This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Several years ago I read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about a new theory that Mount Tamalpais and other landforms that run from east to west may have been caused by a piece of the Farallon Plate that got stuck under the North American Plate, but is simultaneously welded to both the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate. As the Pacific Plate moves north, it drags the fragment with it, causing ripples on the surface of the North American Plate. Right now I'm looking for the article, but it's hard to find. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 00:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The Farallon plate, because of its extent and longevity, is the basic foundation for much of the geologic development of western North America. It seems to me that it is thus so important that we really need to develop it. Anyone else interested? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Bill (and anyone else following along): the original references for this article were "general" (not specifically cited in the text). If the article grows that will need to be fixed, so this seems a good time to ask: what style of citation should be used here? I propose we put the full citations in the References section, and use harv templates in the text/footnotes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite xxx}}
or {{
citation}} acceptable?This page is peculiarly based on the work of only one or two research teams.
Sigloch & Mihalynuk (2013) is a very interesting and perhaps groundbreaking paper, but I have doubts because it contains major errors. I'm not the expert that some that have studied the western US margin for decades are, but immediately recognized that the authors were making geological assertions that as far as we know, are wrong (and wrong in a way that suggests the authors had not actually made sufficient effort to look at some of the rocks in question, or review the relevant literature). Because they use these as critical constraints for their plate tectonic model, said plate tectonic model is, logically, wrong. Perhaps not unfounded, but certainly in need of modification and definitely not the last word. I'm sure there are other issues, but these two are the ones that struck me:
1. The authors suggest that Siletzia is an arc. It is most certainly not an arc. I'm not sure that anyone has ever suggested it is an arc, because it is so obviously not one.
2. The authors claim that there is not a Mesozoic arc developed on definitive North American craton. There is actually a series of them from Triassic into Cretaceous time, parts of them developed specifically in and on top of the classic Grand Canyon sequence in southeastern California and neighboring portions of California and Arizona. If these things that look very much like arcs are not arcs, then one needs to present some reasonable alternative. There may actually be alternatives, but claiming the rocks to not exist is not one of them.
The new tomographic work and reconstructions derived from it is fascinating, but Wikipedia is not the place to present such models as established truth.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.122.23 ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Farallon Plate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Several years ago I read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about a new theory that Mount Tamalpais and other landforms that run from east to west may have been caused by a piece of the Farallon Plate that got stuck under the North American Plate, but is simultaneously welded to both the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate. As the Pacific Plate moves north, it drags the fragment with it, causing ripples on the surface of the North American Plate. Right now I'm looking for the article, but it's hard to find. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 00:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The Farallon plate, because of its extent and longevity, is the basic foundation for much of the geologic development of western North America. It seems to me that it is thus so important that we really need to develop it. Anyone else interested? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Bill (and anyone else following along): the original references for this article were "general" (not specifically cited in the text). If the article grows that will need to be fixed, so this seems a good time to ask: what style of citation should be used here? I propose we put the full citations in the References section, and use harv templates in the text/footnotes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite xxx}}
or {{
citation}} acceptable?This page is peculiarly based on the work of only one or two research teams.
Sigloch & Mihalynuk (2013) is a very interesting and perhaps groundbreaking paper, but I have doubts because it contains major errors. I'm not the expert that some that have studied the western US margin for decades are, but immediately recognized that the authors were making geological assertions that as far as we know, are wrong (and wrong in a way that suggests the authors had not actually made sufficient effort to look at some of the rocks in question, or review the relevant literature). Because they use these as critical constraints for their plate tectonic model, said plate tectonic model is, logically, wrong. Perhaps not unfounded, but certainly in need of modification and definitely not the last word. I'm sure there are other issues, but these two are the ones that struck me:
1. The authors suggest that Siletzia is an arc. It is most certainly not an arc. I'm not sure that anyone has ever suggested it is an arc, because it is so obviously not one.
2. The authors claim that there is not a Mesozoic arc developed on definitive North American craton. There is actually a series of them from Triassic into Cretaceous time, parts of them developed specifically in and on top of the classic Grand Canyon sequence in southeastern California and neighboring portions of California and Arizona. If these things that look very much like arcs are not arcs, then one needs to present some reasonable alternative. There may actually be alternatives, but claiming the rocks to not exist is not one of them.
The new tomographic work and reconstructions derived from it is fascinating, but Wikipedia is not the place to present such models as established truth.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.122.23 ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Farallon Plate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)