Talk:Earth/Archive 3

This is Archive 3 covering March 25, 2006 - August, 8 2006.

Tellus
Shouldn't we mention something about Tellus? [anon]


 * I noticed this after adding a short note to the intro. The OED attests Tellus from c. 1430. Its definition:
 * [L. tellūs.]
 * In Roman mythology, the goddess of the earth; hence, the earth personified; the planet Earth, the terrestrial globe.
 * Examples:
 * The Spring swell'd by some smoaking Shower, That teeming Clouds on Tellus surface poure.


 * Reason, like Sol to Tellus kind, Ripens the products of the mind.


 * There are some adjectival forms, such as Tellural, that the OED has only attested from other dictionaries. Telluric of course is ambiguous as to whether it refers to Tellus or Tellurium, but was used for the Earth (and generic earth) in the 19th century:
 * The equal periods that are marked for us by the celestial and telluric revolutions.


 * The great problem of telluric magnetism.


 * Epidemic influences..dependent in a great measure upon obscure atmospheric or telluric conditions.


 * A ‘telluric poison’ is generated in [the Campagna] by the energy of the soil.


 * The form Tellurian is unambiguous. The OED has:
 * [f. L. tellūr-em the earth + -IAN.]
 * A. adj. Of or pertaining to the earth; earthly, terrestrial. B. n. An inhabitant of the earth.
 * Examples, again, all from the 19th century:
 * The stratified cemetery of the ‘tellurian’ crust.


 * There were..solar, lunar...[and] tellurian..methods of accounting for a myth.


 * If any distant worlds..are so far ahead of us Tellurians in optical resources.


 * Our own case, the case of poor mediocre Tellurians.
 * kwami 2005 July 7 21:13 (UTC)

Social statistics in the infobox
Identifying Earth with the human race seems rather inaccurate to me. There must be a more appropriate article for those stats to go in. I would recommend human. Bonalaw 09:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I say they should stay here. You might split out Earth (planet) (which now redirects here, move info to that article instead) with information similar to that in Mercury (planet) and Venus (planet) and the like, leaving only a little of that here with link. Gene Nygaard 10:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I dislike that new info box with human social statistics. The rest of the article is mostly on the physical characteristics of the earth, it seems as though the social statistics are out of place.

Also I would like to point out that there are exactly two (2) refferences for this article when I am typing this. This number should be far far higher for an article as important as this one. Harley peters 20:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the social statistics definitely needs to go. I suggest moving it to human. Fredrik | talk 18:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New illustrations available
For the Swedish article I've created an illustration of Earth's interior. If you like it you might want to add it here as well. Have a look at:
 * 1) commons:Image:jordens_inre_med_siffror.jpg
 * 2) commons:Image:jordens_inre.jpg

/ Mats Halldin 06:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the carbon cycle diagram --Smartech 07:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mostly Harmless needs to be put somewhere at the top of the page, as it would deter vandalism
Anyone else in favor of wiping out the article and replacing it with the words "mostly harmless"? I thought I'd survey public opinion before doing it myself. Halidecyphon 20:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just resisted the temptation, myself. - RJ Mar 2005

It's been done over and over and over and over and over and over (deep breath) and over and over again. It was barely funny the first time. :) Bryan 07:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Before you do it you must file proper paperwork for "Interstellar Topic Bypass" at the regional Vogon consulate. (SEWilco 17:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC))


 * It is highly reccomended that you attend a vogon poetry recital while there, preferably before filing Kim Bruning 17:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * #REDIRECT H2G2  -- Solipsist 20:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I especially like the part of a recent valdalism stating GDP of $900 billion per capita, if inflation doesnt skyrocket as well :) Smartech 07:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I do think there should be "Listed as Mostly Harmless in The Hitchhickers Guide to the Galaxey" ;imWACC0
 * I put 'mostly harmless' in there at a lesser extreme. If you want to see it, go to the main page of this article. Nobody seems to mind, since it's not blanking. Well, before I did it, I got banninated for repeatedly blanking it. Hehehe. Flameviper12 13:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

List of people tempted to do this, who thought better of it after reading the note at the top of the page

 * 195.158.9.78 12:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I say we should do it, but perhaps there should first be a poll, perhaps on the main page. Tribute to the greatest writer who ever lived is always important.
 * ''Above unsigned comment by 207.239.12.200, a user who has done the "blank and Mostly Harmless" thing several times, despite several warnings (including a specific request not to do so by me on May 13 here). --Deathphoenix 21:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Flameviper12 13:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * iT MUST BE DONE, but whoops, I left my Caps Lock on. Hahaha! I have been banninated for this before, I learned. Hehe. Flameviper12 13:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this. Next time someone replaces it with "mostly harmless", we slap a copyvio template on it? --SPUI (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The irony is that anyone who tries to describe Earth as "mostly harmless" in an encyclopedia is missing the point of the joke anyway. --Bonalaw 11:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I considered changing it. Should I? Go on, let me. It'll be funny.

And I didn't even know you could put comments in articles like that...Fantom 19:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we just add it as a quotation like in the Italian page: I know that the joke is replacing everything Ford Prefect fellow wikipedia contributors wrote with "mostly harmless"... but it should be mentioned --Lou Crazy 05:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How about an article for the Hitchhiker's entry on Earth? Article name: 'Earth: 'Mostly Harmless'' Let's see how long this lasts.  oneismany 13:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Shape
Recently 67.161.42.199 added:


 * The earth is a very slightly oblate spheriod, with a average diameter of approximately 12,742 kilometers. Since the highest point on the earth, the summit of Mount Everest is only 8,850 meters, the earth is spherical within a tolerance of one part in 1,439, or 0.00069 percent. The mass of the earth is approximately 6 sextillion metric tons. 

The tolerance part of this is nonsense. We quote in the article "Equatorial diameter 12,756.28 km, Polar diameter 12,713.56 km", giving a difference equator to pole of 43 km at sea level. As I recall the point farthest from the center is actually at the top of some mountain in South America near the equator. Though the calculation is apparently wrong, it might still be worth having these few sentences, assuming someone here who isn't about to go bed can figure out how to accurately describe the shape of the Earth. Dragons flight 08:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Mount Chimborazo, to be specific. This needs to be addressed. Fredrik | talk 15:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image vs Infobox
User:Dragons_flight said that Image:Earth-crust-cutaway-english.png being placed on the right causes problems: "On wide screens, placing it on the right creates a huge gap between Core and Mantle." Not on my browser, even when expanding to span two monitors. Placing the image on the left can produce the text below on a more common width. (I'll work on the monster Infobox some to reduce various problems). (SEWilco) [edit] Mantle Main article: Mantle (geology) Earth's mantle extends to a depth of 2890 km. The pressure, at the bottom of the mantle, is

That looks better. I split the social box off, and moved it next to the Human section. Infoboxes tend to be at the top of an article, but that would widely separate the related text and box, with a lot of Earth_as_planet between. (SEWilco 05:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))

What's Going on?
The first part of this article is total crap...I can't get rid of it cause I can't find it when I go to edit...something's wrong! Bremen 05:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

editnote template listed for deletion
In case someone is interested, the editnote template used in the Mostly Harmless reminder has been suggested for deletion: Templates_for_deletion Template author: (SEWilco 18:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))

there are other solar systems
I really think the beginning of this article should be more general. (not signed by submitter)


 * If that's the case, the article for Solar system needs to be updated. It implies there is only one system centred on Sol. Notinasnaid 19:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, as this is about a specific planet. The beginning does have a link to solar system, which promptly mentions that if you are interested in bodies around other stars you should look at planetary system.  (SEWilco 19:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Featured article?
This article is great! Has it been featured yet? If it's not, then it should definitely be put up! LeoDV 7 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)


 * Okay, I nominated it. Let's see what happens.  Dragons flight July 7, 2005 21:43 (UTC)


 * Prediction: Even more people will think it's cool to replace the article's contents with "Mostly harmless". :-)


 * Atlant 7 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

Human social statistics Languages % table accurate?
The percentages (with the possible exception of Mandarin Chinese) seem seem to be way off compared to List of languages by total speakers or List of the most spoken native languages. Am I missing something here? --Slark July 9, 2005 06:45 (UTC)

