Talk:History of Earth/Archive 4

Eras of the Phanerozoic addition?
I've already added this to the Phanerozoic article, and I'm thinking that I should add it here as well. If you have anything you want to change, either change it directly, or tell me on my talk page. I'd appreciate your input! I'll be adding it tomorrow, but you're still free to edit it further (but if you're going to delete, please tell me why)... Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Since this is a copy of the Phanerozoic article as it stood a few days ago, I have taken the liberty of putting it in a collapsible box so people can find the discussion. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your offer. You are welcome to add some material, but you should bear in mind a few things:
 * We have a lot of material on the Phanerozoic already, so you'll need to be careful how you blend the new stuff in.
 * Aside from the largest time divisions, this article is organized by theme, not period, and it would be best to stick to that organization. You might want to look at Geological history of Earth, which is organized more like Phanerozoic.
 * This article is a failed Good Article nominee, but it has been much improved since then, so you need to maintain the high standards. In particular, bare urls for citations will not do. I see that someone has cleaned up your citations in Phanerozoic.
 * RockMagnetist(talk) 05:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how those bear URL's got in there, but I've added the original copy from my sandbox which (to my knowledge) has no bare URL's. If you wish to edit that section, please do, and then tell me what you did because I'd like to keep my sandbox copy up-to-date. If you wish to delete it, please tell me why (and it better be a good reason...) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember my points about thematic organization and blending the material in? Please don't just paste it in. You need to read the existing material and see where (and if) your material fits. Much of your text duplicates existing material. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess I could add the Cenozoic section because the existing one is lacking in information. I don't really know if I can merge the rest though, but I'd appreciate it if anyone could find a spot for it in this article. I also added it to the Mesozoic, but if you want to delete that one, I'd understand. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I have to keep reverting your additions, but you need to understand the issues. If it were o.k. to just paste a verbatim copy of Phanerozoic, then why not also Cenozoic? And why stop there? You could also paste in Paleogene, Neogene, and Quaternary; then Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene,  Pleistocene, and Holocene; then Gelasian, Calabrian, Ionian, Tarantian, ... and so on. Where would it end? That doesn't make for good articles. Articles on broader subjects should contain summaries of subtopics (see Summary style). I know it's much more work, but there is no substitute for reading this article and thinking carefully about how to add to it. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't add the entire "Mesozoic" section, just the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous subsections. You deleted too much and someone's going to have to re-write it... Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've re-written the section titled "Diversification of Mammals". Before I add it (in about a week or so), tell me what you think. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * One last comment here, then I'll move on to diversification of mammals. If you look at the edit summaries, you'll see that I did some work after deleting your material. Some years ago, I pointed out that the organization of the article was inconsistent, with most sections being organized thematically but the Phanerozoic being organized by era. There was some support for changing this, but I never got around to doing it. Now I have done it. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, another comment. Would you mind if we deleted the copy of Phanerozoic? We can always look at the article, and the copy puts a large table of contents at the top of this discussion. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead, I have plenty of copies. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Diversification of mammals
The first true mammals evolved in the shadow of the giant reptiles that filled the world during the mid-Mesozoic. Probably the first mammals were nocturnal to escape predation, and rather small. Mammals only began to diversify after the K-T extinction event when the world was left empty of anything over 10 kilograms. The early Eocene was when earth recovered from the extinction, but mammals were still quite small and living in the shadow of the dinosaurs' descendants: birds. Birds, like Gastornis, ruled the earth, and forced some mammals to evolve to escape predation. Creatures like Ambulocetus took to the oceans to eventually evolve into whales, whereas some creatures, like primates, took to the trees. This all changed during the mid to late Eocene when the circum-Antarctic current formed between Antarctica and Australia which disrupted weather patterns on a global scale. Prairies (without grass) set out to rule much of the earth, and mammals such as Andrewsarchus rose up to become the largest mammalian predator ever and early whales like Basilosaurus took control of the seas. The Oligocene saw the evolution of grass, and the beginnings of its conquest to rule the world's flora.

The evolution of grass brought a remarkable change to the planets landscape, and the new open spaces created pushed mammals to get bigger and bigger. Grass started to expand in the Miocene, and the Miocene is where many modern day mammals. Perissodactyls like Paraceratherium and Deinotherium (rhinos and elephants) evolved to rule the grasslands. The evolution of grass also brought primates down from the trees, and started the human branch. The first big cats evolved during this time as well, and will eventually branchiate into lions and other large felids. Major tectonic events were occurring alongside these events. The Tethys Sea was closed off by the collision of Africa and Europe, and the Isthmus of Panama form between North and South America.

The formation of Panama was perhaps the most important geological event to occur in the last 60 million years. Atlantic and Pacific current were closed off from each other, which caused the formation of the Gulf Stream, which made Europe warmer (winters wouldn't get colder than 10 degrees Celsius). The land bridge allowed the isolated creatures of South America to migrate over to North America, and vise versa. The ancestors of bears, cats, dogs, horses, llamas, and raccoons all migrated across, which is why we have the Spectacled Bear, the Puma (in both of the Americas), and the Llama (which evolved in North America).

