Talk:Grand Canyon/Archive 1

older comments
Awesome picture with some good informaion. I wish you could get a balance though, simple info gives way to overly confusing info, MAKE IT SIMPLE!!!

Page says "attains a depth of more than a mile (1 km)" But 1 mile = 1.6 km so this doesn't make sense

Great picture– if we have confirmation that it is PD (like, you took it) it would be good to cite that below the picture. Thanks! ClaudeMuncey, Tuesday, April 2, 2002

The picture (I placed it) is from the www.nps.gov website, and is PD. I'll place a note below the picture. jheijmans

Removed from article:
 * The details of its development are still somewhat controversial. The most likely scenario is that a large lake overflowed the Kaibab Plateau about 5 million years ago, following the route taken by the Little Colorado River up to 70 million years ago. That accounts for the narrow lower (western) canyon and the much wider upper (eastern) canyon, as well as several other lines of evidence.

In all the 7 references I've used to write about the canyon's geology here, I have not seen a single reference to this. Citations needed. --mav 23:56, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

- Consult the book Carving Grand Canyon by Wayne Ranney, wherein an explanation for the "two-river theory" is explained. Zencowboy27 (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)zencowboy27

what to do with that link - http://print.google.com/print?id=2t4N1fEy88EC&lpg=15&prev=http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3Dhistory%26sig%3DZvOhQweN0RFQSRjBsyz9tDUGSls%26ie%3DUTF-8%26id%3D2t4N1fEy88EC&pg=0_1&sig=611DvvzSBnPiFQxbdpdJPjFzwtI ? I can't add it!

What about giving the Creationists view a bit more of a real something that could have happened rather then just act like it never did happen and is a silly idea?

JCP
 * hahahhhaha good one. Why not say it's the clawmark from a giant bunny. Ahhh stupid american religion, there's none more ignorant.83.70.247.123 18:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't heed the beliefs of flat earthers when describing the shape of the Earth. The same goes here.  -- brian0918  &#153;  22:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---


 * The names do not belong in the lead. If there is further discussion of the topic later in the article it might be appropriate there; otherwise the reference should suffice. It would improve the ref if it could go to a primary source (the Science article, which however is behind a paywall) rather than the New York Times that requires a login). Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Also added: In 1858, John Strong Newberry became probably the first geologist to visit the Grand Canyon. Discrepancy (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sky Walk Project
Could someone find some information and pictures on the Sky Walk project, scheduled to be completed this year? It is a clear walk-way offering an interesting view from directly above the canyon and is connected to the visitor center. There was recently an article about it in Popular Science Magazine. Thanks, Greenblade99 01:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed that too...

Creationism
Removed:
 * Creation scientists, such as Kent Hovind, dispute this view of the canyon's creation, claiming instead that it was created in only a few days during the Great flood, which, they contend, took place a few thousand years ago. 

A fringe viewpoint, however vocal its proponents may be, belongs on the viewpoint's own article, in this case Creationism, which should serve as a repository for creationists' claims. I can conceive of exceptions to that idea for some of the more bizarre claims (e.g. the idea that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaneous should probably get a mention on Dinosaur). However, practically no one of any academic standing seriously believes that the canyon was formed only some thousands of years ago, so a reference to this is not appropriate for this article. Moreover, quotations from individual contemporaries are only one step up from original research and are rarely encyclopedic, being more suited for magazine articles and the like. Jeeves 09:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It may be a fringe viewpoint, but it has gained some traction recently, especially with the National Park Service stocking the creationist book "Grand Canyon: A Different View."  Even if no one of academic standing accepts this view, it is a contemporary controversy (at least politically) and seemingly relevant.  Perhaps a separate section on this controversy would be appropriate. – Temtem 19:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't belong in the article, in the same way that Earth doesn't describe our planet's shape as "round, or maybe flat". The bookshelf choices of the NPS in the United States don't affect the content of the English Wikipedia, only popular acceptance by academia can do that.  Kent Hovind may have thrown together a thesis at a diploma mill, but he hasn't gained any support from legitimate fields of research.  See Jeeves's comments above for the appropriate place for this content to be placed.  -- brian0918  &#153;  19:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip, but I had already seen Jeeves's comments. I wasn't arguing that Kent Hovind has gained any academic respect, and I wasn't suggesting that the article should say that the maybe the Grand Canyon was formed 4000 years ago.  Your reference to the Flat Earth hypothesis is off-point virtually no one is pushing for its acceptance, and it isn't a current controversy.  But there are people, and a good number of them, in the United States who are pushing for this young-earth view of the canyon's creation.  Your position seems to be that a Wikipedia article can contain (or even reference) only academic viewpoints.  I admit, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policies, but this cannot be a correct statement of the policies.  If that were the case, the article on the Hale-Bopp comet could not contain a reference to the mass suicide of the Heaven's Gate cult, the article on elephants could not contain the section "elephants in pop culture," and the article on cattle could not contain a reference to the Hindu belief that the cow is holy.  There doesn't need to be a suggestion in the article that the creationist view is valid, scientific, or academically accepted.  But it is a view that has current, real-world effect. – Temtem 20:10, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see part of your point, but this article seems more akin to the Earth article (which does not and should not mention flatness) than to the article on cows or elephants. It would be equally inappropriate to insert references to every other fringe religion's unsubstantiated ideas of how the canyon was formed. Incidentally, if Earth contains creationist references, they should be removed. And if certain people with creationist leanings (or bona-fide creationists) feel like they're being gypped, they should be invited to establish their own reality-denying fork of Wikipedia. Jeeves 20:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not Wikinfo. If you want to post minority viewpoints about a topic, go to Wikinfo.  Also, people speak English outside the United States. (3.5 times as many)  -- brian0918  &#153;  22:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I was already aware that there are people outside the United States who speak English. I'm not sure how that's relevant, as I was simply locating the majority of creationists, not claiming that their location in the United States gave any validity to or increased the relevance of their views.  I've noticed you've tagged me as a "creationist" on your watchlist.  How you reached this conclusion is beyond me, as I've never once argued in favor of creationism.  You might as well assume that someone who makes a lot of posts related to Commmunism is necessarily a Communist.  I fully understand if you disagree with some of my edits, but it is disturbing that you've apparently diagnosed me as a creationist and decided to revert all of my edits on the topic, even where clearly relevant (as in the case of the link to the Islamic creationist website in creation-evolution controversy), based on some NPOV (though of debatable relevance) insertions I've made in some articles. – Temtem 23:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * You've provided no sources for your claims that the majority of creationists believe the Grand Canyon was formed in a relatively short amount of time. You've simply stated it as fact.  The only way information like that could be included in the article would be if accepted groups of academia are arriving at conflicting conclusions (with one of those conclusions being that the Grand Canyon is young).  This is the situation on articles such as circumcision, where conflicting reports from legitimate journals have stated contradicting conclusions about the benefits of circumcision (one saying that it is highly beneficial, the other saying it isn't).  Simple conjecture among a minority of individuals isn't going to cut it.  As for my watch list, the label "creationist" was just to remind me what sort of topics you edit.  I only put you on the watch list because you've been adding POV to various articles.  You're assuming that I think the label "creationist" is a bad label.  As for your external link, only 38 other sites on the entire internet link to it.  The other external links at least have a modest 600-2500+ other sites linking to them.  Short of analyzing the entire contents of the site, this is the only way we have of determining if sites are legitimate, or invalid, original research.  -- brian0918  &#153;  00:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I saw on a national geographic special that the grand canyon was carved out of the the empty lake bed that is behind the colorado river as a new thoery of how the grand canyon was formed and also the dry lands. They did experiments on a smaller scale and found the same features as if it were on a larger scale. It was supected that there was a glacier that melted and let the water outa of the lake bed that casued a large engofh food that made the grand canyon. It may also have of been a larger flood that flushed that lake that used to be there but currently we dont know there might be some evidnce for this. Anyways all i am saying is that a flood is a reasonable idea of how the grand cayon came to be. idk if it was on national geogrpahic or discovery.Barry White 04:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are probably confusing the program on the catastrophic emptying of Glacial Lake Missoula, which created the Channeled scablands of Washington state, with the Grand Canyon. A flood is not a reasonable idea of how the Grand Canyon came to be; no scientists find evidence to support the idea.Geologyguy 13:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ur right it is just that the show was showned a long time ago anyways dont you think its weird where the river enter the grand canyon is like a big diffence from the elvation of the grand canyon(the canyon being much higher than where the river enters it?) and the entrance.Barry White 15:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added an "in the news" entry about how they are refusing to say how old it is to avoid offending creationists. The beliefs of creationists are written in it, so everybody should be happy. :) DarkSideOfTheSpoon 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I, too, have added an "in the news" section about NPS' refusal to comment on the age, since the last one went missing. I am not knocking either point of view, merely reporting current practices within the park. CrankyScorpion

03:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As much as I disagree with creationists, I don't think their viewpoint can be described as "fringe." The Bush administration has backed the sale of the controversial book in the grand canyon book store. The National Park Service also backs it. A large percentage of policy makers cannot be described as fringe. Not only is ignoring them NPOV, it lowers the quality of wikipedia as an information source. Rm999 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How much do you disagree with creationists? Not at all it seems. So you are a liar as well as a fool.

83.70.247.123 18:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the links in the section below, "Creationism has been put back in." The Park Service does not back this book as science; it is sold as "spirituality".  Park rangers do not mention it nor creationism in their discussions.  And with respect to science, policy makers can indeed be described as "fringe" when they support pseudoscience. This is a science article, and it contains all the reference to non-science that it should.  Cheers Geologyguy 22:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fringe is defined as an extreme view. Although a scientists may think pseudo-science is fringe, a religious person would disagree. Wikipedia should present both sides - not necessarily as fact, but that both sides exist. Rm999 21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This can't be right. If you are some rock hard science should be 'fringe science' because almost everyone except those that actually know something about it would disagree.--80.56.36.253 20:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

interwiki
The de & fr interwiki links to the National Park, not Grand Canyon itself. Shall we delete them (or if possible, replace them with the correct links)? --Wingchi 17:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Frankly the description of the page is conjecture also as it is mostly based upon the age of the Colorado river and it's eventual erosion. The theory of it's age is treated as fact just and should not be treated as such. There is no supporting evidence that the age of the canyon is millions of years old, such conjecture about how it was created should be treated as a theory and not truth unless definitively proven. As such the creationist explanation gains merit and should also be included. Looking at flash flood patterns in other areas of the world reveals a stripping effect that produces a similar appearance as that of the canyon itself. It is not far fetched to consider that a large scale flood also caused the canyon to be formed.

70.118.231.51 —Preceding comment was added at 05:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

link removal
A few days ago, I found that a multidisciplinary presentation I placed on the web for public access was listed on a Wikipedia page, by someone who is an active contributor to that page. That is what led me to the Wikipedia website. I subsequently looked into Wikipedia and learned that articles can be added at will, to be evaluated by users as to their worthiness. I later personally placed a link to the presentation on the Grand Canyon page--not to a page on my own website--to a page on a huge website that is hosting the presentation out of Australia that doesn't "need" the traffic: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/fractals/grandcanyon/. The deletion comment follows. "'link claims to explain fractals in the grand canyon, but the examples are: fractals in clouds above the grand canyon, in lightning that strikes it, in snow that falls in it. nonsense = revert)'" From the start, this presentation was put together with the input of the GCNPS Division of Interpretation and Resource Education, and went through multiple stages of review and change. The criteria I had to meet was from their "Primary Interpretative Themes" document. The GCNPS is obligated to strictly follow this criteria. After many months of discussions via telephone and in-person meetings, and the series of revisions that ensued, I presented it as a special program at GCNP, but that was the smaller part of the plan (the part that ensured it was credible from a Canyon standpoint; from a math standpoint, it has also been heavily critiqued in academia). The bigger plan was always to place it on the web and make it accessible to individuals and teachers. It is true that I have a math agenda, but the GCNPS understood this from the start, and I had to walk through fire with them to pass muster with this. Two big sections address the Canyon itself, one is about the Canyon walls/Rim, and the other is about boundaries. The example sections cited as inappropriate were clouds, lightning, and snow. The clouds section is miniscule: 2 images; there is one image devoted to lightning; and I actually wanted to remove the snow section but the Division of Interpretation and Resource Education wanted it to stay in. One of the things they like most about the presentation is that it touches on so many aspects of the Canyon. (I keep saying "the Canyon" because I can't correctly say the Grand Canyon, it is technically incorrect to call Grand Canyon "the Grand Canyon", so I often say, the Canyon, and Grand is implied :-).) When I finally gave the presentation at the Park, several rangers were present. They were very enthusiastic about it, especially rangers who inhabit the bottom of the Canyon, and several of them made relevent connections with their own experiences. These connections, some of them, are going to be incorporated, mostly into the boundaries section, probably in the fall months based on conversations with the Division of Interpretation and Resource Education that will take place in an informal meeting in Tempe on June 23rd, a few days away. A section on the river is also planned.  Now, I understand that my presentation may not be appropriate for your Grand Canyon page, in that it has an agenda above and beyond Grand Canyon, but I believe that the decision should NOT be made without due diligence, in a summary judgment that does not include an accurate assessment of the materials. Grand Canyon is a topic of world interest. I'm trying to make romantic math-in-nature connections, to woo the general public to see math in the beauty of the nature around them, whether it is at Grand Canyon or in the rocks and trees in their backyards. If you don't want it on your Grand Canyon page, that is fine. It is the spirit of the dismissal that I am answering. Hopefully, someone will take the time to actually look at the presentation at the above link. You might see things my way, or maybe not, but at least the decision will not be arbitrary.


