Talk:Alps

message: please change Third reich to nazi germany in the sentence: "In World War II the Third Reich invaded the Alpine countries, with the exception of Switzerland and Liechtenstein; Adolf Hitler kept a base of operation in the Bavarian Alps throughout the war." The term "third reich" is problematic because first it was used (shortly)in nazi propaganda language, and second it encourages interpretation of history that see nazi- germany as a legitimate successor of the second and first reich in a linear development of germany within okkzidental culture. Therefore the term should be replaced by the term that is used in the wiki- page to that the link is refering to: nazi- germany. As I just saw, within wikipedia, the term "third reich" is widely acepted meanwhile it`s use is (as far I know) discussed ambivalent within historians discourse. I find the arguments outlined shortly above though striking an therefore I pleed for chaning the term as suggested. 
83.77.1.135 (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductary section

message: I replaced the rather weird (and restrictive) subgroupings from the Britannica in the Eastern Alps with the more common ones which can be found in the German Wikipedia. Articles about many of the groups need to be written. Also, the same should be done for the Western Alps.Martg76 21:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groups of the Alps 

message: I improved the article some, added sub titles, links to sub articles and summaries, but there still is work to do. The sub articles need major work since they are all mostly copies of the 1911 encyclopedia. Elfguy 19:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the sections "overview" and "geographical limits" could be merged to "geography", and the subarticles Limits of the Alps and Main chain of the Alps could go into something like Geography of the Alps. Markussep 19:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement

message: what language do the apilation people speak????? i need to knwo
If you are referring to Alpine people, as opposed to Apilation people (apilation people are found in North America)
I assume you mean Alpine people.
In France, they speak French
In Switzerland they speak *Swiss German (to the north), French (to the Sount West), Romanish (a very small group to the south) and Italian (to the south and south-east).
*Swiss German has its origin in the Habsburg Empire, it is significantly different in pronounciation to International German or "High German".
Many words of Swiss German are also spelled differently to High German.
In Austria they speak German
In Lichtenstein they speak German (like Swiss German)
In Italy they speak Italian
::Let's not forget Slovenia, where Slovenian is spoken. WorldWide Update 15:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In some parts of the Italian Alps, French, German and Rheato-romanish (Ladino) are spoken. Woodwalker 21:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HUH 

message: Any reason why Monaco isn't mentioned? Its situated at the southern tip of Maritime Alps isn't it?
:More or less, the main chain of the Maritime Alps is about 40 km further north. Monaco's highest point is 140 m, I think that's not really alpine. Markussep 20:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Monaco is not an Alpine country, at best it's at the base of foothills of the Alps. Do you have reliable non-wikipedia sources for your claim? Markussep Talk 14:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monaco 

message: The caption of the Alps from "space" is a little odd. It says that the picture is of the Alps from space. It obviously did not come from outer space. The caption, to me, implies it is an actual picture taken from outer space from a spacecraft when in reality it is from google earth or something similar. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ole10589 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alps from space 

message: Can links to Alp be fixed to point to Alps instead?  Just a heads up that people are being redirected confusingly.  DavidRF 14:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Alp used to redirect here for a long time, and the incoming links shows that that's still the most likely intention. --Stemonitis 14:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Alp" cannot be used to refer to the Alps:   the singular, "an alp", refers to an alpine pasture, not the mountains. --dab (𒁳) 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alp]] redirects to [[Australian Labor Party]] 

message: This article does not meet current B-class criteria because it is not suitably referenced. The next step would be to locate reliable sources for any important or controversial material (such as the claim about fauna being more common in protected areas).  If your project does not use the new "C" class then please reclassify to "Start" class. Stepheng3 (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reclassified to C-class 

message: Why is the elevation of Mont Blanc on this page 4,808 metres (15,774 ft) and on the Mont Blanc page listed as 4,810 metres (15,781 ft)?? Phil --199.46.154.96 (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mont Blanc Elevation Discrepancies 

message: Under fauna it lists "Mountain Hare", but the photo shown is that of an Arctic Hare. I looked and here it mentions the arctic hare are found in the Alps. But then when you look here (on the BBC), it says that mountain hare are found in the alps. Could it be that both species are found in the alps, and that whoever captioned the image as "mountain hare" on this article was just making a careless mistake? I was going to alter the image to mountain hare, but then I noticed that arctic hare are found in the alps too, so what should be done? -24.92.44.95 (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article Arctic Hare (Lepus arcticus), they are only found in Greenland and northern America. The Mountain Hare (Lepus timidus) is found in Europe and Asia. In the "naturspot" website you quoted, the arctic hare is called Lepus timidus and it is stated that it is found in America, Asia and Europe. According to this link both species were considered to be one until recently. That could be causing the confusion. Anyway, there are no arctic hares in the Alps, so if you have a better picture of a mountain hare (preferably one in the Alps), please put it in the article. Markussep Talk 16:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fauna problem 

