Talk:Geology of North America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.107.137.178 (talk) at 00:06, 8 May 2013 (→‎Caribbean: yes, you are correct, good point, but ...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DYK nomination

Hmm... I would assume you meant "one shield" rather than "on shield"? Typos are fun. Vsmith (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are ;). Fixed it. Thanks. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian shield

I've removed the following:

province of Grenville sedimentary rocks metamorphosed into marble, quartzite, and gneiss and later intruded by granite and gneiss.<ref name = Wallace1948>{{cite web|title = Geology of Canada|last = Wallace|first = Stewart|date = 1948|url = http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/GeologyofCanada.htm|accessdate = 10 Mar 2013}}</ref>

and replaced it with a rather simple introductory sentence.

The sentence removed was rather garbled and sourced to a 1948 book which was written in the 1930s. The problematic ref was written before current understanding of Precambrian geology, we shouldn't depend on ancient sources. Vsmith (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section Names

Tobias asked me to come in and look over the names for geological versus physiographic origin (or is it orogen?). Now, it's difficult to come up with good names for the orogens, as many underwent numerous orogenies. The names I used came mostly from [1]. As for actually changing the names: the coast section under American Cordillera could easily be renamed Active Margin, besides that, names get harder. Sevier Belt, Laramide Belt, Sevier-Laramide Belt, and Sevier-Laramide Orogen all return some google results, like this [2] and this [3] and could replace Rocky Mountains, but I don't know that any could be considered common. Besides which, the Laramide Orogeny also occurred in the Sierra Madre and the Basin and Range. The Appalachian Mountains appear to have no well known orogenic name, the Grenville Orogen should include parts of Mexico and the Ouachita Mountains, and intermontane province appears interchangeable with basin and range province, neither of which is truly geological, although basin and range at least is telling about the origin of the province. Southern Cordillera is not even really a province name, as that section needs expansion so that it divides up the Sierra Madre Occidental Ignimbrite province, the Sierra Madre Oriental Fold and Thrust Belt, the Trans-Mexico Volcanic Belt, and the Jalisco Block, Chortis Block, and Chorotega Block. Overall, I feel as if I have written too much to say nothing useful. --Al Climbs (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I put a little more thought into it. Appalachian fold and thrust belts has some google hits and is suggestive of the geology. [4] provides a good map of the canadian shield provinces, taking after Hoffman1988 (also in [5]), if we want more detail there. On the West coast, Fuentes [6] uses the North America Cordilleran orogenic system instead of American Cordillera. Decelles [7] uses Laramide Belt for the Rockies and reserves Sevier Fold and Thrust belt for the mountains from the Canadian Rockies through the Tetons and Unitas. This would take more division of the Cordillera than we have or have space for. Perhaps we could use Laramide Fold and Thrust Belt, Laramide Foreland and Sevier Fold and Thrust belt, and the Active Margin, for the Rockies, Intermontane, and Coast Ranges.--Al Climbs (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know too little about the North American Geology to be really helpful, but looking at your sources I would say that "Rocky Mountains" is both a geologic and geographic term. I really don't understand how they are grouped and subdivided, but maybe I can do some reading on the weekend. --Tobias1984 (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused about what you are trying to do? The orogenies and the mountain belts already have names. Why don't you use those? You want to rename the Coast Ranges and the Rocky Mountains? Why? This article is very unclear. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how how much you know about geology. So I hope I am not answering this at the wrong level of understanding: The Alps for example are a geographic term for a connected mountain chain. In regional geology they are split into the Western Alps and Eastern Alps because they are the products of two different continental collisions. The geologic and geographic definitions are always different. The thing is are the differences large enough for an encyclopedic entry. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a paleontologist, so, I'm a geologist. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I think in that case my answer would be that right now our subdivisions are a little unsourced. In the Geology of Russia entry we had a couple of books that had chapters after which we named the headings. There is one book about the regional geology of north america which I have yet to order and read. Maybe your library has it? It would shed some light on how the subdivisions of regional geology are commonly drawn in North America.
By the way: Why don't you sign up for an account. With 20k+ articles in the earth sciences we can always use people that are interested. Also sign up here if you like: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology ;) --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are more like completely unsourced, and you appear to be making up names for mountain ranges, you don't consistently use the same term for the same thing, your maps don't use the words you use, you have titles that don't include any content about the title, your paragraphs are jumbles from Proterozoic to Mesozoic to Paleozoic, you mix up modern structures with ancient processes as if they are the same thing. This article is completely unreadable and should be gutted in its entirety until the editors figure out what they are talking about. What book? I'm a geologist, my library has hundreds of books about the regional geology of North America. Do you have an ISBN? One can edit without an account. Not interested. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already said that the article needs work. And that is no reason to gut it. If you want to improve the article, improve it, otherwise you have to move on. Complaining about the quality is OK, but all of our editors have a work load you probably don't want to imagine. So you have to take into account that this might take months. The book I was talking about is in the "further reading" section. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is original research combined with meaningless nonsense, it should be gutted, if gutting it will both improve it by removing OR and nonsense which should not be in Wikipedia and should not be mirrored all over cyberspace. All of your editors don't have an unimaginable workload, Wikipedia editing is purely volunteer, and if editors impose upon themselves ridiculous workloads such that they create OR nonsensical essays that are mirrored all over cyberspace they need a wikibreak, not continued editing that puts Wikipedia in disrepute creating scenarios like male-only top categories. Months of spreading this into cyberspace is inexcusable. If it is so precious it can be userfied in the meantime. The DNAG books would be a good basis for outlining the article, but not the only basis. Geological provinces of North America are pretty standard. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't point out the sections that you are calling original research I will dismiss this criticism. And yes even volunteers have workloads. There are thousands of articles that are not up to date, incomplete, have mistakes etc.. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia is spreading lies. Wikipedia is a place to inform not to contain scientific truth. If you need scientific truth you have to read peer-reviewed journals. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already did; you appear unwilling to read it. This whole discussion session is based upon your attempt at creating original names for mountain ranges. So, you're spreading random guesses, that's better? It's not. If you don't know the names of the mountain ranges, don't go looking for making up names and creating new ones. If there is nothing in the literature that gives it a name, it's not got any literature about it. Volunteer workload? Forced upon yourself? There's not really much I can say about claims that Wikipedia editors are so busy due to self-enforced workloads that they are not too concerned about getting things right according to the sources. It's ridiculous. If you can't follow the sources, you should not be writing it, not creating some imaginary force upon yourself to do more. -150.135.210.102 (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't exactly understand why this is happening, but I will give a quick response to a misunderstanding I think is occurring. The current names are not unsourced. They occur in the reference that I provided when I said "The names I used came mostly from [8]," a book by a reliable source, namely a professor of geology Eric Christensen of BYU and others. The difficulty is that those names are physiographic not geological, and we would prefer to use geological names. In response to maps and the names they use, we only use two maps, and both appear to use the same names as we use to me, North American Craton and the provinces of the Appalachians. I am somewhat confused what is original research. We are specifically not creating original names, at least I am not; we are attempting to conform to a policy that we use geological names, and not physiographic. To conform with WP:No Original Research each name I suggested is supported with at least one of what I believe to be a reliable source following it. If there is original research in the article that should be pointed or removed. At minimum it needs to be tagged. We are concerned with getting things right, that is why I opened this conversation with two paragraphs and seven sources, which appear to have been ignored. The purpose of this talk was intended to be to help find which sources to follow, that does create some difficulty in finding sources. If there are concerns other than the geological names, I would recommend opening a separate section in this talk page for discussing them. Can we please return to the topic of which of the names from reliable sources to use?--Al Climbs (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@AlClimbs. "Unsourced" was a bad choice of words on my behalf. What I meant is that there is some uncertainty (also on my behalf) how these terms are used in geology. I ordered the book from the further reading section and can get back to you in about one or two weeks. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case you want to start now on the Precambrian see this. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link Vsmith. From what I've read so far I can't find any instances of original research and our chapters don't look "made up" to me. Thank you for helping out too. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding mostly to the comment "They are more like completely unsourced, and you appear to be making up names for mountain ranges," when, as far as I can tell, that is not at all true. I'll wait to see what happens to this article. Maybe, in the meantime, we could pull up some drafts of sections based on the current sources (which as far as I know are good)? --Al Climbs (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're picking names from google searches? How isn't this original research? Find sources that list the main names and use those and cite the source. You also, as I pointed out, call an entire section "North American Craton," but then use shield instead of craton in parts of the article, after never bothering to define what the North American Craton is. This is a general encyclopedia. If you're going to divide the continent into geological provinces, divide according to a citable source, then define each region, then subdivide and go for the geology in a logical and geological fashion in a way that allows the reader to understand. Describe the region first, its boundaries, its major features, then explain, travelling through time, how those features came to be and lastly, attach those features to the features of surrounding regions. The continent is also not just about the structure and tectonics, it's about the rocks and cover, the great faults and sutures, the juxtapositions

