance. I have already posted this issue on the project's talk page during February and nothing happened other than being deleted; that's probably one of the reasons why WikiProject Geology has an "attention" section with there box. For example, see Talk:Geohazard. Maybe our project's box should have the same thing.
The quotes you mentioned were ment as a "possibility" for Canada containing at least one top important volcano, not just because Canada is the only country in North America that doesn't have any volcano rated top importance. Black Tusk 20:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Legends and being very sacred to indigenous people most likely count for the volcano project because there are other volcano articles that seem to be sacred and they are rated top importance. For example, see Mount Shasta and Iztaccihuatl. The sentence Includes volcanoes of great historical importance on the project's assessment page does not mention it has to be entirely about volcanology and that is correct. Not everything about a volcano is about volcanology. Therefore being sacred counts. Black Tusk 22:15, 02 June 2008 (UTC)