Talk:Taconic Mountains

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map request[edit]

A map would be a Good Thing. The schematic map in the Catskills article actually shows the Taconic range (in relation to others in the region). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.26.121 (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added that map. It is a bit overpoweringly large in relation to the relatively short text of this article. Feel free to shrink the map's thumbnail, or better yet, expand the text! Pfly 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

photos & cat[edit]

I've added a Taconic Mountains category and a number of articles about peaks within the range. If anyone has photos, that would be great. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful[edit]

"The South Taconic Range also contains one of the largest unfragmented forests between Virginia and Maine."

Very nice hiking area, but...
See for example Wikipedia article on White Mountain National Forest

"Five designated Federal Wilderness Areas exist within the Forest: the Presidential Range/Dry River Wilderness 27,380 acres (110 km²), the Great Gulf Wilderness 5,552 acres (22.5 km²), the Sandwich Range Wilderness 25,000 acres (100 km²), the Caribou/Speckled Mountain Wilderness 12,000 acres (49 km²), and the Pemigewasset Wilderness 45,000 acres (180 km²).

Slide Mountain Wilderness Area not far from southern Taconics, is 45,500 acres, according to Wikipedia.
Note, obviously, that "unfragmented forest" associated with the above-mentioned areas is often much larger than the designated "wilderness" acreage suggests.
Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia -- lots of woods.
14,000 acres is significant, but not particularly superlative. What about the rather vast area just north of Route 9 in Vermont?
I'd suggest removing the statement regarding S. Taconics. Calamitybrook (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the language used: "ONE of the largest unfragmented forests. . ." Note also that the southern tip of Maine is further south than the White Mountains. Also, here, I believe the term "unfragmented" has an historic qualifier to it: most of the WMNF has been disturbed (logged up the wazoo; the Pemi is criss crossed with old logging grades), even the land now protected in WA areas. As is the case regarding most of the land you mention. Evidently TNC feels that this place is "unfragmented" relative to those places further south than Maine. The Nature Conservancy is a highly respected and worldwide expert on such phenomenon. Best, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And see this TNC article: "Despite their location in the highly urbanized Northeast, the Berkshires’ forests and wetlands have remained relatively undisturbed. . .". --Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And here, that exact language "unfragmented" on this EIR filed by TNC with the Massachusetts DEM: here.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The document cited above calls it "one of the largest unfragmented forest blocks in lower New England." What exactly is "lower New England" and does it border Maine and Virginia? Calamitybrook (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that "lower" New England means the lower half of New England. That would include all of MA, CT, RI, and the lower 1/4 or less of VT, NH, maybe extreme southern Maine, maybe not. I've heard lower New England also used in exclusion of NH, VT, and ME. Note, however that quote was not included in the article. The quote that was included was from the BNRC, which defined the area as south of Maine and north of Virginia. Southern Maine is of the same latitude as the lower 1/6 of NH and VT. I'm taking a break for a while, so you may want to hold off discussing with me, as I won't be able to reply. Best,--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's hyperbole[edit]
Several contiguous parks and other areas including New York's Harriman State Park comprise 100,000+ acres of "unfragmented forest" --- or "forest habitat."
R.I. Governor Donald L. Carcieri says: "We have an area which spans western Rhode Island and Eastern Connecticut that encompasses 200 square miles of forest land. As the largest unfragmented forest between..." blabla etc.[[1]]
There's a nearly endless list of "unfragmented forest" areas "between Maine and Virginia" that are substantially or even vastly larger than the southern Taconics, which is "one of the largest?"
Why not say one of the largest "in Southern New England?" That would at least have some borderline credibility by omitting various obvious areas of Pennsylvania, Hudson/Jersey Highlands, Jersey Pine Barrens, the Catskills, Shawangunks, Vermont and New Hampshire.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohonk Preserve = 6,000 acres + Minnewaska State Park, 23,600 acres + Sam's Point 4,600 = 33,200 acres. These areas are contiguous.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

changed[edit]
Since southern Taconics are verifiably NOT "one of the largest unfragmented forests between Maine and Virginia," I've changed text to read "...among the largest unfragmented forests of the region..." though there are clearly numerous larger areas in the Catskills, Shawangunks, southern Vermont -- etc.
Also added that it "includes substantial additional forest acreage that is presently 'unprotected' " apart from 14,000 acres listed.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Legacy, Etc.[edit]

Added brief section on federal conservation program, which could be somewhat expanded based on the source I've provided. Also added some stuff on middle parts of Taconics in Berkshire County. The previous writing short-changed this region.
Also, am wondering if article may suffer in general from mention of too many hilltops. I've added several myself. But if a reader is really interested, they'd be much better served in this regard by merely consulting a good map. I don't have a certain and clear personal opinion in this regard, but despite keen interest, I find the article in places is tedious and somewhat uninformative.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessed[edit]