Three million years from today was the Pleistocene epoch, probably one of the most famous epochs in geological history. This epoch featured a roller coaster of climactic changes due to the ice ages. The ice ages led to the evolution of modern man in Saharan Africa (which formed due to the Ice Ages) and expansion. The mega-fauna that dominated fed on grasslands that, by now, had taken over much of the subtropical world. The large amounts of water held in the ice allowed for various bodies of water to shrink and sometimes disappear such as the North Sea and the Bering Strait. It is believed by many that a huge migration took place along Beringia which is why, today, there are camels (which evolved and went extinct in North America), Horses (which evolved and went extinct in North America), and Native Americans. The ending of the last ice age coincided with the expansion of man, along with a massive die out of ice age mega-fauna. This extinction, nicknamed "the Sixth Extinction", has been going ever since. In present day, mammals have come a long way from shrews living in the shadows of the Mesozoic forests.


 * Good choice of subject. It's the part of the existing article that is most in need of help. I think that, with a little cleanup, it would be quite a suitable addition. I'll try to get to it soon. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Should I work on a Mesozoic version, or would that be too much? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not much point in that, since the Mesozoic no longer has its own section. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Should we re-add the section because that's a fairly important time in earth's history (involving life)? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the previous section again. As I mentioned there, that is not the way the rest of the article is organized, and there was a discussion some time ago in favor of using the same organization for the Phanerozoic. I do describe the time divisions at the top of History of Earth. RockMagnetist(talk) 14:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot about that. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

On the topic of adding that revised version at the top of the section, should I go ahead and with it, or does it need to be revised? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the material on mammals? RockMagnetist(talk) 00:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The first two paragraphs of this section; the writing in the collapsible box Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It does need significant revision to look more encyclopedic, but it is still an improvement over the existing material in that section, so I'd be o.k. with your adding it. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One thing you should do first is to convert your bare urls to proper citations. It looks like you can use cite web for all of them. I have done the first one to provide you with an example. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoa, that's confusing. Is there some tutorial for proper citations? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You could try Tutorial/Citing sources. Thanks for indenting, by the way. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The last two paragraphs of this section need to be (heavily) revised. I have done something about the problem by striking out some extravagant claims: E.g.: "the Pleistocene epoch, probably one of the most famous epochs in geological history." E.g.: "The ice ages led to the evolution of modern man in Saharan Africa (which formed due to the Ice Ages) and expansion." But quite a lot more needs to be done. Filursiax (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Should this article be reorganized by geological divisions?
I don't know if you've noticed, but everything talking about geological time (which makes up over half of the articles info) is not organized thematically, but rather chronologically. When speaking in terms of geological time, it is natural to order them chronologically, which is why I strongly suggest reorganizing the rest of the article chronologically rather than thematically. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * By "chronologically" you mean by geological time units. Of course, it is divided into eons. I have some reasons for preferring this organization:
 * There is no single right or wrong approach. This article is intermediate between Geological history of Earth, which organizes time by epoch, and Evolutionary history of life, which is entirely thematic. It seems to me that when there are articles with overlapping contents, it is good to vary the presentation.
 * Since we're trying to cover all of Earth's history, we need to paint with a very broad brush. The article size is already 52kb of readable prose size, with some sections still needing expansion (see the size guideline). I think it is easier to be concise if we keep the time divisions large.
 * This is the way the article has developed, and we have been working section by section to raise it to a Good Article level (see the to-do list at the top of this page for progress so far). You're still relatively new to Wikipedia, so I don't think you realize how much work this involves. A major reorganization would set this effort back.
 * I have provided a separate section heading for this discussion. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

