Talk:Yokun Ridge

Elevations

The elevations in feet appear to be confused with meters. Possibly a bot.

Am going fix by killing feet. Calamitybrook (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

This article seems to be a one-man show by its orginating editor who has recently expanded and improved the item, and corrected the elevation problem. I'm delighted.

I am informed that the term Yokun Ridge appears in a number of Google "hits" and it does seem to be gaining circulation.

I'm all in favor of using it. I think it's quite descriptive and useful.

It's not currently found on USGS, maps nor on the USGS Naming Information System found at this link: [[1]].

Many regard the USGS site as the source for definitive official nomenclature for U.S. geography.

The source and history of the term Yokun Ridge would be an interesting, though not critical, addition to the article.

I don't believe it appears in my 1970s edition of the AMC Mass RI trail guide, which was fairly detailed. It certainly wasn't in the WPA Berkshires guidebook, a highly informal though detailed volume from 1930s.

At present I don't know of any sources regarding its origination. Perhaps I'll peek at Lexis Nexis, but am not hopeful.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Some background into the origins of the name would be great. Who knows when it began? If you find such information, I hope you'll reference it in the article. The current (2004) AMC Trail Guide to Massachusetts indicates Yokun Ridge (page 38); your copy is extremely out of date. As for the USBGN, you can actually write to them, demonstrate that the name is in use (i.e., refer to the BNRC map/guide and current AMC guide), and they'll add it to their database (I've done it myself with other landscape features). They're concerned with common, provable useage that can be referenced, not original useage.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I found the origin of the name, page 38 of the new AMC Guide: "The Ridge owes its name to Jehoiakim Yokun, who owned much of this land around 1740."--Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The source now provided doesn't explain when it was named -- or by whom....It seems very likely to me that the ridge owes its name to Yokun Seat, which lies north of Lennox Mountain and is a place name of very long standing indeed.

The term "Yokun Ridge" was probably dreamed up by land preservationists within the past couple of decades to emphasize the continuity of open space on the landform in question. This hunch, however, probably can't be sourced, and isn't therefore useful.

The USGS has in past times been very picky about accepting new names for geographic features.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

For readability, could you please condense your remarks and set them off with the same delineation (how ever many colons you choose, as long as they are consistent)? Yes, it is certainly possible that "Yokun Ridge" was derived from "Yokun Seat." In my experience dealing with landscape features, especially in New England, the further back you go, the harder it is to see where a name comes from. Old names for places fall in and out of use. For instance, Mount Washington was once the name of the South Taconic Range (still the name of the town in that area). It's really difficult to say when "Yokun Ridge" originated; although I agree it seems that its use became more popular in the last ten or fifteen years. But that doesn't mean that there isn't some old map or text lying around somewhere that someone got hold of and resurrected the name from. In any case, it's a moot point, because, as you say, the name is being used by reliable, printed sources today, including the AMC which you seem to think is a good source of information. As for the USBGN, you should try them sometime and see what kind of results you get. The proof is in the pudding. Not to say that they'll accept a bogus call for a name change, of course. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Question is not precisely moot. If a private conservation agency or planning group recently coined the term, it might provide insight into the the area's cultural history with regard to development and preservation, regionalism, etc.

History of recent U.S. Forest Service involvement may be somewhat related, and in any case, would be interesting addition to article.

Since "Yokun Ridge" is likely a new coinage, it might be relatively easy to determine its origin. (Yokun Seat I think you've got nailed.) Or at least to establish that the term until recently didn't exist.

Same point might be true, perhaps to lesser extent, if the term indeed originated with an early settler, cartographer or Indian chief, through I don't personally believe those folks would've seen much relationship between W.Stkbg Mt. and Lennox Mt.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would indeed be interesting; best of luck in conclusively discovering it's origin. Personal beliefs, speculation, and theories aside, of course. In any case, Yokun Seat and Yokun Ridge (derived from Yokun Seat or in homage to J.Yokun) are clearly named after the same Yokun.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Reworked

It's a conservation zone designated by government authorities in recent years.

That's the cultural meaning of the term "yokun ridge." The term has no other historic meaning or content.

I've sourced this information accurately.

Have somewhat reworked article to reflect this fact.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

USBGN designation

The USBGN shows "Yokun Ridge" as ". . . a distinct 9-mile ridgeline including West Stockbridge Mountain and Lenox Mountain (including the summits of Mahanna Cobble, Yokun Seat, and Baldhead); it is a sub-range of the Taconic Mountains." Article edited to reflected official designation. See USBGN http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=154:3:4157071828966131::NO::P3_FID,P3_TITLE:2519194,Yokun%20Ridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.66.106 (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

USBGN refers this landform as "Yokun Ridge"

According to the USBGN, it's a "ridge," not a "region" or anything else. That's the official designation. A distinct article about the forest reserve can be created seperately, if needed. This article, however, is specifically about the land feature--a ridge--named "Yokun Ridge," specifically described as a "ridge" landform by the USBGN and encompassing the features indicated on the USBGN database--regardless of 'when' the name originated. It is NOT about the forest reserve, although it may contain the forest reserve. If you want to write an article about the forest reserve, that would be nice, but this is not the place to do that specifically (although it should be mentioned here), especially since the forest reserve you are describing isn't even called "Yokun Ridge". To summarize, if you disagree with the USBGN designation, or the idea that Wikipedia should allow an article about a land feature described by the USBGN, you can write a properly titled article about the forest reserve and put this article up for deletion. BTW, Calamity B, discuss here or elsewhere, don't make a 3RR on properly sourced material. 24.147.66.106 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The article has referred inaccurately to "Yokun Ridge" as a "distinctive ridge." A glance at a topographical map shows this to be incorrect. Moreover, logically, were this an accurate description of local topography, it would have long ago been named as a singular feature.

This "distinctive ridge" is, in fact, two completely separate and distinct landforms, well-known by their current names for roughly three hundred years.

"Yokun Ridge" was a term dreamed rather recently up by Berkshire Natural Resources Council in order to drum up support for land preservation by appending a single identity to some contiguous wild lands, which eventually became the "Stockbridge-Yokun Ridge Reserve" partly as a result of BNRC's efforts.

The term isn't widely applied. It's not on U.S. Geological survey maps nor found in historical literature. Locals don't currently use the term.

Yes, a couple of years ago it appeared in the fed database, & yes, the Appalachian Mountain Club has followed BNRC's lead in their hiking guidebook, so it has some legitimacy, but is nonetheless a recent and rather artificial creation.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful edits, sorry we have been having trouble communicating. Regardless of the history of the landform as you would like it, the USBGN does refer to it as a "distinct ridge"; that's an actual quote from their database. I've included that quote in the lead. It's accurately sourced material, sorry you don't like it, but please refrain from deleting it. And again, it isn't "a group of hills" it's specifically a "ridge" and part of "The Taconic Mountains" according to the USBGN, direct quote again. The USBGN defines what a "ridge" is. Furthermore, I felt it necessary to remove the relative term, "very recent." Sure you understand why that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and in any event the date of USBGN designation is noted directly in the nomenclature section, along with the note RE: the Berkshire Natural Resources Council source. It's already in the article. BTW and aside, I'm not seeing any backup source for your assumption/accusation "as a term dreamed rather recently up by Berkshire Natural Resources Council in order to drum up support for land preservation." That's a pretty strong and specific accusation. Perhaps you are right. If you are, awesome! Find a source that says that. It would certainly be cool conspiracy material to include in the article, but it won't change the USBGN designation, or make this article into an article about the forest reserve.24.147.66.106 (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. and this is beating a dead cat, but in my opinion, after looking at a topo map, the landform appears to be one distinct ridge to me, cleft by various gaps and offset a bit here and there. It depends on the map scale you're looking at, but even at the stadard 7.5 series, in my opinion, it's one landform. And that's the point--it's my interpretation or WP:OR, just as your read on a topo map is WP:OR, therefore the USBGN, which isn't WP:OR. As far as historic useage, you seem smart enough to know that names for landforms change over time: certain names fall out of use, while others fall into use. It happens, whether we agree with it or not24.147.66.106 (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to regard the USBGN as somehow God-like. I too find it significant and propose re-instating its 2009 acceptance date of the term "Yokun Ridge" in the lede.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've made the sourced material in lede more specific through some minor changes.

