This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Am going fix by killing feet. Calamitybrook ( talk) 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 21:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Some background into the origins of the name would be great. Who knows when it began? If you find such information, I hope you'll reference it in the article. The current (2004) AMC Trail Guide to Massachusetts indicates Yokun Ridge (page 38); your copy is extremely out of date. As for the USBGN, you can actually write to them, demonstrate that the name is in use (i.e., refer to the BNRC map/guide and current AMC guide), and they'll add it to their database (I've done it myself with other landscape features). They're concerned with common, provable useage that can be referenced, not original useage.-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 22:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I found the origin of the name, page 38 of the new AMC Guide: "The Ridge owes its name to Jehoiakim Yokun, who owned much of this land around 1740."-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 22:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 00:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
For readability, could you please condense your remarks and set them off with the same delineation (how ever many colons you choose, as long as they are consistent)? Yes, it is certainly possible that "Yokun Ridge" was derived from "Yokun Seat." In my experience dealing with landscape features, especially in New England, the further back you go, the harder it is to see where a name comes from. Old names for places fall in and out of use. For instance, Mount Washington was once the name of the South Taconic Range (still the name of the town in that area). It's really difficult to say when "Yokun Ridge" originated; although I agree it seems that its use became more popular in the last ten or fifteen years. But that doesn't mean that there isn't some old map or text lying around somewhere that someone got hold of and resurrected the name from. In any case, it's a moot point, because, as you say, the name is being used by reliable, printed sources today, including the AMC which you seem to think is a good source of information. As for the USBGN, you should try them sometime and see what kind of results you get. The proof is in the pudding. Not to say that they'll accept a bogus call for a name change, of course. -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 15:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it would indeed be interesting; best of luck in conclusively discovering it's origin. Personal beliefs, speculation, and theories aside, of course. In any case, Yokun Seat and Yokun Ridge (derived from Yokun Seat or in homage to J.Yokun) are clearly named after the same Yokun.-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 15:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The USBGN shows "Yokun Ridge" as ". . . a distinct 9-mile ridgeline including West Stockbridge Mountain and Lenox Mountain (including the summits of Mahanna Cobble, Yokun Seat, and Baldhead); it is a sub-range of the Taconic Mountains." Article edited to reflected official designation. See USBGN http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=154:3:4157071828966131::NO::P3_FID,P3_TITLE:2519194,Yokun%20Ridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 17:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
According to the USBGN, it's a "ridge," not a "region" or anything else. That's the official designation. A distinct article about the forest reserve can be created seperately, if needed. This article, however, is specifically about the land feature--a ridge--named "Yokun Ridge," specifically described as a "ridge" landform by the USBGN and encompassing the features indicated on the USBGN database--regardless of 'when' the name originated. It is NOT about the forest reserve, although it may contain the forest reserve. If you want to write an article about the forest reserve, that would be nice, but this is not the place to do that specifically (although it should be mentioned here), especially since the forest reserve you are describing isn't even called "Yokun Ridge". To summarize, if you disagree with the USBGN designation, or the idea that Wikipedia should allow an article about a land feature described by the USBGN, you can write a properly titled article about the forest reserve and put this article up for deletion. BTW, Calamity B, discuss here or elsewhere, don't make a 3RR on properly sourced material. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 22:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 00:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful edits, sorry we have been having trouble communicating. Regardless of the history of the landform as you would like it, the USBGN does refer to it as a "distinct ridge"; that's an actual quote from their database. I've included that quote in the lead. It's accurately sourced material, sorry you don't like it, but please refrain from deleting it. And again, it isn't "a group of hills" it's specifically a "ridge" and part of "The Taconic Mountains" according to the USBGN, direct quote again. The USBGN defines what a "ridge" is. Furthermore, I felt it necessary to remove the relative term, "very recent." Sure you understand why that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and in any event the date of USBGN designation is noted directly in the nomenclature section, along with the note RE: the Berkshire Natural Resources Council source. It's already in the article. BTW and aside, I'm not seeing any backup source for your assumption/accusation "as a term dreamed rather recently up by Berkshire Natural Resources Council in order to drum up support for land preservation." That's a pretty strong and specific accusation. Perhaps you are right. If you are, awesome! Find a source that says that. It would certainly be cool conspiracy material to include in the article, but it won't change the USBGN designation, or make this article into an article about the forest reserve. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 02:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. and this is beating a dead cat, but in my opinion, after looking at a topo map, the landform appears to be one distinct ridge to me, cleft by various gaps and offset a bit here and there. It depends on the map scale you're looking at, but even at the stadard 7.5 series, in my opinion, it's one landform. And that's the point--it's my interpretation or WP:OR, just as your read on a topo map is WP:OR, therefore the USBGN, which isn't WP:OR. As far as historic useage, you seem smart enough to know that names for landforms change over time: certain names fall out of use, while others fall into use. It happens, whether we agree with it or not 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 03:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 15:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 21:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 15:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Responses:
You persist in the notion that the board of names is the sole available source. The U.S. GS quadrangle is a perfectly good source and Baldhead and a number of other features are clearly not "part of a distinct ridge," a phrase, which I think can nonetheless be incorporated into the article.
Calamitybrook ( talk) 03:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Compromise is fine as long as it does not include original research, bias, relative terminology, unsourced opinion, conjecture, or other material generally unacceptable to Wikipedia. I'm willing to work within that framework. Glad to hear that you think the name "Yokun Ridge" is valid. Baldhead is a peak located off of the main ridge crest but part of the ridge as a whole. It is described by the USBGN as part of the ridge; it appears to be clearly part of the ridge to me. Perhaps you have a very narrow idea of what a "ridge" is. The U.S.G.S. quad you mention doesn't describe the term "Yokun Ridge." Your personal intrepretations of USGS maps over the sourced USBGN designation aren't acceptable. Again, this is an article about the land feature described as "Yokun Ridge"--it is not a reserve,a group of hills, an "area," a "so called ridge", a cupcake, or any other thing. It is a ridge. If you have sourced material that specifically describes the land feature called "Yokun Ridge" as anything but a ridge, please include it, cited properly. In fact, cite any material you introduce to this article. Yes, the year 2009 is already included in the article, under nomenclature, as I keep reminding you to no avail. I put it there, for anyone to read. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 04:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 16:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"In 1971, George knew there was a place called Lenox Mountain and a place called West Stockbridge Mountain," said Ames. "Not content, he unilaterally named the great 12-mile ridge line Yokun Ridge, and in doing so, he understood that the whole is so much greater than the sum of all parts."