635 Ma glaciation
Well, went through a reference from that section, and found another article there — 'Snowball Earth' hypothesis challenged, dated October 12, 2011: «The hypothesis that Earth was completely covered in ice 635 million years ago has received a serious blow. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide during that period was much lower than previously thought, according to a team of researchers.» There's also this piece, too: «Moreover, this data is consistent with the idea that the atmosphere at the same period was much more oxygen-poor, around 1%, as compared to today's levels of approximately 20%.» — which is utterly interesting and worth considering, etc. Lincoln J. (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that Britannica has a separate article on the Slushball Earth hypothesis at . Both this idea and the drastic reduction in oxygen levels are covered in Snowball Earth. I think majority opinion still favours the snowball hypothesis, but I agree that this article is too definite in implying that the snowball is unquestioned fact. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reference. I'm not sure what part of "Some scientists suggest ... a hypothesis called Snowball Earth" is too definite for you. However, this section could be improved with a summary of the pros and cons that are discussed in Snowball Earth. Feel free to tinker with it! RockMagnetist(talk) 17:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I did not read it carefully enough. I will have a go if someone more expert does not take it on - and even better create an article on Slushball Earth. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely an expert will jump in, so go for it. Just remember that it should be fairly concise since we're covering all of Earth history in this article. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have had a go. Amend anything you are not happy with. I think there is too much on the earlier Huronian episode as it only seems to rarely be described as a Snowball Earth, but I have not taken this on. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * «I have had a go.» Where? Here? Lincoln J. (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * here. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Errata and placement in graphic needs correcting
Errata in the GTS graphic--(top, lede)--are: 1) "Hominids" should read "Hominins"--occurs twice; 2) Hadean color band should end at 4.0 Ga (vice 3.8). Help is requested of any editor to revise the graphic template. (OR: Questions, pls reply here.) Thank you. Jbeans (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The bar for dinosaurs also looks like it's the wrong size (it's hard to tell). And the start of photosynthesis, placed at 3.8 GA, is misplaced by nearly 1 billion years, by most counts. The article otherwise states that it began between 2.4 and 3.2 GA. 135.23.157.250 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The graphic was created back in 2010 by User:Woudloper, who is no longer active. The label shows photosynthesis as starting at about 3.5 Ga (the continuous bar is for prokaryotes), rather than the more accepted 3.2 Ga. The range of the dinosaurs is about right, unless you feel that the birds should continue this bar up to the present day. I could edit the graphic so that it says "ca. 3500 Ma - earliest start of photosynthesis" or similar. I could also fix the Hadean and the "hominids" while I'm at it. Mikenorton (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made those changes and tweaked the main boundaries - end Mesozoic to 66Ma, end Paleozoic to 252Ma and start Cambrian to 541Ma to match the latest ICS products. I will upload that version after a few days, if no-one objects to that approach. Mikenorton (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it should be consistent with the Dinosaur article, which includes birds.  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mikenorton, I support adding a sector for the Cambrian; and I urge that we not "extend the bar" to the present day for dinosaurs-as-birds---the dramatic extinction of the (non-avian) dinosaurs and the literal ending of their era is a touchstone that lay readers especially can relate to. Instead consider this alternative> Revise the current label on the graphic to read: "Non-avian dinosaurs"; then ensure that the end-of-the-bar coincides exactly with the  "end Mesozoic" at 66Ma. And please proceed  as you indicated. Thank you, and Regards. Jbeans (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, changed dinosaur bar as discussed and altered ca. to c. per WP:MOS and uploaded revised image. I can't see the new file yet, but I presume that's just a cache issue. I'm not sure about adding a separate Cambrian sector, so I've left that for now. Mikenorton (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks great!--a good improvement, and TYVM. I will return here after I can take time study the new edition--and probably with more "wish list". (My lobby for the Cambrian was from mistaking that you were offering it, but no issues--I still support the idea--as, again, it's a dramatic theme that will, IMO, resonate with lay readers--always a plus for the Wp.)//Jbeans (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I notated the following "punch list" of items (from the old graphic) that still needs correcting> 1. The recent edits show nicely on the new page graphic, BUT, not at all when the graphic is 'clicked' to zoom in---instead the old edition reappears without the new edits. Items 2 thru 6 are problems with data values, presented per the template that follows: 2. [CURRENTLY READS> "4560 Ma: Formation of the Earth"]---> {SHOULD READ> "c. 4540 Ma: Formation of the Earth"} 3. ["4527 Ma: Formation of the Moon"]---> {"c. 4480 Ma: Formation of the Moon"} 4. ["750-635 Ma: Two Snowball Earths"]---> {"c. 750-630 Ma: Two Snowball Earths"} 5. ["230-66 Ma: Non-avian dinosaurs"]---> {"c. 230-66 Ma: Non-avian dinosaurs"} 6. ["2 Ma: First Hominins"]---> {"c. __ Ma: First hominins"}

Items 2, 3, and 5 are corrections that conform their revised values to the article narrative; note, all are "c.", or circa, values--ie, should not be presented as other than approximate, which, again, is consistent with the article narrative. Item 4 is corrected for a significant figure value--in the context of precision, and of adjacent data values. Item 6 is a problem: the value "2" is outdated/wrong, and should be replaced; research homework is due. I volunteer for that task, but meantime let's discuss the above punch list; any additions, objections, comments? //Jbeans (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * #1 is not true. I consistently get the updated graphic all the way to largest size on Commons. Maybe purge your cache again? Or maybe it's something to do with Media Viewer, which I don't use. — Gorthian (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'm glad to know it not a broad problem, just my system--(it doesn't appear here to be either glitch you suggested, so I'll have to troubleshoot more).//Jbeans (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Re #6, as I understand it, the first hominin was homo erectus, so the 2 Ma is about right (agree we should add c. to the estimates). Mikenorton (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * After looking further into this, it seems that there are a number of candidates for the "earliest hominin", dating back to about 7 Ma, such as Sahelanthropus and Orrorin. Mikenorton (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * First, we agree to add "c." to all the event dates, as they all are estimates; and, as there have been no objections, I ask you to proceed with it. And with the changes in the data values if you agree.


