Talk:Olympic-Wallowa Lineament/Archive 1

Rewrite
This article was a mess and seems to be based on data before the regional tectonics of northwest America was worked out. I've done my best to correct it but don't have time to complete the job or find sources for everything - apologies for that. Queries are welcome - you may have to nudge my user page. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  04:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is very annoying. Of course, I am new here, and in general I concur in yielding to those with greater experience.  And I realize that one does not get to "own" an article, that once you hit "Save page" it's fair game for all.  Still, I am quite annoyed. First, in that the integrity of the initial concept has been wrecked.  Second, in that specific errors have been introduced. And third, that there has been some fundamental mis-communication (for which I undoubtably have some fault).  I should like to discuss these.  Not as a 'debate' as to who may be 'wrong', but to seek understanding, and resolve certain issues.


 * The concept of the initial version of this article was to present the OWL as a geological mystery, to show the uncertainties and perplexities of scientific knowledge before it gets neatly packaged. I feel this is warranted because (an assertion of presumed fact here) no one really "knows" what causes this pattern we see as the OWL, that if we stuck to known facts there would be scope for only about three paragraphs. I realize that going beyond neatly packaged (citably published) and authoritatively approved facts might be considered non-encyclopedic, and even speculative, but I was hoping that it would not be too bold for Wikipedia. So I ask: was this concept, this approach in any way an issue here?  Was it perhaps not clear enough?


 * There is a particular point in the new version which I feel is wrong (as well as indicating a misunderstanding of the concept of the initial version): the characterization of one section as "historical hypotheses". There have been speculations as to what the OWL (more precisely, the ur-OWL) might be, but I don't believe any of them have been proposed as hypotheses.  Furthermore, the subsections here are not hypotheses - they are, as the original section title suggested, elements that might have some structural relationship with the OWL.  (Perhaps this was not made clear enough?)  I don't want to start a revert war, but I feel pretty strongly that current section title (and some of the re-organization) is a major error, and (short of persuasion otherwise) ought to be reverted.


 * In a similar way, I feel the new "Regional setting" section is inappropriate here. Although such a section is generally de riguer for a professional article on a geologic feature, in this case the lack of any knowledge (as distinct from speculations) as what causes the OWL precludes knowing what is the proper context.  (This is why I included the 'Broader context' section, to give some sense of the possibilities.)  If there is some reason why this section is necessary I should like to hear it.


 * Also, the characterization of the OWL as a major strike-slip fault is really not demonstrated. Portions of it are associated with strike-slip faulting, but other portions are associated with thrust faults; I have seen nothing in the professional literature that these are anything but local features.  The citation for strike-slip faulting is not from the professional literature (i.e., a refereed journal), and really quite under-authoritative for such a major characterization. If the editor feels this statement is warranted, then I would suggest a better citation, from a journal or similar source.  I don't believe there is any basis for such a statement, because in a broad reading in the subject I have not seen any such consensus.  But I am open for enlightenment.


 * There are other points I think should be discussed, but later. J. Johnson (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't have time to re-write the article properly, and understand your irritation - you have clearly put a lot of work into the article. However, the problem is that the OWL simply isn't a mystery.  It is exactly what one would expect to find in the regional setting: faulting following the routes of pre-existing lines of weakness in an old basement; strain which cannot be accommodated by motion along the fault being accommodated instead by folding parallel to it; and rotation.  The old analogy is of pushing a carpet diagonally against a wall - some of your push will be accommodated by the carpet sliding past the wall (faulting), and some of the push will be accommodated by the carpet rucking up into folds. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  22:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't spend much time editing the article, as I don't really know anything about the fault. However, I do have an issue with the way that the article was written. I see your original intent, and you put a lot of work into it, but I'm afraid that in my opinion (and probably others'), it's not the correct way to write an encyclopedia article. For example, your first sentence, "The OWL is a perceptual effect, in the manner of an optical illusion, where the human visual system finds a pattern in seeming random elements," may sound romantic to you, but for a factual encyclopedia, the OWL is not a perceptual effect because it is in no way an effect of our perception, and the encyclopedia is more about what is fact than what is a good story. Awickert (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand there being reservations about the approach I took. I tried to be "bold" (that's supposed to be good, right?), but there is a good question as to how much an encylopedia should stick to "just the facts, ma'm". If my initial version went further than folks are comfortable with, then I am willing to try revising it. But as I noted above, all that is known about the OWL can be summarized in about eight points. (Which I did, and which has also been deleted.) And if the article is to be strictly limited to "just the [approved] facts", then there is only scope for about three short sections. Which would disappoint me, but I could accept.