Calamitybrook ( talk) 18:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Good. I think you should include this material in the nomenclature section. Note, however, that according to this quote you unearthed, the landform now known as "Yokun Ridge" was formerly an unnamed "great 12 mile ridge" consisting of Lenox Mountain and West Stockbridge Mountain the "sum of all parts." Like I have been saying all along, it's a ridge. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 21:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 21:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but there was no "colloquial usage" for the geographic feature either before it was named "Yokun Ridge" or now. It was simply unnamed. Its various parts had names--Lenox Mountain, West Stockbridge Mountain, etc. Articles can be written about those parts. Again--and I just keep on saying it--this article is about the landform named "Yokun Ridge." 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 22:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
--Furthermore: if your attempt at a "caveat" is to undermine the designation of "Yokun Ridge" as a "ridge" you bear the burden of finding a good source that specifically states that Yokun Ridge is not a ridge. All you have come up with so far is material describing the nomenclature of various parts of the now-named Yokun Ridge, formerly unnamed. That the ridge remained unnamed for so long doesn't mean that is isn't a ridge. New England abounds with unnamed geographic features. Periodically, some usage or another results in formerly unnamed features acquiring names. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 22:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"Yokun Ridge" starts showing up in the newspapers in 2007. So I'd say yeah, it's actual, but probably want some sort of caveat in the lede, for those not born yesterday, so to speak.
Calamitybrook ( talk) 01:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. The designation date is now included in the lead. Since the same sentence states that the ridge is made up of Lenox Mountain and West Stockbridge Mountain, there should be no confusion among the "few million people" who are familiar with the parts but not the whole. I hope that puts this to bed, as there are much more productive things we could be spending our time on here. BTW1, and I keep repeating this to no avail, but this is not an article about the various parts of the ridge. It's isn't a renaming of Lenox Mountain or West Stockbridge Mountain. There was no "actual useage" for the whole ridge before 1971 (40 years ago!) there was only actual useage for parts of the ridge. Those "not born yesterday" can read articles written specifically about Lenox Mountain or West Stockbridge Mountain, which you could have been writing instead of going on here. BTW2, why do you insist on writing your posts in haiku-like format? It is difficult to parse and wastes space on the discussion board. Can you at least try to keep your signature and all of your text on the same indent stop? 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 21:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 18:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Good. I've revised your revision somewhat, rewording the speculative statements that are not backed up by the sources attached to them. I've also restored the quoted, sourced material that was deleted, and made some other stylistic changes. Hopefully we are almost finished. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 20:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 20:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
CB, please stop deleting sourced material. The quote is indeed relevant as it describes how and who named the ridge. Using the quote avoids either you or I interpreting that naming process and incidentally inserting bias into this document. It's sourced material. I've asked you to desist in deleting sourced material in this document several times before this. As for the USBGN description listing the various parts of the ridge as described by the USBGN, that material is relevant and was not included in the lead. Again, do not delete sourced material! Thank you for your understanding. I have moved the history of the term "Yokun" to the front because the use of "Yokun" preceeds "Yokun Ridge." 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 23:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 00:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of how you feel personally about the quote (by Tad Ames, current director of BNRC and formerly a reporter for the Berkshire Eagle) or chicken dinners, the quote is valid, notable material from a reliable source. You yourself indicated that you believed that BNRC named the ridge and you first introduced the quote as proof of that claim here [2]. If you want to delete the quote, please take your argument above to WP:rfc and get the opinion of other editors. Until then refrain from deleting it, as you are one strike away from wp:3rr edit warring among other issues. Regarding the second matter, the USBGN material, this section establishes exactly what the USBGN says is part of the ridge. I could quote them verbatum, if you'd like. Your call. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 00:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 01:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Take your issue to wp:rfc. Since it's only the two of us here, since you are maxed out on your reverts, and since this page is now protected, you have little other recourse.
In the mean time, my final responses to your remarks: 1)The USBGN definition of the ridge is not established until the nomenclature section. If you would like me to bring that exact definition to the lead, I have no problem with that.
2) Your personal and strongly biased negative opinions of BNRC or the reporters of the Berkshire Eagle don't hold any weight here. The material is notable, interesting, of historic significance, and hence quoteable. You yourself indicate the quote as proof of BNRC's original use of the name Yokun Ridge. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
3) The material is notable because: a) it was spoken by the current and long term executive director of BNRC, who is in a position to be qualified to speak about the organization's history. Ames also worked for many years as a reporter for the Eagle further qualifying him to speak on events relating to the history of the area; and b) It was recorded and published by a public newspaper, the Berkshire Eagle, which passes the test here on Wikipedia for a notable source of information--regardless of your personal bias against so called "small town" newspapers.
4) Finally, I should point out that the quote is simply that--a quote. Readers can take from it what they like. Ames' statement doesn't have to be true--it simply has to be notable. But, of course, you have already asserted that it is true.
Again, take your beef to the wp:rfc. If it has merit, as you claim, you should have no trouble prevailing. In the mean time, I'm done here--and so are you. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 04:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. with more than two participants here, we might be able to move through this. Reponses:
1) Yes, it isn't cited properly. The material was first introduced here, in this talk page, by the other editor, as support for the assertion that the ridge was first named "Yokun Ridge" in 1971 by the Berkshire Natural Resources Council, a land conservation NGO. I have no problem with removal of the material--and all it supports-- until a proper citation is available.
2) See above and: Perhaps the full quote would go further in establishing context "'In 1971, George knew there was a place called Lenox Mountain and a place called West Stockbridge Mountain,' said [Tad] Ames [executive Director of BNRC, a land conservation NGO]. "Not content, he unilaterally named the great 12-mile ridge line Yokun Ridge, and in doing so, he understood that the whole is so much greater than the sum of all parts." The quote by the executive director of BNRC directly and specifically pertains to the naming of the ridge and goes further to explain why and how. The quote is meaningful because it demonstrates that BNRC considered the ridge to be one uniform landform when it was named; b) the quote addresses the how and why for the naming of the whole ridge by the former ED of BNRC, who named it; and b) as far as I understand, a published quote from an executive director of an NGO regarding the history of the same NGO and its actions, is indeed notable material and not simply unreliable opinion. But it could be introduced with more context, yes. However, if Ames is unreliable, then his assertion that the ridge was named in 1971 must also be considered unreliable. All of that aside, I have no issue with something worded as follows: "According to Tad Ames, executive director of the Berkshire Natural Resources Council, the name Yokun Ridge was applied to the ridge in 1971 by George Wilsocki, former executive director of BNRC." I would, however, take exception to the statement--reintroduced several times to this article--that the name was "invented" by Wislocki, which is not supported by the quote or source--"named" is not the same as "invented." Ala wp:weasel words.