message: The Swiss Alps, perhaps more than any other region of the World, is a microcosm of geological theories. Perhaps their importance to the development of geology should be acknowledged more in this introductory article. Though nappes are mentioned, the 're-interpretation' of the Glarus double-fold as a thrust fault allowed the Scottish Highlands to be made sense of.
Much of our French terminology of mountain geography and alpine glaciation was developed here, and summarized in Agassiz's 1940 treatise. Because of this and the dramatic effect of alpine glaciers on the beauty of the mountains and U-shaped valleys between, perhaps glaciation should be mentioned.
Though geosynclinal theory was an American invention, molasse basins & flysch troughs were used even there: and many geologists immediately saw plate tectonic theory explaining these & replacing the older theory.
The separate geology article has much to cover, but this article could list or mention those fundamental geological theories that were formulated in the Alps. Geologist (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance to Geology 

message: What about Ladin!? There should be the word "alps" added in the Ladin language too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.0.13 (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ladin is an alpine language!

message: In Etymology, the origin of the name is explained. But in English, 'Alps' is used for different mountain ranges in the world and for two near-by mountain ranges in Europe that are not part of the Alps.
* Australian Alps 
* Southern Alps (New Zealand)
and
* Alpi Apuane in Italy 
* Swabian Alps or (better:) Swabian Jura (German: Schwäbische Alb, please note the -b), a low mountain range in South West Germany
--Schwab7000 (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The term Swabian Alps is really a misnomer and should be deprecated. It stems from the German name of that range, Schwäbische Alb. However, Alb does not mean "alp" even though it's pronounced the same way. The German for "alp" is, unsurprisingly, Alp. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  the term "Alps" 

message: This article mentions the various sub-ranges in the Alps: the Ligurian Alps, the Maritime Alps, the Cottian Alps, the Dauphiné Alps, the Graian Alps, the Chablais Alps,  the Pennine Alps, the Bernese Alps, the Lepontine Alps , the Glarus Alps, and the Appenzell Alps. But very few of these pages have sources. I have the Shoumatoff book The Alps so I can source some of these but not all. The Shoumatoffs use different nomenclature for some of the sub-ranges so I'm having difficulty reconciling these. Does anyone know of a definitive source that uses these names we do so we can source here and in the subarticles? Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source request 

message: Hi, I'd like to remove the table that's sitting in the middle of this article. I did remove, was reverted, so per BRD, am bringing this to the talk page. My feeling is that the section should be used to present a summary of mountaineering in the Alps and many of the peaks can be incorporated in the text. Furthermore we have a List of Alpine four-thousanders which is linked as the main article, and various subarticles, so I think the space could be put to better use. Thoughts? Truthkeeper (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's important, in an article about a mountain range, to give the reader an overview of the main mountains that compose the range (preferably under the form of a short and exhaustive table). There are other list articles but they are much more longer and detailed, so logically they should be summarized in this article. Maybe this table could be made smaller and go under another section (geography for instance). ZachG (Talk) 11:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the page has more text it seems to fit in better, and the image seems to help anchor it, so I think it's okay. I might move it though; but haven't decided whether it should have its own section; be moved to geology (which is very stuffed) or to the not-yet-written mountaineering section. The table could use a source though; if you know of one could you post it? Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a source (a list of all four-thousanders with their prominence). You should feel free to reorganise the table or move it if you want. By the way, thank you for your great work on this article, I really appreciate it. ZachG (Talk) 12:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: @ZachG:  Nice citation!  Great work @Truthkeeper:  you worked long and hard and now the article really shines!  —EncMstr (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Zacharie for the source. Still thinking about what to do there. Thanks both of you for the encouragement; still a ways to go. It's an uphill climb (pun intended!). I'm doing this for the Core contest so expect to see quite a few more edits from me here in the next few weeks. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of the four thousanders 

message: ... does not go where one might naively be expecting (look at what links there for example; I'm sure most of those are not intended to be links to the 2007 documentary).  There is also Alps (disambiguation) and Alp and ALP and ALPS and other articles mentioned there.  
Surely the Alps should redirect either to Alps or to Alps (disambiguation), ideally the former, and the content there should be moved to The Alps (film) (like the article at The Alps (band))?  Perhaps better to discuss over at Talk:The Alps. -- Ferma (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The current title to this article looks and sound too weird to me. I'd suggest this page is moved to The Alps, with a seperate "Apls (dab)" linking the other stuff. Ceoil (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [[the Alps]] ...