 * Ok. -- brian0918  &#153;  23:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Interpretive Framework
Interpretive Framework

Would it be possible to include an additional Interpretive Framework for the origin and formation of the Grand Canyon?

It appears that an Admin Brian0918 will not permit it.

Is there support for a broader interpretation? Considering the reputation of Wiki, I think and hope so.

Currently the Grand Canyon article is severely limited to the Uniform Process framework for interpretation of the great wonder we observe.

It is possible, and consistent with observable evidence (ie: Mt. St. Helens Spirit Lake and Canyon formations near-by), that a Catastrophic Event could have formed the Grand Canyon.

Allowing this additional/alternative Interpretive Framework yields explanations quite different from those currently provided in the eloquent article. The reader is left with the option of choosing the Interpretive Framework -vs- the current monopoly of thought that is provided.

Why is the Catastrophic Event Interpretive Framework eliminated /yea, forbidden/ from this Wiki article?

Respectfully, BrianH


 * We don't include it mainly because I, as the Admin Brian0918, will BAN anyone who does so! -- brian0918 &#153;  30 June 2005 19:24 (UTC)

Why is it orinigal reseacrh? becasue it is an observation that gave similar features but just on a smaller scale w/e anyways.Barry White 14:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

link removal
I've added an outfitter guide link to the external links page that I think is relevant per Wikipedia policy that states: External links to commercial organizations such as thisare acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic. This is obviously contraversial as it has been edited a couple of times. I agree that irrelevant links can get out of hand, but to remove this link would require removing almost all links in the external link category. This link provides educational tours of the subject that is being mentioned, and is thus relevant in this category. Furthermore, the contraversial nature of canyon formation dictates juxtaposed opinions and heated debate. Please post any contrary opinions here before continuing with unproductive "edit wars". findbgs


 * First up, please add new topics for comments to the bottom of the talkpage, with a header, as it makes it easier for people to spot new discussions.
 * Second, sorry, but this link doesn't count as a "major corporation associated with the topic". This particular topic has no "major corporation" associated with it. Your link is solely a commercial site trying to sell something and serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. If we set the bar so low that this link is acceptable, than anyone anywhere trying to sell anything will use the same argument to get their own links on whatever articles they want. I know you would like to believe that your own link is somehow more worthy than the other million people looking for free advertising, but it just doesn't work that way. Sorry. DreamGuy 06:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that any link could be acceptable under certain standards, but who determines wheather you or I set the bar. I simply offer this link as an expert. I'm not associated with this company. I know who is good an who isn't. I've been at Grand Canyon for a long time. What makes you a Wikipedia cop? I stand by my edit that this is an organization at Grand Canyon that can further educate people. This is a public forum, is it not? I believe it is a corporation associated with the topic. If you disagree than continue with the wikipedia dispute rather than continue with your petty edit war. Findbgs 06:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I could quote all of External links, but we can all read, so I won't. In particular though, I think the link violates numbers 1 through 3 of External links while failing to meet any of External links.  It could very well be that they are excellent guides and know what is going on, but that does not add anything to the article.  If there were an article just on tours of the GC that wasn't just a link spam or advertising platform it would be appropriate there but not here.  IMO.  Wikibofh(talk) 15:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So, I think you've swung to the other extreme on some of the link removals. In particular, I think the National Park service link fufills #1 of what should be linked to.  After all, it is a national park.  The fact that the site we link to, then links to other sites that offer commercial services, is a little too communative to require it's removal.  I also think some of the article text can be added back, but actually like most of your removals.  Perhaps a new section on "Tourism in the Grand Canyon" might be appropriate?   I also think the image of "El Tovar" is fine as well.  It's an historical hotel, no real overt advertisement in showing it. Wikibofh(talk) 20:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Offensive, vulgar and irrelevant unsigned comment removed


 * It could be argued that the National Park Site is not an official Grand Canyon Site. It is an official "Grand Canyon National Park" site.  Furthermore, the NPS is just the land management agency for Grand Canyon, and as such, their mission to: "provide for the enjoyment of the same" (See the Organic Act of 1916) amounts to a commercial license to sell entry "tickets".  It should be noted that 80% of the fees collected at the gates go directly to the park unit (under the current fee demo management program).  Therefore the NPS has a huge vested interest in selling these entry "tickets". Findbgs 18:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So, are you arguing that? The fact is that it's a government site.  The website has no advertising and is not are direct source of revenue.  The Grand Canyon is within the national park, so that is a distinction without a difference.  I seriously doubt anyone goes to the Grand Canyon because of the website any more so than I expect them to do so because of this article. Wikibofh(talk) 20:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Folklore?
What about a section for folklore surrounding the Canyon? Like various tales that attribute its creation to Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill? Kevingarcia 07:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

removed from Good articles
was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because Lack of refrences

why do people go to the Grand Canyon?
why do people go to the grand canyon?