3)I did not introduce this statement; I have no issue with its deletion. The other editor can weigh in here. To be fair to him, the USBGN database, a listing of landscape features officially accepted by the federal government, is available to anyone with a computer and an internet connection. It is easy to use and requires no interpretation or processing--either something is listed in it, or it isn't listed. I don't believe that constitutes wp:or.
4) I did not introduce the material on "Greenways to America"; I have no feelings for it either way. I shuffled it around the section, nothing more. The other editor can weigh in on its relevance.
5) Ditto. I did not introduce the history material. I placed the citation tags there per WP:AGF (as it jived with what I already know about the area), instead of removing it, but, yes, the material cannot hold up to a challenge of "deleted, unsourced." However, I believe, and I don't have the material before me at the moment, that much of it is sourced in the BNRC publication cited elsewhere in this article. I would be glad to check on this later.
6) Agreed, I have no attachment to the dog walking stuff.
Hope that helps to clarify the situation 209.198.69.35 ( talk) 15:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. Yes, the same. If I decide to contribute further (beyond this article) I will create a username. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 18:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I have full-protected this page to stop the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss your content issues here. -- Orlady ( talk) 02:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
My suggested outline:
Calamitybrook ( talk) 16:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
For those unable to read it, the article is a "roundup" of minor local events, and the lack of a byline would be unsurprising. The headline merely refers to the column's lead item.
Calamitybrook ( talk) 16:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
If the Berkshire Eagle Article is not reliable enough to quote, than it must be disregarded altogether. Either the material is reliable, or it is not. The BNRC publication is clearly usable--and quote-able. Any reference to it should be direct and avoid wp:weasel words. I too am confused by your earlier remarks, CB. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 18:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with you in this case, but regardless, your suggested wording works for me. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Getting back to my "proposed" outline for Nomenclature section... What's unclear? You like Roman numerals?
Calamitybrook ( talk) 18:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 21:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
First, I agree with OrLady's re-revised wording. Second, I'd like to see the USBGN definition of the term included in the nomenclature section--and excluded from the lead, as is common for nearly every other article on landscape features on Wikipedia. Regarding your comments above ("my view of the dispute"), I see strong bias in them that is unsupported by the sources we've discusses so far, and I would not want to see that bias creep into the article as has been the case for the last month (or longer). Yes, let's stick to "available facts" and not embellish or interpret them using WP:weasel words. If you have something to propose, I, too would like to see what it looks like here--and I expect that it will be adequately tied to notable sources and and free of bias and conjecture.
On another note, and this is a minor item, but the inclusion of the description of "Yokuntown" seems not to belong in this article. This article is about the landform; it isn't a list of all things that use the name "Yokun." 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 01:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
PS, I would certainly like to see the material mentioned at the top of this section included in the article. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 01:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 01:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't dispute including information of who Yokun was, I dispute the inclusion of Yokuntown, which seems besides the point. I want to define Yokun Ridge in the lead, briefly but I don't think there needs to be discussion in the lead about the USBGN designation, which specifically belongs in the nomenclature section. I thought we weren't quoting the Berkshire Eagle source? If so, then the words "unilaterally" can't be considered here. And it didn't say he "invented" it, it said he "named" it--as I keep reminding you. This is exactly what I mean about conjecture and wp:weasel words. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 01:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I like your suggested revision of the lead, Orlady, with the exception of: 1) ". . .Outdoor recreation facilities on the ridge include Bousquet Ski Area and a network of hiking trails." Note that hiking trails aren't "facilities." Also note the the Audubon Pleasant Valley Sanctuary on the east side of the ridge has a interpretive nature and education center. Not that all of these things should be listed on the lead--and so you may want to consider a more general statement about recreation. 2)Stockbridge-Yokun Ridge Reserve I'm not sure that the term "conservation zone" means; it's a vague construct (coined here, I believe) that is too easily confused with "conservation area." Furthermore, it isn't an actual "reserve" but rather a proposed reserve to which funding from the Federal LWCF is tied. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 18:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Reference to this was included in the article but was removed several years ago by Calamaity: "The villages of Mount Ephriam and Yokuntown formed on either side of the ridge, both named for the two Mahicans who sold the ridge and surrounding lands to the colonists" emphasis on formerly deleted, same BNRC 'Yokun Ridge source referenced in the article. Furthermore, the 8th edition AMC guide says the ridge "owes its name" to J. Yokun [the Mahican]. I'd like to see this material returned to the article. This also gives credence to the inclusion of Yokuntown here. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 11:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 23:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The BNRC guide/map, already on the reflist, mentions both villages. I believe it is available online. ON another note, I would like to see the bit about the forest reserve folded under a general header titled "Conservation"; because I have some additional information on conservation activity I would like to include here; for example the material on the ski area, already mentioned on this discussion page. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 15:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I returned the information on the origins of the name "Yokun Ridge" to the top of the section. Remember, this is an article about "Yokun Ridge." The origins of the name "Yokun" or "Yokun Seat" are of secondary interest. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 21:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Also returned the distinction between "Nomenclature" and "History" sections that were conflated. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 21:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
There was a problem, however, with your construction "According to the book Mohicans of Stockbridge"......and then immediately saying that J. Yokun's name is related to Yokun Ridge. The book doesn't refer at all to Yokun Ridge.