Also, the regional geology article hints of confusion about what regional geology is, it's just large scale, sub-continent, supra-outcrop. It is not the geologically unrelated geology of an area described by political boundaries. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, an overview section would be appropriate. - I personally think that web searches are a great research tool. Wikipedia is also about what most sources say, and the easiest way to estimate that is how often a term is used. - By the way: German and Dutch Wiki don't have any citations for Regional Geology, which I think should be seen as the difficulty to find appropriate sources for this topic. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia relies upon reliable sources not popularity contests. Names should reflect the most common name, but you can't find that by guessing at a series of names that might be in common usage; for a scientific subject, you should start with sourced names, then you can do searches and see if one is more commonly used than others. Other editors disagree with this title by google policy, but it's fine to decide what is in most common usage, imo. But if you're randomly guessing at what things are called and your primary sources are a book you don't have and a 25-year-old book in a foreign language that is of such limited availability as to suggest it is no longer in favor (even in German), then you're probably not at the point where you're debating which of the citable names is in most common usage. There are no lack of sources for regional geology; I just grabbed the first structural text off my bookshelf to add a source to the article. what difference does it make if German and Dutch Wikipedia don't have sources? I am pretty far from understanding this conversation. Regional geology is not an obscure term. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading -- choices, readily available English on topic, or obscure, German when there are hundreds of available books in English

"The further reading section of an article contains a bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of works which a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject of the article."