The "distinc ridge" includes, according to the article, lakes, swamps and a number of significant ravines that separate some of the named features (in particular Baldhead). This needn't be explicitly mentioned (or sourced) but is of course recorded & available information via relevant USGS quadrangle.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is Provenance Insignificant, etc.?

Please briefly explain your view that it's unnecessary for a grasp of the term to point out its very recent & somewhat artificial provenance.

I can think of no precisely analogous example in geographic nomenclature. Certainly this is an unusual, if not a unique case of inventing new name for heretofore unrecognized land form.

You say the fact that BNRC invented the term is a "remarkable accusation" and a "conspiracy theory?"

Going back into my files (original research) I have a note from George Wislocki of Pittsfield indicating (with obvious & justifiable pride) that in 1974, he invented the term "Stockbridge-Yokun Ridge" and included it in a booklet published by the BNRC as part of its early preservation efforts. The note, of course, can't be cited, but is nonetheless accurate.

The earliest references to "Yokun Ridge" in the article at hand come from the 1990s, whereas names for West Stockbridge Mountain and Lenox Mountain, et alia, have relatively ancient pedigrees in an area that is, quite frankly, steeped in significant history.

Also, how is Baldhead Mountain & other important outlying features like Lake Averic, etc., "part of a distinct ridge??" Shouldn't this be addressed somehow? Otherwise, significant parts of the article become illogical.

I contend that the larger significance of the term is found not in geography but rather in the land preservation potential within the block of contiguous wild land delineated by the federal reserve, the establishment of which, after all, legitimized, to a limited extent, the term "Yokun Ridge" while unfortunately dropping the hyphenation for convenience.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Responses:

1) The phrase "very recent" is a relative, subjective term which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The actual date of designation is included in the nomenclature section, along with the BNRC relationship. There is nothing to complain about here. YOu already have what you want, sans the relative, un-ecyclopedic wording. Landforms are named, renamed all the time by the USBGN. It's an ongoing process, like it or not. Take your argument up with them if you don't like their designation.

2) Not exactly, and those were not my specific words. It may be true. But because you have not backed it up with more than conjecture. I.E., you have no source that states that the term was "invented" in the way your describe, it amounts to little more than a conspiracy theory.

3)Yes, and that's too bad, but as you agree, its WP:OR Those are the breaks. I have heard locals use the term to describe the ridge, but I have no evidence either. The USBGN designation, on the other hand, is sourced material, regardless if you agree with the USBGN or not.

4)The "ancient pedigree" is already detailed by you in the Nomenclature section. It's there, in the article. Those who are interested in it can simply read it and determine what they want to think for themselves. If you want to write an article about West Stockbridge Mountain or Lenox Mountain, you can do so; I think that would be a good use of energy wasted here and an honorable contribution to WP. In any case, this article is specifically about the landform named "Yokun Ridge" by the USBGN (and previously by BNRC and AMC), regardless of when the term came into use, or how it came into use, or how many people use it. The term exists, as described by the USBGN, and this is the article about it.

5)Baldhead is specifically described by the USBGN as part of the ridge. It's sourced. Lake Averic is located at the southwest base of the ridge (and possibly on the lowest shoulder of the ridge). It isn't the ridge, but it's associated with it by close proximity. The ridge hydrology drains directly down into it.

6)Again, this is an article that describes a landform designated by the USBGN as a ridge of the Taconic Mountains and called, specifially Yokun Ridge. It's origins, while interesting and worth including in the article (sourced material only), don't change that fact. If you want to write an article about the forest reserve, you may start that article, properly titled of course. If you have proof that the hyphenation may have been dropped via some sourced material (good proof), then it's a simple matter inserting "This is an article about the landform Yokun Ridge, for the forest reserve titled (proper title, not the shortened version), see. . ." before the lead, as per WP convention for terms with similar names.

I don't know how to be any clearer than I have been.24.147.66.106 (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And so we go around

Again CB, this is an article is about a geographic feature called Yokun Ridge and specifically described as a "well-defined ridge" (sourced and quoted) not a "so-called ridge" (an unsourced description that you have applied to Yokun Ridge) or a "group of hills" (also an unsourced description). And again, the term "recent" is relative and hence unencyclopedic. And again, the date of the designation is indicated in the nomenclature section, the proper place for details about the history of the term "Yokun Ridge" and the geographic history. And so we go around. Since we don't seem to be getting anywhere, if you would like to continue disputing the validity of the name of the ridge, take your argument wp:rfc and present your argument there, or take it it up with USBGN. If USBGN decides to delist the name, you can then submit this article to wp:afd. In the mean time could you please stop trying to subvert the sourced, quoted, and notable material with unsourced conjecture, ambiguity, and relative language?24.147.66.106 (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should try to compromise on these questions.

I don't "dispute the validity of the name" and never have.

You persist in the notion that the board of names is the sole available source. The U.S. GS quadrangle is a perfectly good source and Baldhead and a number of other features are clearly not "part of a distinct ridge," a phrase, which I think can nonetheless be incorporated into the article.

There are other sources already cited in the article.

Recent is indeed relative. The year 2009 is better.

I think compromise is the way to go.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Compromise is fine as long as it does not include original research, bias, relative terminology, unsourced opinion, conjecture, or other material generally unacceptable to Wikipedia. I'm willing to work within that framework. Glad to hear that you think the name "Yokun Ridge" is valid. Baldhead is a peak located off of the main ridge crest but part of the ridge as a whole. It is described by the USBGN as part of the ridge; it appears to be clearly part of the ridge to me. Perhaps you have a very narrow idea of what a "ridge" is. The U.S.G.S. quad you mention doesn't describe the term "Yokun Ridge." Your personal intrepretations of USGS maps over the sourced USBGN designation aren't acceptable. Again, this is an article about the land feature described as "Yokun Ridge"--it is not a reserve,a group of hills, an "area," a "so called ridge", a cupcake, or any other thing. It is a ridge. If you have sourced material that specifically describes the land feature called "Yokun Ridge" as anything but a ridge, please include it, cited properly. In fact, cite any material you introduce to this article. Yes, the year 2009 is already included in the article, under nomenclature, as I keep reminding you to no avail. I put it there, for anyone to read.24.147.66.106 (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Compromise

I tossed a note out on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains‎.

You might want to look at WP:PLACE. We can use some of that to work on this.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Eureka!

Berkshire Eagle newspaper Sunday October 24, 2010 Section: Local (page unavailable on LexisNexisAcademic)

Concerns event to honor George Wislocki, first director of the Berkshire Natural Resources Council.