Where I have a major problem is in Martin acting (in what I feel amounts to trashing of my work) based on his opinion (that "the OWL simply isn't a mystery", in direct contradiction to my premise that it is) that is supported by only a single citation, and one of dubious authority at that. For sure, there is a small difficulty here in that (as far as I am aware) no geological authority as said that the OWL is, or is not, a mystery. But as to the points I covered I believe I have much the greater weight of authority. And I take it as distinctly disrespectful when the results of extensive and diligent research can be overturned on the basis of an opinion.

Now I don't want to get into any kind of "food-fight" about which of these opinions is "right". My view is that 1) there have been various speculations as to what causes the pattern known as the OWL, and 2) until the geological community has some consensus as to which is to be the conventional dogma, it is useful to describe all (most?) of them, with discussion of why none of them is deemed compelling. If I have not adequately, or correctly, covered the view Martin espouses, then I am willing include that. Or see him include it. But I would hope for authoritative references. And for more respect for the care and diligence by which I have tried to produce authoritative work. J. Johnson (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So I think the first thing to get straight is whether or not it is a mystery. The way it was proposed by J. Johnson seems to state that we have close to no clue whatsoever about what's going on, and we only have a vague sense of the timing, and that there are a number of hypotheses that have been put forth, sort of in the old-school "this is what I think let's find evidence" sort of way. Martin's approach seems to focus more on what we know than what we don't know, and frame the unknowns in terms of the knowns. As for an encyclopedic article, I think that I prefer the up-front statement of the knowns to the presentation of a mystery where the knowns are sort of presented, but in a convoluted fashion.
 * I did like the summary at the end, and hope to see it back in some way, though I did have a question about it: if the fault is expressed in the quaternary deposits, then how do we say it stopped at 12 Ma?
 * So I'm not sure what to do about the original concept, but I think the amount to which it is actually a mystery should be clearly defined.
 * Awickert (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, except that my impression, from both the literature and from discussions with several geologists, is that all discussions about the OWL amount to little more than speculation; that no one has gone so far as to actually propose a hypothesis. Well, there is one supposed exception (Skehan, 1965), but I have not been able to get that paper.


 * As to the supposed expressions of the OWL in Quaternary (and even Holocene) deposits: I guess I didn't make that clear enough, so I will ponder on how it might be improved.  It is a good point, especially as in the CLEW and Yakima Fold Belt the faults generally cross the OWL, although apparently not offsetting it.  The resolution seems to be that these faults are due to compression of the approx. 3 km thick basalt layer across the OWL, said basalt being further isolated from the basement rock by a layer of sedimentary deposits.  It seems that strike-slip faulting on the Wallulla and Hite Fault Zones might be similarly isolated from the OWL, but I don't believe any geologist has stated that.  So I felt I couldn't say anything stronger than that a connection has not been established. J. Johnson (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong grasp of the geophysics literature; from a very quick scan I think that this paper gives an overview. It probably doesn't specifically refer to the OWL but I suspect its hypothesis can explain all the 'mysteries'. Hope it's useful. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no, that paper is not persuasive in this matter. If you look at the the full-text of the paper (my url is broken; search for 'Jackson molnarpdf block-rotation') you'll see that what they examined was "two simple classes of mechanisms for imparting rotation to the crustal blocks in the western Transverse Ranges". While this might be relevant to some aspects of the rotation of crustal blocks (possibly what you are calling micro-plates) in Oregon and SW Washington, it says nothing about the OWL, nor of the formation or causes of such features. If the conclusion they reach, or any of their discussion, "can explain all the 'mysteries'", then you need to show how that is, because they do not.

My examination of the literature, though not perfect, was extensive, and I am pretty confident that I have a good grasp of what is, and even what is not, in the refereed professional literature. If there is anything that contradicts either what I have presented or the stance I have taken, then it is most likely either in a recent article (I haven't checked GeoREF since about December), or buried deeply enough that it will take more than "a very quick scan" to find it. J. Johnson (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had a look for sources but haven't had much luck - I think the best thing to do would be to look at sources dealing with the broader geology. I'm pretty sure that it's something the Cambridge school dealt with about a decade ago, if that helps at all. Sorry not to be more use in dredging up the sources myself!  I don't have much free time at the moment. Best, Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  23:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Martin, I don't know what you mean by "the Cambridge school". I admit that my knowledge of geology in the main has gaps big enough to drive entire continents through, but this is exactly why it is a fundamental requirement of Wikipedia to cite your sources: if you have sources that I should know about you should cite them.  Lacking those you have no authority, and your statements just personal opinion.  (What you have cited is either not authoritative [a self-published web site] or not relevant [as described above].)  Which is not to claim that my general stance or particular statements are in all respects correct.  But I think it is fair to say that they are much better supported (generally by refereed journal articles) than the claims you make.  (And this gets to why I am so annoyed: I took the time to find sources, and to read and evaluate them, but you have not.  And yet you presumed to overturn my work.)