Blue marble photo
How did the current blue marble photo get reverted to the old overly red image again? I don't even see it in the history! The version that I uploaded in place of it seems gone now. --Deglr6328 21:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The current image looks good to me: blue, white, and brown, just as it should. The one you just linked to comes out a horrible fluorescent green on my monitor. The problem with selecting colors that look good on one computer it that they won't look quite the same on anyone else's. kwami 22:46, 2005 July 10 (UTC)


 * I haven't tried to figure it out in the case of Earth, but based on the history of The Blue Marble, User:Reisio is clearly one person who had a problem with your version. You might go talk to him.  Dragons flight 00:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess what I want to know is how an image which was uploaded OVER antoher image can be reverted without anything in the history of that image's page....--Deglr6328 02:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it was? There seem to be two images involved Image:The Blue Marble.jpg and Image:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg?  Also, did you upload it at commons or here?  Sometimes when things are moved to commons part of the image history gets lost (which is really a very big no-no, but still happens).  Dragons flight 03:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well back in March it was Image:Earth-apollo17.jpg that was a FeaturedPicture but that one seems to have disappeared without trace. In the process, the FeaturedPicture tags  have also been lost. I vaguely recall spending some time retouching NASA's scanning blemishes on one of these versions, but that record also seems to have disappeared. What I don't understand, is that I can't find any trace of the deleted edit histories. -- Solipsist 07:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Oblate/Oblique
I always thought it was an oblique spheroid, but this article calls it an oblate spheroid, how sure are you all about oblate? - (anon) 17:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * oh great, now someone's changed it to an ellipsoid )-: - (anon) 17:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oblate is correct and is found in geodesy literature. Oblique would be incorrect.  See the definitions that you linked to.  (Don't know if spheroid is more correct than ellipsoid.)  -- Kbh3rd 16:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

5270 K
This article, and the geothermal (geology) article it refers to, say the center of the Earth is 5270 degrees K. Looking at other websites, 5270 is in the right range but nobody else claims accuracy to the nearest 10 degrees, or even 100. Note that geothermal (geology) also offers the more reasonable guess of 4000 C or higher. I'll let somebody smarter decide what number to use, but I'm pretty sure 5270 has an overstated accuracy. Art LaPella 04:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody smarter has yet arisen, so I shall sally forth alone. Art LaPella 21:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's really pretty simple. The 5,270 K figure is obviously a conversion from 5,000 °C, by someone smart enough to realize not only that the factions are not significant but also that it clearly isn't accurate to the nearest degree either.  I agree that it's probably not accurate to the nearest 10 kelvins either, but give the person who made that conversion credit for having some sense&mdash;it it points out the importance of retaining the original measurements when conversions are made, because they often provide the best clues as to the precision of the measurement.  Gene Nygaard 03:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I suppose this is the justification for the ridiculous accuracy given for the area of the earth as well, (since the two areas given in the same article don't even match EACH OTHER), which at the time of this writing, is 510,065,284.702 sq. km! The monthly change in the tidal bulge ALONE would wipe out that "0.702" by a mile, heheheh!  Can't we use our high school science classes for SOMEthing?  Can we at least round off the numbers to what is actually known, as opposed to what can be calculated on a computer?  It leads people to presume more knowledge than we actually have.  By the way, was that "factions" above supposed to be "fractions"?  Change anything you want.  I'm just another idiot, anyway. Aspie 23:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I also find accuracy to within a thousandth of a square kilometre pretty unlikely, considering how bumpy this planet is. Yes, we can all apply equations from grade 10 maths, but it doesn't reflect reality.Kai 06:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Somebody smarter means somebody smarter than me. I hope it didn't sound like smarter than Mr. 5270. Art LaPella 05:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Origin of word "earth"?
Obviously the planet's known as Terra in other languages, but how did the word "Earth" end up as the official title? What are its origins? When did it become widely accepted, rather than the mythological Roman name? --Marcg106 16:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Only in the Romance languages. "Terra" is "Earth", as in "Terra incognita". The mythological Roman name was "Tellus". Although that article claims our planet was named after the goddess Terra, the opposite is actually the case: she was simply the goddess "Earth". We call our planet the Earth for the same reason we call our star the Sun, and our moon the Moon: it's the English name for it. It's too familiar for foreign mythological names to have taken over. This is different from the case of the Morning Star/Even Star, which no longer seems appropriate as a name once you realize that it's a body of rock like the one we live on; this gave the name "Venus" a chance to take over. Even in Latin, the mythological names for the Earth, Moon, and Sun were probably not used in normal conversation. In Russian our planet is "Земля", which means Land/Earth. As for the history of its use, I'd imagine that it's "the world on which we dwell", metaphorically extended: from "living on earth" meaning being on land rather than in the heavens, it's come to mean being on our body of rock rather than in space; the whole rock is therefore "the Earth". kwami 08:50, 2005 August 7 (UTC)


 * My guess is that the tradition goes back to the Bible. Remember that Genesis has the "Earth separated from the waters" at creation (something probably borrowed from Egyptian creation myths), so even geocentric diagrams of our planet, the Sun and planets would naturallt have had the "Earth" rather than anything else. It's plainly because we're land-dwellers, nothing else.
 * Urhixidur 00:56, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Neutrality
I am challenging the neutrality of this article. It states that the earth formed billions of years ago, and this is contrary to the beliefs of billions of people, in order for this article to present and represent information in an unbiased manor it should represent other theories and opinions. 68.248.33.155

THE ORIGIN OF PLANET EARTH IS NOT A VIEWPOINT. REPEAT, "NOT A VIEW POINT"! An encyclopedic entry on Earth is to contain factual, empirical truth. If you want to read about creationism, or any other mythological "theory", search for pages specifically dealing with them. You can't keep attacking scientific knowlege simply because it doesn't conform to whatever prefered reality you wish to live in. Seriously, it is just not acceptable for you to slip religious propaganda into the hard earned scientific knowlege accumulated by some of the greatest minds in human history. For shame!


 * An atheist, we have? Flameviper12 13:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an article about the scientific understanding of the Earth. The proportion of scientists arguing for anything other than an Earth with billions of years of history is too neglible to be worth mentioning.  Dragons flight 04:10, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you want some cheese to go with your whine? Get just one billion of those "billions of people" to sign your petition.  Actually, the portion of all people, nonscientists as well as scientists, arguing for anything other than an Earth with billions of years of history is also too negligible to be worth mentioning.  Gene Nygaard 04:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Billions? Nonsense.  Of the people who are educated enough to know that, for example, the Earth goes around the Sun, how many believe that the Earth is 6000 years old?  It can't be more than a handful. --noösfractal 04:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to report, but your HOPE that only a handful of people would believe such a thing is completely lacking any validity OR research on your part. I live in a tiny county, in a tiny town, full of tiny churches.  I attended one tiny church until recently, and on one service alone, over 30 apparently rational adults burst out loud that they disagreed with the opinion of the adult school teacher that the creationist meaning of the Bible might not be 100% accurate.  I live in a "liberal" state, not the Bible belt, so you can be sure, there are tens of thousands, if not millions, who ARE fervent believers.  You MIGHT have to accomodate THEIR viewpoint


 * It is true that a large amount of people believe that the earth is less then a few thousand years old. However, more educated people do not believe in young earth ideas, because they are pseudoscience. It is important to note that 90% of Christian colleges believe and teach that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, dispite what the bible might suggest. -source 2 --146.244.138.72 19:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to delete whatever you want. This is all pointless anyway.  The reason I am even here is because I am trying to find "somewhat" accurate figures for the surface area of the earth.  I am horrified to report that even such an "easy" number to calculate (given scientific capabilities) differs by over 1% in most sources, (eh, what's a measly million square kilometers, anyway?).  Our own, vaunted article (which IS truly wonderful, by the way), fails to even agree internally with itself, one place advocating a different surface area than another place.  If we can't even agree on lies consistently ("Lies, Damned Lies, & Statistics..."), then how are we EVER to figure out the truth? Aspie 23:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume our anon. is concerned that I twice removed the following:  (according to some theories) (hover over that and see where it really leads) which I saw as a deceptive edit, hiding origin beliefs link behind according to some theories is sneaky editing. It has nothing to do with origin beliefs - it is about well founded scientific evidence and continuing testing. Vsmith 15:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I took it as a clear effort to slip in some creationist doubt as to the facts presented in the article. (I also reverted it once, but someone else beat me to it.)