Archaeological?
This article is in the category of "Archaeological sites of America" or similar - it is not an archaeological site really, more of a geological feature. Archaeology refers specifically to civilisation as far as I am aware. It is certainly fairly widely accepted that archeology refers to historic or ruined or buried cities/artefacts thus specifically something man-made. Unless someone is hiding a very impressive secret, the Grand Canyon is not man-made! I contend that it should be removed from the category(ies) relating to archaeology - that goes for anything else so-listed. Superbfc 21:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Archaeology takes place in many places at the canyon, both above and below rim. The easiest to see is the Tusayan ruins near Desert View in the southeast corner of the National Park.  Another site place that is below rim is in the Unkar Creek area near the Colorado River.  The short explanation is: Human history at the canyon goes beyond the (relatively) modern Native Americans tribes, and certainly beyond European settlement, meaning that evidence of the existance of lost settlement is there (I have seen it myself).  Solution: If the article does not list or describe such places, I will either add them or remove the cat (should not be in the category if one cannot find anything about it!)  I'm going to do some cleanup this week and will take care of it.  Notary137 05:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Link Suggestion
This site allows you to travel interactively along trails and roads at the Grand Canyon, using over 7,000 images: http://www.UntraveledRoad.com/Grand-Canyon-National-Park.htm


 * Comment This user either owns or is affiliated with this advertising-supported site; note previous spamming campaign. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

All of these were freak upsetting accidents, most loved ones were lost

Why go to the grandcanyon? why go to the grand canyon if so many people die from that by freak accidents,just think you could be one of them.

In reading incident reports from the Grand Canyon, there are very few freak accidents. The reason there are deaths in the Grand Canyon is due to the fact that a great number of people enter and many are unprepared for what they find there. I was a mile from the south rim on the Bright Angel Trail at the end of a four-day backpacking trip in December of 2006, when I encountered a man going down. He carried a full-size tripod and Nikon SLR digital camera with a large battery pack. His question to me was, "How much farther?" My response was, "To where? You might want to snap some photos here and return to the top." He carried no food or water. This is common and unfortunate. Lightpacker 03:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

POV edit
I removed a sentence from the Activities section that constitutes POV:
 * "Park service forecasts are rarely accurate and often inflate adverse conditions as a deterrent to canyon hikers."

This line will likely never be confirmed in print and should not appear in an encyclopedic article. The park service actually posts forecasts from the National Weather Service, Flagstaff Office in various places around the park, even at the Bright Angel Campground at the bottom, making the statement untrue. Notary137 21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Correcting external link above to provide website name. Notary137 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Creationism has been put back in.
I'd ask someone with more wiki privileges than me to pull the last paragraph under Geography.

removed the following nonsense - Garry

Many people believe that the Grand Canyon was "formed billions of years ago by the Colorado River." This, however, is impossible for the simple reason that water takes the path of least resisitance. If you look at the Canyon from "a side" view, you'll see that the north east rim is LOWER than the south west rim; which means that the water would have been flowing "uphill" for "millions" of years as it "carved" out the Canyon. Utterly impossible! The Canyon was formed about 4,400 years ago after the worldwide flood which is described in Genesis chapters 6 - 9.


 * I have added an "in the news" entry about how they are refusing to say how old it is to avoid offending creationists. The beliefs of creationists are written in it, so everybody should be happy. :) DarkSideOfTheSpoon 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I really think we need some more research on the matter of NPS refusing to give out the age of the Earth. A TIME article that came out a few days ago mentioned only the sale of a book promoting creationist viewpoints on sale in park bookshops as well as changes in training procedures but said absolutely nothing about employees being forbidden from disclosing the age of the canyon to visitors. This has also been the case during my several recent visits to the canyon in the past few months. All of the rangers I encountered were not reluctant to state the age of the canyon as several million years and there are still numerous informative signs and brochures that state the age in the millions of years as well. --Nebular110 17:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed the "news" bit about tha age of the canyon. Link given was to a blog or whatever. The official policy remains in place (NPS Director's order,see section 8.4.2). The PEER blog casts a quite negative portrayal of Bush admin abuses. It probably deserves discussion somewhere, but I don't think this is the proper place for the controversy. And it certainly isn't a reason for including a creationist link/plug. Vsmith 19:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is fair enough. Although it was a press release not a blog, point taken. It'd be cool if somebody could find out somehow. I might try and find an email address for the Park admin people and ask. Cheers. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 02:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just a dumb urban legend made into a politcal attack. See A PEER Review Gone Bad 148.63.236.141 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, about the creationist book sold there. Its in the same section with the Native American and other spiritual books which also have their own bogus versions of how it was created.  No need to pick on creationist, there are lots of 'alternative' theories. 148.63.236.141 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That snipped-out section is especially ironic because it poses a problem for creationism, not science. The actual geological explanation is quite straightforward: tectonic uplift has slowly raised the land as the river continued to cut down through it. But the creationist version requires water to flow uphill. It also requires a "rapid runoff" to create meanders, and many other features within the canyon that require millions of years of erosion to form (and which could not survive the violence of a gigantic flood). --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you ever thought of the fact that the tectonic uplift would have been recorded by the Earth somehow? Everything, whether large or small, leaves it's mark.  It's just a matter of finding it.  Not to mention you probably have no idea whether or not the Flood could have cause that runoff.  Science, I hate to say, folds back on itself in this case.  I've said my say.  70.100.47.26 (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, uplift, along with subsidence, most certainly are recorded in the rocks. Limestone, as just one example, forms under water and all sorts of marine organisms die in it. Several limestone rock layers are exposed in the Grand Canyon. They must have been uplifted some great distance. Sand dunes form in deserts and fossilized sand dunes (with footprints of lizards!) are found in a rock layer between limestone layers. Not to mention all the evidence for oceans coming, going, coming back again and all the erosional surfaces between them (including valleys, river beds, lakes, lava, shorelines, estuaries - with lots of built-up plant material - and caves with clearly layered cave rock). Below all that are the roots of a mountain range, but the mountains are all gone and have been intruded by blobs of other rock. Buried islands with obviously wave cut sides are found above layers of limestone and under lava and way under those pesky sand dunes with lizard tracks and other layers of limestone. Some layers are roughly horizontal while others, such as the buried islands, are tilted. About a mile of this stuff is all stacked on top of each other in fairly ordered layers that are easy to see; most of which have their own unique set of fossils. Some of these fossils are of freshwater organisms, others saltwater, some brackish water and a few from the good old dry land - again, in between other layers clearly deposited in water. The Bible says that the flood waters rose up and lasted 40 days and 40 nights. No mention of an interlude during that to let the land dry out to form deserts so lizards can leave footprints. Not to mention the other 40 or so drastic changes recorded by the rocks exposed in the Grand Canyon. There does not seem to have been time to form islands, bury them, spew lava on top, tilt them, add limestone, add some estuaries with lots of plants, throw in mud and dry it out to form mud cracks, bring in some beaches, other rocks, carve some valleys, then sand dunes with lizard tracks, then more limestone. Finally, the layers are simply not ordered in a way that would make any sense in context of a single event. --mav (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Panoramas
I just wanted to argue with the removal of the panoramic images. I can think of no place that is more effectively illustrated with panoramic images than the Grand Canyon. There's more to understanding than can be conveyed in text only, and I would argue that the large-scale images are necessary to convey the depth and grandeur of the canyon. jengod 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was my Link Removed?
I added a chapter on the Grand Canyon page called "South Rim Buildings" and added an external link to www.the-grand-canyon-info.com because that was my main source of information. Shortly after creating it, the link was removed. I had permission to use that information. I'm not sure if I misread the guidelines but I don't recall anything stating that you can't do that if you do have permission.
 * You should probably talk to the user who made the change, but see WP:EL including the guidelines to avoid Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services;  Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising (your north rim page, for example, has 10 advertising links at least); and You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines.  Hope this helps. Cheers Geologyguy 22:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Also - and I'm really just trying to give you friendly advice - when you create new accounts like User:Tstech to re-do something that has been changed per guidelines, you definitely run the risk of being blocked, whether from your account(s) or from your IP 74.120.145.107. It won't be me, I don't have such "powers". But there are undoubtedly dozens watching the page who can and will. Cheers Geologyguy 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Running Records
I have a concern about the running records found in the Activities section. First, these records are mostly uncited.

