Talk:Mountain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Mountains (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Geology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Mountain is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Geography (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital / Supplemental
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This article has an assessment summary page.

Mountain formation - misattribution of source of text and other changes needed.[edit]

Turner chris1 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC) The following section requires some editing and changes to clarify its meaning, remove ambiguous text, poor grammar and misleading attribution to prominent geologists.

Compressional forces in continental collisions may cause the compressed region to thicken, so the upper surface is forced upward. To balance the weight of the earth surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots" [see the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page.413]. Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy). However, in some continental collisions part of one continent may simply override part of the others, crumpling in the process.

The text is a nearly straight quote from this book http://www.scribd.com/doc/50479109/Miracles-of-Islam-Rotation-of-the-Earth, including the poor grammar. Not to quote the source is misleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability), especially as the Press book is quoted at the end of the paragraph.

The reason for this I suspect is the text has been inserted by a group of muslims (influenced I think by the work of Zakir Naik and Zaghloul El-Naggar)to promote their belief that certain verses in the Quran (e.g. 16:15) contain scientific information (in this case the unproven idea that mountains somehow stabilise the earth) which could not have been been known to the prophet Mohammed in 650AD. It therefore goes against the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view policy.

Zakir Naik claims the support of the geologist Frank Press and in particular that Press's book "Earth" contains text which supports their contentions. You can see a book by Naik which makes this claim at http://www.scribd.com/doc/10030165/Quran-and-Modern-Science-by-Dr-Zakir-Naik-Book page 25, hence the added and I think misleading, "See the Book of the "Earth" towards the end of text.

I particular I think the following changes therefore need to be made:

1) it is not clear what 'To balance the weight of the earth surface', means?

Apparently this can (has! see http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43851/27096449/mountains_-_do_they_stabilise_or_not?pg=1) been interpreted as meaning the whole surface of the earth is balanced, rather than just the part being forced up, which is plainly not generally accepted geology.
Grammar - "the earth surface" is poor, but if you change it to earth's then you just make it more misleading!
Suggest this is changed to " the balance the weight of the material forced upward (i.e. the mountains and hills formed in the continental crust during the collision"),

2) see the Book of "Earth...." ==

  • is ugly English,
  • gives the misleading impression (to some) that the previous text it is actually quoted from that book (it doesn't seem to be see http://img102.imageshack.us/i/bldz4139ib.jpg/), I have pointed out the probable original source (but that could also be a copy from elsewhere). I think the reference may have refered to a diagram, which was then deleted from this wiki page for copyright reasons - but the reference has remained.
  • and is not a proper reference (i.e. with a number),
Suggest the reference to the book (not just a page) is added as a proper reference in the further reading section and removed from the general text. There have got to be more recent geology books than that one though!
Suggest that continental collisions should be a link to the wikipage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_collision (and if possible the ones for tectonics, mountain building etc. as a more informative way of describing what is happening at plate boundries.

Include a section on Mountains in religion

It may be useful to have a section which deals explicitly with the religious claims made, with references to wiki pages of Maurice Bucaille, Zakit Naik and others, with the muslim and the sceptic points of view presented properly.
I believe the above changes will improve the page - I am not sure exactly how to get this to happen, apparently there are tags I should be putting in for a protected page, but as the change may be seen as controversial, I thought it best to give people a chance to think about it before leaping in. here endeth my first ever post, hope I got it right and followed some of the rules!.21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Turner chris1 (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good observations. Will take a closer look later. I've modified your format a bit above for readability (don't need multiple headers:). Vsmith (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I will wait for your final comments Turner chris1 (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems the material sourced to the Press and Sievier book has been there for quite a while, likely has been copied to other websites. I've fixed the ref format and will verify the page # later. More fixes needed, will be back to check further. Vsmith (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
you can see page 413 at http://www.scribd.com/doc/51244698/Earth , as I suggest above, I think that the diagram 17-34 was originally referenced, but this has got lost over time Turner chris1 (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Well the rules say - be bold so I have been! Turner chris1 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Bold works :) I've fixed a bit in the article per WP:MOS - and removed duplicate signatures here, just add the ~~~~ after your post. Scribd page won't load on my balky connection right now. Vsmith (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I want new topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.94.90 (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Mount Davidson[edit]

This is a mess.