 * Atlant 16:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree, this article is NOT neutral neither is it factual. Science has not proven that the earth is old at all, to the contrary it has shown that it cannot be older than 6,000 years. Science has not proven that the earth moves either (if anyone thinks that it has you might try collecting that $15,000 reward!) NarrowPathPilgrim 08:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sparing others the trouble of mistaking the above comment for dripping sarcasm—it's not, I'm afraid. Femto 13:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You obviously don't understand relativity or occam's razor.--146.244.138.72 19:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, science has long since given up on special reference frames. It developed a consistent set of laws that hold true for any observer, and has proven that it is impossible to prove the Earth is 'moving'. Asking otherwise is claptrap and putting up an unattainable reward is malarkey. (how's that related to the age anyway?) Femto 20:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

question about *-spheres
In school, I was taught that there is pedosphere in addition to lithosphere, biosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere. There is also article on cryosphere. I wonder, these words are not referenced here, are they still used? Samohyl Jan 11:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality, Part II
That the earth is round does go contrary to the beliefs of a few people. Now, they are a tiny minority, so I'm not asking that the article insert caveats. However, like someone mentioned above, this is about scientific knowledge of the aspects of the earth. As such, the warning I keep trying to assert is totally appropriate. I goes as follows -
 * This data in this article reflect the current scientific consensus on those aspects. For alternate, non-mainstream perspectives, see earth shape debate.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all to mention the scientific nature of this article before stating a bunch of things some people totally reject. NPOV, guys, NPOV. MrVoluntarist 00:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * From WP:NPOV: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not (see Flat earth problem)." The fact that the Earth is round is used by no less than Jimbo himself as the canonical example of a view that is opposed by so few a number of people that opponents do not even deserve mention in normal articles.  Hence, the "earth shape debate" should not be mentioned here.  Dragons flight 00:23, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Where does he say that? (And please, don't provide a re-link of the Flat earth problem.  I read the link.  He does not say in taht, or in the NPOV page that the flat earth is a prototypical example of something that should not be included.)  Moreover, the note at the top does not say anything about a flat earth.  It just mentions that the article is providing scientific facts.  This is necessary, because even people that agree the earth is round have a hard time accepting, for example, the age of the earth.  And there are a lot more than you think.  Simply stating that this is a scientific article is not harmful at all, I don't see what the problem is. MrVoluntarist 01:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with a link to the Earth shape debate is that the latter is not a scientific argument. Most of the "arguments" listed there fall under the category of sophistry, ad hominem arguments and the like.
 * Urhixidur 00:48, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
 * Really? "The earth appears flat" is a sophistical and/or ad hominem argument?  That no roundness-skeptic has been allowed to examine the moon rocks is a sophistical and/or ad hominem argument?  That no one has walked around the earth or dug through it is a sophistical and/or ad hominem argument? Please, use proper terminology. MrVoluntarist 01:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Either a bogus attempt to sneak creationist concepts upfront again in the article - or - someone just wanting to justify the existence of a poorly written debate article earth shape debate which is just flat earth nonsense trying to pose as a real rather than phoney debate. Is MrVoluntarist the anon who added Neutrality part I? Vsmith 01:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not that anonymous poster; I just read his/her comment. See here and then scroll up and down to see me posting as 24.162... before posting under my current name. Now, I'm sorry if you don't like creationist views, but you need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, not a scientific point of view.  As such, we need to provide links to alternate views.  No one's asking that we insert "what round-earthers believe to be ..." everywhere.  All I ask is that there be mention that this is a scientific article and include a link to a non-scientific article.  And I don't get why you say it's poorly-written.  It's short maybe, but it presents the facts very well, if I do say so myself.  And there is a debate.  That one side is regarded as very victorious does not deny that there has historically been a debate and people have used the arguments listed. MrVoluntarist 03:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm...OK, glad you're not that anon. Now - it seems odd that you would create a page about this so-called debate and then attempt to link to it from this page in such a prominent way - without even bothering to create a link from the flat Earth page. That makes me even more skeptical of your motives. As for the poorly written, it seems someone quickly slapped a cleanup tag to it, and I haven't seen any effort on your part to comply. Vsmith 03:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I was going to put a link from Flat Earth, but since someone suggested it be merged, I figured it was going to eventually happen, so what's the point? I haven't made massive improvements during the eternal ~48 hours that passed since the notice was placed because I really don't see what standard the person who placed it was referring to. It's not poorly writtin per se, it's just short and without documentation, i.e., like the zillion other stubs that don't have the cleanup warning.  In my opinion, it's more appropriate to say it's a stub than to say it's written to a low standard of quality.  My reason for linking it from the Earth page is because, well, this article needs to have mentioned that this is all scientific data (and thus may conflict with religious views), so I figured I might as well put a link to an "alternate" perspective.  Would there be a better non-mainstream article to link to? MrVoluntarist 03:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The link doesn't belong and the new page either needs to reflect the fact that this is a historic debate which is now settled or go to VfD. There is no contemporary debate--arguments otherwise I wouldn't even call pseudoscience, but patent nonsense. I'm willing to leave it because it could become a placeholder for interesting points; Magellan's expedition finally proving the round Earth for example. Marskell 07:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. Flat Earth has this covered. I think the link should go to VfD. Marskell 09:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You mean the article should go VfD? Links don't get VfD'd.  I think the points should just be merged into the Flat earth page. MrVoluntarist 16:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, Marskell, I obviously don't believe in a flat earth, but Magellan's voyage most certainly did not prove the Earth is round. On the flat Earth model, you can travel the exact same path he did. So if you're going to use an example to show why the flat-earthers lost, you need to pick another one. MrVoluntarist 16:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I must say I'm not familiar with the "flat-earth model" and I don't really want to get into it. The principle feature of pseudoscience is that it can't be falsified so debates are generally useless—i.e., I'm sure "the model" will have an answer for everything. How about the Global Flyer? The international space station? A hoax I suppose. Marskell 16:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience is not excluded from Wikipedia. Not that "having an answer for everything" makes it pseudoscience anyway, or else science is pseudoscientific. For future reference, by the way, the main flat earth model is with the northpole at center and Antarctica forming the edge of the disc.  Kind of like the United Nations flag. MrVoluntarist 22:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverted move
I just reverted an undiscussed move of the article to Earth (planet). The move was made by User:Acid. I don't recall any discussion of such a proposed move. Vsmith 01:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Descriptions of Earth in Science Fiction
There's already a Earth in fiction article. I say move this section there. --kop 01:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverting NPOV?
Why do you people keep reverting my attempts to reveal that the information in the article is based on scientific study, rather than the Truth? MrVoluntarist 03:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Is that a serious question? Most articles in Wikipedia are similar (except of course the few that claim to be the Truth), and it would be extremely tedious to add "scientists believe" at the beginning of every single statement. Better to put marginal or crackpot ideas like the flat Earth or hollow Earth in marginal locations, such as at the end of the article. kwami 03:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking that it be inserted at the beginning of every sentence. In fact, I tried to put a one-time notice at the top that this article is about scientific knowledge about the earth, but it got reverted.  So I take it you'd be okay with a flat-earth link at the bottom?  Because everyone else has objected even to this. MrVoluntarist 04:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't read the previous discussion until after I posted that answer. I personally think it's just as appropriate to mention the flat and hollow earth ideas as it is to mention the Earth in fiction. After all, a flat earth on the back of a turtle is a more enduring idea than our ephemeral sci-fi novels. (Okay, the Earth in Fiction section has been split off to its own article, but there are such sections in the articles for the other planets.) The mythology section might be expanded to include such things. It does, however, already link to the flat earch article. If I were to expand it, I would describe the conception of the earth in various religious/mythological traditions, rather than just the "modern" flat earth idea. It would be especially interesting if any of these agreed with what we now know, but that could invite further edit wars: a common argument for the veracity of the Koran, for example, is that it is heliocentric, when in fact it appears to be just as geocentric as the Jewish and Christian bibles. Maybe it would be better to have a separate "Conceptions of the Earth in mythology" article? kwami 04:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Moving controversy into a separate article is not going to get rid of the controversey. I'd like to see some expansion, unless there's already another article that covers the topic.  A 20,000 foot overview of the history of the notion/perception of the world.  If it gets too big then it can be moved.  --kop 07:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Flat earthism is already there in the Descriptions of Earth section. Bogus attempts to insert the nonsense more prominently are simple trollisms. Truth trolls have been there and done that already. Enough is enough. Vsmith 04:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Putting the mention of "flat earth" right in with mythology is not good enough. All I want is that somewhere upfront it be mentioned that the article is about scientific knowledge.  Is that too much to ask? MrVoluntarist 20:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of re-opening a can of worms, yes it is too much to ask. Wikipedia, like any resource of its sort, assumes the fundamental validaty of scientific consensus ahead of mythology or superstition (and thus does not demand a qualifier before any serious point of scientific import). Not that scientific debates or disagreements are not noted, but rather an idea regarding which the scientific method (read it carefully if you haven't) has been adhered to and for which scientific consensus is unanimous will be presented as "the Truth." The Earth is round. It is round and that is "the Truth." It is round according to any intuitive test or any serious epistemological test you want to apply. We don't need to qualify every statement in this article to note that. Marskell 22:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrong. First of all, I never asked that every statement in this article be qualified.  All I've asked is that somewhere at the top it be mentioned that this article is about the scientific data.  Second, Wikipedia is not written from a scientific point of view, but from a neutral point of view (read it carefully if you haven't, which obviously seems to be the case).  Third, belief in a flat earth does not count as mythology or superstition.  Now that I have specifically replied directly to you regarding my actual position, you no longer have a convenient excuse for attributing to me positions that I do not hold.  You are now (hopefully) capable of providing a justification why the article should nowhere mention that the information presented here is based on the scientific consensus. MrVoluntarist 00:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not say it was written from a scientific point of view but that it assumes "the fundamental validity of scientific consensus" (there is a difference between the statements). Indeed, I have read NPOV and sir I would point you to the most important qualifier on the page, Undue Weight: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not (see Flat earth problem)."

