Talk:Rocky Mountains.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 

 
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

Colorado Quarter

An earlier version stated that Long's Peak is on the reverse of the Colorado State quarted. This is inaccurate, as there was not a specific mountain or real world image selected for the minting (US MINT, Colorado.gov)--Tbkflav 21:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the picture of the quarter, it is not necessary for this article; actual pictures of the Rockies are far better than a picture on a coin. Furthermore, the placement of the picture broke the article up and didn't fit right. If someone is absolutely against this change, please post your argument in favor in its inclusion.

Population density

Something is not right here: "an average of four people per square kilometer (2.5 per square mile)." 4 people/km^2 does not equal 2.5 people/mi^2, but I don't know which number is wrong. --GJKing 19:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Tallest peak

If the Rockies are seid to extend all the way Mt. Elbert isn't the tallest mountain, is it? What about the many taller peaks in Canada and Alaska? --LMS

I find the tallest peak in the Canadian Rockies listed as Mt. Robson at less than 13000 feet. Canada's tallest peak, Mt Logan is in the St. Elias Mountains. It may depend on our exact definition of mountain ranges.
Yes, Mount Robson is the highest peak in the Canadian Rockies at 3,954m (12,972') RedWolf 04:20, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
It appears that the Rockies in Alaska are called the Brooks Range, with maximum heights around 10000 feet. Taller mountains are in the Alaska Range.
The Brooks Range is the Brooks Range and NOT part of the Rockies, same as the Selwyns or Mackenzies or Alaska Ranges - all in different mountain systems even if gee-whiz oversimplifiers think of all mountains in western North America as "the Rockies". The Rockies END at the Liard River, just south of the BC-Yukon border. The Brooks Range is no more part of the Rockies than the Cascades or Appalachians are.Skookum1 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
As long as we are on issues about the Rockies, I've got to throw in my 2 cents. As a long time resident of the Rockies, I can say that there are no "Rockies" in Colorado, by that I mean we have names for ranges in Colorado that together comprise the rockies. Mt. Elbert for example is the highest point in Colorado, but it is in the Sawatch Range, So would you say it is not in the Rockies? I had always understood the Rockies to stretch from Mexico to Alaska, could the Alaska Range still be in the rockies? Just a thought. --Throughthelens 23:39, 7 March 2006
I think Mt. McKinley is the tallest of all, approximately 6,194 metres (20,320 feet). --Maxl 19:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To address Throughthelens, all the 'ranges' in Colorada, such as the Sawatch Range, are essentially regions of the greater range known as the Rocky Mountains. These 'miniature ranges' are named so as to distinguish different parts of the Rockies. Thus the Sawatch Range is part of the Rockies. Mt. Elbert is, therefore, part of the Rockies. In addition, the Alaska Range is a separate mountain range entirely and not, geologically or geographically part of the Rockies. To address Max, Mt. McKinley is not in the Rockies.

Metric

For everyone in the world other than Americans, shouldn't peaks be given in metric?

Mountains/peaks should be given in metres and feet. Even in the USA, the US gov't now lists elevations in metres and feet in the modern maps I have seen. RedWolf 04:20, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
What about the British? Our increasingly dictatorial government is trying to force us to use foreign units, but millions of us are ingoring it. Piccadilly 23:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Be that as it may, the SI for length and height is metres, and should be used. more British and American people understand metres than other people understand feet. Blupping 13:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Citizens of the United States are, by and large, not taught the metric system and the average US citizen does not have a good conception of how long a metre is. Given that the Rockies are in the US both feet and metres should be given. --The Way 06:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Climate

I believe that the second section of Climate should be removed. The Rockies stretches from N.Mex. to NW Alaska, one description WILL NOT cover all the variation in their climate. The current version is likely written by someone who took the data from a specific location.

I'll leave that up for one more week. If there are no objections, I will begin to make correction by first removing that section. — LegolasGreenleaf 13:43, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • Currently, it seems to describe the climate in the Rockies of Colorado or Wyoming. The Canadian Rockies are typically much colder in winter and not as warm in the summer. -2°C is hardly "very cold" for winter temps. RedWolf 06:42, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Mexico

The Rockies extend from N.Mex. to NW Alaska. Their southernmost peaks are in the northern part of the American state of New Mexico. The ranges in Mexico are called by other names.

Even though they are called by a different name in Mexico, aren't they the same chain of mountains?