A brief quote for review purposes:

"In 1971, George knew there was a place called Lenox Mountain and a place called West Stockbridge Mountain," said Ames. "Not content, he unilaterally named the great 12-mile ridge line Yokun Ridge, and in doing so, he understood that the whole is so much greater than the sum of all parts."

This comports with my earlier personal research.

Earliest LexisNexis newspaper reference to term is 2007. It has definitely gained some traction lately.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Good. I think you should include this material in the nomenclature section. Note, however, that according to this quote you unearthed, the landform now known as "Yokun Ridge" was formerly an unnamed "great 12 mile ridge" consisting of Lenox Mountain and West Stockbridge Mountain the "sum of all parts." Like I have been saying all along, it's a ridge. 173.166.71.233 (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia "guideline" excerpt

"The United States Board on Geographic Names determines official Federal nomenclature for the United States. Most often, actual American usage follows it, even in such points as the omission of apostrophes, as in St. Marys River. However, if colloquial usage does differ, we should prefer actual American usage to the official name."

Consider also that searching Google Books for mentions of the major "Yokun Ridge" hill (Lenox Mountain) used in conjunction with term "Yokun Ridge" comes up with vastly fewer hits than a simple search for "Lenox Mountain" etc.

For example, search the term "Geology" and "Lenox Mountain and I get 94 hits. Add term "Yokun Ridge" or search simply "Geology" and "Yokun Ridge" and I get nothing.

I'd expect similar results from LexisNexis.

Google Books and LexisNexis are imperfect tools, but their use is advised in above-mentioned guideline as a means of discovering actual usage.

I offer this merely to suggest that some sort of caveat be included in lede regarding subject.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there was no "colloquial usage" for the geographic feature either before it was named "Yokun Ridge" or now. It was simply unnamed. Its various parts had names--Lenox Mountain, West Stockbridge Mountain, etc. Articles can be written about those parts. Again--and I just keep on saying it--this article is about the landform named "Yokun Ridge." 173.166.71.233 (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

--Furthermore: if your attempt at a "caveat" is to undermine the designation of "Yokun Ridge" as a "ridge" you bear the burden of finding a good source that specifically states that Yokun Ridge is not a ridge. All you have come up with so far is material describing the nomenclature of various parts of the now-named Yokun Ridge, formerly unnamed. That the ridge remained unnamed for so long doesn't mean that is isn't a ridge. New England abounds with unnamed geographic features. Periodically, some usage or another results in formerly unnamed features acquiring names. 173.166.71.233 (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Guideline preference is for actual usage as determined by preponderance of published material.

"Yokun Ridge" starts showing up in the newspapers in 2007. So I'd say yeah, it's actual, but probably want some sort of caveat in the lede, for those not born yesterday, so to speak.

Seems a reasonable assumption that of the few million people (let's say) familiar with "Yokun Ridge" most came to know it as something else.

Just an example:

The Berkshire Eagle published an interesting letter from a resident on March 31, 2005 Thursday, which refers to upper end of Y.Ridge as "Lenox Mountain Range," a term cited in the article from an early 20th Century descriptive work.

Yokun Ridge is described as a ridge in the fed data base, which cites the BNRC, which "unilaterally" named the feature in 1971, in order to drum up support for preservation.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. The designation date is now included in the lead. Since the same sentence states that the ridge is made up of Lenox Mountain and West Stockbridge Mountain, there should be no confusion among the "few million people" who are familiar with the parts but not the whole. I hope that puts this to bed, as there are much more productive things we could be spending our time on here. BTW1, and I keep repeating this to no avail, but this is not an article about the various parts of the ridge. It's isn't a renaming of Lenox Mountain or West Stockbridge Mountain. There was no "actual useage" for the whole ridge before 1971 (40 years ago!) there was only actual useage for parts of the ridge. Those "not born yesterday" can read articles written specifically about Lenox Mountain or West Stockbridge Mountain, which you could have been writing instead of going on here. BTW2, why do you insist on writing your posts in haiku-like format? It is difficult to parse and wastes space on the discussion board. Can you at least try to keep your signature and all of your text on the same indent stop?24.147.66.106 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I generally employ the concept of paragraphs in my writing and these may be quite brief.

The article's recent changes address my concerns. I've rewritten the nomenclature section a bit, incorporating the newest source and eliminating some slight redundancies.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good. I've revised your revision somewhat, rewording the speculative statements that are not backed up by the sources attached to them. I've also restored the quoted, sourced material that was deleted, and made some other stylistic changes. Hopefully we are almost finished.173.166.71.233 (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I've sharpened-up this section a bit so that it is more to the point, for example, by begining at the beginning, i.e. with an explanation of how the term originated.

I removed the quotes from BNRC, which were from a ceremony honoring the guy who named Yokun Ridge, and therefore (understandably) self-serving, subjective, and not terribly relevant nor readily comprehensible. Also removed details from the bureau of names, as material is already established in sections higher up, and were thus redundant.

I will make a separate section to restore significant material on the federal conservation zone, which seems to have been inexplicably blanked.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

CB, please stop deleting sourced material. The quote is indeed relevant as it describes how and who named the ridge. Using the quote avoids either you or I interpreting that naming process and incidentally inserting bias into this document. It's sourced material. I've asked you to desist in deleting sourced material in this document several times before this. As for the USBGN description listing the various parts of the ridge as described by the USBGN, that material is relevant and was not included in the lead. Again, do not delete sourced material! Thank you for your understanding. I have moved the history of the term "Yokun" to the front because the use of "Yokun" preceeds "Yokun Ridge."173.166.71.233 (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't been to enough of these "Chicken Dinner" speeches to evaluate them. Have you actually even read the article from which the quote is drawn?

The speech was made by an acolyte forty years after GW invented the term.

The relevant content is simply the origin of the term.

Regarding the other matter, which you describe as "the USBGN description listing the various parts of the ridge as described by the USBGN," this is clearly redundant as Yokun Ridge is described in complete detail earlier in the article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel personally about the quote (by Tad Ames, current director of BNRC and formerly a reporter for the Berkshire Eagle) or chicken dinners, the quote is valid, notable material from a reliable source. You yourself indicated that you believed that BNRC named the ridge and you first introduced the quote as proof of that claim here [2]. If you want to delete the quote, please take your argument above to WP:rfc and get the opinion of other editors. Until then refrain from deleting it, as you are one strike away from wp:3rr edit warring among other issues. Regarding the second matter, the USBGN material, this section establishes exactly what the USBGN says is part of the ridge. I could quote them verbatum, if you'd like. Your call.173.166.71.233 (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy & third-party quotes

The definition of Yokun Ridge is thoroughly established earlier in article. USBGN definition is identical -- and thus redundant.

If an intelligent third party comment on the significance of term's invention were available, its inclusion might be more valuable than BNRC's predictable & promotional view of itself. What we've got is a bit like quoting McDonald's opinion of its hamburgers in an article seeking to offer insight on the company.

Further, in this case, we've actually quoted a small-town reporter attempting to quote a BNRC official, rather than a direct quote. If such material were actually notable (& no case for this is made) an intelligent paraphrase would be more appropriate for Wikipedia.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Take your issue to wp:rfc. Since it's only the two of us here, since you are maxed out on your reverts, and since this page is now protected, you have little other recourse.

In the mean time, my final responses to your remarks: 1)The USBGN definition of the ridge is not established until the nomenclature section. If you would like me to bring that exact definition to the lead, I have no problem with that.