Secondly, all the records were added on two edits, dated 20:39, November 5, 2006 by Hyperphil and 15:16, October 14, 2006 by Phillowry. Both of these users appear to be the same person, namely Phil Lowry who is listed as a record holder. What is to stop anyone from listing themselves and their supposed records in this list?

Along with the issue of being uncited, how can we verify that these are the fastest times? If another runner completed the same route in a faster time but was not a Wikipedia editor, the record would be unlisted.

Finally, even if they were verified, should these articles become a repository for every single record? What even makes these noteworthy? I could see listing a single record, but a long list of records under various circumstances seems to serve no purpose.

These same issues are found in the last few paragraphs of Mount Timpanogos, and to a lesser degree, Mount Whitney (note the inclusion of many of the same names). It seems to be information more relevant to a blog than Wikipedia. All in all, it doesn't seem very encyclopedic. TK421


 * My opinion is, be bold. Removing info that has no reliable sources is generally accepted (or at a minimum adding the Fact tag) and if someone can verify this they can always add it back. The question of notability is a different one and hopefully others will express opinions about it.  As for me, I agree with TK421. Cheers Geologyguy 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree, that kind of information should not be included in the article without proper references. I think a few of the records themselves would be notable if some kind of official source could be found (that could be tricky). For now, my opinion would be either to remove them outright (maybe leave a message on the talk page of whoever added them and ask if they can provide suitable references), or add template Unreferencedsect to indicate that NOTHING in the section has been verified. --Nebular110 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed it for now. Any other opinions about the notability of this information?TK421 18:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The running and ultrarunning community regards the Grand Canyon as a major destination, and the records are both noteworthy and important to it. While this is arguably a small cross-section of society, the achievements themselves are examples of human performance that redound to the interest of those outside the community. They are, therefore, wikiworthy.  As for verifiability, that is impossible in the traditional, or even wikipedia, sense.  While some alpinists and hunters can verify their accomplishments with photos, others who participate in activities that lack accreditation and officiating rely exclusively on the honor system.  It has been this way for centuries.  It is also this way today.  The only universally accepted publication that documents these accomplishments is UltraRunning magazine.  Publication in UltraRunning, for example, is sufficient to establish the bona fides of any event or accomplishment in the ultrarunning field, and serves as the dispositive verification of predicate qualifiers for premier ultra events like the Western States 100 Endurance Run.  UltraRunning also regularly publishes tales of individual accomplishment (such as Dana Millers' quad, or the speed record for climbing all of Colorado's fourteeners).  But not everyone who makes such accomplishments publishes them--this is a personal decision.  Still, the honor code of ultrarunning still applies to ANY running-related claim--just because it is not in UltraRunning does not mean it is not verifiable.  To lie is social death in the small ultrarunning community.  And the lack of verifiability does not diminish the record's general significance or interest to the community (see above).  While it is unfortunate that such a thing as personal integrity may be perceived be a round peg in wikipedia's square hole, it is what it is.  But I do not believe that self-verification and wikipedia are so dissonant.  Wikipedia's genesis and raison d'etre is dialectic. If there is a dispute to these records, I invite the world to set it forth.  In this regard, wikipedia is the perfect forum to document such records, which would otherwise be lost forever.  Summarizing, self-verification is not novel, and in those instances where it is the only viable verification method, wikipedia is the ideal forum for setting forth such claims.  (Most of the runners mentioned in the records have dozens of hundred-mile race finishes documented in UltraRunning, which establishes the bona fides of their accomplishments).  In TK421's defense, TK421 may not have had the benefit of knowing about the unique verifiability requirements in the ultrarunning world.  That does not justify, however, dismissing the data out of hand. In the end, I believe TK421's central concern is that these records do not matter or are not relevant. While the ultrarunning community may be small, we vehemently disagree.  I have reverted the page, and other related pages where records have been deleted, with an explanation of self-verification. Hyperphil 17:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hyperphil wrote on my talk page: "While you indicate that you would love to see verifiable information, you make it pretty clear in your post that you think these records are silly. We do not. In fact, I discovered the changes by getting an email from a runner in Hawaii who wondered where they had gone. He is planning to challenge one of the records himself, and also wanted to show them to his friends. While I am in the unfortunate position of being one of the record holders, and therefore may be accused of having a conflict of interest, others are also involved whose achievements are very noteworthy."


