Talk:Apennine Mountains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

title capitalization[edit]

Either the page should be moved to Apennine Mountains, or the opening paragraph should match the title in capitalization ("The Apennine mountains..."). I don't know which is correct, and this may be a case of US vs UK spelling. Any thoughts? –RHolton– 00:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(Adding to my own comment). Actually, another option would be to move the page to Apennines. –RHolton– 00:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be taken care of.Dave (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Celtic root unlikely[edit]

If the name comes down to us via the Greek at a time and a place where there was unlikely to have been any Celtic influence, I see no reason to speculate a Celtic root for the name Apennines. The Latin root, "penne" (feather, quill), source of the word "pinnacle", seems to be reflected in the name. The name "Pennines" is also probably from Latin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


How about a map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcswell (talkcontribs) 19:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


I added the temp since most of the text seems to be copyviol, since non wiki formatted and added with a big whole edit. Better to try to re-formulate, integrate and enrich the contents.--Desyman44 (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I revert the copypaste template, for the same reasons stated before, as you can see in this edit [1]--Desyman44 (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)



Me/U —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for references[edit]

References are standard for WP, so although there are many good points about this article I put in the template requesting ref. In fact in reading the geology section I see many questionable or oversimple things. No point at all in arguing about those now. The whole thing should change and drastically when people attempt to find the refs. We'll argue about it then. For footnotes, basically all major ideas get a footnote saying who presents that idea. Only generally known and established concepts might not get the footnote, unless someons requests it. One could go through and mark every phrase that needs a note, but what's the point? The article doesn't need hand-holding, it needs work by serious people. While I am on the subject, the previous comment is what I mean by not being serious. Nobody cares what your momentary sentiments are. Go gush somewhere else, perhaps a blog site. This is an encyclopedia. Now for the notes, after some experience in looking at articles such as this I feel a caution is on order. The goal is NOT to keep your current text, of which you might be very fond. So, you wouldn't kluge up a note by putting in books without page numbers or articles that can't be accessed but we have to take your word that the material is there. What good is that? If you can't find a decent ref throw the text out. Burn down all your favored houses in the landscape of the mind; get something that is true and fits.Dave (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1911 refs[edit]

Seems as though I have to all the work myself. I removed these phony refs:

  • de Lorenzo, G. (1896). "Studi di geologia nell'Appennino Meridionale". Atti della Reale Accademia di Scienze Fisiche e Matematiche. Naples. VIII (7). 
  • Sacco, F. (1893–1899). "L'Appennino settentrionale". Bollettino della Società geologica Italiana. 

They come from Britannica, have no page numbers, are not attached to any particular concept and are not in English. The dates indicate the geology is much outdated. We don't need these.Dave (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Geology section[edit]

Has to go. Unreferenced and wrong. I haven't found that it was plagiarized, naturally. What credible source would write wrong information? If you were going to plagiarize, you would plagiarize right information. As it is wrong, probably no plagiarizing took place. The first paragraph, for example, mentions an uplift at the end of the Cretaceous. Too early. Part of the Alpine orogeny? No, it had its own. Also, it seems to be a microplate phenomenon, so resorting to the African and Eurasian plates isn't going to help us much. There are plenty of geology articles available out there - Italy seem to be a topic of geologic interest, so there's no reason why it can't be done right. This is a look-up topic - we don't invent it by speculation. That doesn't help or add any meaning. Best to refrain. Do the work, then do the article.Dave (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have been dealt with (see next two sections).Elriana (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Temporarily removed passage[edit]

"The range characteristically consists of limestone and related sedimentary rock strata believed to have been uplifted near the end of the Cretaceous era when the African plate began to gently collide with the eastern part of the European plate. The same tectonic episode also formed the Alps. The Apennines strata are of particular significance in oceanic anoxic events studies, having triggered off a three-decades-long series of research when a metre thick band of black shale matched core sample from the Pacific ocean signalling a worldwide event.

The Apennines are an ancient continuation of the Alpine chain, but are now mostly representative of a large accretionary wedge located ahead of what appears to be a shifting subduction zone in which the African Plate is descending beneath the Eurasian Plate. Research is intense and ongoing, but a clear picture of what is actually occurring, not just in the Apennines, but throughout the Mediterranean basin remains to be explained.

The Briançonnais zone of the Alps may be followed as far as the Gulf of Genoa, but scarcely beyond, unless it is represented by the Trias and older beds of the Apuan Alps. The inner zone of crystalline rocks which forms the central chains of the Alps, is absent in the Apennines except towards the southern end.