This article tells us that it has a "height of 300 m (980 ft), which makes it ten feet short of the minimum for a mountain by American designations." Ignoring the doubtful mathematics (980 + 10 = 1000?), the line is rightly tagged as needing a citation.

The Mount Davidson article gives us a height of "928 feet (283 m)", sourced to the U.S. Geological Survey. That makes it pretty reliable. So the claim in this article seems just plain wrong.

The best solution would appear to be removal.

HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Anybody? HiLo48 (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


Totally agree. Even the Mount Davidson page agrees with you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.38.196 (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Aconcagua not of direct volcanic origin[edit]

141.78.16.132 (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Aconcagua is not of volcanic origin as stated in this article. Have a look on Aconcagua's own site.

Grammer question[edit]

In the first paragraph of the definition section, is relatively the proper word? Mcx8xu (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)mcx8xu

Yes, its in a quotation from the OED. What it means is that a table mountain may have several "peaks", each of which in absolute terms are thousands of feet above sea-level, but since they are only a few feet higher than the plateau they don't count as separate mountains. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Closest point to outer space" dubious[edit]

Chimborazo, Ecuador, the point farthest from the center of the Earth, the closest point to outer space[1]

In the first picture (reproduced here), I find the assertion that the point farthest from the center of the Earth is "the closest point to outer space" rather dubious, as what causes the Earth to bulge in the middle (i.e. its rotation) should also cause the atmosphere to bulge there, perhaps even more so, if we take ratios rather than absolute distances. Is the source considered reliable? Even if so, why should it be in bold? cmɢʟee 00:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Chaco it out[edit]

Check out water on chat page on the to do list at the top. It's the bottom bullet point. So ridiculous :::; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.25.8 (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

re the Intro[edit]

I glanced at and watchlisted this when "you guys" targeted it for improvement as a signature/core article.....second look now, and as per my first impression at time of watchlisting, the intro strikes me as very subjective, not accurate, and in need of proper citation......Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this whole thing's pretty weak. Thinking we should leave rewriting the lead until all the body work is finished. That way it can sum up what's actually reffed lower down. The Interior (Talk) 05:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Core literature[edit]

I've noticed a lot of weak sourcing here, so maybe a good exercise is to start listing some of the "canonical" mountain writing. The Interior (Talk) 05:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Bermicourt and I have added half of these citations in the last 10 days. Please feel free to improve! The first source, below, is already cited: I'll update the reference.—hike395 (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
It was stuff like "wisegeek.com" and "go4awalk.com" that was jumping out, I can see the reliable ones you guys are adding. Good work. The Interior (Talk) 05:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Bad ones replaced by good ones. —hike395 (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
there's a BC specific one Landforms of British Columbia S. Holland, originally published in the 1950s, may have a definition in it, but also has extensive sources/references; don't think it's online, it may be, used as citations on various Mountain Range articles.Skookum1 (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

List of sources[edit]

  • Gerrard, John. Mountain Environments: An Examination of the Physical Geography of Mountains. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1990. Print. The Interior (Talk) 05:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Bernbaum, Edwin. Sacred Mountains of the World. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1990. Print. Author bio at the Banff Centre The Interior (Talk) 06:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

The included photo of Mount Rainier is wonderful to see. Speling12345 (talk) 8:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Numerical accuracy[edit]

Where does the figure 8,849.868 m come from? It seems wildly/misleadingly over-precise.80.229.172.13 (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It comes from a precise conversion from 29035 feet to metres - I've rounded it to the nearest metre. Mikenorton (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)