 * In response, let me say that I never thought the records were silly or that they don't matter. Rather, I questioned their place in an encyclopedia article on the Grand Canyon. That's great that a runner in Hawaii was looking for the records online and wanted to beat them. I imagine if he did beat any, he would post his own time. That sounds like an excellent website. Just not an encyclopedia. I still think they are not verifiable and don't belong here. As I said above, it seems to be information more relevant to a blog than Wikipedia. I welcome any other comments. TK421 23:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed - out of place and seemingly a self-promotion by one of the editors above. Take it elsewhere - perhaps in an article on endurance runnuing or whatever. Vsmith 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with TK421 and Vsmith. Cheers Geologyguy 00:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am forwarding this discussion to the ultrarunning community, including Don Allison, editor of UltraRunning magazine (which, as I have noted, is the only print documentation of ultrarunning accomplishments). Thousands of runners worldwide run the Canyon every year as an endurance test.  It is shocking that some would think this merits no encyclopedic mention for either procedural (verifiability) or substantive (running is stupid) reasons.  When I am not restoring this information, other ultrarunners will be.  Perhaps a wikipedia moderator needs to step in on the issue of what is "verifiable" in solo honor system pursuits in places of great repute.Hyperphil 19:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Thousands of runners worldwide run the Canyon every year..." That is exactly part of the problem for me. If so many people run, how are we to know that these records are the fastest times? If another runner completed the same route in a faster time and simply didn't log on to record it, it wouldn't be in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does need verifiability! Secondly, nobody has yet said that running is stupid. Being defensive is not helping things. This looks close to degenerating into an edit war. TK421 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * " . . . how are we to know that these records are the fastest times?" This is precisely my point.  It is Italic textbecauseItalic text of wikipedia that these records are emerging and are now susceptible to documentation and, if necessary, challenge (not necessarily by deletion).  Research for wikipedia is not done by academics--it is done by dialectic, usually by one source trumping another (case in point--I made major revisions to the Timpanogos entry, sometimes deleting Forest Service published information, because I had collected contrary objective data or made contrary repeated observations.  This is because I have spent more time on the mountain than anyone alive, both in an official and recreational capacity. I am a source unto myself.  Do I have to print that somewhere for my representations to be verifiable?)  In ultrarunning there is an honor system of verifiability, but that is the only difference.  As for a faster runner not logging in, the nature of the sport requires self-publication.  Otherwise, the performance perishes into obscurity.  Jim Nelson's quad record was not published by him, but others knew of it.  How do we know he was not fabricating it?  He has won some of the absolute hardest races in the world.  He has no incentive to lie, and his GC time comports with other witnessed performances.  It is likely that this entire discussion will be the subject of an UltraRunning article in the near future, since it forces into the light the honor system nature of our sport in contrast to the standards dominating the rest of the sporting world.  Perhaps that will be a new wikipedia article.  As for an edit war, the word is spreading that some object to running data being in the article.  The advent of wikipedia has enriched and enlivened the ultrarunning community as a repository of such information.  There may be substantial resistance to it being eliminated.  Since the underpinning of the controversy seems to be philosophical (what is "verifiability"), perhaps this does merit a separate wikipedia article, and perhaps an article on trail running where these records can be placed, with appropriate links from the geographical location where the records occurred.  Would that be a reasonable compromise?66.119.136.39 04:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My two cents worth - all this is at best marginally notable in the context of the main article on the Grand Canyon. In the context of "Ultrarunning," it may be notable indeed. But the more important issue is indeed verifiability which is not really a philosophical question but a Wikipedia Policy - among other things, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  You say, "I am a source unto myself." Even if you DID "print that somewhere" it would still be a personal statement, and unverifiable to the standard Wikipedia requires. In addition, you are writing about yourself - see WP:COI, specifically avoid editing articles related to you. Including a specific e-mail address in the article itself is amazing, and flags the entire entry as self-serving - most promoters just add the links to the external links section, where they get deleted too.   And irrespective of how correct it may be, "I had collected contrary objective data" says you are reporting Original Research - disallowed in Wikipedia for a Nobel Prize winner, if the work is not published in reliable (in that case, peer-reviewed or news reported) sources other than the creator of that original research himself or herself. A separate article on ultrarunning would, probably, stand on its own merits - but there, too, if you write about yourself and rely on your own research or your own hearsay statements, even if absolutely true, they will likely be deleted there as well.  Cheers Geologyguy 04:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed again. User:Hyperphil is in violation of self-promotion as he has admitted on TK421's talk page. Therefor any reposting by him will be quickly removed. We are not in the business of promoting our own exploits. Geologyguy has summed up the relevant policies above. Also, it is not acceptable to invite mass editing by one's running colleagues as Hyperphil has mentioned above. I have also removed the hype from the Mount Timpanogos page. Vsmith 16:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Log Cabins
The article says "Grand Canyon Depot was built in 1909 and contains 2 levels. It is only 1 of 3 log cabins currently standing in the United States and 1 of 14 ever built in the country." This needs fixing, as I somehow seem to remember that there may be more than a total of 3 log cabins standing in the US, or that there may have been more than 14 total log cabins built in the US. Anybody know what's going on here? Paulburnett 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is one of only three remaining log built DEPOTS in the U.S., not log cabins. Therein lies the error. Zencowboy27 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Save the grand canyon!
The Indians have sold the grand canyon to delveoper to build on

Needs to be vastly improved.
Title says it all really...