The ancillary article, Flat Earth, already exists; no qualifier is needed here. Marskell 09:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please point me to the place in Wikipedia policy where it says Wikipedia articles "assume the fundamental validty of scientific consensus". I would need to see the context because it's actually a rather vacuous statement.  Is it saying that in Wikipedia, if scientists agree on something, no contrary view should be revealed?  Surely not.  Furthermore, it appears you are (surprise, surprise) attributing a position to me I don't hold.  I am not saying that the flat earth position should also be asserted here, merely that somewhere the article should mention that the data are based on scientific consensus.  This isn't a flat earth issue: it's also because of the Christian view that holds the earth is not 4.57 bajillion years old.
 * Now that I have specifically replied directly to you regarding my actual position, you no longer have a convenient excuse for attributing to me positions that I do not hold. You are now (hopefully) capable of providing a justification why the article should nowhere mention that the information presented here is based on the scientific consensus. MrVoluntarist 13:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

MrVoluntarist, we could preface every article (or even every statement) that focuses on scientific knowledge by writing "scientists believe", and it would be accurate (though often incomplete since many non-scientists believe the same thing). However, in most cases, including this one, it would also be entirely redundant. Can you imagine anyone (including young / flat Earthers) who would open up an encyclopedia article and expect it to focus on any perspective of Earth's history and shape other than the scientific one? After all, the vast majority of educated people, including many Christians, believe the Earth is old and round. Even those who hold the alternative viewpoints you are fond of defending must surely know they are in the minority and not expect to get much time in an encyclopedia article on the subject of Earth, right? I don't see any reason to add clauses like "scientists believe" unless there is some evidence that not having them is going to confuse people as to what the article is talking about. In this case, I can't imagine anyone reading this article would not realize it is focusing on the scientific perspective (as everyone ought to expect it to). Dragons flight 14:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If people expect scientific opinions out of existing encyclopedias, it is because existing encyclopedias are written, and known to be written, from a scientific point of view. Wikipedia has decided to be different and instead be written from a neutral point of view.  Thus, it must be held to a different standard.  However, I believe I have thought of a way to satisfy both our wishes while adhering to Wikipedia standards.  How about if at the bottom, we list "science" as a category to which this article belongs?  Such a categorization should have probably been there in the first place.  I think that change would be eminently fair. MrVoluntarist 23:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

While do I respect this is an attempt at a compromise, understand how the categories work: this article is already a "grand-daughter" of the Science cat. As it stands: It doesn't need to be re-classified. It's fine. Really.
 * Science --> Earth Sciences --> Earth (as primary article in sub-cat).

"Held to a different standard?" Sure—it's absolutely more discursive and more in-depth than similar sources and should be held to that standard. But it almost seems you're suggesting that Wiki should buck what contemporary epistemological understanding is. You are truly misunderstanding NPOV—it does mean the door is open to every hypothetical criticism. I could start an article about a triangular Earth, swear by it, and try to get it included—it wouldn't and shouldn't be included. It, just like a Flat Earth, has no professional or public acceptance that is even marginally notable. And this is where I'm thumping my head with you. You want a guideline to prove that Wiki accepts the validity of scientific consensus? It's like asking for a guideline showing English Wiki must be written in English. ''Of course this article is written from a scientific perspective. Of course we don't need to state that.'' Marskell 00:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not supposed to endorse any specific epistemological standard (not that the one you desire to impose on all Wikipedia readers would lead straight to a round earth anyway). You are not allowed to insert triangular earth opinions because that would be original research: there is no independent account of triangular earth proponents (though, as I've tried to emphasize, there is a history of doubt on the roundness of the earth).  Also, I don't see why it's at all obvious that Wikipedia accepts science as a standard for inclusion.  If that were the case, we would have to litter all the religion articles with "This contradicts modern science."  And, I suspect there is a guideline insisting that articles be writting in the Wikipedia's language.
 * Now, about my compromise: how about we expand the full hierarchy for categories for this article? At the bottom have "Science: Earth Sciences: Earth".  I'm pretty sure I've seen that done in other articles, and if not, that's no argument against including it in one for clarity. MrVoluntarist 03:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I will make the change. MrVoluntarist 10:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry no one responded. Please look at the science category: the articles in there are sciences themselves or very general scientific concepts such as "mechanism" or "physical system." If we put Earth in there, we have to put Venus and Mars in, Ocean and Continent, and just about half of wiki. If you work backward from the Earth category you will arrive at Science—that is sufficient. Note, Earth science is there. Marskell 11:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Show me how to trace from earth back to science. And why does mentioning "science" in the categories at the bottom of the article imply "earth" has to be on any other page?  Plus, even if it were out of the ordinary to do so, it's clearly justified on such a controversial topic. MrVoluntarist 12:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Science --> Earth Sciences --> Earth (as primary article in sub-cat). I mentioned this above.
 * I know you mentioned it above. You didn't explain there how to trace back, which is what I was asking.  And you didn't do it here either.  (Thanks for that.)  Luckily, I figured it out. 24.243.190.239 13:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Placing Science in the categories does not imply Earth has to be on any other page but rather that other pages should also be categorized in Science. Again, the articles in Science are sciences themselves or very general scientific concepts not specific objects or subjects.
 * Great, then the problem you alluded to with placing "science" at the bottom doesn't exist. Moving on. 24.243.190.239 13:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