 * This leads to another point that I think should be considered: doing a major edit - indeed, major reorganization - of this article without discussion or consultation. Note what is stated at Help: minor edit: "a major edit is a one that should be reviewed for its acceptability to all concerned editors."  Well, we are reviewing those changes (at least part of them) now - but I think this discussion should have been held before the edits.  I do not claim that my efforts were perfect, and there are even aspects I would like to have some assistance in improving.  But I think it was disrespectful, and even contrary to Wikipedia principles, to proceed so impulsively, without any consultation with the principal contributor.  So I would like to ask: could we have a complete reversion to the original version?  And then have a discussion of what needs to be improved? J. Johnson (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to have community consensus (is that not a Wikipedia principle?), which certainly has to start with communication. But as that does not seem to be happening, I am going to proceed with my conception of this article.  If anyone else has any comments or even wants to join in - sure, but before you jump and start trashing stuff you may not fully comprehend please discuss it with me.  J. Johnson (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Category
(I don't want to cause an edit conflict.) I forgot the Washington categories were moved. This should be in Category:Geology of Washington (U.S. state). Thanks for the quick attention to my note on the project page. Katr67 (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Katr67 (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Location
In the image, is the location of the lineament in the right place? I've just started reading about it, and the papers I've read have placed it more here. Awickert (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the linked USGS image is sexy and uploadable to Commons. Awickert (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That is the same feature in both images. The apparent dissimilarity is due to the way the pictures are framed.  For sure the other image is "sexier" (and I considered grabbing it), but it seemed to me that is somewhat distracting.  In the end it was a judgment call, and I thought the leaner image was a better fit.  Even though the OWL isn't really that clear - well, that goes to the heart of the matter. J. Johnson (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed your reply - so the arrow in your image points to the Northwest and the arrow in the USGS one points to the center of the state; this seems to be more than the framing . . . are you sure that they're the same thing? Awickert (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The arrows represent two different philosophies of pointing. Mine points in-line with the lineament, the other points broad-side to the middle (approximately) of the feature. I was thinking of adding an arrow at the far end, which might make things clearer, but it was a little crowded there.  (There is also some ambiguity as to just where the end is, so another consideration was to leave the end "open", and let the reader explore where the end might be.  Which gets back to what I had said about it being a perceptual effect "in the manner of an optical illusion".)  In the end I felt that a single arrow, in conjunction with the text (describing it as a NW-SE lineament), was adequate for the main purpose of location.  (No?) I suppose I could add something to the caption, like "running SE from the arrow".  J. Johnson (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What seems unclear is whether the lineament is in the center of the state (like I've seen in the papers that I've only skimmed) or along the coast (I see your point, but that's what the arrow seems to be pointing) or both. If coast or both, it seems OK, but if center, the lineament doesn't show up well enough in the topo for me to know where it was without prior knowledge. Awickert (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am getting a little confused as to why you are confused, so I'd like to try describing it from the top. (And if we can sort out where the confusion comes from I can straighten it out.) The OWL extends from approximately the north side of the Olympic Pennisula (i.e., from about the blue arrow) south-east (in the direction indicated by the arrow) to the northeastern corner of Oregon (lower-right corner of image). In doing so it passes near the center of the state, and in that other picture the arrow points to the approximate mid-point of the lineament. So in that sense, yes, the OWL is nearly "in the center of the state". Is that much reasonably clear?

(As a broader issue: are images (with their captions) expected to be completely self-explanatory? Or is it acceptable full understanding may depend on reading the text?)

The OWL also runs along the shoreline of the the Strait of Juan de Fuca - location of the blue arrow - which separates the Olympic Peninsula from Vancouver Island. (Perhaps I should specify that?) In a certain sense this shore line is a coast, but the principal "coast" of Washington is generally held to be that shoreline more or less along the left edge of the image. So in this regard I find the phrase "along the coast" quite confusing. But I wonder if you took the focus or target of the arrow to be a specific point (or small area) on that shoreline. If that is the case, then my arrow failed to communicate the intent of pointing along a line (lineament). The key point is that the OWL is a lineament (linear feature) that runs across the entire state. Which I thought was adequately explained in the text, but perhaps this needs discussion.