2) Your personal and strongly biased negative opinions of BNRC or the reporters of the Berkshire Eagle don't hold any weight here. The material is notable, interesting, of historic significance, and hence quoteable. You yourself indicate the quote as proof of BNRC's original use of the name Yokun Ridge. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

3) The material is notable because: a) it was spoken by the current and long term executive director of BNRC, who is in a position to be qualified to speak about the organization's history. Ames also worked for many years as a reporter for the Eagle further qualifying him to speak on events relating to the history of the area; and b) It was recorded and published by a public newspaper, the Berkshire Eagle, which passes the test here on Wikipedia for a notable source of information--regardless of your personal bias against so called "small town" newspapers.

4) Finally, I should point out that the quote is simply that--a quote. Readers can take from it what they like. Ames' statement doesn't have to be true--it simply has to be notable. But, of course, you have already asserted that it is true.

Again, take your beef to the wp:rfc. If it has merit, as you claim, you should have no trouble prevailing. In the mean time, I'm done here--and so are you.173.166.71.233 (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at RFC will be futile unless the issues are more clearly defined than they have been. Discussion here likely will be more productive than an RFC. Maybe you can start by trying to explain the issues to me. After reading the above and reading a few recent versions of the article, I perceive several issues with the article, including the following:

• Did the Berkshire Eagle article of Sunday October 24, 2010 have an author and title? These are usually required for reference citations -- and are particularly important if the article is going to be quoted, as is the case here.
• The part of the quotation that says "and in doing so, understood that the whole is so much greater than the sum of all parts" seems to be a statement of opinion, not an objective fact. Quotations should be identified as to who said them. Additionally, unless this can be supported by some context on what the person was talking about and why the "sum of the parts" is significant, it appears to me that this part of the quotation should be removed from the article.
• The statement "The term is not included in the BGN database" seems to be original research. What is the intended purpose of that statement? It probably should be deleted.
• Where the article mentions the book Greenways for America, shouldn't it provide a reference citation to the book? Only one of the citations provided appears to indicate anything about the book, but it indicates only that the author's papers included a mention of Yokun Ridge. Whether or not it's actually mentioned in the book, what is the point of the sentence (other than a piece of trivia, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia)?
• The "History" section cites only one reference, but is festooned with "citation needed" templates. I have to assume the information came from a source -- what was it? How much of this information is actually about the ridge? (Little of it appears to be directly relevant to the article topic.)
• Unless there's a source for the statement about dog walking being permitted in some areas, it should be deleted. This is an encyclopedia article and not a manual of park rules and regulations, so there's no need to include minor details like this unless they are solidly sourced. --Orlady (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. with more than two participants here, we might be able to move through this. Reponses:

1) Yes, it isn't cited properly. The material was first introduced here, in this talk page, by the other editor, as support for the assertion that the ridge was first named "Yokun Ridge" in 1971 by the Berkshire Natural Resources Council, a land conservation NGO. I have no problem with removal of the material--and all it supports-- until a proper citation is available.

2) See above and: Perhaps the full quote would go further in establishing context "'In 1971, George knew there was a place called Lenox Mountain and a place called West Stockbridge Mountain,' said [Tad] Ames [executive Director of BNRC, a land conservation NGO]. "Not content, he unilaterally named the great 12-mile ridge line Yokun Ridge, and in doing so, he understood that the whole is so much greater than the sum of all parts." The quote by the executive director of BNRC directly and specifically pertains to the naming of the ridge and goes further to explain why and how. The quote is meaningful because it demonstrates that BNRC considered the ridge to be one uniform landform when it was named; b) the quote addresses the how and why for the naming of the whole ridge by the former ED of BNRC, who named it; and b) as far as I understand, a published quote from an executive director of an NGO regarding the history of the same NGO and its actions, is indeed notable material and not simply unreliable opinion. But it could be introduced with more context, yes. However, if Ames is unreliable, then his assertion that the ridge was named in 1971 must also be considered unreliable. All of that aside, I have no issue with something worded as follows: "According to Tad Ames, executive director of the Berkshire Natural Resources Council, the name Yokun Ridge was applied to the ridge in 1971 by George Wilsocki, former executive director of BNRC." I would, however, take exception to the statement--reintroduced several times to this article--that the name was "invented" by Wislocki, which is not supported by the quote or source--"named" is not the same as "invented." Ala wp:weasel words.

It appears from your comment that you have a source in addition to the short item in the Berkshire Eagle that Calamitybrook has discussed. Can your source be identified? --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

3)I did not introduce this statement; I have no issue with its deletion. The other editor can weigh in here. To be fair to him, the USBGN database, a listing of landscape features officially accepted by the federal government, is available to anyone with a computer and an internet connection. It is easy to use and requires no interpretation or processing--either something is listed in it, or it isn't listed. I don't believe that constitutes wp:or.

I need to explain myself better... The USBGN database is a good source for the information that it contains. However, drawing conclusions based on the absence of information verges on original research. --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

4) I did not introduce the material on "Greenways to America"; I have no feelings for it either way. I shuffled it around the section, nothing more. The other editor can weigh in on its relevance.

5) Ditto. I did not introduce the history material. I placed the citation tags there per WP:AGF (as it jived with what I already know about the area), instead of removing it, but, yes, the material cannot hold up to a challenge of "deleted, unsourced." However, I believe, and I don't have the material before me at the moment, that much of it is sourced in the BNRC publication cited elsewhere in this article. I would be glad to check on this later.

6) Agreed, I have no attachment to the dog walking stuff.

Hope that helps to clarify the situation209.198.69.35 (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you the same person who participated in previous discussion as 173.166.71.233? Do consider registering a user name here -- among other things, it makes communication much less confusing. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Yes, the same. If I decide to contribute further (beyond this article) I will create a username.173.166.71.233 (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

I have full-protected this page to stop the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss your content issues here. --Orlady (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature section

Let's suggest a few goals for nomenclature section and their relative priorities, thus moving toward an agreed outline.

My suggested outline:

1) Origin of term "Yokun Ridge." (i.e., its invention).

2) A few significant examples of usage (BGN, AMC) & non-usage (USGS).

3) A few alternate and related terms & their provenance (Yokun Seat, Lenox Range).

Many of Orlady's points above are spot-on, though most are, in my view, quite minor.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Due to the vagueness of your comments, it is not possible to determine what you are proposing, nor what you are agreeing with. Please be specific. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, with regard to the Berkshire Eagle article on Wislocki, I am uncomfortable with fact that apparently, an editor is evaluating the item without actually having read it.

As for citation, the full information provided by "LexisNexis Academic & Library Solutions" is shown above & included in present citation. Oh, the title is "Wislocki honored high atop Lenox Mountain." I am slightly puzzled by lack of a page number afforded by LexisNexis, but those are the breaks.

For those unable to read it, the article is a "roundup" of minor local events, and the lack of a byline would be unsurprising. The headline merely refers to the column's lead item.

It goes on to note, F.Y.I., a random bear sighting in the southern part of the county, some routine & on-going EPA matters concerning General Electric Co.'s Pittfield property, and the identity of speaker at upcoming meeting of county chapter of Trout Unlimited. The piece ends with this sentence: "The Pittsfield Sportsmen's Club is seeking donations of venison (including hearts and livers) for its upcoming dinners. Contact Clem....[I'll redact names & phone numbers].

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... If the Berkshire Eagle "article" was merely a roundup of minor local events, it's not something that can be quoted in an encyclopedia article. I propose to eliminate the quotation from that paragraph of the article, replacing it with a simple declarative sentence:

George Wislocki, first director of the Berkshire Natural Resources Council, first proposed the name "Yokun Ridge" in 1971.