Calamitybrook ( talk) 01:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate the new historical info on Yokun. Good. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 02:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
CB, is George W's description substantively different than the USGS description? I don't believe so. This article is about "Yokun Ridge", not a bunch of "hills." What exactly are you trying to get at this time? The first article referenced contains no mention of what Yokun Ridge contains (it is simply referred to as a "landform": "n 1971, Wislocki gave Yokun Ridge its name, launching an ongoing campaign to conserve the defining landform") and the second article has no internet reference to point to. If you want to bring a quotation from that article to light, please bring it here verbatum, and we can discuss. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 17:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, reading back into our previous discussions here, I see that we agreed that the Berkshire Eagle article (pretty much a blurb amongst other blurbs in news brief about local happenings) should not be quoted and was only to be regarded as supplemental reference. Given that there was consensus on the wording of the original passage (before your recent rewording attempts), and consensus on the exclusion of the Berkshire Eagle blurb, I could support the replacement of the word "feature" with "landform" but little beyond that. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 18:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Current Text: "Yokuntown," a designation for the village of Lenox in the 18th Century, was also named after Yokun.[6] George Wislocki, first director of the Berkshire Natural Resources Council, first applied the name "Yokun Ridge" to this feature in 1971.
Calamitybrook ( talk) 19:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph break is working for me, but I can see how it might not work for someone else. If the second paragraph were brought to the top (Orlady recently moved it), this would no longer be an issue. Changing "feature" to "landform" or simply "ridge" would also resolve the ambiguity. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 00:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
So you would support the changing of "feature" to "landform" or "ridge" in order to clarify the paragraph transition? I agree that "nomenclature" is probably not the best name for that section. However, I would object to a total dumping of all the information in that section into the history section, as much of it is simply geography, not history. I don't object to removing parts of it to the history section and other parts to the geography section, although I would like to see this done in a way that is appropriate (i.e. non-subversive). 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 00:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Seeing ongoing editing but no objection to the suggestion to change "feature" to "landform" I have gone ahead and made the change. I have also moved the sentence about the naming of Yokuntown, which is historical trivia unrelated to the naming of the ridge, into the history section that mentions J. Yokun. This should also help clarify the paragraph transition. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 20:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I've added references that show that the name Yokun Ridge has been used by Mass Audubon, the Bousquest Ski Area, and the town of Lenox. I also noticed that the term is in use by various businesses in the town of Lenox and by the Lenox Land Trust, although I did not want to overburden the article with this information. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 18:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 23:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following material because: 1) It seems vague and extraneous at best and at worst WP:Coatrack and 2) I am concerned that it may have been erroneously referenced. I'd like to see the actual quote from the source before this is reintroduced. I'd also like to see the passage reworded to make it more relevant. Here's the original: "Charles E. Little's Greenways for America (1990) includes the term "Stockbridge-Yokun Ridge" in a section concerning activities of the Berkshire Natural Resources Council. [4]" 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 14:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I also removed the following: "The term "Lenox Range" was used to describe those parts of the ridge exclusive of West Stockbridge Mountain in the 1939 volume The Berkshire Hills by the Federal Writers Project (page 88) and also in a 1900 article concerning Lenox in New England Magazine. [5]" because the material does not appear to match the reference source. This should be corrected if the material is to stand. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 16:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed the entire geology section from the article. Some of it may be valid, but after I looked at the cited sources I concluded that it is essentially WP:SYNTHESIS, a form of original research -- i.e., content that does not belong in Wikipedia. Here's what I removed:
- Geology
The present-day bedrock of Yokun Ridge originated as deposits of mud and silt in the Iapetus Ocean, a precursor to the Atlantic. These deposits were compressed into their current form and thrust into roughly their present-day position about 440 million years ago during the Taconic Orogeny,<ref>Ecological Characteristics of the Housatonic River, Section II-6, US EPA http://www.epa.gov/ne/ge/thesite/restofriver/reports/final_era/EcoCharReport.pdf</ref> which resulted from the collision of the North American Plate into a group of volcanic islands<ref>Raymo, Chet and Maureen E. (1989). Written in Stone: A Geologic History of the Northeastern United</ref> Subsequent erosion and glacial periods also contributed significantly to present topography {{citation needed|date=May 2011}}.
A half-dozen or more geological formations have been identified in Berkshire County, two of which account for the bedrock of Yokun Ridge. The Everett Formation underlies most of the area, and consists of light-green and greenish-gray chlorite- muscovite- albite or chloritoid-rich phyllite, shifting to predominantly dark-gray chloritoid-rich schist on Lenox Mountain. Other portions of Yokun Ridge are underlaid by the Walloomsac Formation's dark-gray, graphitic quartz phyllite and schist containing minor lenses of limestone. The surrounding lower elevations are largely made up of the Stockbridge Formation.<ref name="tin.er.usgs.gov">USGS Geological Units in Berkshire County (please see also relevant sub-pages) http://tin.er.usgs.gov/geology/state/fips-unit.php?code=f25003</ref>
The entire region lies within the Taconic-Berkshire Zone of Ordovician and older rocks, and is also part of the Taconic Allochthon <ref name="tin.er.usgs.gov"/>.