 * There is debate in the industry as to whether Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus are hominins---and whether they are australopithecines, all members of which are considered hominins. But our quest is actually decided by a larger criteria, namely the definition of hominins that holds broad acceptance among scientists, which is: those species  of the (proto-human) tribe Hominini that arose after the split of the human lineage from the chimpanzee  lineage, (discussed here); this species can't be named because it is unknown or it is not agreed to at this time.


 * The temporal range currently debated for this event is from 13 mya to 4 mya---(see here (2nd para.): "Sometime during the late Miocene ..."). My suggestion is that we avoid choosing sides in the debates by posting the earliest date in that range, that is, 13 Ma, then adjust the article text (not the image) to say it is debated---which I will work on and post a proposed edit here soon. //Regards, Jbeans (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Paragraphs
Undid good faith edit re paragraphs (also per WP:LEAD)> Our priority here should be for the lay reader. Long runs of mashed-up sentences are discouraging to behold. There’s no guiding punctuation space to signal that a new line of thought is happening; no stopping point for the reader to reflect on the material just read; no place for you, reader, to visually ‘hold your place’, should you want to pause---no rest here, jus’ keep reading!

Serviceable paragraphs provide cohering  thoughts,  separated from the cohering thoughts of adjacent  serviceable paragraphs. They are separated physically---a service to the reader---for the advantages of: 1) comprehending a separate component of the larger body of material; 2) to signal a closing of ‘this’ line of thought; 3) and for ease of reading;---and why not? They shouldn’t be jammed together to degrade readability for no perceivable advantage gained.//Jbeans (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Address conjecture in causes of change.
Re, recent contention, and the addition at some point of "— now dominated by human activity—". "...now dominated by..." is conjecture. Adding the qualification "believed by some ..." improves the accuracy of the statement and lessens the appearance of agenda.