3. This isn't a controversial topic. Marskell 12:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. It contradicts most religions and every fundamentalist religion.  Since Wikipedia is NPOV rather than SPOV, we have to label science as science where its conclusions are controversial. By the way, I made your numbering explicit rather than using Wikipedia code so I could reply at each point without messing up the numbering.  24.243.190.239 13:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The above is from me. It logged me out for some reason in the middle of posting. MrVoluntarist 13:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I assumed you know how to click on links.
 * 2) You misunderstand the problem I asserted and are now side-stepping it: we allow this, we set a precedent for thousands of others in science and abrogate the purpose of sub-cats.
 * 3) None of the conclusions are controversial—the shape certainly isn't. Again, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia." If there is some historical opinion that was once widely held or some pseudoscience opinion still widely held that isn't mentioned, a line or two in Descriptions at the bottom might accomodate it. Marskell 14:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. I assumed you knew how to answer a question.
 * 2. No, I understand the problem just fine and I'm saying it's not a problem at all. We don't have to put earth or any of the others on the subcategory or category page, as you just realized.  Also, I'm only asking that we do it on controversial issues so as to make sure people understand it's a scientific article.  There's no slippery slope.
 * 3. I told you this isn't just about the shape. It's about the age too.  If you think it's okay to assert controversial scientific claims as fact, then you have to go through all of the religion articles and insert "This contradicts modern science" every other sentence. MrVoluntarist 14:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"We don't have to put earth or any of the others on the subcategory or category page, as you just realized." Then what the hell are we debating? If you add the category at the bottom it automatically appears on the category page.

Further, I don't enjoy having my good faith sarcastically questioned ("You didn't explain there how to trace back, which is what I was asking. And you didn't do it here either.  (Thanks for that.)", "I assumed you knew how to answer a question.")

Conversation over on this end. Add as you please and I will revert where I feel necessary. Marskell 14:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Of those two quotes from me, the second was exactly parallel to one you made, and the first was clearly not a questioning of your good faith. You have been far more sarcastic and rude to me than I have ever been to you.  I guess you can dish it out, but you can't take it, right?  One rule for you, one rule for me.  I think I get it now.
 * Regarding whether putting the category notice on the bottom of the page makes it appear on the subcategory page, I thought you were referring to the customized part of the science category page, where that point wouldn't apply. But even if it appears in a list, my point still holds: as a controversial topic that can confuse a reader what kind of article this is, it's eminently fair to put it on the list.  Hell, if "Rebecca J. Nelson" can go on the science list, I think Earth can go there too. MrVoluntarist 14:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

If either of you feel the need to continue in this vein, please do so on your user talk pages. Your debate is focusing more on each other's debating style than on the content of the Earth page. --Doradus 21:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Doradus, do you have a justification why an article with controversial information should not be labeled as science? MrVoluntarist 21:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Anybody who believes the Earth is flat, or even believes that it is 6000 years old, is quite aware that they hold a minority opinion. They're hardly likely to be "confused" by not having a label warning them that this article claims the world is round, or old. Yes, MrVoluntarist, if you wish to continue your campaign to change the format of Wikipedia, please do it on your talk pages. kwami 00:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is NPOV, not SPOV, so we have to make concessions to extremely significant minorities that hold alternate views. Putting "science" at the bottom is a pretty small thing to ask, all things considered.  Or we could do it your way and fill every religion article with "science" that "corrects" it.  MrVoluntarist 00:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * To clear up the category thing (Wikipedia guidelines stipulate redundant categorisations must be expunged from articles), here's the method: Click on the "Earth" that shows up at the very bottom of the page, right off of "Categories:". This'll take you to the Category:Earth page. At its bottom, you'll see it categorised in turn as "Planets of the Solar System" and "Earth sciences". Click on the latter. You'll see that the Earth sciences category is itself categorised under "Academic disciplines" and "Science". QED. (I've had to make a similar demonstration in the Talk:Astrology page)
 * Urhixidur 17:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This debate is essentially about what can be stated unqualifiedly as fact. The consensus definition of fact is "something that can be demonstrated to be true", in other words, "something based on empirical evidence". I think that most dissenters would acknowledge that their views are not by this definition "fact", that is, they would not claim that their views are "built on empirical evidence". Frankly, the definition of fact is very much linked with the definition of science, as the goal of science is the establishment of fact. Thus, statements about which there is no fact-based debate, such as the roundness of the earth, can be stated as fact. Non-fact-based dissenting views can be stated as dissenting views, preferably in their own articles to avoid confusing the fact-seeking encyclopedia user. The alternative, as far as I can figure, is to not state anything at all as fact, which would make Wikipedia a useless hellish cauldron of boiling fat. As one who believes that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, this isn't a very attractive prospect. If anyone can think of a different way to determine what can be stated as fact, go right on ahead. Kai 07:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Terametres?
Nobody uses terameters; why the hell are we? --Robert Merkel 05:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Because we can? No, seriously, it is just to allow orbital circumferences to be compared (see the various other planetary infoboxes, such as Mercury (planet)), using a common yardstick. The explanation of what a terametre is is just a click away, after all.
 * Urhixidur 17:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not, we use yottagrams Wow - what a yotta nonsense :-) The mass of the Earth is approximately 5,980 yottagrams.
 * On a related? note, the absurd values for surface area, etc. in the template do need attention: Surface area at 510,065,284.702 km²! Twelve significant figures - implies we know to within +or- one meter! Absurd (as pointed out by newly logged in User:Aspie above - hidden somewhere up there). Should probably be 5.1007 x 109 or some such. Let's see - a 200 acre (convert to sq. km if you like) farm here in the Ozarks has a lot more than 200 acres of surface area (think hills & valleys - some of that is vertical). Anyway the point is most of those numbers in the infobox are rather absurd, by contrast the volume and mass values are much more reasonable at only five significant figures. Vsmith 00:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

New image


Just made this. It's sort of better than the current cutaway image since it's (at least roughly) to scale, and shows a few more features. What do you think? - Fredrik | talk 20:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it much better looking than the original one. And it doesn't have the unneccessary 3-d effects that mar many illustrations.


 * But I think the atmosphere is way too thick in the slice image at the center. It is true that thermosphere reaches at very high altitudes, but on the other hand it is extremely thin. It is now way too pronounced and makes the atmosphere look much thicker than it is in reality. Maybe thermosphere looks better with much darker blue. Only troposphere and stratosphere with light blue.


 * Also, you should include continental and oceanic crust on the image at right. I don't think the boundaries are really that rough, either.


 * I'd like to see things like convective cells and plumes on the middle image and atmospheric phenomena on the image at right, but they probably make the image too crowded and belong to more specific illustrations.


 * Otherwise, I really like the image. It has nice colors and is illustrative. I hope this helps.--Jyril 23:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback! I have tweaked it to address most of your concerns, and uploaded a new version. Please let me know if I got the changes right, and if there's anything else that should be modified. If there are no major issues, adding it to the article seems like a good idea. Fredrik | talk 23:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks much better now.--Jyril 08:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

How about splitting the infobox?
The planet infobox is too large; it interferes with the page layout and crams lots of unrelated data into one small space. It would be best if it was only about as tall as the table of contents. How about moving the orbit data to the section on "Earth in the Solar System", and the atmospheric data to the "Atmosphere" section? The article is already a bit inconsistent; for example, the table on the Earth's composition is inlined but the list of atmospheric constituents is in the infobox. I think it would make most sense to put only the most important and general data in the table at the top, and move the rest to sections (where the information can also be better referred to from the text). Of course, this change would cause inconsistency with the other planet artices, but that's not necessarily a problem. For one thing, the article's focus should be slightly different since Earth is not primarily the target of astronomers. Fredrik | talk 23:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, infobox is way too large. If I could decide, I'd keep only the most important values on the infobox and move everything else to Earth fact sheet or whatever, which could include much more details than the infobox since its size wouldn't be limited. Same goes for other planets.


 * In my less humble opinion, this article should about Earth the planet only. There is already topic specific articles for Earth's atmosphere, geology and so on. I'd like to put all demographic and cultural stuff to the world article. There are humans only on one planet, after all.--Jyril 08:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that I found the infobox useful - I was able to find some stats very quickly because I assumed they'd be in there. As long as the box renders reasonably (and it did for me), then I like it.

