![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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:
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
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)
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)
Removed:
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)
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)
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)
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)
83.70.247.123 18:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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
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)
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
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)
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)
Grand Canyon/Archive 1 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 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?
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)
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 KelvinSmith ( talk · contribs)
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)
I removed a sentence from the Activities section that constitutes POV:
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)
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.
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
The Indians have sold the grand canyon to delveoper to build on
Title says it all really...
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)
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)
is the Grand Canyon one of the seventh natural wonder( 71.36.166.143 ( talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Ok, what is a good place for them? Maybe the reference section? Discrepancy ( talk) 18:48, 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)
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)
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 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?
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)
yes it is the largest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.86.44 ( talk) 18:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
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 as some peopole say
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.
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. [ [2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manic mechanic ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
See the discussion on the Talk:Grand Canyon National Park-- Chris Light ( talk) 18:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
"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)
(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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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:
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
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)
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)
Removed:
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)
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)
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)
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)
83.70.247.123 18:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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
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)
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
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)
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)
Grand Canyon/Archive 1 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 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?
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)
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 KelvinSmith ( talk · contribs)
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)
I removed a sentence from the Activities section that constitutes POV:
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)
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.
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
The Indians have sold the grand canyon to delveoper to build on
Title says it all really...
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)
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)
is the Grand Canyon one of the seventh natural wonder( 71.36.166.143 ( talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Ok, what is a good place for them? Maybe the reference section? Discrepancy ( talk) 18:48, 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)
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)
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 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?
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)
yes it is the largest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.86.44 ( talk) 18:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
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 as some peopole say
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.
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. [ [2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manic mechanic ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
See the discussion on the Talk:Grand Canyon National Park-- Chris Light ( talk) 18:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
"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)
(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)