The sources are not specific to Yokun Ridge (and, to complicate matters, they don't mention that name). For the most part, they are about the geology of the entire region. The region is geologically complex, so there is no reason to think that something mentioned as part of the region's geologic story has any specific relevance to Yokun Ridge. Please discuss the topic here, and do not restore content to the article until there is consensus that it belongs there. -- Orlady ( talk) 18:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 17:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 23:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 00:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree (although not with the sarcasm and tone, which are inappropriate). As I have said before, I don't have my copy of Raymo in front of me, but I will make it a point to dig it out sometime this summer. I also have an article from an academic journal with a fairly through description of the Taconic geology, including maps, also in storage. I will be revisiting this issue later, with sources. I may (and feel free to jump the gun) pick up a copy of the Roadside Geology of Massachusetts which, if I remember right, has some pretty good descriptions, too. Content and Wiki policy on content aside, I just wanted to say that I am pretty darn well disappointed with the ongoing warring between you two that has spanned a number of articles at this point. Although I do not agree with CB's antics and I am frequently glad that an administrator has been active in reigning in some of his excess, I am concerned that what I am seeing here is evidence of a vendetta. Please, take a step back and rethink. Coming up with a reasonable description of the geology and rock types that make up this range should not be this difficult to accomplish. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 11:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
So it's definitely a land form. Definitely has geology. It's got sources. But HUH? Can't discuss? Can't include section on this? Why? WHAH? Maybe this was created by God in ten days?? 76.250.61.95 ( talk) 23:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Yokun Ridge. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 19:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Am going fix by killing feet. Calamitybrook ( talk) 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 21:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Some background into the origins of the name would be great. Who knows when it began? If you find such information, I hope you'll reference it in the article. The current (2004) AMC Trail Guide to Massachusetts indicates Yokun Ridge (page 38); your copy is extremely out of date. As for the USBGN, you can actually write to them, demonstrate that the name is in use (i.e., refer to the BNRC map/guide and current AMC guide), and they'll add it to their database (I've done it myself with other landscape features). They're concerned with common, provable useage that can be referenced, not original useage.-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 22:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I found the origin of the name, page 38 of the new AMC Guide: "The Ridge owes its name to Jehoiakim Yokun, who owned much of this land around 1740."-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 22:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 00:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
For readability, could you please condense your remarks and set them off with the same delineation (how ever many colons you choose, as long as they are consistent)? Yes, it is certainly possible that "Yokun Ridge" was derived from "Yokun Seat." In my experience dealing with landscape features, especially in New England, the further back you go, the harder it is to see where a name comes from. Old names for places fall in and out of use. For instance, Mount Washington was once the name of the South Taconic Range (still the name of the town in that area). It's really difficult to say when "Yokun Ridge" originated; although I agree it seems that its use became more popular in the last ten or fifteen years. But that doesn't mean that there isn't some old map or text lying around somewhere that someone got hold of and resurrected the name from. In any case, it's a moot point, because, as you say, the name is being used by reliable, printed sources today, including the AMC which you seem to think is a good source of information. As for the USBGN, you should try them sometime and see what kind of results you get. The proof is in the pudding. Not to say that they'll accept a bogus call for a name change, of course. -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 15:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it would indeed be interesting; best of luck in conclusively discovering it's origin. Personal beliefs, speculation, and theories aside, of course. In any case, Yokun Seat and Yokun Ridge (derived from Yokun Seat or in homage to J.Yokun) are clearly named after the same Yokun.-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 15:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The USBGN shows "Yokun Ridge" as ". . . a distinct 9-mile ridgeline including West Stockbridge Mountain and Lenox Mountain (including the summits of Mahanna Cobble, Yokun Seat, and Baldhead); it is a sub-range of the Taconic Mountains." Article edited to reflected official designation. See USBGN http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=154:3:4157071828966131::NO::P3_FID,P3_TITLE:2519194,Yokun%20Ridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 17:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
According to the USBGN, it's a "ridge," not a "region" or anything else. That's the official designation. A distinct article about the forest reserve can be created seperately, if needed. This article, however, is specifically about the land feature--a ridge--named "Yokun Ridge," specifically described as a "ridge" landform by the USBGN and encompassing the features indicated on the USBGN database--regardless of 'when' the name originated. It is NOT about the forest reserve, although it may contain the forest reserve. If you want to write an article about the forest reserve, that would be nice, but this is not the place to do that specifically (although it should be mentioned here), especially since the forest reserve you are describing isn't even called "Yokun Ridge". To summarize, if you disagree with the USBGN designation, or the idea that Wikipedia should allow an article about a land feature described by the USBGN, you can write a properly titled article about the forest reserve and put this article up for deletion. BTW, Calamity B, discuss here or elsewhere, don't make a 3RR on properly sourced material. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 22:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 00:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful edits, sorry we have been having trouble communicating. Regardless of the history of the landform as you would like it, the USBGN does refer to it as a "distinct ridge"; that's an actual quote from their database. I've included that quote in the lead. It's accurately sourced material, sorry you don't like it, but please refrain from deleting it. And again, it isn't "a group of hills" it's specifically a "ridge" and part of "The Taconic Mountains" according to the USBGN, direct quote again. The USBGN defines what a "ridge" is. Furthermore, I felt it necessary to remove the relative term, "very recent." Sure you understand why that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and in any event the date of USBGN designation is noted directly in the nomenclature section, along with the note RE: the Berkshire Natural Resources Council source. It's already in the article. BTW and aside, I'm not seeing any backup source for your assumption/accusation "as a term dreamed rather recently up by Berkshire Natural Resources Council in order to drum up support for land preservation." That's a pretty strong and specific accusation. Perhaps you are right. If you are, awesome! Find a source that says that. It would certainly be cool conspiracy material to include in the article, but it won't change the USBGN designation, or make this article into an article about the forest reserve. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 02:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. and this is beating a dead cat, but in my opinion, after looking at a topo map, the landform appears to be one distinct ridge to me, cleft by various gaps and offset a bit here and there. It depends on the map scale you're looking at, but even at the stadard 7.5 series, in my opinion, it's one landform. And that's the point--it's my interpretation or WP:OR, just as your read on a topo map is WP:OR, therefore the USBGN, which isn't WP:OR. As far as historic useage, you seem smart enough to know that names for landforms change over time: certain names fall out of use, while others fall into use. It happens, whether we agree with it or not 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 03:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 15:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 21:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 15:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Responses:
You persist in the notion that the board of names is the sole available source. The U.S. GS quadrangle is a perfectly good source and Baldhead and a number of other features are clearly not "part of a distinct ridge," a phrase, which I think can nonetheless be incorporated into the article.
Calamitybrook ( talk) 03:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Compromise is fine as long as it does not include original research, bias, relative terminology, unsourced opinion, conjecture, or other material generally unacceptable to Wikipedia. I'm willing to work within that framework. Glad to hear that you think the name "Yokun Ridge" is valid. Baldhead is a peak located off of the main ridge crest but part of the ridge as a whole. It is described by the USBGN as part of the ridge; it appears to be clearly part of the ridge to me. Perhaps you have a very narrow idea of what a "ridge" is. The U.S.G.S. quad you mention doesn't describe the term "Yokun Ridge." Your personal intrepretations of USGS maps over the sourced USBGN designation aren't acceptable. Again, this is an article about the land feature described as "Yokun Ridge"--it is not a reserve,a group of hills, an "area," a "so called ridge", a cupcake, or any other thing. It is a ridge. If you have sourced material that specifically describes the land feature called "Yokun Ridge" as anything but a ridge, please include it, cited properly. In fact, cite any material you introduce to this article. Yes, the year 2009 is already included in the article, under nomenclature, as I keep reminding you to no avail. I put it there, for anyone to read. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 04:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 16:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"In 1971, George knew there was a place called Lenox Mountain and a place called West Stockbridge Mountain," said Ames. "Not content, he unilaterally named the great 12-mile ridge line Yokun Ridge, and in doing so, he understood that the whole is so much greater than the sum of all parts."