Answer... there is a great deal of confusion as to what the Rockies encompass. The definition used in the article is the continuous chain of dolomitic fold mountains on the eastern edge of North America's Western Cordillera. This is the correct definition. However, in popular usage, the term is often used to mean the entire Cordillera, which extends from Western Alaska to Panama. So the Rockies do not extend into Mexico, although the Cordillera does. The Rockies were formed by the same westward continental drift as the rest of the Cordillera, but are a geologically distinct subunit of it.

The Rockies extend from N.Mex. to NW Alaska. - first you set yourself up with a false statement, then go asking questions premised on that false statement e.g. as to what "other" names for them are even though those would be their REAL names. The Rockies end several hundred miles shy of Alaska (well, except E-W from the Panhandle to the north-of-Peace River Northern Rockies, in which case it's more lik 300-400 miles. What do they teach you in US schools anyway? The Rockies are only a part of the Western Cordillera/Pacific Cordillera, not its entirety. This reminds me of when Maggie Thatcher landed in Vancouver and quipped how beautiful "the Rocky Mountains" looked (she was referring to the North Shore Mountains, a subrange of the Coast Mountains).Skookum1 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

map

although i like the pictures, i think that a map showing the rocky mountains is would be a beautiful addition. so, a suggestion for someone who has the time... peace — ishwar  (SPEAK) 21:37, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

I have drawn a new map (Image:RockyMountainsLocatorMap.png) that includes both the Canadian and United State sections of the Rocky Mountains. As I was drawing it, I discovered some discrepancies on the northern extent of the range. This article says the Rockies continue into Alaska but other sources (including Canadian Rocky Mountains and Encarta [1]) say the Rockies end in northern British Columbia near the Liard River. If any notices any errors in my map, let me know and I'll fix it. Al guy 23:27, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
thank you very much for your work. cheers — ishwar  (SPEAK) 16:22, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
The map leaves out all of the mountains of Central Idaho which make up a considerable proportion of the Rocky Mountains in the US. Metrodyne
This drawing, by the US Geological Survey and the US National Park Service, will help you redraw the United States portion of the map. [2] The map also leaves out most of the Rocky Mountains located in north central Utah. The western boundary of the Rockies in Utah is called the Wasatch Front; the valleys along this boundary are home to nearly 2 million Utahns. The visual presence of these mountains adjacent to the population centers, as well as their influence on weather and the recreational opportunities available, contributes much to life in northern Utah. DanB (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Tourism correction

Have removed Glacier and Revelstoke national parks from the Canadian list, as neither are within the Rocky Mountains.Ian mckenzie 03:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Since when is northern Idaho not in the Rockies? I beleive nearly all of Idaho's mountains are part of the rocky mountains. The only exceptions might be those near Nevada/Oregon borders. metrodyne

Requested additions

The Britannica article covers some things this articles doesn't yet cover, or barely does:

  • Soils
  • Plant life
  • Animal life
  • Water resources

It also has more detail on glaciation. Piccadilly 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay i need help with this project!!

I need to know Three animals 2 plants DEscription of the habitat with the niche of each one and the f living organisms


Industries and several other bits, possible plagiarism?

Part of this article bears a staggeringly accurate resemblance to the article on The Rocky Mountains by Thomas J. Stohlgren of the USGS Biological resources division, Fort Collins, Colorado, to be found at biology.usgs.gov. The parts of this article about hydrology, industry (and I ran out of time to check any more), are almost word-for-word. Also the "inaccurate" calculation of population density discussed earlier is from his article. Does anybody know, is Mr. Stohlgren a willing or "accidental" contributor and does HE know? --ATeacher 3/Dec/06, 10:15 GMT

If the work is part of his employment with the USGS, it is public domain and there is no legal obligation to even acknowledge his authorship. There is, of course, significant moral reason to cite sources, and Wikipedia normally encourages even public domain sources to be re-cast into Wikipedia style, amalgamating multiple sources. I know nothing about by who or when the sections you mention were "created" but if you can add references that would be good. cheers --Geologyguy 14:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, we can indeed copy and paste directly from most federal websites such as [3] (as an example)...but it must be attributed and referenced in some manner.--MONGO 15:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Panic over, there's a string of references for it now, perhaps there was before and I'm too new/dumb/tired to notice. I'll remove this bit in a few days, so you see this reply. Unless that's bad Wikietiquette, tell me if you have time.