BTW -- new at this -- appreciate the patience. Is "take it to the talk" an asymmetrical activity? ChrisHackett (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "asymmetrical"... — Gorthian (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Who are the "some" who are believing?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To Mr Fink's comment, there are some researchers who believe that humans are causing changes in the biosphere, but there are other researchers who believe that there are many other major factors (like CO2 given off by melting permafrost)  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 04:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that however it's phrased, it needs a citation. — Gorthian (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing problems
Despite a rather long list of citations, much of the context remains unsourced and several claims lack attribution. :
 * The "Replication first: RNA world" sections starts with a broad statement about the use of DNA in all three domains of the three-domain system and that this in turn leads to prevalent use of RNA. Potentially great staff to include, but there is no mention of any source and how we know it.
 * The introduction of the "Proterozoic Eon" section contains the phrase "About 580 Ma, the Ediacara biota formed the prelude for the Cambrian Explosion." What this means is less than clear and the process is not exlained.
 * The "Emergence of eukaryotes" section includes the claim that "Eukaryotic cells (Eukarya) are larger and more complex than prokaryotic cells (Bacteria and Archaea), and the origin of that complexity is only now becoming known." The increased complexity is not explained by comparison, and the study of the phenomenon is alluded to but not really mentioned.
 * Also in the section, "Emergence of eukaryotes" there is a claim that "Possibly by around 900 Ma true multicellularity had also evolved in animals." The date is sourced, but neither the process nor any supporting evidence is mentioned. The sentence is attached to a well-sourced paragraph about the appearance of multicellular plants.
 * The segment on "Emergence of eukaryotes" concludes with the following sentence: "As the division of labor was completed in all lines of multicellular organisms, cells became more specialized and more dependent on each other; isolated cells would die." This seems to be a key concept in the evolutionary process, but has no source supporting it.
 * The "Late Proterozoic climate and life" segment includes the sentence: "Increased volcanic activity resulted from the break-up of Rodinia at about the same time." And how do we know this?
 * The "Late Proterozoic climate and life" spends a few sentences on new developments of "muscular and neural cells" and that they still lacked hard body parts. No source provided for either claim.
 * The "Phanerozoic Eon" segment includes a sentence on the formation of Pangaea from the union of previous continents. The continents are not named in the text and the description of the process mentions no source.
 * The "Phanerozoic Eon" segment includes a sentence on how "the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event ... wiped out the dinosaurs." This is not only unsourced, it is the first mention of the term dinosaur in the text and the term is not defined. By the way, dinosaurs are not really extinct. The theropoda group of dinosaurs has been redefined to include all modern birds. Meaning that there are currently about 10,000 living species of dinosaurs.
 * The "Phanerozoic Eon" includes a few sentence about the survival of "Mammals, birds, amphibians, crocodilians, turtles and lepidosaurs" and that they diversified into their modern forms. This is entirely unsourced. Their survival is well-known but still requires a proper source. Their diversification is much less known and might require additional explanation.
 * The "Tectonics, paleogeography and climate" segment opens with an explanation about the formation of additional oceanic crust by volcanic activity. Then it is explained that the process leads to the rise of the sea level and the covering of continental areas by water. Fascinating stuff, but not sourced.
 * The "Tectonics, paleogeography and climate" segment explains that following a massive extinction events, new species evolve and they are more diverse and better adapted to the new conditions. Fascinating note on the evolutionary process, but actually unsourced.
 * The "Tectonics, paleogeography and climate" segment concludes with Pangaea braking up into Laurasia and Gondwana. This sentence lacks both a source and an explanation of the process.
 * The "Cambrian explosion" segment begins with a rather lengthy explanation of how the new animal life forms of the era developed shells, skeletons or exoskeletons, and these hard party parts have left a larger mark on the fossil record than their predecessors. The entire explanation lacks a source.
 * The "Cambrian explosion" segment covers the appearance of fishes with massive body sizes. The example used is the Dunkleosteus and the segment explains that it could reach up to 7 meters (23 feet) in length. The appearance of the massive sizes is unsourced and the number given for the Dunkleosteus, contradicts our article on the subject. In the specific article, it is explained (with a source) that this fish could reach up to 10 meters (33 feet) in length.
 * The "Evolution of tetrapods" segment briefly covers the divergence of the Synapsids and the Sauropsida. It also mentions the contemporary diversification of fish, insects, and bacteria. Neither the divergence or this diversification is sourced.
 * The "Extinctions" is a lengthy coverage of five different extinction events, each given a different paragraph, some of them giving a statistic on the severity of the event. The problem is that there are only two sources in the entire segment, and they cover rather small portions of the text. Where did the rest of it come from? Particularly the numbers in these statistics.
 * The "Diversification of mammals" segment includes a sentence on how the Archaeoceti managed to take control of the seas. The term is not really defined and this "control" is not sourced.
 * The "Diversification of mammals" segment includes a section of a mass migration of mammal species from North America to South America, with several named examples. The problem is that the entire section has no source.
 * The "Diversification of mammals" segment concludes with a rather lengthy paragraph on the "dramatic climactic changes" of the Pleistocene, a large migration wave over Beringia, and the Holocene extinction. It is entirely unsourced, despite covering some key events. Plus, I am not sure this has anything to do with the diversification of mammals at all. It does not speak about new life forms, but about the extinction of old ones.
 * The "Human evolution" segment is better sourced, but concludes with the following sentence: "Tool use and communication continued to improve, and interpersonal relationships became more intricate." This has more to do with the technology and social life of the various human species than their evolution, and it is unsourced.
 * The "Civilization" segment contains a claim that the various civilizations that adopted agriculture enjoyed relative stability, increased productivity, and an expanding population. This is a major claim on the advantages of agriculture. But it has no source, nor does it address the continued survival of nomadic cultures.
 * The "Civilization" segment includes a sourced segment on the rise of Sumer. That seems nice. It is immediately followed in the same paragraph by the rise of Ancient Egypt, the Indus Valley Civilisation and History_of_China. None of the three are sourced in the text. The paragraph then continues with the invention of writing and its cultural impact. Again nothing is sourced.
 * The "Civilization" segment includes a sourced section on the state of civilization c. 500 BC. Advanced civilizations in the Middle East, Iran, India, China, and Greece, with periods of expansion and decline. Not too bad as a claim. The rest of the paragraph is a mess. It covers the unification of China and the spread of Chinese culture in East Asia, the impact of the Greco-Roman world on the Western world, the Christianization of the Roman Empire, the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Christianization of Europe, the rise of Islam and its dominance of Western Asia, the East–West Schism and its impact on the cultural divergence of Western Europe and Eastern Europe. This covers and mixes up some of the main of a 2000-years period. Without bothering to provide a single source. I am also not certain on the perspective of the paragraph. The Greco-Roman world included areas in three continents (Europe, Asia, and Africa) and there was contact and cultural exchanges with civilizations beyond its borders. See for example the article on Greco-Buddhist art and its impact on China and Japan.
 * The "Civilization" segment includes a sourced section on the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery, and the History of colonialism. While it could use expansion, these seems reasonable. The rest of the paragraph is a mess. It covers the Age of Enlightenment, the secularization of Europe, the World wars, the emergence of the League of Nations and the United Nations, the Decolonization process, the emergence of two superpowers, the Cold War, the formation of the European Union, and the process of globalization. This covers and mixes up the events of three centuries (18th to 20th). But it is entirely unsourced, and a bit too Eurocentric. The Enlightenment also affected the European colonies and the global scene, secularization is not only a European phenomenon, and the article on globalization points that the term is recent but the process is actually centuries-old. What of the effects on every continent?
 * The "Recent events" segment starts with a rather lengthy paragraph on the emergence of nuclear weapons, computers, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology, the effects of economic globalization, the increased influence of democracy, capitalism, and environmentalism, and concerns about disease, war, poverty, violent radicalism, human-caused climate change, and the continued increase of the world population. Nothing is sourced. And I am far from certain that some of these developments count as "recent". Nuclear weapons emerged in the 1940s, the first modern computers emerged in the 1930s and 1940s but their history goes back for millennia, the concept of genetic engineering emerged in the 1950s and the practical aspects of it in the 1970s, the concept of nanotechnology emerged in the 1950s and the practical field in the 1980s. All these events are older than the end of the Cold War, which is covered in the previous section. Democracy (as a system where decisions are taken by election) has appeared in various forms since the 6th century BC and has been on the rise since the 17th century, so I am not sure what "increased influence" means in this case. Our article on the history of capitalism traces the concept to the rise of the merchant class in the 14th century, the emergence of merchant capitalism in the 16th century, and industrial capitalism in the 18th century. It is far from a new system. Environmentalism emerged in the 19th century, out of concerns on the environmental effects of the Industrial Revolution. As for "disease, war, poverty", can anyone point me to a century without these elements. They are far more constant than taxes.
 * The "Recent events" segment concludes with a sourced segment on the Space Age from 1957 to the present. Good idea. Attached to it is an sentence on the emergence of the World Wide Web in the 1990s and its effects on developed world. This remains unsourced, and I am uncertain the effects are limited to a hand full of countries.