Calamitybrook ( talk) 18:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Good. I think you should include this material in the nomenclature section. Note, however, that according to this quote you unearthed, the landform now known as "Yokun Ridge" was formerly an unnamed "great 12 mile ridge" consisting of Lenox Mountain and West Stockbridge Mountain the "sum of all parts." Like I have been saying all along, it's a ridge. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 21:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 21:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but there was no "colloquial usage" for the geographic feature either before it was named "Yokun Ridge" or now. It was simply unnamed. Its various parts had names--Lenox Mountain, West Stockbridge Mountain, etc. Articles can be written about those parts. Again--and I just keep on saying it--this article is about the landform named "Yokun Ridge." 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 22:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
--Furthermore: if your attempt at a "caveat" is to undermine the designation of "Yokun Ridge" as a "ridge" you bear the burden of finding a good source that specifically states that Yokun Ridge is not a ridge. All you have come up with so far is material describing the nomenclature of various parts of the now-named Yokun Ridge, formerly unnamed. That the ridge remained unnamed for so long doesn't mean that is isn't a ridge. New England abounds with unnamed geographic features. Periodically, some usage or another results in formerly unnamed features acquiring names. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 22:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"Yokun Ridge" starts showing up in the newspapers in 2007. So I'd say yeah, it's actual, but probably want some sort of caveat in the lede, for those not born yesterday, so to speak.
Calamitybrook ( talk) 01:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. The designation date is now included in the lead. Since the same sentence states that the ridge is made up of Lenox Mountain and West Stockbridge Mountain, there should be no confusion among the "few million people" who are familiar with the parts but not the whole. I hope that puts this to bed, as there are much more productive things we could be spending our time on here. BTW1, and I keep repeating this to no avail, but this is not an article about the various parts of the ridge. It's isn't a renaming of Lenox Mountain or West Stockbridge Mountain. There was no "actual useage" for the whole ridge before 1971 (40 years ago!) there was only actual useage for parts of the ridge. Those "not born yesterday" can read articles written specifically about Lenox Mountain or West Stockbridge Mountain, which you could have been writing instead of going on here. BTW2, why do you insist on writing your posts in haiku-like format? It is difficult to parse and wastes space on the discussion board. Can you at least try to keep your signature and all of your text on the same indent stop? 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 21:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 18:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Good. I've revised your revision somewhat, rewording the speculative statements that are not backed up by the sources attached to them. I've also restored the quoted, sourced material that was deleted, and made some other stylistic changes. Hopefully we are almost finished. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 20:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 20:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
CB, please stop deleting sourced material. The quote is indeed relevant as it describes how and who named the ridge. Using the quote avoids either you or I interpreting that naming process and incidentally inserting bias into this document. It's sourced material. I've asked you to desist in deleting sourced material in this document several times before this. As for the USBGN description listing the various parts of the ridge as described by the USBGN, that material is relevant and was not included in the lead. Again, do not delete sourced material! Thank you for your understanding. I have moved the history of the term "Yokun" to the front because the use of "Yokun" preceeds "Yokun Ridge." 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 23:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 00:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of how you feel personally about the quote (by Tad Ames, current director of BNRC and formerly a reporter for the Berkshire Eagle) or chicken dinners, the quote is valid, notable material from a reliable source. You yourself indicated that you believed that BNRC named the ridge and you first introduced the quote as proof of that claim here [2]. If you want to delete the quote, please take your argument above to WP:rfc and get the opinion of other editors. Until then refrain from deleting it, as you are one strike away from wp:3rr edit warring among other issues. Regarding the second matter, the USBGN material, this section establishes exactly what the USBGN says is part of the ridge. I could quote them verbatum, if you'd like. Your call. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 00:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 01:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Take your issue to wp:rfc. Since it's only the two of us here, since you are maxed out on your reverts, and since this page is now protected, you have little other recourse.
In the mean time, my final responses to your remarks: 1)The USBGN definition of the ridge is not established until the nomenclature section. If you would like me to bring that exact definition to the lead, I have no problem with that.
2) Your personal and strongly biased negative opinions of BNRC or the reporters of the Berkshire Eagle don't hold any weight here. The material is notable, interesting, of historic significance, and hence quoteable. You yourself indicate the quote as proof of BNRC's original use of the name Yokun Ridge. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
3) The material is notable because: a) it was spoken by the current and long term executive director of BNRC, who is in a position to be qualified to speak about the organization's history. Ames also worked for many years as a reporter for the Eagle further qualifying him to speak on events relating to the history of the area; and b) It was recorded and published by a public newspaper, the Berkshire Eagle, which passes the test here on Wikipedia for a notable source of information--regardless of your personal bias against so called "small town" newspapers.
4) Finally, I should point out that the quote is simply that--a quote. Readers can take from it what they like. Ames' statement doesn't have to be true--it simply has to be notable. But, of course, you have already asserted that it is true.
Again, take your beef to the wp:rfc. If it has merit, as you claim, you should have no trouble prevailing. In the mean time, I'm done here--and so are you. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 04:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. with more than two participants here, we might be able to move through this. Reponses:
1) Yes, it isn't cited properly. The material was first introduced here, in this talk page, by the other editor, as support for the assertion that the ridge was first named "Yokun Ridge" in 1971 by the Berkshire Natural Resources Council, a land conservation NGO. I have no problem with removal of the material--and all it supports-- until a proper citation is available.
2) See above and: Perhaps the full quote would go further in establishing context "'In 1971, George knew there was a place called Lenox Mountain and a place called West Stockbridge Mountain,' said [Tad] Ames [executive Director of BNRC, a land conservation NGO]. "Not content, he unilaterally named the great 12-mile ridge line Yokun Ridge, and in doing so, he understood that the whole is so much greater than the sum of all parts." The quote by the executive director of BNRC directly and specifically pertains to the naming of the ridge and goes further to explain why and how. The quote is meaningful because it demonstrates that BNRC considered the ridge to be one uniform landform when it was named; b) the quote addresses the how and why for the naming of the whole ridge by the former ED of BNRC, who named it; and b) as far as I understand, a published quote from an executive director of an NGO regarding the history of the same NGO and its actions, is indeed notable material and not simply unreliable opinion. But it could be introduced with more context, yes. However, if Ames is unreliable, then his assertion that the ridge was named in 1971 must also be considered unreliable. All of that aside, I have no issue with something worded as follows: "According to Tad Ames, executive director of the Berkshire Natural Resources Council, the name Yokun Ridge was applied to the ridge in 1971 by George Wilsocki, former executive director of BNRC." I would, however, take exception to the statement--reintroduced several times to this article--that the name was "invented" by Wislocki, which is not supported by the quote or source--"named" is not the same as "invented." Ala wp:weasel words.