message: I've removed the final sentence from the orogeny and geology section:
:High mountain peaks are separated from deep valleys by folds and nappes,Gerrard, (1990), 12 the valleys following the most recent orogenic warp creating "complex nappe structures [that] give rise to complex drainage patterns".
as rather confused. How can folds and nappes "separate" peaks from valleys? Geomorphology - surface terrain is affected by underlying tectonic features, but "separated from" - not. The remainder of the sentence is also confusing - yes, drainage patterns are affected by underlying structures...  Vsmith (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology 

message: I wish to offer a new theory as to how the Alps were formed: per the scientists at ICR (Institute for Creation Research; all but one scientist have Doctorates in the math and science fields, and that one undoctored scientist has a Masters in Science and is currently WORKING on his Doctorate in Science), their informational books/pamphlets, and the books of Dr. John Whitcomb [of Whitcomb Ministries] it would be almost impossible for hard rock (of itself, AND even combined with soil) to be bent/folded as much [tightly] as many geological formations show themselves to be. HOWEVER, per those ICR scientists (and Dr. Whitcomb, who has Masters and Doctorates in various math segments and NUMEROUS science segments), BECAUSE there ARE evidences/proofs, on literally EVERY continent, of a world-wide biblical Flood of catastrophic proportions.......it would have been VERY EASY for God to cause our planet's crust to bend and fold into all sorts of tight shapes while our planet's crust was soft because it was SATURATED from all the Flood waters that COVERED our whole planet.
AND, this WOULD have happened inside of 6,000 some-hundred years ago..........per a book called "Footsteps and the Stones of Time", by Dr. Carl Baugh and Dr. Clifford Wilson, all the ancient written records indicate recency in the Creation of our planet (and solar system/universe). Thirty seven ancient records testify our planet was created NO OLDER than 7,000 years ago, many of those records testify to a YOUNGER creation than 7,000 years ago. (I am well aware of the wide-spread criticism that Dr. Baugh and Dr. Wilson received [simply because they allowed themselves to think "outside" the evolution box, and even "outside" the normal thinking of many Bible fundamental Christians !]...........HOWEVER, Dr. Baugh's theories have BEEN partially proven, due to two incidents regarding the Texas Paluxy River archaeology dig that the front half of the "Footsteps and the Stones of Man" book are about. The FIRST incidence was that when Dr. Baugh and his team were pulling artifacts out of the Paluxy River (after one of its infamous floods), the items that were pulled out were supposedly from NUMEROUS evolutionistic time periods.......BUT every one of those items were in actuality pulled from the SAME time period layer - thus EXPLODING the Evolution theory. THAT was why there was an immediate outcry of "Fraud !!" from many evolution critics. Those "Fraud !" screams were silenced ONLY after Dr. Baugh time-date tested the soil in which the items came directly from.........AND then also time-date tested the soils immediately surrounding the extraction area of the dig. Only after MULTIPLE time-test results repeatedly showed that all the items WERE correctly dated as 1 single time date and NOT numerous evolutionary dates, did the evolution critics shut up, because they had been proven WRONG, and Evolution had (yet again) been proven as a lie. The SECOND incident regarding the dig was that one of the neighbors on the Paluxy River tried to claim that Dr. Baugh was a fake - this man claimed that the ancient finger that Dr. Baugh's team had found - was actually the fake finger HE had deliberately hidden in the Paluxy River, and that Dr. Baugh's team had simply found that fake finger, and were falsely claiming it was ancient. This guy stated that he would go BACK to where he had buried his fake finger, and would PROVE Dr. Baugh to be fake, by revealing the [now empty] hole where his fake finger had been. Well, imaging this guy's surprise when he DID go back to his hiding place, dug down, and found his fake finger STILL IN the hole he had put it into !! .......thus proving that Dr. Baugh's ancient finger IS real !! (because that ancient finger is one of the items on display in Dr. Baugh "Creation Museum" located in Glen Rose, Texas). Some time after I first downloaded Dr. Baugh's Creation Museum website, I decided to recheck for any updates. As I scrolled down the Home Page, at the very bottom, was posted a small article telling about this Paluxy River neighbor's claim that Dr. Baugh was a fake, and told about the finger incident. Just below that small article, was ANOTHER also small article that told of this Paluxy River critic sending a notice of APOLOGY to Dr. Baugh, AND there was also a black and white photo of the guy HOLDING his fake finger. Dr Baugh's only comment was a humble "thank you" to all of his supporters.    [Gail Noon, San Pedro, CA, gailmaria51@att.net, March 20, 2015]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluffscoastlass (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that this is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article.  This is not a forum for discussions about the topic.  If you know of reliable sources which support this theory, please post them here so that discussion about their merits and how applicable they are to the material you have proposed.  Otherwise, note that Wikipedia expressly forbids original research.  —EncMstr (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICR theory 