Rewrite
Since huge parts of this article needs to be improved, I've put up talk:Earth/rewrite so people can do radical editing without worrying about breaking anything. This is based on a rewrite attempt I started a few months ago but never finished; some parts that were taken out are missing and others may need to be updated. Fredrik | talk 11:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Adjective
The adjective for Earth is "Earthling." Terrestrial is just our type of planet. &mdash; Hurricane Devon (Talk) 22:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Earthling means an inhabitant of Earth. You and me are both Earthlings.--Jyril 19:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ling means child. We should be Terrians or something, I think. Flameviper12 13:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Age of the Earth
User:JQF wrote: It should be noted, however, that alternative theories regarding the date of formation do exist.

Before we start an edit war, could somebody describe the alternative scientific theories of Earth's age since I'm not aware of any.--Jyril 15:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Since the age of the earth cannot be reasonably agreed upon, it admits and must presuppose the existence of a disagreement of terms. Therefore I suggest, wherefore one cannot speak with certainty, one should be silent. -- User_talk::66.168.222.44


 * Ah, but the age can be reasonably agreed upon. Those who argue for something significantly shorter than 4 thousand million years base their argument on something other than reason.  -- Kbh3rd 17:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I base my belief in God solely on reason, I am a deist thank you, not one of these brainless Christians. Read the "Summa Theologica" Proofs for the Existence of God.


 * read a physics book --146.244.138.72 19:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Structure of the Earth
The following comment to editors was left in the article; I used HTML commenting it to hide it from non-editors. This kind of self-referential comment should not be visible in the main article. FreplySpang (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * &lt; This section has been moved to the article Structure of the Earth. A new 30-line summary section must be written from this main article to this "Physical characteristics" section. Help is welcome. &gt;

Infobox overwhelming article
On Firefox 1.0.6 (MacOS 10.4.2) the infobox is flooding the article, appearing before just about everything... what's going on here? Alphax τεχ 01:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, looks like it's fixed now... Alphax τεχ 10:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Earth's core
Earth's core redirects to here, but there is virtually no information on Earth's core. Is this information anywhere else in Wikipedia? -Volfy 09:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, fixed Earth's core redirection to go to Structure of the Earth. -Volfy 09:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Spheriod vs. Ellipsoid

 * (Moved to bottom of discussion page) 17:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The Earth's shape is that of an oblate ellipsoid, with an average diameter of approximately 12,742 km.

I'm pretty sure the Earth is an oblate spheroid and not an oblate ellipsoid like the article says. Take a look at this.
 * Posted by User: 65.93.206.205
 * Moved to bottom of page. Vsmith 22:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Earth (with a capital "E") is a formal noun in English... and it doesn't need an article (meaning, "the") preceding it. I have always been intrigued as to when we started calling this planet "Earth" and not "the earth." Interesting to note is that in other forms of our planet's name, we don't use "the" as in "Terra." You never see "the terra". Ditto for the names of the other planets in our solar system... (Mars, never referred to as "the mars".)
 * Yes, this is my pet peeve, too! I think the problem is (E/e)arth is used three different ways:


 * Earth--the specific planet (like "Mars");
 * the earth--generalizing Earth as a planet (like generalizing a planet's satellites as "moons": Our moon is named Luna, so we look up and point at either "Luna" or "the moon" (or, for emphasis, "The Moon"), not "the Luna" or "moon"), hence, the proper expression should be "the planet Earth";
 * (the) earth--ground/soil ("we dug up five tons of earth");
 * To answer the original question, a spheroid is an "ellipsoid of revolution", so all spheroids are ellipsoids, but not all ellipsoids are spheroids. To further complicate things, a spheroid can be subcatagorized, based on the degree of ellipticity. See: (Pollen) shape classes. ~Kaimbridge ~ 17:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Population
Should Earth's population be added in the infobox? --Revolución (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Orbital inclination
In the info box for this article it states that the orbital inclination of the earth is 0.00005°. Isnt the correct value for this is exactly 0° as the inclination of the Earths orbit is what the orbital inclinations of the other planets are measured relative to. Does anyone else know enough about this to be sure? --Timmywimmy 18:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No History section?
History of the Earth would be a much needed addition. --Revolución (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Land Use: Arable land?
I checked several teacher aids on google, most of which gave arable land as 1/32 of the earth's surface (e.g., 1/8th of land). Anyone know where the 10% comes from?

Question 2: Anyone know if all the "land use" refer *only* to land?

Learning to see your own POV/biases
The section I deleted said "Large areas are subject to overpopulation, industrial disasters such as pollution of the air and water, acid rain and toxic substances, loss of vegetation (overgrazing, deforestation, desertification), loss of wildlife, species extinction, soil degradation, soil depletion, erosion, and introduction of invasive species." It's asserting all of this as fact, when all of it is heavily disputed. If the claim is only that these things are possible, it's undue emphasis, a POV violation. Whoever put this in was trying to slip in a plug for an environmentalist, scaremongering POV. For example, the entire concept of "overpopulation" is heavily contested, especially by economists. Whether or not overpopulation is the cause of any current ill is still debated, and it's talking like the debate has been settled. The assertions of threats in other areas is the POV of some environmentalists, disputed by high-profile environmentalists like, I don't know, Bjørn Lomborg and Patrick Moore. There's no reason to cite the possibilities of all these things unless you want to list every possible thing that could go wrong, and at that point, it's unclear how that's relevant to someone who wants to learn about "the earth". What you first need to learn is that these claims are a POV, and many people actually dispute them. Wikipedia is not a place to promote environmentalism. See What Wikipedia is not. MrVoluntarist 04:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute as to whether introduction of invasive species, erosion, soil depletion, degradation, extinction, wildlife and habitat loss, desertification, deforestation, overgrazing, and manmade pollution are major concerns facing the Earth at this point. The line on overpopulation could be contested as POV, but I reccommend you start by finding a more authoritative source than "economists". How is their opinion on ecological mnatters relevant? - Randwicked 04:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Our flat earth proponent seems to feel the following paragraphs are POV and is insisting on their removal:


 * Large areas are subject to overpopulation, industrial disasters such as pollution of the air and water, acid rain and toxic substances, loss of vegetation (overgrazing, deforestation, desertification), loss of wildlife, species extinction, soil degradation, soil depletion, erosion, and introduction of invasive species.


 * Long-term climate alteration due to enhancement of the greenhouse effect by human industrial carbon dioxide emissions is an increasing concern, the focus of intense study and debate.


 * Our local flat earth proponent seems to feel these statements are heaven forbid pro-environmentalism. However, the hazards listed above are real and backed by substantial scientific evidence. Pointing out real hazards should be acceptable to anyone living in the modern world :-) Vsmith 04:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoa, flat-earther? Fo' real? - Randwicked 04:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * See the Neutrality, Part II and Reverting NPOV? sections above - you gotta have a sense of humor :-) Vsmith 04:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