Article is assessd a "stub" in three different categories.
Not currently accurate.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

about Mt. Greylock[edit]

Mt. Greylock is not a part of the Taconic Range. It is a distinct geologic formation, and is more appropriately classified as a continuation of the Green Mountains. Wikipedia ought to fix this error. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.33.219 (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mt. Greylock is indeed Taconic; see references for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.66.106 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yokun Ridge[edit]

Is a name recently coined by a private land conservation agency during past decade or so as a sort of "branding strategy" for their (laudable) particular purposes, which are much akin to marketing.
Despite recent acceptance by USGS, the term has no historical legitimacy or significance or wider current cultural acceptance.
The earlier (& widely accepted) names for the various topographic features lumped together with this somewhat irrational term should in my view, prevail.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how you feel or what the history is, the term for the feature has been officially accepted. It's also used locally, and has been in use by other printed sources. Since the article is about the landform, leave it as it is or argue with the USBGN, or bring it up on the Wiki mountain page RE: naming conventions for natural features. The issue you are disputing goes deeper than the simple naming of this ridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.66.106 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Last Places[edit]

The Nature Conservancy has designated literally hundreds of places "The Last Greatest Place" or whatever the phrase may be, as their marketing/fund-raising device, probably trade marked.
Nature Conservancy's goals are fine by me, but beyond this, the phrase signifies nothing.
Unless a specific and greater meaning is shown that can offer objective information, it shouldn't stay in a purely descriptive article. Calamitybrook (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does the phrase mean? What is it based on? Geography? Sentiment?
Please explain. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gather the available source is a paid press release carried by PR Newswire & that selection criteria for Nature Conservancy is focused on threat & vulerability & whether NC happens to be involved or not -- rather than much to do with being the "last" or "greatest" place.
As I suggest, is a marketing/fund raising term.
No? Calamitybrook (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if "Last Great Places on Earth" is trademarked or not, nor do I have any information on fundraising in relation to it. This was a major TNC initiative, with the objective of protecting a variety of critical habitat areas worldwide. It was widely publicized in the 2000s in the general news media as well as in various TNC publications, as you can see for yourself with a simple Google search, although TNC does not appear to be currently using it. I don't think we need to scrutinize, in an objective way, what "last" or "greatest" means. What is important to evaluate is the relevance of a major initiative, highly publicized and widely picked up by various media at the time, by what is one of the largest and most prominent conservation organizations in the world. There is no question that the Taconic Mountains were on that list. The question is, does the initiative have lasting relevance that it should be included here? Aside from that discussion CB, I would like to point out that you have a tendency, here and in many other places, to delete sourced material without discussing first. Unless the material in question is utter trash--i.e. vandalism etc. you should discuss on the talk page first. In other words: in the future could you show greater respect for other editors, please? I would leave a remark like this on your talk page, but you indicate that you don't want posts there, and you regularly erase your talk page (and the rich history of WP etiquette feedback much like this that editors have left you over the course of many years, to little effect). 173.166.71.233 (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is merely a slogan[edit]