 * Indeed - It's on my ToDo list. I've already created the FA Geology of the Grand Canyon area and History of the Grand Canyon area but stopped there; not knowing how to deal with the Grand Canyon/Grand Canyon National Park separation. I've since come to the conclusion, that since the park does not cover the entire canyon, that I'll concentrate on the canyon article and hope others will agree to merge the park article and infotable here and redirect that page here as well. --mav 21:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Expansion started. Boy is this going to be a lot of work. --mav (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge Lipan Point
Lipan point is not notable by itself and the article will have trouble growing beyond a stub. Suggest the information be included in the Grand Canyon article. Nv8200p talk 00:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Cheers Geologyguy 01:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing Archeological Expeditions ...
I have seen information from numerous sources regarding the Phoenix Gazette or The Arizona Gazette of April 5th, 1909 … about an archeological expedition and interesting findings … but absolutely nothing is mentioned in either the main Grand Canyon page of the History of the Grand Canyon Area. Why is that? Should for non-POV goals we not display all information (regardless of opinion) on the subject matter? Nonprof. Frinkus 18:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We are under no obligation to give equal (or, even, any) weight to fringe views in the interest of "completeness" - see the "undue weight" section of WP:NPOV. Inasmuch as the Egyptian tombs and such alleged in the 1909 article do not exist, what is the point of including them, or even references to the likely hoax of 1909, here? Cheers Geologyguy 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was a hoax? Interesting.  In the future … it might be good to lay pranks and mysteries to rest somewhere within the scope of this ever growing encyclopædia.
 * I don't know that it was a hoax, but reading the 1909 report, and knowing that nothing like that was ever reliably recorded, I suspect it likely. Cheers Geologyguy 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

is the Grand Canyon one of the seventh natural wonder(71.36.166.143 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

Billions of years ago?
Why does it say the grand canyon was formed billions of years ago, as if it's a fact? It should mention that it's purely theory. People will look at this and automatically assume it's a fact. --72.80.37.154 (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a fact that the rocks in the canyon date to nearly 2 billion years ago. The article does not say that the canyon formed billions of years ago, but it is also a fact that the canyon itself formed over the past 5 or 6 million years. Not theory. Cheers --Geologyguy (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh really? A fact? I don't mean to start a religion/science debate, but please explain to me how they are billions of years old. --71.255.69.242 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That matter has already been discussed a while ago and this is not the place to learn geology: this page is only to discuss about Wikipedia's entry on the Grand Canyon. If you are interested, you may wish to read about the geology of the Grand Canyon area. Thank you for being constructive. --Sophos II (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 1 refers to a New York Times article. I recommend using something more authoritative, namely, the article in Science that the article refers to. Thanks. JKW (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The way this is written makes it look like they were there to watch it happen "billions of years ago". There is no way to prove if it formed billions of years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.117.154 (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no way to "prove" that the world existed five minutes ago, or if we popped into existence and our memories were implanted four minutes ago. But we do our best. All facts are based on observable evidence. And the overwhelming mountain of observable evidence is that the grand canyon exposes two billion years of geological history. If you have a different theory, then of course it can be included in the article, provided the theory has been published in a reputable scientific journal (since the age of the grand canyon is a question of science) and a reference can be cited. Nairebis (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

news about release of water into grand canyon?
hey ppl where do i find info about this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.197.41 (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How did the Grand Canyon get its name?
The Colorado River was once named the Grand River and later renamed. Was the Grand Canyon named "Grand" because that was the name of the river flowing through it when it was named? 67.132.100.144 (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Grand River was the section in Colorado above Grand Junction - where the "Grand" and the Gunnison came together. So no, the canyon's name had nothing to do with that upper reach. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Grand Canyon Evolution
The introduction states: "The longstanding scientific consensus has been that the canyon was created by the Colorado River over a period of six million years, but research released in 2008 suggests a much longer 17 million year[1] time span." It does not mention the names of the scientists who discovered this: Victor Polyak, Carol Hill, and Yemane Asmerom. I'll try to improve this. Discrepancy (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't see that individual researcher names are significant for the lead section, therefor removed. Vsmith (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what is a good place for them? Maybe the reference section? Discrepancy (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When the full ref to the Science article is added the authors/researchers should be included in the reference. As it is now, the NYT article seems a bit lacking in crediting them. I don't have access to Science to reference the article properly - someone with access should add it. Vsmith (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the reference: Victor Polyak, Carol Hill, Yemane Asmerom, Science, Vol 319, 7 March 2008, pages 1377-1380. Discrepancy (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Grand Canyon
Can anyone please tell us where all the soil/erosion matter from the canyon went, as the colorado river wound its way through over those millions of years?? Thanks 86.26.247.120 (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah! I want to know too! --Tribble 1771561 (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? I'm not a geologist, but i'm going to go with "the river carried it downstream."69.60.237.3 (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

IS IT THE LARGEST?
Is it the largest gorge in the world? it doesn't say. i don't think it says whether or not it is not the largest, but if somebody knows for certain, can it be put in the introductory section? anyone?

Wide Image Under Geography
I find the wide image under the Geogrpahy header to be, well, rather too wide. It's a stunning picture, but it does make the top of the page a bit messy. I'd prefer to see it right justified, 300px or so. Any thoughts? Pedro : Chat  08:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. --mav (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

yes it is the largest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.86.44 (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"and parts of Nevada"
Will anyone care to explain why "[…]and parts of Nevada […]"is stroked out in the lead? It is very un-encyclopedic. If it is not in Nevada, just remove the mention. Adding and crossing out doesn't make sense. – Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

did erosion form the grand canyon
did erosion form the grand canyon as some peopole say

Grand Canyon
GRAND CANYON

Hi to everybody !

The grand canyon is amazing!

Its in north america.Which is the contenent.

U.S.A is the country.

Lastly the state is Arazona.

Abandoned uranium mine on the South Rim at Grand Canyon National Park
The Orphan Mine, which produced uranium during 1956-1969 for America's Cold War nuclear weapons program, is situated on and below the South Rim at Grand Canyon National Park. Abandoned in 1969, the site is contaminated with hazardous materials, some of which are radioactive. Now the site must be cleaned up, and it’s a time-consuming, complicated process.

Recently, an NPS News Daily Headlines announcement originating at Grand Canyon National Park got me thinking about the past, present, and future impacts of uranium mines in and near our national parks. [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manic mechanic (talk • contribs) 13:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Home video: a flight over the Grand Canyon
Hello, can anyone tell me, if there is a category like article with video? Perhaps You can help me.--R. Engelhardt (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

iv been here
hey i was here in 2007 and man! it was awesome!!-Boba fett 32 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

1.	Is this uniformitarianism or catastrophism? Why?

Uniformitarianism, because of the river carved the canyon and the sure did not happen suddenly. It took the river over a six million year time period to carve. The Grand Canyon is located in the Grand Canyon national park, Arizona. It supposable started six million years ago, being carved by the Colorado River. Erosion from the river started and the on one side a canyon formed and on the other side and soon enough the rive broke through and started chomping away at the walls to make the Grand Canyon.