This leads to another consideration. To simply show the location of the OWL I could have just painted a stripe across a map, and all of this particular discussion might have been avoided. But I wanted to do another thing: to show the OWL, and to also show how subtle it is, which precludes painting over the very feature I want to show. So I wonder if I should use two images: one to show the location, the other the nature, of the OWL. Perhaps even the same base image. What do you think? J. Johnson (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that - so you can take my opinion as one of someone who had a decent look over many parts of your article and skimmed some of the more specific parts. From off the bat, looking at the map, it looked like it was just in the NW corner of Washington state. As an answer to your question, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should probably be clearer immediately (i.e., with no reference to the text) in the way that good figures in academic publications are. As for the point you were trying to make, it doesn't show up well in the topography, but I believe it shows up better in the geology - so perhaps to address both of these thoughts it would be better with a set of figures together: topo, bedrock, and a figure with a line drawn across it to show its position (which would then allow viewers to evaluate how well it is expressed in both and to immediately know where it went). Thanks for correcting me! Awickert (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will look at developing two (or more?) figures, as discussed. I may hold off a little while as I would like to see the major rewrite issue resolved first. J. Johnson (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - thanks. Awickert (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lead now has a pair of images. Does that work better? J. Johnson (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Another hypothesis
Haven't checked it for reliability, but it might be worth adding to the laundry list. Awickert (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Sears' "top-down control of the Yellowstone hot spot". An interesting paper, but I haven't figured out just how it might relate to the OWL.  (Would help if I knew what the OWL - or ur-OWL - is!)  But this might point to another unclear facet of the matter - the section-heading "Historical hypotheses" really applies only to the first sentence of that section (re one of Raisz' hypotheses).  The original heading was "Structural relationships", and the subsections (as originally constituted) were all features which might have some structural relationship with the OWL.  I wonder if my writing is just unclear, or if I need to write more for "Science Digest" than "Science". J. Johnson (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was thinking of it in terms of a broader structural relationship. Again, I know next to nothing about this stuff, but I just noticed it on google. Awickert (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Parallel features and their cause
So is the dominant regional compression direction basically E-W b/c of the convergence? This would help the reader decipher the 2nd paragraph. Awickert (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That might be a good question, but it's moot now because I removed that section. (And after an entire afternoon of trying to rebuild much of this article I neither recall nor care what the '2nd paragraph' was.)  I have seen discussion about the regional compression that indicates the topic is a wee bit complicated, convergence being just one factor.  For the most part I don't include this in the article because I have not seen (nor heard) even a speculation on how it might connect with the OWL.  I did mention in the section on the CLEW that certain strike-slip faults that cross the OWL are thought to be due to this compression acting on the layer of basalt at the surface, but this seems to be disconnected from the basement rock.  (Unlike the Simple Fold Belt in the Zagros.) J. Johnson (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - well, I'll stay away from the article as you make your changes, because you just deleted the section that I tried to make better-worded.
 * This section talked about the compression and fault orientation and folding, vaguely, but it's gone now. Awickert (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (It appears "parallel features" is morphing into "parallel action". :-) Let me do some more cleaning up, then perhaps we could coordinate on some editing. J. Johnson (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Awickert (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Klamath-Sierra 'Connection'
I've been trying to find an explanation between the relationship between the Sierra Nevada and Klamath Mountains, since "long ago" they were thought to be two parts of a larger whole. Could this OWL rotation thing have something to do with the Sierra and Klamath blocks now being 60 miles apart? I came across an all too brief mention of a Sierra-Klamath connection in this article. I'm sure there are people besides me who'd like to know more, though, in my case, with a degree in Geography, I'm only semi-geologically (very!) literate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.55.67.226 (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that your question is incorrect in its premise, that the Klammath Mountains were parth of the Sierra Nevada block. Just off the top of my head (and I don't have a degree in geology either), I believe the Klammaths are an old island chain or some such, volcanic at any rate, while the Sierras are mostly uplifted oceanic crust (the volcanoes there being recent).  As to the differences generally between California and points north, I was (coincidentally!) just reading in Wyld et al. (2006, "Reconstructing Cordilleran terrranes..., p 292) that they attribute this to differences in motions of the underlying plates.  However, I gather there is a whole lot of stuff going on underneath Nevada which is not understood (see Zandt & Humphreys, 2008). A lot of stuff there that a lot of people would like to know. - J. Johnson (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I took another look at Wyld et al. and on p 285 they do mention "westward motion of the Klamaths relative to the Sierra Nevada". So independently of whether they were once the same, it seems they were once close.  As to what drove the separation: same as above.  A great big "terrane wreck". - J. Johnson (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

AWB "corrections" of duplicate references.
AWB editors: Please do NOT "correct" the duplicate references. This article intentionally uses Harvard referencing, and the merging of references messes up the numbering of the notes. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Again: PLEASE DO NOT 'CORRECT' the duplicate references. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)