That sentence can cite the Berkshire Eagle, but it also can cite page 4 of this BNRC newsletter: http://www.bnrc.net/documents/BNRC_ResRepFall10_web.pdf --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If the Berkshire Eagle Article is not reliable enough to quote, than it must be disregarded altogether. Either the material is reliable, or it is not. The BNRC publication is clearly usable--and quote-able. Any reference to it should be direct and avoid wp:weasel words. I too am confused by your earlier remarks, CB.173.166.71.233 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the Berkshire Eagle reported that Wislocki named the ridge lends credence to the report in BNRC publication, which is not exactly independent from Mr. Wislocki. In this instance, two sources are better than one. A source can be reliable without being an appropriate source for a sentence-long quotation that expresses an opinion. --Orlady (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with you in this case, but regardless, your suggested wording works for me.173.166.71.233 (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you're both evaluating a source without looking at it (and coming to different conclusions).

Be that as it may, I largely agree with Orlady. But "propose" is problematic. The term was indeed "proposed" decades later, to the BGN, which accepted it, based in part on publications of BNRC. I'm not aware that, in 1971, Mr W. "proposed" anything at all. Calamitybrook (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the source we haven't seen, I believe we are accepting your description of the source, in keeping with the Wikipedia mantra "Assume good faith".

You make a valid point regarding the word "proposed". Here's an alternative proposal:

George Wislocki, first director of the Berkshire Natural Resources Council, first applied the name "Yokun Ridge" to this feature in 1971. --Orlady (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Seeing agreement on it, I inserted the above sentence into the article, and made other changes to the surrounding text so as to accommodate the new wording. Other elements of the article still seem to be under discussion. --Orlady (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Good. I'm not sure that the BNRC+ USBGN needs to be mentioned in the lead if it is in the nomenclature section, but that's just a stylistic concern. The article is actually starting to look nearly as good as it did before it was taken hostage. [3] 24.147.66.106 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to my "proposed" outline for Nomenclature section... What's unclear? You like Roman numerals?

I) Origin of term "Yokun Ridge." (i.e., its invention).

II) A few significant examples of usage (BGN, AMC) & non-usage (USGS).

III) A few alternate and related terms & their provenance (Yokun Seat, Lenox Range).

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What's unclear is what you are proposing. There's an existing section in the article called "Nomenclature." Are you proposing to replace it with something different, are you proposing to keep it as is, or are you proposing to expand it? If you want to replace it or expand it, please show your proposed contents here -- and include the sources you intend to cite. --Orlady (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Notes on some additional sources for the article

• Is there a reason why this Pittsfield Gazette piece is not cited? It appears to me that it would be helpful in developing the article. --Orlady (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the old name of "Lenox Range", I found an 1879 book in Google Books that uses that name several times: http://books.google.com/books?id=SmUZAAAAYAAJ --Orlady (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

These sources are helpful and quite interesting in their own right.

It appears that the 80-acre deal is presently a bit muddied by a court case. Yokun Ridge may amount to 12,000 acres (my guess).

Couple of things:

Maybe we should discuss redundancy of BGN's definition of "Yokun Ridge." A minor point, perhaps, but its inclusion is illogical and a stumbling block to the reader. A rather precise definition is already (& properly) established much higher in the article. BGN's definition is understood as that of common usage, and common usage is the basis of BGN's 2009 acceptance of the term.

Also, I should explain my view of the "dispute" here.

An important aim of the article (though certainly not its chief aim) should be to show, using available facts, that the term "Yokun Ridge" originated and emerged into common usage through the local politics of land preservation over a relatively short and recent period, rather than in more typical fashion for the names of land forms, i.e. through gradualism and folk-ways.

Why? Because doing so may help provide a basis for fuller understanding of both the term itself as well as historical & cultural factors concerning the area in question.

I don't think this point can or should be greatly belabored in the article, but neither do I think it should be qualified or buried within the text as a random fact.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say that the BGN definition is redundant. BGN is the authority on geographic names in the U.S., so their definition is a much more authoritative basis for this article than anything a local conservation group said earlier. Thus, it's reasonable for the article to say that the BNRC was first to use the name, but the definition of the name should be based on what BGN says. (The fact that BGN is simply repeating what BNRC said earlier does not make BNRC an authority on geographic names.)

Your comments about the "aim" of the article being to show how the name "originated and emerged into common usage" sound like original research that does not belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia records information published elsewhere; it is not a place to present or develop ideas and theories. This sounds like an interesting idea, but if you want to develop it, please write an article for a local newspaper or magazine to publish; Wikipedia can not publish original research, but it can cite newspapers and magazines. --Orlady (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Amen!173.166.71.233 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

First, I agree with OrLady's re-revised wording. Second, I'd like to see the USBGN definition of the term included in the nomenclature section--and excluded from the lead, as is common for nearly every other article on landscape features on Wikipedia. Regarding your comments above ("my view of the dispute"), I see strong bias in them that is unsupported by the sources we've discusses so far, and I would not want to see that bias creep into the article as has been the case for the last month (or longer). Yes, let's stick to "available facts" and not embellish or interpret them using WP:weasel words. If you have something to propose, I, too would like to see what it looks like here--and I expect that it will be adequately tied to notable sources and and free of bias and conjecture.

On another note, and this is a minor item, but the inclusion of the description of "Yokuntown" seems not to belong in this article. This article is about the landform; it isn't a list of all things that use the name "Yokun."24.147.66.106 (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

PS, I would certainly like to see the material mentioned at the top of this section included in the article.24.147.66.106 (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think tracing "Yokun" to colonial sources helps show local history related to the name.

If you don't want to define "Yokun Ridge" in the lede, then how is the reader to know what the article is about?

As for Wis. "proposed" the name in 1971, this contradicts the source, which says he "unilaterally" invented a new name for the area. It also creates needless confusion, potentially, regarding the much later proposal to BGN.

Not sure about your other ideas.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute including information of who Yokun was, I dispute the inclusion of Yokuntown, which seems besides the point. I want to define Yokun Ridge in the lead, briefly but I don't think there needs to be discussion in the lead about the USBGN designation, which specifically belongs in the nomenclature section. I thought we weren't quoting the Berkshire Eagle source? If so, then the words "unilaterally" can't be considered here. And it didn't say he "invented" it, it said he "named" it--as I keep reminding you. This is exactly what I mean about conjecture and wp:weasel words.24.147.66.106 (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The WP:Lead section|lead section]] is supposed to summarize the main points of the article body. For this article, it seems OK to mention the naming of Yokun Ridge, since it's an unusually recent name, and the story of the name is a large part of the article.
Speaking of the lead, it seems like a lot of disparate information has been stuffed into one paragraph. I'd like to revise it as follows:

Yokun Ridge is a well defined ridge of the Taconic Mountains in Berkshire County, Massachusetts, within the towns of West Stockbridge, Stockbridge, Lenox, Richmond, and Pittsfield. It is 9 miles (14 km) long and includes West Stockbridge Mountain, Lenox Mountain, and other named summits.

The name Yokun Ridge was first applied in 1971 by the Berkshire Natural Resources Council and was subsequently accepted by the United States Board on Geographic Names in 2009.