That is about it for the problems of the article. I hope I am not being too harsh. Dimadick (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your analysis. Most of this is no surprise - note that your comments are restricted to the unchecked sections in the todo list at the top of this page. So far, as I have added sources section by section, I have found the coverage unbalanced and inaccurate, so instead of just adding citations I have had to rewrite a lot of it. The task only seems to get more difficult as the story progresses forward in time. These days I don't have the time to research such broad subjects properly. I have also looked to the main pages for a few sections, but they often don't lend themselves to clear summaries. If you were to adopt one of these sections and rewrite it, that would be a big help. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on History of Earth. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_bio_1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_bio_2.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_bio_4.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://awcmee.massey.ac.nz/people/dpenny/pdf/Penny_Poole_1999.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"Overview"
Overview and Leds are exactly the same thing. Any "Overview" section thus should be merged into the lede, or renamed to a more appropriate name. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * While I don't necessarily agree that a section named "Overview" means that the content there should be in the lead, I do realize now that your name, "Eons", is probably a better name for that section. I've reverted my edit. — Gorthian (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would "Great Eons" be better? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, just "Eons" is fine. "Great" is a descriptor, nothing formal. Or perhaps "Geological eons", so it's clear we're not speaking metaphorically? — Gorthian (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on History of Earth. 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/20151225115518/http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/early_2.htm to http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/early_2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150824074726/http://www.im.microbios.org/0801/0801023.pdf to http://www.im.microbios.org/0801/0801023.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605061901/http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/site/GSL/shared/pdfs/Geoscientist/Download%20PDF%20copy%20of%20Geoscientist%2019.9%20September%202009.pdf to http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/site/GSL/shared/pdfs/Geoscientist/Download%20PDF%20copy%20of%20Geoscientist%2019.9%20September%202009.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_bio_1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_bio_2.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_bio_4.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://awcmee.massey.ac.nz/people/dpenny/pdf/Penny_Poole_1999.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.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) 03:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The first two original links were not dead. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Eons - tense
In the overview section "Eons", I changed some verbs in the past tense to make them agree with the rest of the text, which is in historical present. - Alumnum (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I will not revert it again, but please take a look at "expandes" Face-smile.svg . I didn't think that my revert would simply be reverted again, I hoped that if restoring, it would be done with more attention to details.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  - 01:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * All right then, I've corrected that grammatical mistake. Plus, the actual beginning of the Earth was changed back from "4,600 mya" to a more exact "4,540 mya". It was originally correct; I don't know way they changed it to this inexact value. - Alumnum (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, — Paleo Neonate  - 04:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Earth. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/66BdV5X0c?url=http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/pluto/ to http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/pluto/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151225115518/http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/early_2.htm to http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/early_2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150824074726/http://www.im.microbios.org/0801/0801023.pdf to http://www.im.microbios.org/0801/0801023.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060426221356/http://www.uni-muenster.de/GeoPalaeontologie/Palaeo/Palbot/seite1.html to http://www.uni-muenster.de/GeoPalaeontologie/Palaeo/Palbot/seite1.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) 15:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Earth. 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/20120419011108/http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~jfk4/PersonalPage/Pdf/Phl_Trans_B%20%28Kasting%26Howard%29_06.pdf to http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~jfk4/PersonalPage/Pdf/Phl_Trans_B%20%28Kasting%26Howard%29_06.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028022719/http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/nysgs/resources/images/geologicaltimescale.pdf to http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/nysgs/resources/images/geologicaltimescale.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) 16:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Citations of Anthropogenic Global warming
It would be good to find a citation to attach to the last lines of the introduction to better credit the article and suggest further reading material to those interested — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.3.18 (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The lead should not have citations. It should just be a summary of the cited content of the main text, but global warming is not covered in the main text. I would delete, but there is so much wrong with the article that it seems unfair to pick out one sentence which is basically correct. The whole article needs a re-write by someone who has a lot of time and knowledge. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move at this time. It's possible this is an WP:ENGVAR thing. Alternative names suggested (e.g. Earth's history) may be explored with future RMs. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

History of Earth → History of the Earth – See below Dudley Miles (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The name of the article should be "History of the Earth". "History of Earth" sounds like broken English. No? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. It actually was called History of the Earth until 2015 (and, for a brief period, it was called History of Earth according to godless heathens). The rationale for the move was "No 'the' before names of astronomical objects." True, "Earth" without a "the" is widely used on Wikipedia, but Naming conventions (astronomical objects) does not say anything specific about Earth. Instead, it states under the general guidelines that "Common names should be used for article names in preference to official, IAU-sanctioned names where the former are widely used and are unambiguous."