3)I did not introduce this statement; I have no issue with its deletion. The other editor can weigh in here. To be fair to him, the USBGN database, a listing of landscape features officially accepted by the federal government, is available to anyone with a computer and an internet connection. It is easy to use and requires no interpretation or processing--either something is listed in it, or it isn't listed. I don't believe that constitutes wp:or.
4) I did not introduce the material on "Greenways to America"; I have no feelings for it either way. I shuffled it around the section, nothing more. The other editor can weigh in on its relevance.
5) Ditto. I did not introduce the history material. I placed the citation tags there per WP:AGF (as it jived with what I already know about the area), instead of removing it, but, yes, the material cannot hold up to a challenge of "deleted, unsourced." However, I believe, and I don't have the material before me at the moment, that much of it is sourced in the BNRC publication cited elsewhere in this article. I would be glad to check on this later.
6) Agreed, I have no attachment to the dog walking stuff.
Hope that helps to clarify the situation 209.198.69.35 ( talk) 15:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. Yes, the same. If I decide to contribute further (beyond this article) I will create a username. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 18:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I have full-protected this page to stop the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss your content issues here. -- Orlady ( talk) 02:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
My suggested outline:
Calamitybrook ( talk) 16:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
For those unable to read it, the article is a "roundup" of minor local events, and the lack of a byline would be unsurprising. The headline merely refers to the column's lead item.
Calamitybrook ( talk) 16:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
If the Berkshire Eagle Article is not reliable enough to quote, than it must be disregarded altogether. Either the material is reliable, or it is not. The BNRC publication is clearly usable--and quote-able. Any reference to it should be direct and avoid wp:weasel words. I too am confused by your earlier remarks, CB. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 18:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with you in this case, but regardless, your suggested wording works for me. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Getting back to my "proposed" outline for Nomenclature section... What's unclear? You like Roman numerals?
Calamitybrook ( talk) 18:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 21:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
First, I agree with OrLady's re-revised wording. Second, I'd like to see the USBGN definition of the term included in the nomenclature section--and excluded from the lead, as is common for nearly every other article on landscape features on Wikipedia. Regarding your comments above ("my view of the dispute"), I see strong bias in them that is unsupported by the sources we've discusses so far, and I would not want to see that bias creep into the article as has been the case for the last month (or longer). Yes, let's stick to "available facts" and not embellish or interpret them using WP:weasel words. If you have something to propose, I, too would like to see what it looks like here--and I expect that it will be adequately tied to notable sources and and free of bias and conjecture.
On another note, and this is a minor item, but the inclusion of the description of "Yokuntown" seems not to belong in this article. This article is about the landform; it isn't a list of all things that use the name "Yokun." 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 01:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
PS, I would certainly like to see the material mentioned at the top of this section included in the article. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 01:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 01:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't dispute including information of who Yokun was, I dispute the inclusion of Yokuntown, which seems besides the point. I want to define Yokun Ridge in the lead, briefly but I don't think there needs to be discussion in the lead about the USBGN designation, which specifically belongs in the nomenclature section. I thought we weren't quoting the Berkshire Eagle source? If so, then the words "unilaterally" can't be considered here. And it didn't say he "invented" it, it said he "named" it--as I keep reminding you. This is exactly what I mean about conjecture and wp:weasel words. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 01:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I like your suggested revision of the lead, Orlady, with the exception of: 1) ". . .Outdoor recreation facilities on the ridge include Bousquet Ski Area and a network of hiking trails." Note that hiking trails aren't "facilities." Also note the the Audubon Pleasant Valley Sanctuary on the east side of the ridge has a interpretive nature and education center. Not that all of these things should be listed on the lead--and so you may want to consider a more general statement about recreation. 2)Stockbridge-Yokun Ridge Reserve I'm not sure that the term "conservation zone" means; it's a vague construct (coined here, I believe) that is too easily confused with "conservation area." Furthermore, it isn't an actual "reserve" but rather a proposed reserve to which funding from the Federal LWCF is tied. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 18:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Reference to this was included in the article but was removed several years ago by Calamaity: "The villages of Mount Ephriam and Yokuntown formed on either side of the ridge, both named for the two Mahicans who sold the ridge and surrounding lands to the colonists" emphasis on formerly deleted, same BNRC 'Yokun Ridge source referenced in the article. Furthermore, the 8th edition AMC guide says the ridge "owes its name" to J. Yokun [the Mahican]. I'd like to see this material returned to the article. This also gives credence to the inclusion of Yokuntown here. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 11:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 23:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The BNRC guide/map, already on the reflist, mentions both villages. I believe it is available online. ON another note, I would like to see the bit about the forest reserve folded under a general header titled "Conservation"; because I have some additional information on conservation activity I would like to include here; for example the material on the ski area, already mentioned on this discussion page. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 15:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I returned the information on the origins of the name "Yokun Ridge" to the top of the section. Remember, this is an article about "Yokun Ridge." The origins of the name "Yokun" or "Yokun Seat" are of secondary interest. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 21:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Also returned the distinction between "Nomenclature" and "History" sections that were conflated. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 21:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
There was a problem, however, with your construction "According to the book Mohicans of Stockbridge"......and then immediately saying that J. Yokun's name is related to Yokun Ridge. The book doesn't refer at all to Yokun Ridge.