VSmith, I can't but assume you're trying to personally insult me, but I'll hold off for a clarification. I never supported the flat earth position, and you know it. And "Randwicked" -- I didn't cite "economists" alone, I cited two prominent environmentalists. Ever heard of The Skeptical Environmentalist? Why don't we talk about what that portion is actually trying to say? Is it saying that overgrazing, deforestation, desertification, etc. are all possible? Okay, then fine, but lots of other things are possible -- genocide, war, famine, communism, etc. The list could go on for days, and you'd probably delete any chance to insert such balance. So what is it saying? Is it saying that all those things are likely? If so, then it is stating something as fact when there definitely is no consensus. The best science tells us that less than 1% of species will go extinct over the next 100 years. If you want to re-iterate the 50,000 species a year claim, you'll need to edit the biodiversity and extinction articles first, where such claims are roundly rejected. So no, you don't have science on your side for those claims. And insofar as those claims even have plausibility, they're definitely not worldwide problems (thus not meriting position in the "earth" article). There's just as much forest as there was in North America as there was 100 years ago. Would you care to give a mainstream source for any of those claims? Learning you have a bias is the first step toward being a productive Wikipedia contributor. MrVoluntarist 05:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "MrVoluntarist", overgrazing, deforestation and desertification are not just possibilities, they are occuring all over the world on a daily basis. Marginal Australian rangelands, the Amazon and the Aral Sea basin are just respective examples of the above. The para you are complaining about is not talking about possibilites, it is talking about current events. And what claims have I made about actual numbers for extinction? Are you confusing me for someone else making a different comment on an unrelated article? - Randwicked 07:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously, they're not happening "all over the world", re my point about N. American forests. If you want to claim it's happening in specific places, then say so, and back it up with mainstream sources.  But then, it just becomes a long diatribe that doesn't belong in an article about the earth.  Regarding extinction claims, what numbers do you claim for extinction to justify the claims in the article?  Does 0.7% over the next 100 years constitute a crisis?MrVoluntarist 14:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't say that these events are happening "all over the world". However, they are common, serious and undebatable enough that they have a rightful place in a section entitled "Natural and environmental hazards" within the larger section "Environment and Ecosystem" of an article on Earth. And what number of extinctions do YOU feel constitute a crisis? - Randwicked 14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If they're not happening "all over the world", they don't quite belong in an article about the earth, now, do they? And they're certainly not "undebatable".  They are debated -- heavily.  What extinction constitutes a crisis?  Irrelevant.  Give the hard numbers and let the reader decide.  You fail to understand that Wikipedia is not here to promote issues of concern to you.  If it's relevant and factual, add it.  Otherwise, don't look for opportunities to insert your bias. MrVoluntarist 15:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes they do, these things are happening in places all over the world and are of local, regional, national and global import. And as you are disputing this section as POV, can you point to some of this debate and address which of the mentioned issues you have trouble with? You cite Lomborg. I am interested for example in what he has said about land degradation? Also, please don't go telling me How It Is. It's impolite. - Randwicked 16:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't tell you How It Is??? Excuse me? You're asserting all kinds of things without basis, and then calling me impolite for stating known facts?  Well, let no one say you don't have ba guts.  I'm sure you feel that your pet environmental issues are things everyone should be concerned about, but that doesn't make it so.  And don't ask me for evidence -- you're the one advocating controversial statements be added as fact.  You need to cite your sources, if there even are any.  If you can't understand how "everything's going to hell" might be POV and maybe original research, I don't know what to tell you. MrVoluntarist 17:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear oh dear, looks like I'll have to clarify. Please don't go telling me that I fail to understand what Wikipedia is here for, or that I am just looking for opportunities to insert my bias. I'm not advocating controversial statements be added, I'm calling for the continued inclusion of information on human impacts, a segment which if you will look was not added by me, but has been present largely unchanged since the creation of this article over four years ago. To me, that is a devastating argument for consensus for continued inclusion. If you want to fight such a precedent I suggest you start by citing some credible source to your claim that the given human impacts on the Earth are seriously debated or are POV. The burden rests on you, friend. - Randwicked 17:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is interesting. Because no one bothered to delete something for four years, it must be true.  Can't be that the Wikipedia editors of the earth article have a bias in favor of believing it's true... naw, can't be that at all.  I'd be glad to show sources, but not because any "burden" rests on me.  I shouldn't have to cite my own sources every time some do-gooder that stumbled upon Wikipedia wants to use it to promote issues he's concerned about, but, just because I like watching people squirm, I will.  But before I do so, I have to ask: is the claim that "everything's going downhill" what you regard as a NPOV statement? Is the whole concept of overpopulation undisputed? MrVoluntarist 18:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Where does it say "everything's going downhill"? Hint: IT DOESN'T. That's the third or fourth time you've raised objections to things that aren't even in the article. Should I conclude you are trolling? Even if you're not you're not making any viable suggestions or indicating you're interested in providing any. If you want to call this section POV please provide evidence of some major debate over any of the issues. Also, please see my prior comments on overpopulation (and read the article again before commenting. Please). - Randwicked 00:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It alleges, without citation (but with proponents of the passage refusing to reference even one work) that all of those things are global problems. That's extremely debatable.  The article on The Skeptical Environmentalist shows why.  And you, really, really have quite some nerve to claim I'm trolling.  You're trying to hijack Wikipedia to promote environmental issues you like, and if I object and suggest an NPOV passage, I'm "trolling".  Un.  Believable.  VSmith has already agreed with me that at the very least, overpopulation is debatable.  Ergo, it should not be stated as fact.  But then, if we suggest there's debate about it, it's harder to whip people into fervor and support policies you like, isn't it?  Ay, there's the rub. MrVoluntarist 20:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If the current rate of deforestation continues, the world's rain forests will vanish within 100 years-causing unknown effects on global climate and eliminating the majority of plant and animal species on the planet. - NASA Earth Observatory Tropical Deforestation Fact Sheet. Desertification does not refer to the expansion of existing deserts. It occurs because dryland ecosystems, which cover over one third of the world‘s land area, are extremely vulnerable to over-exploitation and inappropriate land use. Poverty, political instability, deforestation, overgrazing and bad irrigation practices can all undermine the productivity of the land. Over 250 million people are directly affected by desertification, and about one billion people in over one hundred countries are at risk. These people include many of the world‘s poorest, most marginalized and politically weak citizens. - United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (PDF) In 1996 it was revealed that one in eight birds (12%) and one in four mammals (23%) were threatened with extinction (falling into the Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable categories). This infamous line-up has now been joined by one in three amphibians (32%) and almost half (42%) of turtles and tortoises. With amphibians relying on freshwater, their catastrophic decline is a warning about the state of the planet’s water resources. Even though the situation in freshwater habitats is less well known than for terrestrial, early signs show it is equally serious. More than half (53%) of Madagascar’s freshwater fish are threatened with extinction. The vast ocean depths are providing little refuge to many marine species which are being over-exploited to the point of extinction. Nearly one in five (18%) of assessed sharks and rays are threatened. Many plants have also been assessed, but only conifers and cycads have been completely evaluated with 25% and 52% threatened respectively. [...] “Although 15,589 species are known to be threatened with extinction, this greatly underestimates the true number as only a fraction of known species have been assessed. There is still much to be discovered about key species-rich habitats, such as tropical forests, marine and freshwater systems or particular groups, such as invertebrates, plants and fungi, which make up the majority of biodiversity,” says Craig Hilton-Taylor, IUCN’s Red List Programme Officer. - World Conservation Union 2004 Red List press release