The Apennines, indeed, consist almost entirely of Mesozoic and Tertiary sedimentary rocks, like the outer zones of the Alps. Fragments of a former inner zone of Hercynian basement rocks may be seen in the Apuan Alps, in the islands off the Tuscan coast; in the Catena Metallifera, Cape Circeo and the island of Zannone, as well as in the Calabrian peninsula. These remnants lie at a comparatively low level, and excepting the Apuan Alps and the Calabrian peninsula do not now form any part of the Apennine chains.

The existence of high interior zone of crystalline rocks before the Quaternary is indicated by the character of the Eocene beds in the southern Apennines. These are formed to a large extent of thick conglomerates which are full of pebbles and boulders of granite and schist. Many of the boulders are of considerable size and they are often still angular. There is now no crystalline region from which they could reach their present position; and this and other considerations have led the followers of Eduard Suess to conclude that even in Tertiary times a large land mass consisting of ancient rocks occupied the space which is now covered by the southern portion of the Tyrrhenian Sea.

This old land mass has been called Tyrrhenis, and probably extended from Sicily into Latium and as far west as Sardinia. On the Italian border of this land there was raised a mountain chain with an inner crystalline zone and an outer zone of Mesozoic and Tertiary beds. Subsequent faulting has caused the subsidence of the greater part of Tyrrhenis, including nearly the whole of the inner zone of the mountain chain, and has left only the outer zones standing as the present Apennines.

Be this as it may, the Apennines, excepting in Calabria, are formed chiefly of Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Eocene and Miocene beds. In the south the deposits, from the Trias to the middle Eocene, consist mainly of limestones, and were laid down, with a few slight interruptions, upon a quietly subsiding seafloor. In the later part of the Eocene period began the folding which gave rise to the existing chain. The sea grew shallow, the deposits became conglomeratic and shaly, volcanic eruptions began, and the present folds of the Apennines were initiated.

The folding and consequent elevation went on until the close of the Miocene period when a considerable subsidence took place and the Pliocene sea overspread the lower portions of the range. Subsequent elevation, without folding, has raised these Pliocene deposits to a considerable height - in some cases over 1,000 m and they now lie almost undisturbed upon the older folded beds. This last elevation led to the formation of numerous lakes which are now filled up by Pleistocene deposits. Both volcanic eruptions and movements of elevation and depression continue to the present day on the shores of the Tyrrhenian Sea.

In the northern Apennines the elevation of the sea floor appears to have begun at an earlier period, for the Upper Cretaceous of that part of the chain consists largely of sandstones and conglomerates. In Calabria the chain consists chiefly of crystalline and schistose rocks; it is the Mesozoic and Tertiary zone which has here been sunk beneath the sea. Similar rocks are found beneath the Trias farther north, in some of the valleys of Basilicata."

I seem to be doing this now. I temporarily removed this passage because I can't work with it. It identifies the formation of the rock in the Mesozoic with the orogeny of the mountains, a concept that is clearly wrong. The geology of the Apennines is paradoxical and the passage does not relate any of the paradoxes. I can't make a silk purse out of this so I am starting over. I will do this next. I've been warehousing articles and books in anticipation. I work slowly though. This is however current on my agenda. I will use whatever text of this passage is relevant in the proper location. I'm all for using the previous text if that can be done. I don't want you to waste any work. Currently however it is unreferenced and is all mixed in with a false overall perception, that the Apennine and Alps are part of the same orogeny. They aren't. So bear with me, I will get at least some of your writing in here - but I must be able to find references for it. If you had worked from references from the start you would have discovered the problems. I'm still not convinced it is not taken from some older geology text but if it is I cannot seem to find it. We need to come up to date.Dave (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Passage permanently removed[edit]

I just discovered the above passage was hacked up from EB 1911 so I think we need trouble ourselves about it any way no longer. None of it will appear in anything I do. It's been 100 years now and everything in that section they considered true knowledge is known to be a complete myth. It makes you wonder about "science." I guess science is what we currently think it is. Anyway I'm putting in there what we currently think it is. Our epistemological options are a bit limited so I don't have much choice, as we know EB is mythological. I'm sorry to have wasted the space on this ridiculous "discussion." I like to talk to myself I guess.Dave (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

To provide you with some discussion, I've added this to the Geology Wikiproject, which should get more geologists to take a look and added it to my watch list. My intention (which may be what happens) is to have a good look through the geology section and make addition/ammendments as necessary. Mikenorton (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


It looks like there's a section for "Transhumance" Apennine_Mountains#Transhumance where all of the text has been hidden. I don't know enough about geology to have any argument about hiding/not hiding the section, but if the section is now completely empty, is there any reason not to also hide the section heading? Ben the Bos (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)