Approximately one-third of Yokun Ridge is protected as open space reserve, municipal watershed, and wildlife sanctuary. The ridge includes a conservation zone called the Stockbridge-Yokun Ridge Reserve that was designated in 1993 by the U.S. Forest Service under its Forest Legacy Program. Outdoor recreation facilities on the ridge include Bousquet Ski Area and a network of hiking trails.

Having mentioned Bousquet Ski Area in that last paragraph, I think the body of the article also should mention it. --Orlady (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I like your suggested revision of the lead, Orlady, with the exception of: 1) ". . .Outdoor recreation facilities on the ridge include Bousquet Ski Area and a network of hiking trails." Note that hiking trails aren't "facilities." Also note the the Audubon Pleasant Valley Sanctuary on the east side of the ridge has a interpretive nature and education center. Not that all of these things should be listed on the lead--and so you may want to consider a more general statement about recreation. 2)Stockbridge-Yokun Ridge Reserve I'm not sure that the term "conservation zone" means; it's a vague construct (coined here, I believe) that is too easily confused with "conservation area." Furthermore, it isn't an actual "reserve" but rather a proposed reserve to which funding from the Federal LWCF is tied. 173.166.71.233 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Previously removed source

Reference to this was included in the article but was removed several years ago by Calamaity: "The villages of Mount Ephriam and Yokuntown formed on either side of the ridge, both named for the two Mahicans who sold the ridge and surrounding lands to the colonists" emphasis on formerly deleted, same BNRC 'Yokun Ridge source referenced in the article. Furthermore, the 8th edition AMC guide says the ridge "owes its name" to J. Yokun [the Mahican]. I'd like to see this material returned to the article. This also gives credence to the inclusion of Yokuntown here. 24.147.66.106 (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The most-recent edits to the "nomenclature" section are, to my mind, adequate.

Relevant & accurate additions to the reference section would be fine. Further elaboration of the text might, depending on its nature, create confusion.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not yet found a version of the article that made reference to the villages of Mount Ephraim and Yokuntown. The current version says "The name Yokun derives from Jehoiakim Yokun, a Native American of the Mahican tribe, which occupied the area circa 1740. "Yokuntown" was a designation for the village of Lenox in the 18th Century." It could be informative to mention the other village, if that bit is solidly sourced. What's the date of that version of the article? --Orlady (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The BNRC guide/map, already on the reflist, mentions both villages. I believe it is available online. ON another note, I would like to see the bit about the forest reserve folded under a general header titled "Conservation"; because I have some additional information on conservation activity I would like to include here; for example the material on the ski area, already mentioned on this discussion page. 173.166.71.233 (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Returned info to top

I returned the information on the origins of the name "Yokun Ridge" to the top of the section. Remember, this is an article about "Yokun Ridge." The origins of the name "Yokun" or "Yokun Seat" are of secondary interest. 173.166.71.233 (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Also returned the distinction between "Nomenclature" and "History" sections that were conflated.173.166.71.233 (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I had originally created the "Nomenclature" section. It is however, mainly a question subsumed by category "history." At present, I don't mind having, in effect, two sections on history -- if you like.

There was a problem, however, with your construction "According to the book Mohicans of Stockbridge"......and then immediately saying that J. Yokun's name is related to Yokun Ridge. The book doesn't refer at all to Yokun Ridge.

Reading further on Mr. Yokun, one notes that his son Timothy died fighting for the colonists in the American Revolution, etc., facts which may have contributed to the persistence of the name "Yokun Seat" and thus, indirectly, to creation of "Yokun Ridge." I can't imagine that there are any truly reliable sources on this question.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the new historical info on Yokun. Good. 173.166.71.233 (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Around we go

CB, is George W's description substantively different than the USGS description? I don't believe so. This article is about "Yokun Ridge", not a bunch of "hills." What exactly are you trying to get at this time? The first article referenced contains no mention of what Yokun Ridge contains (it is simply referred to as a "landform": "n 1971, Wislocki gave Yokun Ridge its name, launching an ongoing campaign to conserve the defining landform") and the second article has no internet reference to point to. If you want to bring a quotation from that article to light, please bring it here verbatum, and we can discuss. 173.166.71.233 (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, reading back into our previous discussions here, I see that we agreed that the Berkshire Eagle article (pretty much a blurb amongst other blurbs in news brief about local happenings) should not be quoted and was only to be regarded as supplemental reference. Given that there was consensus on the wording of the original passage (before your recent rewording attempts), and consensus on the exclusion of the Berkshire Eagle blurb, I could support the replacement of the word "feature" with "landform" but little beyond that. 173.166.71.233 (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand.

As written, the segment says that Wislocki applied the term Yokun Ridge to Lenox. Don't know why you'd insist on this. But if you like it, you got it.

Current Text: "Yokuntown," a designation for the village of Lenox in the 18th Century, was also named after Yokun.[6] George Wislocki, first director of the Berkshire Natural Resources Council, first applied the name "Yokun Ridge" to this feature in 1971.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph break is working for me, but I can see how it might not work for someone else. If the second paragraph were brought to the top (Orlady recently moved it), this would no longer be an issue. Changing "feature" to "landform" or simply "ridge" would also resolve the ambiguity. 173.166.71.233 (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Whatever. Maybe it should just stay as it is.

But also note that in my view, history and nomenclature sections should be merged as both deal rather simply with history and neither concern a system by which things are named (nomenclature).

So you would support the changing of "feature" to "landform" or "ridge" in order to clarify the paragraph transition? I agree that "nomenclature" is probably not the best name for that section. However, I would object to a total dumping of all the information in that section into the history section, as much of it is simply geography, not history. I don't object to removing parts of it to the history section and other parts to the geography section, although I would like to see this done in a way that is appropriate (i.e. non-subversive).173.166.71.233 (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeing ongoing editing but no objection to the suggestion to change "feature" to "landform" I have gone ahead and made the change. I have also moved the sentence about the naming of Yokuntown, which is historical trivia unrelated to the naming of the ridge, into the history section that mentions J. Yokun. This should also help clarify the paragraph transition. 173.166.71.233 (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

use of name

I've added references that show that the name Yokun Ridge has been used by Mass Audubon, the Bousquest Ski Area, and the town of Lenox. I also noticed that the term is in use by various businesses in the town of Lenox and by the Lenox Land Trust, although I did not want to overburden the article with this information. 24.147.66.106 (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If anybody can expand the geology section that'd be good -- if highly specific to hills in question. Where are the fault lines? Haven't they been mapped? Are there deposits of iron or other economically significant material?

Same for history. There is little or nothing that is directly about the specific history of these hills, perhaps because nothing much ever happened there. One question might be whether there were iron mines....What about the Lenox Mountain fire tower? Bousquet may have some historical claims that might be mentioned....Are some 19th Century literary hikes being missed???