message: Re , I think, without knowing much about the incident, Petrarch's climb is probably famous enough & early enough to deserve mention, but though Mount Ventoux may be geologically Alpine, it isn't really geographically or culturally, and has a very un-Alpine shape at the top, which today you can reach by car or bike.  Even in the Middle Ages no ladders or rope required. Perhaps describe the mountain as an outlier or something, or leave it in a note.  Congrats on the prize - a very nice piece of work. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Yeah, I kinda raised my brows at the Mt. Ventoux incident, but decided to put it in because the mountains were considered so inhospitable that any climb was somewhat notable in that period. It needs more research though and I had to return the books I had from the library and frankly ran out of steam. I think that entire section is interesting enough that I may work on it more; it's not fully developed yet. I don't mind commenting out Petrarch for the moment and re-ordering books so I can spend a little more time on a single section. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petrarch the Alpinist 

message: I think we can do better than the current Jungfrau one, partly because it's not a 5* pic, partly because we have a panoranomic pic of it lower down in the article. Seems silly when there are so many other mtns to have two pics of the same one. Suggestions? Ericoides (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, agree. The page is very Jungfrau, Berner Oberland heavy (and now another pic of Lauterbrunnen added!). I looked on Commons for one of Mont Blanc and didn't find much, surprisingly. The problem is that there are so many nice pics of the Jungfrau, but when I added the panorama (which I really like) I thought the lead might need to be changed. If you can find something better, have a go at it. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main picture 

message: The Geography section had the highest parts running from Mont Blanc to the Bernese Oberland and then to the Matterhorn, which is a strange circular route. I think it makes much more sense to consider the highest ground as being dissected by the glacial trough of the Rhone. I rearranged the text accordingly, around the natural feature of the Rhone trench, with the Pennine Alps to South, Berner Oberland to North. 62.3.255.103 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea! Thanks. ZachG (Talk) 21:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography

message: "Wildlife such as ibex live in the higher peaks to elevations of 3,400 m (11,155 ft),"
I don't know what this sentence means.
Does "wildlife" mean large mammals? - or is it just a vague general statement that "the higher peaks" support life?
"In the peaks" I assume doesn't mean 'in the rock', and I assume it doesn't mean in the snow at the top of the highest 100 peaks.
"to elevations of" - does that mean 'down to elevations of'? It certainly would make no sense to claim 'wildlife' lived in the highest peaks which are all above 4,000m but only below 3,400 m. Can a native English speaker please clarify what ever this obtuse sentence means? I would point out that it isn't likely that the average reader needs to be told that wildlife exists in the Alps, and while the Ibex is certainly a notable large European mammal "such as" really obfuscates what is trying to be said.173.189.75.127 (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the source at hand anymore but will have a look at my notes, otherwise I'll have to the book back from the library. Also, the lede is a summary and it's explained in this section. Native speaker here (and the person who wrote the sentence). Thanks for noting, though. Victoria (tk) 12:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request - Lede 

message: "The Alps extend from France in the west to Slovenia in the east, and from Italy in the south to Germany in the north."
Huh?  The map seems to clearly show the eastern extent of the Alps as being in Austria, and the southern extent of the Alps as being in France and Monaco.  Is this not so?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.191.16 (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, good catch. The article has deteriorated and needs work, but for now I've put back a previous version of the opening sentence and have tweaked the map's caption. Victoria (tk) 19:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  East and South 

message: "Water from the rivers is used in over 500 hydroelectricity power plants, generating as much as 2900 kilowatts of electricity.[4]"
2900 KW is almost nothing - should be 2900 GWh. According to the referenced source:
"- 550 hydroelectricity plants with more than 10 MW and 2900 GWh annual output"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.16.43.133 (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivers and Lakes section - error in amount of electrical power generated 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alps. 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/20110927151703/http://pages.unibas.ch/earth/tecto/research/Schmid_et_al_2004_Ecl.pdf to http://pages.unibas.ch/earth/tecto/research/Schmid_et_al_2004_Ecl.pdf
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) 18:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alps. 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/20110219001756/http://www.hahnenkamm.com/hkr-history.html to http://www.hahnenkamm.com/hkr-history.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) 08:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alps. 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/20130603060400/http://www.unige.ch/climate/Publications/Beniston/ESP2011.pdf to http://www.unige.ch/climate/Publications/Beniston/ESP2011.pdf
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) 09:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for
—197.156.95.216 (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've trimmed the overprecise range coordinates and tweaked the coordinates of Mont Blanc slightly. If you still think that there is an error, you will need to give a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error