--ATeacher 5/Dec/06, 22:20 GMT

You're fine, another user, Hike395, added those references after your first notice was posted, so it did what you needed it to do. Just leave everything here, so others can see how the page developed. If you want to see how it came about, go to the article itself (not this talk page) and click on the history tab - you'll see Hike395's edits and if you click on "diff" you can see the specific things he or she added. Cheers and thanks Geologyguy 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
ATeacher had originally overlooked a reference to the Stohlgren web site (in the external links section), so the article had met a basic level of citation. However, I thought it was better to bring the whole article up to date with inline citations, including noting in detail the usage of the Stohlgren material. hike395 19:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice work, thanks. --Geologyguy 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Colorado River Basin template

It sure takes up a lot of room for a page that's about mountain ranges....so what's the deal if there's a Columbia River basin template, a Missouri River basin template, a Fraser River basin template, etc? Wouldn't it get kinda cluttered around here? I think a template showing the proper hierarchy of the subranges of the Rockies is much more a propos, but I'm not equipped to design it (see e.g. Continental Ranges, which are a subdivision of the Canadian Rockies; those and related articles I've just put all subranges into as listed in bivouac.com, which sourced USGS in the States and S. Holland in Canada).Skookum1 06:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Climate again

Sorry, but those precipitation values don't work out: If you add the average numbers given for summer, fall, winter and spring, you get 24.1 inches for the whole year, but in the previous paragraph, it says only 14 inches per year? --213.218.25.130 13:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

first sighting by non-indigenous peoples?

In 1739, French fur traders Pierre and Paul Mallet, while journeying through the Great Plains, discovered a range of mountains at the headwaters of the Platte River, which local American Indian tribes called the "Rockies", becoming the first Europeans to report on this uncharted mountain range.[3]

That must be from an American textbook; the stock story in Canada is that the first sighting of "the Shining Mountains" (I'll get teh French for another edit) was by La Verendrye; I just checked his article but the factoid isn't there so I can't pin the date as I'd hoped to; much of this article is already written from a US-perspective, a common complaint with cross-border articles; the story of Pere la Verendrye and his sons seeing hte mountains, and not being able to continue towards them, is taught to every Canadian gradeschooler as part of the whole "explorers of Canada" mythology; our history is tied in with that of New France a lot more tightly than that of the US is, so I'd venture taht our story is teh correct one; "first sighting in what is now the United States" might apply to the Mallets I guess......that bit about the local indigenous people calling them "the Rockies" seems highly unlikely and needs a source/original language-name bigtime.Skookum1 (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The footnote cites PBS - The West, which does say of Pierre and Mallet: "They discover a range of mountains at the headwaters of the Platte which the Indians call the Rockies, becoming the first Europeans to report on this uncharted mountain range." The date given is 1741 however, not 1739. Yet the page describes many earlier Europeans in the Rocky Mountains, which makes me think by "uncharted mountain range" they meant the one "at the headwaters of the Platte", not the Rockies as a whole. It is poorly worded. The wikipedia article is also self-contradictory, since it mentions Coronado. The Coronado page has this map, which shows his route clearly passing through a mountain range labeled "Rocky Mountains". In fact, if that map is correct, perhaps this article's claim "Sir Alexander MacKenzie became the first European to cross the Rocky Mountains in 1793" should be changed to say Coronado was the first to cross, in the 1540s. Furthermore, the definition of the Rocky Mountains given on this very page (the Rocky Mountains page I mean) says it extends south into New Mexico, as does Geography of the United States Rocky Mountain System, and the Mountain peaks of the Rocky Mountains lists mountains near and within sight of Santa Fe, New Mexico. Given that the Spanish province of Santa Fe de Nuevo México was founded in 1598, it seems highly unlikely that no European "sighted" the mountains there and "reported" on their existence. I'd delete the bit about the Mallets being the first to sight and report about the mountains, but then, why even mention them at all? A Spanish province had existed within the Rockies for over a century by the time the Mallets went up the Platte. Is it that the name "Rockies" comes from their report? If so that should be made clear. If not, why mention them at all? Pfly (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Totally agreed; perhaps as noted the first sighing in what is now from the US from a US-based party would apply; but they weren't and I'm pretty sure la La Verendrye beat them to it, though French maps for quite a whiel after him use his name and not Les Rocheueses which is the modern usage; perhaps the French name was in fact the first form of the Rockies name; I don't think the Spanish perceived them as a range northwards from New Mexico, but as I recall even east of the Rockies some of their early exploration parties made it quite a bit north, to the Arkansas River if not the Platte; not familiar enough with their history to know who that was. It's got me wondering what the NWC guys called them on their journey through the Peace, and also when in NWC/HBC maps/journals the term Rocky Mountains first emerges; what does BCGNIS say, in fact? Hmmm.Skookum1 (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, nice, check it out:

The Cree name is Usinnewucheyu, meaning "big rocks" (A Dictionary of the Cree Language, by E.A. Watkins, revised by J.A. Mackay, edited by Richard Faries, 1938). The Sekani name for the Rocky Mountains is Tse Tiy. [meaning/significance and extent not provided] (from Guzagi K'úgé, published by Kaska Tribal Council, Watson Lake, 1997). The Ktunaxa name for the Rocky Mountains is Natmuqc/in, pronounced nath-mook-stin. [meaning/significance and extent not provided] (April 2006 advice from Janice Alpine, Ktunaxa Language Program) Source: BC place name cards, or correspondence to/from BC's Chief Geographer or BC Geographical Names Office

"In his diary while Governor of York factory on Hudson Bay in 1716, James Knight notes the arrival of a band of "Mountain Indians" with whom he had "a great deal of discourse." They told him their country was "very mountainous and of a prodigious height... so they cannot see the topps without it be clear weather... The sea lyes but a little way to the westward of the mountains." This is the earliest reference to the Rocky Mountains in the records of the Geographic Board of Canada. In 1730 Beauharnais, the French governor, transmitted to France a sketch which the Indian, Ochagach, had drawn for La Virendrye showing the Grand Portage route to Western Canada from Lake Superior. This map indicates the "montagnes de Pierres Brillantes," a name which is found in translation "mountains of Bright Stones" on Jonathan Carver's map of 1778. The mountains were referred to by their present name in Legardeur de St.-Pierre's journal of 1752. He calls them "montagnes de Roche" although it is doubtful he actually saw the main range. The name is a translation of the Indian name, which in Cree is assinwati, in Stoney, niaha, and in Blackfoot mistokis. Viewed from the prairies the Rockies present a great wall of rock." ("Origin of Name of Rocky Mountains: Geographic Board of Canada Gives Earliest Reference to Present Name" published in Natural Resources magazine, Canada, May 1930)

I was already contemplating List of indigenous names for the Rocky Mountains, or maybe just as a table within this article; as in one of my edit comments I don't see why only the Cheyenne name is mentioned in the intro; but there's too many indigenous names for them all to be there; note the Canadian version of the origin of the name vs the Mallet account; and it's not stated clearly that Legardeur de St.-Pierre's usage was in fact directly adapted from the Cree/Stoney/Blackfoot although it would seem from overall context of the sentence that is the case. I'll crib up that table I guess, either for use in a "Name" section here or in a split-off list; which do you think is better?Skookum1 (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Peace River

I'm of mixed feelings about whether the Peace should be included; it traverses the Rockies in the same way the Columbia does the Cascades - passing through it more than having its sources in it. I'll have to look up the flow-rates for the Parsnip, which short though it is at least partly has its main sources in the Rockies (Mesilinka and Osilinka Rivers I think) but also is fed by the Nation River from teh west and the southern Ominecas. The rest of the Peace's flow is from the Finlay River basin and while some of the Finlay's tributaries come from the Rockies - the Kwadacha is the largest - most of them, including the Omineca River, originate in the Stikine Ranges or Omineca Mountains, even in the farther end of them up against the Stikine and Skeean basins; a long way from the Rockies. Id' take the Peace out of the list for all those reasons, in fact; the others all start IN the Rockies, which the Peace doesn't; but that would leave the Athabasca orphaned and I havent' made the northern river articles yet, or am unaware of them - Fort Nelson River and Muskwa River might already exist, Pine River (British Columbia) and the other south-of-the-Peace rivers, which are many, aren't written up yet; t he upper Columbia tributaries like the Blaeberry and Kicking Horse Rivers I havent' bothered with yet.Skookum1 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Further to that, the BCGNIS description also says the Peace has its origin in the Rockies; that doesn't mean that the BCGNIS or its source is right.....unless the Interior Mountains complex which inclues the Stikiens and Ominecas is consiered to be part of the Rockies; to Americans it may be, I'm not sure....but no in the Canadian classification system (there of course having to be a different one just to remind us all that this is us, not them ;-) ).Skookum1 (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Parsnip's not quite as short as I'd thought of it as, and its sources are in the Northern Rockies and/or McGregor Plateua, depending; the tribs I was thinkign where the Missinchinka and Nissinka; the Osilinka and Mesilinka are on teh otehr side of the Trench, and until the inundation were tribs of the Omineca...er, Finlay? Gotta look at the map again; whatever; I guess if half the Peace's flow comes fro the Rockies I can live with it.Skookum1 (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
All Right Reserved © 2007, Designed by Stylish Blog.