 * To my ear, "of the Earth" sounds better than "of Earth", so I tried searching "of the earth" -wikipedia and "of earth" -wikipedia -"of the earth". The former found 310 million pages, the latter 80 million. On Google Scholar, it's 3 million vs 2.2 million. On Google Books, 112 million vs 18 million. More specifically, the searches similarly favor "history of the Earth" over "history of Earth". So WP:COMMONNAME favors "History of the Earth". RockMagnetist(talk) 15:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it sounds strange. Would you say "History of the Mars". Btw. see https://www.dictionary.com/e/earth . Christian75 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you say "History of Moon"? This is the English language - you can't force consistency on it. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "moon" without "the" refers to any moons in the solar system. "The Moon" is our moon. "The Moon" is the proper noun. Christian75 (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Similarly "The Earth" is the proper name of our planet. History of Earth could be the history of soil. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be lowercase "the", though. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the history of soil would be lower-cased titled if it were named "History of earth". Randy Kryn (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, WP:DIFFCAPS would cover that. But we'd not use "earth" to refer to soil, since it's a usage that lost most of its currency.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support edited nom with lower-cased 'the' Oppose capital "The". The proper name of 'Earth' is 'Earth', not 'The Earth'. Lower-casing 'the' in the title would work, but not upper casing. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose move per above. "The Earth" is not the name of Earth.  ONR  (talk)  01:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have decided to edit the RM because it was not what Jorge Stolfi originally proposed and it is causing some confusion. The proposal is now to move it to "History of the Earth". RockMagnetist(talk) 03:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per ONR, and per the article Earth. The planet's name is 'Earth', per Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. Reading through Earth shows that the word "the" is seldom used when referring to Earth, the planet. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the preference of Wikipedians for "Earth" over "the Earth" (although Earth has both), I thought that it would be supported by WP:COMMONNAME. But as I showed above, the reverse is true. WP:COMMONNAME is a basis in Wikipedia policy for choosing a title; the practices and opinions of a few Wikipedia editors is not. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, good proof of the higher numbers for the words 'of Earth' belong to the wording 'of the'. And it's not an inaccurate name, which is why I wavered. But, in a possible losing cause I would stand with 'of Earth' because 'Earth' is the name of the planet, shown per Flag of Earth and many similarly-named pages. The present wording "History of Earth" reads perfectly fine and has not, nor would it be, confusing to people. But maybe I'm sticking to my preference because of a possible New Yorker cartoon I thought up long ago in which an elder woman is seen standing up, talking on a land-line phone, its cord extended, and saying quizzically "It's not called Earth anymore?" Randy Kryn (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, obviously, as the proposer. "History of Mars", "History of England", "History of Africa", and "History of Microsoft" are proper English.  Inserting a "the" in those cases would be wrong.  But "History of the Earth", "History of the Moon", "History of the Sun", "History of the Netherlands", and "History of the Church" are proper English; and omitting the "the" in these cases would be wrong.  Yes, it is totally not logical; but that is just how natural languages are. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per Jorge Stolfi but indeed like the Isle of Wight and not The Needles indeed "the" is lower case like History of the United States.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:CONCISE. While it is true that "History of Moon" would be wrong in English, that claim that "History of Earth" isn't idiomatic in English is just obviously and patently false. Just because it's an astronomical object doesn't magically mean it requires a "the" (cf. "History of Mars", etc.).  Every case is separate.  The fact that "History of the Earth" is also idiomatic in English is irrelevant. And WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to grammatical questions like this.  The  is "Earth".  Whether to use a "the" with it in particular constructions is a style question, not a name question.  (A "The", capitalized, can be part of a proper name of course, as with many bands, titles of works, and a handful of placenames like The Hague. It simply isn't in this case. Proof: It would not be possible to idiomatically write "Earth's orbit around the Sun is 365 days"; it would be the same as trying to write *"Hauge's first mention in the historical record was in 1242." Yet it's not, and that sentence about [the] Earth is perfectly sensible in English, unlike the broken one about The Hague.)  PS: Even if COMMONNAME could apply here, somehow (it really can't), it is not one of the WP:CRITERIA at all, but the default choice to  the actual criteria and all other applicable policies and guidelines. This one fails the CONCISE criterion right off the bat by adding an unnecessary word that does nothing to help the reader.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unpacking your (not very concise!) comment, I have a few points to make. First, it is relevant that "History of the Earth" is also idiomatic in English. Otherwise, we wouldn't be considering it. Second, I see nothing in WP:TITLE that makes COMMONNAME subordinate to CRITERIA. Both should be considered; and COMMONNAME is a good indicator of which title best satisfies Naturalness. Third, your point about Conciseness is a good one, although I wonder if the policy is really intended to apply to a little word like "the". However, if it is, maybe we should rename this article Earth's history. I would support that. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * good idea, and Support Earth's history per . The name fits under all naming criteria, and seems more concise while still defining the page fully. It's also an elegant name, and the title it deserves. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Current title is natural for the topic, just as history of Mars or history of Saturn would be. Srnec (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2019
i personally am an evolutionist,but i believe that everybody should be taught both sides of the debate young earth v old earth. i believe that you should also make a page where you are biased to the creationists since you all ready have a page biased to evolutionists and the theory of evolution. i hope you take the request into consideration, thank you 72.83.35.131 (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No explicit change requested per the instructions, just an opinion on the page. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Biased
I recommend that this page is biased to a non-creationist. As no-one was present at either the religious creation or the creation described here, this creation does not actually meet the requirements for "scientific" under the definition within Wikipedia itself. On the Wikipedia page defining the scientific method, it clearly states "The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed." Neither the religious nor method of creation described on this page was "observed" and so careful observation cannot be applied to it. Both methods require a "leap of faith" and therefore by claiming this is a scientific explanation of creation is clearly in error and is biased to an atheistic view.