As time goes on, one should look for forthcoming??? state publications related to the "forest reserve." They recently published something of interest on the area around Mt. Everett.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained/ incorrect references

I removed the following material because: 1) It seems vague and extraneous at best and at worst WP:Coatrack and 2) I am concerned that it may have been erroneously referenced. I'd like to see the actual quote from the source before this is reintroduced. I'd also like to see the passage reworded to make it more relevant. Here's the original: "Charles E. Little's Greenways for America (1990) includes the term "Stockbridge-Yokun Ridge" in a section concerning activities of the Berkshire Natural Resources Council.[4]" 173.166.71.233 (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I also removed the following: "The term "Lenox Range" was used to describe those parts of the ridge exclusive of West Stockbridge Mountain in the 1939 volume The Berkshire Hills by the Federal Writers Project (page 88) and also in a 1900 article concerning Lenox in New England Magazine. [5]" because the material does not appear to match the reference source. This should be corrected if the material is to stand. 24.147.66.106 (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Geology section

I removed the entire geology section from the article. Some of it may be valid, but after I looked at the cited sources I concluded that it is essentially WP:SYNTHESIS, a form of original research -- i.e., content that does not belong in Wikipedia. Here's what I removed:

Geology

The present-day bedrock of Yokun Ridge originated as deposits of mud and silt in the Iapetus Ocean, a precursor to the Atlantic. These deposits were compressed into their current form and thrust into roughly their present-day position about 440 million years ago during the Taconic Orogeny,<ref>Ecological Characteristics of the Housatonic River, Section II-6, US EPA http://www.epa.gov/ne/ge/thesite/restofriver/reports/final_era/EcoCharReport.pdf</ref> which resulted from the collision of the North American Plate into a group of volcanic islands<ref>Raymo, Chet and Maureen E. (1989). Written in Stone: A Geologic History of the Northeastern United</ref> Subsequent erosion and glacial periods also contributed significantly to present topography {{citation needed|date=May 2011}}.

A half-dozen or more geological formations have been identified in Berkshire County, two of which account for the bedrock of Yokun Ridge. The Everett Formation underlies most of the area, and consists of light-green and greenish-gray chlorite-muscovite-albite or chloritoid-rich phyllite, shifting to predominantly dark-gray chloritoid-rich schist on Lenox Mountain. Other portions of Yokun Ridge are underlaid by the Walloomsac Formation's dark-gray, graphitic quartz phyllite and schist containing minor lenses of limestone. The surrounding lower elevations are largely made up of the Stockbridge Formation.<ref name="tin.er.usgs.gov">USGS Geological Units in Berkshire County (please see also relevant sub-pages) http://tin.er.usgs.gov/geology/state/fips-unit.php?code=f25003</ref>

The entire region lies within the Taconic-Berkshire Zone of Ordovician and older rocks, and is also part of the Taconic Allochthon <ref name="tin.er.usgs.gov"/>.

The sources are not specific to Yokun Ridge (and, to complicate matters, they don't mention that name). For the most part, they are about the geology of the entire region. The region is geologically complex, so there is no reason to think that something mentioned as part of the region's geologic story has any specific relevance to Yokun Ridge. Please discuss the topic here, and do not restore content to the article until there is consensus that it belongs there. --Orlady (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Given CBs editing history here and in other places, it is difficult to trust anything he introduces, but I have to say that this material may be one of his more positive contributions. I have a copy of the Raymo book referenced, but not in front of me at the moment. If I remember right, it includes maps showing the area in question in relation to the geology described. Yokun Ridge is indeed part of the Taconic Orogeny, as state here. "Yokun Ridge" would not be mentioned in that book, which predates the current use of the term for the ridge, but that doesn't make the descriptions therein inapplicable. I don't believe that the descriptions presented here are a wp:synthesis and I don't see how they could be used subversively, so I am content to see them returned to the article per WP:AGF. 24.147.66.106 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that Yokun Ridge (together with a lot of the rest of what's in the region) is part of the Taconic orogeny. The problem is that much of the description is about the region as a whole, and not particularly specific to Yokun Ridge. It does appear to me, from what I've read, that the mountains that make up the ridge are formed by phyllite and schist; that is consistent with the middle two sentences in the second of the three paragraphs above. What's most problematic in the section I removed from the article are the descriptions of portions of the region's geologic history (better suited to a separate article on that topic), formation names, the irrelevant blather that "a half-dozen or more geological formations have been identified in Berkshire County," and detailed descriptions of the lithologies in the formations supposedly associated with the ridge (those descriptions are for mapping units as used on a particular map, and may not correspond to the specifics of this ridge). --Orlady (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's hard for me to comment further, as I do not have the Raymo book before me and don't have the time to dig it out of storage. If you have the book, perhaps you can trim down the material to something more specific to the ridge. It can't be all garbage.24.147.66.106 (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of the Rayno book, but I've looked at online excerpts, including several sections that mention the Berkshire Hills. The Rayno book is a fairly short (less than 200 pages) popular account of the geologic history of the entire northeastern United States. It does provide good background information on the geologic setting of the Berkshire Hills and the Taconics, but it is difficult to imagine that it has any information that comes close to being specific to this particular 9-mile-long ridge. --Orlady (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are geologic maps within the book showing that the ridge is within a certain geologic province(s), then whatever was written about that province(s) should be suitable for inclusion here. I've read the book, but it's been a while and can't recall how detailed the maps are. As I recall, the book did spend some time discussing the Taconic Orogeny in detail. Since I won't be digging it out any time soon and I can't support my objection with certainty, I must withdraw. 24.147.66.106 (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Taconic orogeny was a major geologic episode in the northeastern United States and eastern Canada. To say that the geology of Yokun Ridge was related to the Taconic orogeny would be somewhat like saying that the 18th-century history of Yokun Ridge is part of the 18th-century history of the 13 colonies. This article is about Yokun Ridge, so its geology section should be specific to Yokun Ridge, not about the region in general. --Orlady (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your perception that the Taconic Orogeny is minimally relevant to western New England and adjacent New York is a more than a bit of an understatement. While the original mountain building events may have affected a much broader area, the only visible remnants of that event--the present day Taconic Mountains, a narrow ridgeline extending from Connecticut to central Vermont--are very significant in terms of existing geologic formations (thrust faulting, visible in many areas) and noticeable topography. The Raymo book aside, there are a number of other sources that could be brought to bear on that significance, including the AMC and BNRC guides already cited, as well as a variety of academic articles available online or not. If it's relevant enough to be widely cited in hiking guides, then it has value here. We're not talking about a geology as vast as the Rocky Mountains--this is a very small, narrow mountain range representative of a certain orogenic event that is currently not represented elsewhere in the landscape of North America except in terms of its absence. 24.147.66.106 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC) BTW, how is a description of the rock and the source of the rock underlying the ridge not specific to the ridge?? Regardless of how far the rock extends--not likely very far in this case-- describing the structure of the ridge is indeed specific. 24.147.66.106 (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is supposedly about Yokun Ridge, not about western New England and adjacent New York. As for the description of the rock, the detailed descriptions incorporated into this article are descriptions of mapping units on a geologic map of the entire state of Massachusetts. The fact that these units were mapped on Yokun Ridge does not mean that the description of the unit is directly applicable to Yokun Ridge. Better for the article to have no information at all on the geology of Yokun Ridge than to have a nice-sounding description that can't be verified. --Orlady (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yokun Ridge is in western New England, not far from the New York border. The Taconic mountains more or less straddle the border of new England and New York. Again, we're not talking about the Rockies here; this is a narrow landform. I completely disagree with the logic of your statement "The fact that these units were mapped on Yokun Ridge does not mean that the description of the unit is directly applicable to Yokun Ridge." The units show the geology of of the area mapped. The descriptions are narrow enough to relate to the Taconic geology and the rocks of the ridge. If the ridge is mapped in those units, then the geology applies. And I don't agree that it can't be verified. It can be clearly verified if mapped. The precedent for including this kind of information in articles about mountains is prevalent throughout Wikipedia--this has been well established. Your argument for total exclusion feels very thin to me, although I agree that the amterial probably needs to be trimmed down and summarized.24.147.66.106 (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Another failed attempt to expand with reliable sources

If geology is relevant to the landform, one must refer to the everett and walloomsac formations, because that's what's there. The referenced online map clearly depicts them at Yokun Ridge specifically, and even refers in a written description to Lenox Mountain.

