Talk:Valles Marineris

message: Is the Cosmic Thunderbolt Section really going to stay in the article, under "Formation"? It seems to me that the cite is a thoroughly unrepeatable wordpress blog and a youtube video.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.75.222 (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this theory does not appear in peer-reviewed articles. That is why we can't take it seriously. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmic Thunderbolt 

message: When exactly did Mariner 9 discover the canyons? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time of discovery 

message: Ok, I'm new here & citing sources isn't something I have experience in yet, but I *may* have found something!  What do you all think?  In the opening section, the statement of the dimensions of this ol' valley has a Citation Needed flag. Today an article came out in the online version of The Guardian  which states essentially the same dimensions (the depth being even greater than our data shows!)   Is this article an acceptable source that could be cited for this information?  If so, I'll defer to someone who knows how to do that, because I don't (yet)!  Thanks!  ~~Newbie Mpwrmnt 10:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Citation? 

message: Everybody says this, but the East African Rift Valley is almost twice as long. I'm not sure how it compares in the other two dimensions, but it seems to me that Valles Marineris' status as "largest valley in the Solar system" is not as clear-cut as that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.167.183 (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct up to a point; the deep rift valley of the Mid Atlantic Ridge is vastly longer than either the Rift Valley (which starts in the Levant, and continues through east Africa), or the Valles Marinaris.85.1.19.145 (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest valley in the Solar system? 

message: This recent discovery indicates that Valles Marineris is a potentially active plate boundary. Update time. Volcanoguy 09:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plate boundary 

message: As my edit has been reverted twice, I wanted to state here for the record (as I have done already on the page of the user): I think that JPL images are used here (and in other articles) without proper copyright notice.
The relevant copyright notice by JPL states:  . In my view, JPL's copyright terms clearly ask anybody displaying their copyrighted images to use a credit line in the caption.
I will leave this article alone for now, and hope that a proper solution will be found for all JPL images – one way of the other.  Tony Mach (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption referred to in the JPL image credit request is actually the caption of the Planetary Photojournal web page for an image. This is where the proper credit line for a particular image is given, e.g. "NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASI/USGS" or, "NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASU", as the case may be. We already satisfy JPL's request to have the appropriate credit line given "in connection" with an image by putting it on the "Author" listing of the image page obtainable by clicking on an image. To repeat that credit in the caption of an article image would be redundant and contrary to normal Wikipedia style, and JPL is not asking us to do so. "Courtesy" is equivalent to "Author", and thus we do not need to add "Courtesy" to the image page author listing. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of JPL images without copyright notice in caption 

message: The new paper, A network of lava tubes as the origin of Labyrinthus Noctis and Valles Marineris on Mars, can certainly be cited and discussed in the article, but it would be best if this was not done by its author, who is presumed not to be neutral regarding its significance. Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for self-promotion by authors of scientific papers (see WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:SELFCITE). WolfmanSF (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the lead does seem to over-emphasize the "tectonic origin" theory right now. Is that really what "most researchers think"? I don't see an indication for that claim. Rather, it seems the "Martian plate tectonics" theory hasn't quite caught on. Huon (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Do you have any secondary (review) sources to back up your claim? Ruslik_Zero 19:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Giovanni did cite Leverington et al. 3 times, papers by three other authors once each, and his own work 15 times. This tends to create a perception of a possibly biased promotion of one viewpoint. I would encourage anyone who cares to work on this to provide a balanced overview of the latest research on the origin of Valles Marineris and the outflow channels. However, my impression is that theories of origin that are based largely on volcanic processes to the exclusion of faulting and erosion by wind, water or ice are not the mainstream viewpoint at present (e.g., this paper comments. "The formation of the Valles Marineris troughs on Mars is widely held to involve some combination of horizontal extension and vertical subsidence or collapse ..."). Evidence regarding the past role of water on Mars is conflicting. We see exposures of minerals like olivine that would have been destroyed by water, but we also see evidence of tidal waves in former oceans and dry waterfalls that appear to have formed in massive floods. The full story eludes us. By the way, I have have never been involved professionally in astronomy. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Insisting on having your own theory highlighted in a Wikipedia article, as well as ridiculing and demanding to know the real name of someone on the other side of an edit conflict, are extremely inappropriate behaviors for a Wikipedian. Please give up the idea of editing articles to highlight your own work, either under your own name, using anonymous i.p. addresses, or sock puppets.  Look around and you will notice that other scientists aren't doing this. If you persist, the situation will only get uglier. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paper on lava tubes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Valles Marineris. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711145413/http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/experimental/all98invProject.Site/Pages/Vallis.Marineris.html to http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/experimental/all98invProject.Site/Pages/Vallis.Marineris.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711145413/http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/experimental/all98invProject.Site/Pages/Vallis.Marineris.html to http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/experimental/all98invProject.Site/Pages/Vallis.Marineris.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This article starts off by saying that the valley is named after the Mariner 9 orbiter which discover'd it. But the Mars article says that the valley is "also known as Agathadaemon in the old canal maps". Is this true, and can someone give a reference? If it is true, we should include the fact that it was seen long before Mariner. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Agathadaemon

message: In the article's first paragraph the maximum depth measurement is given as 7km cited by NASA (2005), however in the Melas, Candor and Ophir chasmata section of the article a figure of 11km is given - in the first part of a sentence which also includes measurements of a separate entity, and ends with a citation by Cattermole (2001). It is not clear if Cattermole was the source for the whole sentence and the 11km estimate, as I cannot access the publication to check.
90 minutes of research to find the consensus maximum depth makes me suspect radar telemetry is no reliable method for ascertaining such measurements, varied research papers dealing with Martian topographical phenomena (e.g. Cole HM, Andrews-Hanna JC. The anatomy of a wrinkle ridge revealed in the wall of Melas Chasma, Mars. Journal of Geophysical research. Planets. 2017 May;122(5):889-900. DOI: 10.1002/2017JE005274) give a range of 6.5-11 km without mentioning the sources, which I assume to be NASA's MOLA, Mars Express etc. Ad-funded websites such as Sciencetoday quote NASA for maximum depths of up to 40,000 ft. NASA's 2017 analysis of their most recent DEM at the time compromised with 9km maximum depth. In dozens upon dozens of self-promoting web articles NASA extolls the accuracy of NASA. Search for Valles Marineris contour map in the search tab on nasa.gov and the best they can do is furnish a map from 1999 - with elevations no lower than -5.5km. NASA is not a reputable or reliable source for scientific Wikipedia articles. Nickwilso (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There a number of possible ambiguities related to the "maximum depth" issue: deepest section vs. deepest single point, depth below rim vs. depth below highest point on surrounding plateau, and total depth vs. depth below one of several definitions of Martian datum. I suggest you not make sweeping generalizations based on frustration relating to an issue you may not fully understand. The MOLA altimetry dataset is actually pretty accurate. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions in quoted maximum depth measurements 

message: valles 178.138.33.102 (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  valles