If there were some objective and specific information about Nature Conservancy's involvement in the region that could be included, then fine.
Otherwise you're just throwing their slogan out there, & not even bothering to define.
Intuitively, one imagines a list of the "greatest places" of the earth. Dunno, Grand Canyon, Sahara Desert, New York, Rome, the Alps, Antarctica....Your Home Town....whatever... the list is endless and arbitrary. Few, if any are among the Nature Conservancy's "greatest places," which are defined only in relation to its own projects.
BTW, One finds nothing related to "Taconics" and the the term via Google. Calamitybrook (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The actual term is "Last Great Places" and the area designated is referred to as the "Berkshire Taconic landscape" (not limited to the Taconics; for example, it apparently also includes wetlands along the Hudson and Housatonic Rivers). The article cites a source that reliably documents the designation. It appears that The Nature Conservancy has de-emphasized use of the "Last Great Places" terminology. However, the fact that this region was once designated as such is a fact that usefully illustrates the more general statements in the article about conservation efforts in the area. I see no good reason to exclude this fact from the article. --Orlady (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source is news release issued for public relations by the Nature Conservancy?
Let us then maybe also include an address for where to send them donations.
Specifics on land conservation activity in the region would be far preferable. As it is, one gets no sense whether the Nature Conservancy has any significant role beyond having paid PR Newswire to carry their release.
Ideally one asks for some indication that the label has wider significance or at least acceptance. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not saying that it IS "one of the last great places on earth" (nor even that 9 out of 10 dentists agree that it's one of the last great places). It is merely saying that The Nature Conservancy gave the "last great places" label to the Berkshire Taconic landscape as part of a conservation campaign. That information is relevant for illustrating the conservation efforts focused on the region, and the Nature Conservancy's press release is a perfectly adequate source for that kind of statement. --Orlady (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Their map shows only something in vicinity of Mount Equinox. That seems to be about it for them as far as Taconics per se. Perhaps other conservation orgs are more active. Dunno. Do they also use slogans?
You can figure it out on NC map site here [[2]]. Calamitybrook (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see how that link is relevant, nor what you are looking at there. The page does not mention the Taconics. This Nature Conservancy map of what they call the Berkshire Taconic Landscape is a better indication of their program's scope. --Orlady (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed an interesting map!
It covers perhaps 10% (???) of the Taconics, which in this segment lie between Rt. 22 and Rt. 41.
A segment of the article could be based on information concerning relevant activities of various land preservation organizations in the region.
But regarding the slogan in question:
Who accepts this term for the Taconics besides TNC?
Does TNC believe that it applies only to the "Taconics-Berkshires?" In other words, if for some reason, the Berkshires were excluded, would the Taconic range still rate with the TNC as one of its many "Greatest Last Places?"
What, as a matter of fact, does it mean? Calamitybrook (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not saying that it IS "one of the last great places on earth" (nor even that 9 out of 10 dentists agree that it's one of the last great places). It is merely saying that The Nature Conservancy gave the "last great places" label to the Berkshire Taconic landscape (which includes part of the Taconic Range) as part of a conservation campaign. That information is relevant for illustrating the conservation efforts focused on the region, and the Nature Conservancy's press release is a perfectly adequate source for that kind of statement. --Orlady (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Orlady's points and add the following:
  • The Hudson River and and Housatonic River border the Taconic Mountains to the west and east respectively. The Taconic geology extends from the banks of those rivers (more or less) to the crest of the range.
  • TNC included the South Taconic portion of the range (in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York) in its last great places portfolio. It is also active in conserving the Equinox region of the Taconics. Those are both very prominent parts of the range. This isn't a vast mountain range spanning hundreds of miles. For those reasons and others CB, Your 10% estimation--if that is even a correct estimate--doesn't diminish the value of including such high profile conservation work within the article about the range.
  • There is an abundance of information on TNC's work in the South Taconic Region. They even have an office in the S. Taconics and staff who have been hired to work specifically on conservation in that area. You should have no problem digging up information on that--or you can just continue to ignore whatever doesn't support your personal biases. 173.166.71.233 (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I'm seeing plenty of material via Google "Taconic" + "Last Great Places" 173.166.71.233 (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Phrase is mindless hyperbole, which of course, disrespects readers' intelligence.
That's probably why TNC dropped it from their P.R. campaign.
However, if you two, for some reason, really find it informative, I'll let it be. Calamitybrook (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why, that is very noble and generous of you. Thanks. Now maybe we can all move on to more important matters. 173.166.71.233 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Taconic Mountains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Taconic Mountains/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article looking reasonably well at this point. Definitely could use a section on the flora and fauna. The history section needs expansion. RedWolf (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 07:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

benntion[edit]

bennington is a county in VT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.133.185 (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Taconic Mountains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robot watchers?[edit]

I've been editing this article, adding nearly a half-dozen sources, slightly reorganizing & re-writing, and removing a few bits that were redundant or digressive. Apparently robots sent out messages of alarm. If a human wants to engage, please do so here. 35.10.217.37 (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK so, I've continued to edit & so far, have added about eight new sources. I've also removed some redundant descriptions that appeared multiple times & done some reorganization & line-edits. 35.10.217.21 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continued editing. I'm probably done, or nearly done. It's a better article than it was last week. It can be expanded with historical info. I think simply extending the existing list of topographical features would be uninformative & this aspect of the article could actually be slightly cut. 35.8.218.250 (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dana sourcing (geology)[edit]

Dana endorsed Emmons' theory according to "book of the Berkshires," (1886), which quotes a local and contemporary newspaper account of a lecture Dana gave in Pittsfield Mass.

In a long article by Dana published in 1888, he gives a rather technical account of the history of the science on the question over a period of about 50 years. He seems to concede much of Emmons' ideas but --- I think -- dismisses the entire matter as an obsolete issue. It's too subtle for me. I've attached the article under "Further Reading." It can be accessed electronically via scanned material (hathaway, I think). Try google or a good library. 35.8.218.249 (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taconic_Mountains&oldid=1210610593"