Colorado River Made Grand Canyon?
The Colorado River enter's the Grand Canyon at an elevation of 2800 feet. It leaves the Grand Canyon at an elevation of 1800 feet. In the middle of the canyon, the ground rises up to an elevation of 6900-8500 feet. Did you notice that the top of the canyon is higher than where the river enters it. Did you know that rivers cannot go up a hill/slope then down it and erode a canyon into it? Grand Canyon was not formed by the Colorado River. There was a body of water and what is now the Grand Canyon was a dam. The water started to spill over at a certain spot, and it washed out an area. The Grand Canyon was not formed by the Colorado River.

Rikyenns4 (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude, Plate tectonics. The ground was rising for thousands of years while the river stayed the same and just had to steadily cut as the ground came up. It's no magic. Disappointed? --Dschwen 22:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay then just so you know it has to have done that in less than 4000 years Rikyenns4 (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. The earth is over four billion years old. Besides, this conversation is irrelevant to this page, this page is for suggesting improvements to the article, and no Young Earth creationist ideas are in any way close to being acceptable for this article. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. Where is some proof for the Earth being over four billion years old? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikyenns4 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As someone else pointed out, this is not the place to learn about geology. The place to start reading about the mountain of evidence for the age of the Earth would be the article on the Age of the Earth. But let me just say this. At one time, the church insisted -- based on Biblical evidence -- that the Sun revolved around the Earth. They presumed to know the mind of God. They were wrong, and only accepted reality in the face of overwhelming evidence. You are being misled again by EXACTLY the same misguided notions, and by the same arrogant presumption. The age of the Earth, evolution, the Grand Canyon, and other subjects actually have MORE evidence for them than existed when the church finally accepted the sun-centered solar system. You honor God when you honestly study his work, and mock him when you blindly cling to clearly -- physically impossible! -- wrong notions. Nairebis (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem with reference 1
Hi, I was reading this page today, and noticed that the first reference looked a little strange. When I tried to look up the book, I found out why - the authors are Kiver & Harris. It seems that a superfluous "la la la" was added to the middle of the first author's name. Perhaps it would be an idea for someone able to edit the page to do so. Aasimar (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. Mikenorton (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Log flume ride article?
I did not see anything concerning the new log flume ride they've added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.248.35 (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup images
I did a general image cleanup: deleted image-size hardcodes per WP:MOS, retired some dull and/or irrelevant images, added some historical, wildlife, environmental and lower Canyon photos.

Also cleaned out a bunch of vandalism, dumb jokes and general crapola from this page. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

grand canyon
the grand canyon is not the largest or deepest canyon in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.143.102 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And? Foamking (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

age of the canyon, again
I removed some language that refers to a specific formation theory. There are many theories as to how the canyon was formed (headward erosion, lake overflowing, stream capture, etc) and when (6 - 80 MYA). There has been some very good recent evidence, but there still isn't a consensus as to the when and how the Colorado first established it's course. The subject is very complex and not really appropriate for the top of the article. Drenaline  Talk 17:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Color of Rocks
Why does Grand Canyon seem so red? What's "the thing" with that soil? --62.216.120.76 (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that Reference desk/Science would be a good place to ask your question. I am afraid I do not know the answer. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is caused by the redwall limestone layer (which is not naturally red) being stained red by iron oxide which leeches out of the layers above it which contain a fair amount of hematite. The layers containing the hematite are also red, but they are much smaller compared to the underlying layer. I can provide references if you need them. I hope this was helpful in answering your question. Wperdue (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * Thank you so much! More than references I'd love to see some illustration. --62.216.120.76 (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fatalities in the Canyon
I own Over The Edge - Death in the Canyon, and oddly enough, I think it is appropriate to include deaths/mishaps as a subject under the topic. Nothing terribly long, and possibly with a link to desert survival topics in general (or hiking?) as there have been avoidable deaths in the canyon. Anyone think I am totally out of line? Backcountry trekking just doesnt cover the gamut of scenarios encountered in the elevation and temp changes, not to mention (although I will) sheer stupidity. Foamking (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No Train ride into the Canyon
This paragraph is not valid:

"The Coconino Canyon Train is another option for those seeking to take in a more leisurely view of the canyon. It is a 90-minute ride that originates in Grand Canyon National Park at the old Grand Canyon Depot and travels 24 miles (39 km) through the canyon landscapes. The train is made up of 1923 Pullman cars and runs on tracks built in the 1800s.[38]"

The train does not travel through Canyon landscapes. It goes from Williams AZ to the Canyon over the flat (and relatively boring) plateau. You will have to get off the train and climb up to the South Rim before you will see the Canyon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.181.24 (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image
As far as I know, there's no Apollo Throne at the Grand Canyon. There's Wotan's Throne, which is what this appears to be, and there's also Apollo's Temple. I'm not changing it because I don't know the Canyon well enough. Awien (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone help clarify? Awien (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * New pic - no issue any more. Awien (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Split or Merge?
See the discussion on the Talk:Grand Canyon National Park--Chris Light (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

nob?
"The Grand Canyon is a huge rift FILLED with noobS NAMED eHI in the Colorado Plateau that exposes uplifted Proterozoic and Paleozoic strata, and is also one of the 19 distinct physiographic sections of the Colorado Plateau province" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.90.35 (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Cluebot fixed that within a minute of the edit. Are you still seeing it? Mikenorton (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Challenge to reference
(Capertee Valley in Australia is about 0.6 mi/1 km wider and longer than Grand Canyon). This assertion is not supported by the sources provided in the linked wikipedia article, not to mention the Capertee Valley is not listed as a canyon. Plus, it is barely 1/3 Grand Canyon's depth. I don't think the reference is relevant to this article, considering the great number of other very large canyons. I certainly agree, though, that other canyons should be listed in comparison. The problem that arises, however, is how to measure them. It's complicated. Zencowboy27 (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)