Calamitybrook ( talk) 01:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate the new historical info on Yokun. Good. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 02:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
CB, is George W's description substantively different than the USGS description? I don't believe so. This article is about "Yokun Ridge", not a bunch of "hills." What exactly are you trying to get at this time? The first article referenced contains no mention of what Yokun Ridge contains (it is simply referred to as a "landform": "n 1971, Wislocki gave Yokun Ridge its name, launching an ongoing campaign to conserve the defining landform") and the second article has no internet reference to point to. If you want to bring a quotation from that article to light, please bring it here verbatum, and we can discuss. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 17:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, reading back into our previous discussions here, I see that we agreed that the Berkshire Eagle article (pretty much a blurb amongst other blurbs in news brief about local happenings) should not be quoted and was only to be regarded as supplemental reference. Given that there was consensus on the wording of the original passage (before your recent rewording attempts), and consensus on the exclusion of the Berkshire Eagle blurb, I could support the replacement of the word "feature" with "landform" but little beyond that. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 18:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Current Text: "Yokuntown," a designation for the village of Lenox in the 18th Century, was also named after Yokun.[6] George Wislocki, first director of the Berkshire Natural Resources Council, first applied the name "Yokun Ridge" to this feature in 1971.
Calamitybrook ( talk) 19:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph break is working for me, but I can see how it might not work for someone else. If the second paragraph were brought to the top (Orlady recently moved it), this would no longer be an issue. Changing "feature" to "landform" or simply "ridge" would also resolve the ambiguity. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 00:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
So you would support the changing of "feature" to "landform" or "ridge" in order to clarify the paragraph transition? I agree that "nomenclature" is probably not the best name for that section. However, I would object to a total dumping of all the information in that section into the history section, as much of it is simply geography, not history. I don't object to removing parts of it to the history section and other parts to the geography section, although I would like to see this done in a way that is appropriate (i.e. non-subversive). 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 00:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Seeing ongoing editing but no objection to the suggestion to change "feature" to "landform" I have gone ahead and made the change. I have also moved the sentence about the naming of Yokuntown, which is historical trivia unrelated to the naming of the ridge, into the history section that mentions J. Yokun. This should also help clarify the paragraph transition. 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 20:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I've added references that show that the name Yokun Ridge has been used by Mass Audubon, the Bousquest Ski Area, and the town of Lenox. I also noticed that the term is in use by various businesses in the town of Lenox and by the Lenox Land Trust, although I did not want to overburden the article with this information. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 18:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 23:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following material because: 1) It seems vague and extraneous at best and at worst WP:Coatrack and 2) I am concerned that it may have been erroneously referenced. I'd like to see the actual quote from the source before this is reintroduced. I'd also like to see the passage reworded to make it more relevant. Here's the original: "Charles E. Little's Greenways for America (1990) includes the term "Stockbridge-Yokun Ridge" in a section concerning activities of the Berkshire Natural Resources Council. [4]" 173.166.71.233 ( talk) 14:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I also removed the following: "The term "Lenox Range" was used to describe those parts of the ridge exclusive of West Stockbridge Mountain in the 1939 volume The Berkshire Hills by the Federal Writers Project (page 88) and also in a 1900 article concerning Lenox in New England Magazine. [5]" because the material does not appear to match the reference source. This should be corrected if the material is to stand. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 16:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed the entire geology section from the article. Some of it may be valid, but after I looked at the cited sources I concluded that it is essentially WP:SYNTHESIS, a form of original research -- i.e., content that does not belong in Wikipedia. Here's what I removed:
- Geology
The present-day bedrock of Yokun Ridge originated as deposits of mud and silt in the Iapetus Ocean, a precursor to the Atlantic. These deposits were compressed into their current form and thrust into roughly their present-day position about 440 million years ago during the Taconic Orogeny,<ref>Ecological Characteristics of the Housatonic River, Section II-6, US EPA http://www.epa.gov/ne/ge/thesite/restofriver/reports/final_era/EcoCharReport.pdf</ref> which resulted from the collision of the North American Plate into a group of volcanic islands<ref>Raymo, Chet and Maureen E. (1989). Written in Stone: A Geologic History of the Northeastern United</ref> Subsequent erosion and glacial periods also contributed significantly to present topography {{citation needed|date=May 2011}}.
A half-dozen or more geological formations have been identified in Berkshire County, two of which account for the bedrock of Yokun Ridge. The Everett Formation underlies most of the area, and consists of light-green and greenish-gray chlorite- muscovite- albite or chloritoid-rich phyllite, shifting to predominantly dark-gray chloritoid-rich schist on Lenox Mountain. Other portions of Yokun Ridge are underlaid by the Walloomsac Formation's dark-gray, graphitic quartz phyllite and schist containing minor lenses of limestone. The surrounding lower elevations are largely made up of the Stockbridge Formation.<ref name="tin.er.usgs.gov">USGS Geological Units in Berkshire County (please see also relevant sub-pages) http://tin.er.usgs.gov/geology/state/fips-unit.php?code=f25003</ref>
The entire region lies within the Taconic-Berkshire Zone of Ordovician and older rocks, and is also part of the Taconic Allochthon <ref name="tin.er.usgs.gov"/>.
The sources are not specific to Yokun Ridge (and, to complicate matters, they don't mention that name). For the most part, they are about the geology of the entire region. The region is geologically complex, so there is no reason to think that something mentioned as part of the region's geologic story has any specific relevance to Yokun Ridge. Please discuss the topic here, and do not restore content to the article until there is consensus that it belongs there. -- Orlady ( talk) 18:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 17:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 23:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Calamitybrook ( talk) 00:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree (although not with the sarcasm and tone, which are inappropriate). As I have said before, I don't have my copy of Raymo in front of me, but I will make it a point to dig it out sometime this summer. I also have an article from an academic journal with a fairly through description of the Taconic geology, including maps, also in storage. I will be revisiting this issue later, with sources. I may (and feel free to jump the gun) pick up a copy of the Roadside Geology of Massachusetts which, if I remember right, has some pretty good descriptions, too. Content and Wiki policy on content aside, I just wanted to say that I am pretty darn well disappointed with the ongoing warring between you two that has spanned a number of articles at this point. Although I do not agree with CB's antics and I am frequently glad that an administrator has been active in reigning in some of his excess, I am concerned that what I am seeing here is evidence of a vendetta. Please, take a step back and rethink. Coming up with a reasonable description of the geology and rock types that make up this range should not be this difficult to accomplish. 24.147.66.106 ( talk) 11:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
So it's definitely a land form. Definitely has geology. It's got sources. But HUH? Can't discuss? Can't include section on this? Why? WHAH? Maybe this was created by God in ten days?? 76.250.61.95 ( talk) 23:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Yokun Ridge. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 19:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)