These two formations aren't unique to Yokun Ridge, which itself isn't geologically unique. Neither, of course, is the nature of its bedrock, nor probably, any small-scale topographic feature of the earth (like for example, a mountain). But that doesn't affect its relevance.

Automobiles are mostly made of steel, but steel isn't unique to cars and therefore a description of what cars are made of isn't relevant to an article on automobiles?

How one might argue against all this "reasoning" escapes me.

Of course, this map, like nearly ALL maps, doesn't refer to Yokun Ridge, a fact which isn't relevant to its geology. (Monte Cervino= Matterhorn) This map also describes a half-dozen or more other formations in the immediate vicinity of Yokun Ridge.

Geology of Yokun Ridge includes its context, an important basis for all geology. And yes, this would require reference to the Taconic orogeny and certain other concepts.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Geology is indeed relevant to the landform, but that does not justify engaging in original research, nor does it justify incorporating an essay about geologic topics that are not specifically related to the landform. The entire geologic history of the earth has relevance to the geology of Yokun Ridge, but that doesn't mean that the article about Yokun Ridge should review that history, nor the geologic history of the entire northeastern United States. Links to other relevant articles (in this case, possibly including Taconic orogeny) are used to help users find contextual information that is not directly related to the article topic. Let's not include a "Geology" section in this article until there is WP:Consensus on this discussion page that there is sourced information that is verifiable and relevant. --Orlady (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Orlady, you have not made your case that the information is not reliable or verifiable. Again, I'm not seeing that the referenced material constitutes original research. And I think that this excuse "The entire geologic history of the earth has relevance to the geology of Yokun Ridge, but that doesn't mean that the article about Yokun Ridge should review that history, nor the geologic history of the entire northeastern United States" blows the issue way out of proportion. Again, we're not talking about the entire geology of the northeastern U.S.! Let's keep this discussion within the bounds of reality and cut the hyperbole, please. As far as consensus, it seems that we have arrived at a stalemate, with you against the inclusion of the material and I and CB for it. We feel that the information is valid, reliable, and relevant to the topic. We would like to see the material returned to the article (more or less). If you are not willing to a compromise that involves the return of some of the material, then let's talk about the next steps in resolving the issue, as per Wikipedia policy--whatever those steps must be.24.147.66.106 (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see some information about Yokun Ridge's geology in this article. However, I don't see a sourced basis for information about the geology of Yokun Ridge. There's an environmental report about the Housatonic River valley that has some information about the geology of western Massachusetts. It names several geologic formations, include those that apparently make up Yokun Ridge, but it doesn't identify where in the region each unit is found. Another referenced source is a book about the geologic history of northeastern North America, containing no specific information about this site. The third source is a set of lithologic descriptions of map units used in the Berkshire County portion of a geologic map of Massachusetts. It is undeniably true that the list of map units includes units present in Yokun Ridge, and one of the descriptions mentions a specific lithologic variant found where that formation is present on Lenox Mountain, but the list of map units is not itself a geologic map and it does not indicate the specific locations where the units are present. Some WP:SYNTHESIS is required to associate the map unit descriptions with Yokun Ridge, and even if the map units specific to the ridge were identified, much of the detail in the descriptions is unlikely to be specifically relevant to Yokun Ridge (because it is written to cover all locations where the map unit is used). What's needed are sources that specifically discuss the geology of Yokun Ridge or the individual mountains included in the ridge. --Orlady (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I should certainly wash my hands of this. By Orlady's fatuous reckoning, it's quite impossible to include information on Yokun Ridge geology. But the "relevant subpage" described in a deleted note includes a USGS geology map found here [[6]].

I merely point out this map for those curious enough to look, yet too lazy or maladroit to locate information on their own. The map has taught me a bit (yet the fact is, it's been a dismal waste of time expanding this article).

Orlady's general mindset, an obvious symptom of which is his vast and seemly endless work on stunningly trivial Wikipedia lists and articles, means that predictably, he will insist that map reading constitutes "original research."

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The general idea of WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing sources is that articles are supposed to clearly and explicitly identify the sources that were the basis for the information in the article. Article reference lists are not lists of internet links that a reader could use in a search process to find the information cited in the article.
The online geologic map of Massachusetts is not cited in the text that I removed from the article. I confess that I did find the map myself, but the map wasn't cited, so a reader had no way of determining that it was a source for the article. Since the map doesn't have labels for geographic features, it is difficult to use it to identify the geologic units for any particular location. However, a guesstimate of locations leads to a conclusion that Yokun Ridge is probably underlain by the Everett Formation and the Walloomsac Formation. Both of those units consist of phyllite and schist, so it's probably valid to cite the geologic map as indicating that the bedrock of Yokun Ridge is phyllite and schist. However, details of mineralogy, color, etc., such as "light-green and greenish-gray chlorite-muscovite-albite or chloritoid-rich phyllite, shifting to predominantly dark-gray chloritoid-rich schist" are descriptions of the characteristics of a particular map unit; they are not necessarily descriptions of the unit as found on Yokun Ridge. --Orlady (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Map Use is Origininal Research

Predictably, you misread (although bothering to point this out is extremely questionable). The cited material describes the formations, and even, specifically, Lenox Mountain.

Yet by your impeccable, inarguable and immutable administrative standards, it is NOT permissible to use this map.

As you helpfully point out, "Yokun Ridge" isn't identified. In fact, no landforms are labeled, and this map may refer to some alternate cultural universe in which Yokun Ridge and its history, geological and otherwise (and even Kripalu) don't exist. How are we to really know?

Use of map in this context is a clear case of "Original Research." So please DON'T use it without its incorporation in a published study of geology labeled "Yokun Ridge."

Such studies, of course, don't exist, so any description of bedrock is impossible.

Raising a question of whether "Yokun Ridge" exists, lacking rocks.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree (although not with the sarcasm and tone, which are inappropriate). As I have said before, I don't have my copy of Raymo in front of me, but I will make it a point to dig it out sometime this summer. I also have an article from an academic journal with a fairly through description of the Taconic geology, including maps, also in storage. I will be revisiting this issue later, with sources. I may (and feel free to jump the gun) pick up a copy of the Roadside Geology of Massachusetts which, if I remember right, has some pretty good descriptions, too. Content and Wiki policy on content aside, I just wanted to say that I am pretty darn well disappointed with the ongoing warring between you two that has spanned a number of articles at this point. Although I do not agree with CB's antics and I am frequently glad that an administrator has been active in reigning in some of his excess, I am concerned that what I am seeing here is evidence of a vendetta. Please, take a step back and rethink. Coming up with a reasonable description of the geology and rock types that make up this range should not be this difficult to accomplish.24.147.66.106 (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

So what about Geology?

So it's definitely a land form. Definitely has geology. It's got sources. But HUH? Can't discuss? Can't include section on this? Why? WHAH? Maybe this was created by God in ten days?? 76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Yokun Ridge. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090122114550/http://teachski.com:80/Areas/bousquet/cbousquet.htm to http://www.teachski.com/Areas/bousquet/cbousquet.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071013094757/http://www.massaudubon.org/Nature_Connection/Sanctuaries/images/maps/pleasant_trails.gif to http://www.massaudubon.org/Nature_Connection/Sanctuaries/images/maps/pleasant_trails.gif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)