Why are you including an obscure, German language text when there are hundreds of available sources in English? Have you looked at this book, and, since I assume you own it or something, and are therefore recommending it, what is so fantastic about it that it should trump books that actual readers of English "may consult for additional and more detailed coverage?" And what does this book use as province titles, why not cite them? There doesn't appear to be much room for regional scale geomorphology in the article, so, what is relevant in this book for this article?

And, since I already disgreed, why not discuss it first before reverting, or simply include your reasoning behind using this book? Any information at all, since it is such limited availability in a foreign language, let readers know what they should consult this book for. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googlers 1, Geologists 0, the usual round score

Okay, the article is yours. It's badly written, it's contradictory, it's confusing, and it's wrong. But it's yours. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

Read above. Read the article. The editors don't want it edited, yet keep putting Hawaii on the North American Plate, don't explain what the North American Craton is, yet pick that as the title for the section, don't know what to name the sections or call them, the article uses shield as a synonym for craton, does not explain this, it is tied to a DYK that says there is only one shield, but then names other shields. It's too confusing and badly written to even list all the disputes, because it is impossible to understand the article as it jumps from general to specific, all over the place in time and space. You need something far more coherent to go through it sentence by sentence. I dispute the entire content of the article as badly written and garbled and incomprehensible and wrong. -64.134.230.142 (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than arguing and insulting other editors, why not jump in and add/fix the content. You say above that you have a geological background ... show us by adding some solid, referenced content. And ... I don't see Hawaii mentioned in the article. Yes, the article needs improvement (as do most articles) - so get on with it. Vsmith (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My fixes are reverted. I removed Hawaii, from the North American Plate in this article and from the Cordillera on the North American Plate in the other article. It takes, what, two weeks of arguing to fix the fact that the section about the North American Craton doesn't mention what it is, uses shield as a synonym, then the DYK says there is only one shield, but the article lists more than one craton? The article as is, is incomprehensible; fixing this is like trying to put a raw egg back together; you need to start with a fresh egg, outline the topic, develop each section methodically. The North American Craton is, then the divisions, then move from general to specific, then give some examples, but since this article is so jumbled up in time and space, an editor cannot correct parts, gluing pieces of the shell together is not going to get you an egg, even if they had the patience to deal with one or two sentences each week, with paragraphs of discussion and reversions and threats of blocking for edit warring along the way. -64.134.230.142 (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What "fixes" are reverted? I see a couple of minor edits by 68.107.137.178 and removal of Hawaii bit on 21 April and another Hawaii removal on 1 May. Where were you reverted? (other than tags and trivial further reading book? What substantial improvements have you made to the article? Seems that if you pick a section and make substantial referenced improvements, you would make some progress. So, simply stop the incessant arguing, insulting and seemingly trollish behavior: jump in and improve the article. Moving on ... Vsmith (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not as badly as I am wasting mine, Randy in Boise, or as badly as this article is wasting everyone's time by having it live and in main space showing up as number 1 in Google searches. We'll see. -64.134.230.142 (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is a craton

Editors seem lost here. The ancient stable part of the continent is the craton, consisting of shield and the greatly covered platform. This article uses shield as a synonym for craton, which is actually okay, but now it is using craton as a synonym for platform in addition. This is confusing, and it is not really okay to use craton as a synonym for platform or vice versa due to the nature of the platform area of the craton.

Please define craton, then divide into shield and platform in that order. -198.228.216.175 (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see that relation clarified too. Shouldn't Geology_of_North_America#North_American_Craton_2 be titled something else? A summary statement at the top of Geology_of_North_America#North_American_Craton would help. Also, is North American Craton really used as a name? My impression is that it is usually referred to as "the North American craton". Finally, is the article on Laurentia correct in saying that Laurentia is a synonym for North American Craton? Or is Laurentia reserved for the times when it was a separate continent? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems my attempt mucked it up a bit, so I've undone until I have more time to do it justice. As for the current redirect of North American craton to Laurentia, it does seem problematic and agree that Laurentia should discuss the historic continent, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. Vsmith (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the relationship between Laurentia and the North American craton should be clarified in this article. For example, it was given as the main article for the platform instead of for the whole craton - I think that's incorrect, so I moved it. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that. Vsmith (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean

Most or all of the Caribbean is on the Caribbean Plate, which makes it unlikely that it is usually included in North American geology. Of course, I could be persuaded by a good citation. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, and I removed some references to the Caribbean for the time being, however, because of the structure of the forearc between the North American plate and the Caribbean Plate, some aspects of the Caribbean will be eventually added back to the article. You are right to require persuasion via a solid citation, and I think adding it back can wait until it is accompanied by such; it is an exciting area in tectonics right now, so I would hate to omit it, but I think it can run at the end. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geology_of_North_America&oldid=554046420"