 * "You're trying to hijack Wikipedia to promote environmental issues you like, and if I object and suggest an NPOV passage" Dude, if you want to suggest an NPOV passage, I suggest you start suggesting one instead of just raging against what you think my motives are. "VSmith has already agreed with me that at the very least, overpopulation is debatable." That was me. Please reread the talk page as well so you understand what exactly is being argued. - Randwicked 06:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Aw - no insult intended, just an attempt at humor re your previous stand in the sections above. As for Lomborg: he is maybe a statistician who wrote a tome about stuff beyond his expertise, hardly qualifies as a prominent environmentalist. No one is claiming the 50,000 bit - why would you think that? - reading stuff that isn't there? Is that your reason for deleting? And yeah we all have biases - kinda like a result of our life experiences. I know mine - do you know yours? Cheers Vsmith 05:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * He's just some dude who wrote a tome? He's not a "prominent environmentalist"?  What are you disputing there?  That's he's prominent or that he's an environmentalist?  I can't see anyone making a case for either with a straight face.  The book had ~2000 citations that documented every claim, any one of which I could cite to dispute the blatant assertions in the article.  And re:50,000 species -- the sentence is claiming that loss of species is a problem.  The figure is 0.7% over the next 100 years.  If you want to cite that specific figure and let the reader decide for him/herself if that's a problem, go ahead, but I doubt you want to, as when people learn the facts they tend to start to see through the smokescreen.  I deleted that sentence because it doesn't belong.  A random sentence in the earth article about some problems we (debatably) face belongs, at best, in the human article.  And more importantly, the claims aren't even true -- not to the same standard expected on the rest of Wikipedia.  I can give you citation after citation mined from TSE if you want.  It's obviously an attempt by someone to get a plug in for their pet causes and hope people won't delete it.  And I'd love to leave it in and add balance, but like I said, it's largely irrelevant.  Even if I balance it, it would be so bulky with so many caveats, people would wonder why it's even in there.  Sure we should prefer improvement to deletion, but I don't see an alternative. And contrary to the intellectually honest "Randwicked" I didn't remove the second sentence.  I change it from saying "humans cause global warming and that's a problem" to "global warming and the extent to which it's caused by humans is debate" ... and of course, at that point, you begin to wonder what it's doing in the article, but that's never stopped you. MrVoluntarist 14:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What one must remember is that stating that something is "bad for the earth" or "a problem for the earth" is making a value judgement, that the earth is somehow "better off" without these things. This can stem from two possible standpoints, as near as I can reckon: one, that the 'ideal earth' is one without any sort of human impact; and two, that the value of the earth is measured by its ability to sustain life. I personally tend to agree with the latter of those two, but it is POV nonetheless. So don't say "bad for the earth" or "a problem for the earth"; say "could harm the earth's ability to sustain life". Remember, on Venus it rains sulfuric acid -- is this a bad thing? No!Kai 06:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Kai Miller, well done! Excellent argument, and it seemed to stop this debate in its tracks. Is there an award that be be offered, like a Barnstar award, but an award for managing to put forward a good argument that diffuses debate? If not, I think one should be created for this purpose! :) --User:Rebroad 13:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Introduce a section on the fate of Earth?
Should a section on the fate of Earth be added? It is widely theorized that the Earth will either be consumed by the Sun or turned into a Venus or Mercury environment as the Sun expands into a red giant in a few billion years. Then, once the Sun releases it's outer layers as a planetary nebula, it may very well destroy Earth or at least severely damage it. -- tomf688 {talk} 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Definetely! Actually, that's why I dropped by the article in the first place and I must say I was a bit disappointed when it didn't mention 'the end' at all. If I can remember my physics classes properly, the sun is approx halfway in its lifetime and will in some five billion years become a red giant, engulfing the earth.. I guess the question will be whether the article should discuss the probability of meteoroids hitting the earth, killing all life, stopping photosynthesis and the like. Superdix 00:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I took physics, chemistry, and 2 biologies, and they never said anything about that. Maybe because they were in high school. Flameviper12 13:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are the north and south pole so cold?
Can anyone answer this? I've checked the articles on both poles and didn't see the answer if it was there. Initially I suspected that the colder areas at the poles were caused by less intense sun light in those regions. Is that what causes those areas to be so cold?


 * That's it. Sunlight strikes the poles at a much lower angle, so the same energy is spread over a wider area than at the equator. - Redwicked 23:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's because of capitalist exploitation. And because we didn't sign Kyoto. Right?  Isn't that how it goes? MrVoluntarist 17:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you're catching on. There's hope for you yet, comrade! - Redwicked

I think this is a funny statement
and the only planetary body that modern science confirms as harboring life.

so sceince has to confirm that there is life on earth. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.245.2.222 (talk • contribs).


 * Trivial though it is on Earth, the point of the sentence is, science has not confirmed life anywhere else. The really funny thing is, science indeed has objectively affirmed there is life on Earth. As a control experiment, the Galileo spacecraft confirmed in its 1990 fly-by that Earth meets the Sagan criteria for harboring life. Femto 14:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what's tricky is deciding what counts as life. I bet there's an article somewhere on definitions of life, probably at life, but it's way too almost-two-in-the-morning for me to follow my own link. If memory serves, the Sagan criteria were for garden-variety life-as-we-know-it life? I'm going for the record in the hundred-meter excessive-unnecessary-hyphenation-style write-off. Kai 06:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Science isn't neutral?
To the flat Earth advocate,

Since when isn't science neutral? Scientific theories must be testable and falsifiable, and subjected to peer review. Sometimes science is faked, but fake science can be disproved by better science, and the process is neutral. If the scientific method is not neutral, then what basis do we have to discuss neutrality? The flat Earth is a well known theory, but it is widely regarded as an inferior theory to the spherical Earth (and related cosmos), because the modern theory makes better predictions. If your theory makes better predictions than the sidereal theory, then cite your sources. If your flat Earth theory makes no predictions, and accounts for nothing that the modern theory does not, then how is it relevant? Should we assume that you have equal objections to the human article, since it describes people as a species of animal, rather the descendents of deities? But science does not contradict any alternative theory of the cosmos, and it is neutral on the subject of religion, because untestable hypotheses are not the subject of science. Science is the activity of finding neutral grounds for which to debate the subjects of empirical inquiry. Wikipedia is not a source of the truth, it is a secondary source which reports the consensus of verifiable primary sources. Disagreements on a scientific basis would perhaps be relevant, but disagreements on a basis that is untestable are unwinnable arguments and do not form the subject of an encyclopedia article. oneismany 14:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
This article conforms nicely to NPOV as far as I can tell. The allegations of POV based on religious reasons are groundless. Just as pro-science editors do not slap NPOV tags on religious articles for stating the earth is 6000 years old in those articles, biblical literalist editors should reciprocate that courtesy.-- John DO | Speak your mind  18:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Physical Characteristics
The bit which lists the geologic components and their depths seems to imply that the atmosphere is less a part of the earth than the solid bit, which varies from standard. Perhaps it should list all layers of the earth and their altitudes, with the sub-solid-surface layers in negative altitudes? I felt I ought to get feedback from more qualified parties before I made a rash change to a good article. Kai 07:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Location in the Universe
Just wondering if it would be a good idea to describe the location of the Earth within the universe as best we can. It seems like a major omission that the article doesn't even mention that the Earth is in the Milky Way galaxy. There is also no mention of nearby stars. Let's write the article in such a way that a reader who is not from Earth would be able to come visit.


 * I think this would be a good idea. Also sorely lacking is a "History" section which I plan to add as I work on History of Earth. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ 00:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just changed third planet form the sun to third planet of the sol system, I think its more specific, i.e. "Sun" is a relative term and could pretty much apply to any star. "Sol" the latin name for our sun is the generally accepted name.cros13 15:51, 3 April 2006

Albedo
I notice that Albedo in the infobox seems to be the Geometric Albedo of the Earth, not the Bond Albedo. Should Bond Albedo be included as well? - Bill3000 16:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

History
(Practically) every article deserves a "history" section, in my opinion. I just added one, but it is not easy to condense 4.5 billion years into a single paragraph. Feel free to add or trim as necessary. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ 06:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mostly harmless!
Flameviper12 12:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Age
This article starts out saying the scientific evidence indicates the Earth was formed 4.57 billion years ago and refers the reader to Age of the Earth, which lists the formation at 4.55 billion years ago. What is the source for this age? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ 17:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 4.53 to 4.58 billion years from Canyon Diablo section of Age of the Earth, if that helps. Vsmith


 * It comes from 4.56717 +/- 0.0007 Gyr which is a high precision date for the earliest CAI formation from Amelin, Krot, Hutcheon, and Ulyanov, "Lead Isotopic Ages of Chondrules and Calcium-Aluminum-Rich Inclusions", Science 297, Sept. 6, 2002.  It technically provides an approximate bound for the age for solar ignition, but the bulk of the Earth coalesced not more than a few tens of millions of years after that.  Dragons flight 21:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Population should be included in infobox
Don't you agree? --Revolución hablar ver 20:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If I could decide, I'd devote this article only to the planet Earth. Demographics and other data not related directly to our planet as astronomical body should belong to other articles. The world article (after heavy improvement) is perhaps the most suitable for that.--Jyril 20:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with the inclusion of world population in the infobox because yes this is a planet, but it is also OUR planet. Earth is different from Mars, from Venus, from Jupiter, from Pluto, because people actually live here. 6.5 billion humans live on this planet, so I think that's notable.


 * IMHO that's the very reason why mentioning the number of people is unnecessary. But this is just a matter of opinion.--Jyril 11:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We have the whole Human geography subsection devoted to us. I wouldn't think people who don't know which planet they live on (I know some…) will have much use for some number in an infobox either. In this context the actual number is no more notable than the number of ants. Or the overall biomass; I'd rather see that than only the humans. Femto 11:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)