I recommend a change be made to flag this page at the beginning as a "non-scientific" belief on par with the opinions of Biblical creationism.

Your attention to these concerns is greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbaptlltech (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The material in this article is amply supported by citations of peer-reviewed scientific articles and scientific books. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Per policy (WP:FALSEBALANCE), it is best to omit creationist arguments from articles about well established science (like geology, evolution, etc). On the other hand, Wikipedia has articles dedicated to religious cosmologies and creationism, including articles about related public controversies.  I also recommend reading Talk:Evolution/FAQ and scientific theory (not a hypothesis): there is no legitimate scientific debate about it and no faith needed to assess and understand it.  But also, this page is not a forum to debate science (WP:NOTFORUM), but to discuss specific improvements to the article and reliable sources.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello and thank you for your concerns. As PaleoNeonate explained, Wikipedia must adopt the mainstream scientific view, which is not creationist. The ages this article refer to were measured through radiometric dating and other reliable methods accepted by science as defined in that article you quoted. However, it's okay to have articles on creation science and other topics that are either pseudoscientific (not considered true science) or fringe theories (science that is not accepted by most scientists). If you have any further questions or suggestions to improve our articles, please feel free to ask! - Alumnum (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Why must Wikipedia adopt the "mainstream scientific" view? This is titled "History of Earth", which may as well include different written/recorded human histories. For example, the Sumerian King List records a "kingship" descending from "heaven" around 280,000 BC (in a long calculation taking the recorded years as factual). Modern science very well knows the crushing forces of nature grind all physical evidence to dust over thousands of years, and this article should allow for written evidence of historical precedent, not just those arguments made by an appeal to "authority" of some second hand publication of theoretical interpretation of physical and recorded evidence. The portion of the article that discusses the first known physical evidence of spirituality should include texts that reference antediluvian civilization. "Legitimate scientific debate" is subjective. Bainst (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "As no-one was present at either the religious creation or the creation described here" Even if someone was, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. What is reliable are the data gathered by geologists and astronomers, and not by creationists and other charlatans. Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * While endorsing the rebuttals to Fbaptlltech, I must protest that the term charlatan is too strong. According to Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and other dictionaries, a charlatan is a deliberate deceiver.  According to the same sources, a creationist is one holds a particular constellation of beliefs; he or she is not a charlatan for promoting them.  (Of course, a creationist who tried to convince others of the scientific view would arguably be a charlatan.) Peter Brown (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Acknowledging Peter Brown‘s concern regarding nomenclature for Fbaptlltech, and acknowledging that “charlatan” is strong language, I think it must also be acknowledged there’s a case where charlatan is not out of bounds: someone could hold creationist beliefs, understanding those beliefs to be grounded in faith, while also understanding those beliefs not to be backed by empirical evidence that would place those beliefs in the category of science… Consequently, if that person — even while wholeheartedly believing creationism as an article of faith — tried arguing their creationist beliefs were an alternate scientific explanation belonging in the same encyclopedia entry under the category of science, that person would be committing deliberate deceit… in that case charlatan would be the accurate word. —66.167.64.114 (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The argument by 66.167.64.114 seems to be that it is, in principle, possible for a creationist to be a charlatan. That's pretty uncontroversial. A stronger position would be that at least one creationist is in fact a charlatan, which seems quite likely given that there are lots of creationists.  My objection is to the phrase "creationists and other charlatans" which implies the even stronger proposition that all creationists are charlatans, just as "chemists and other charlatans" would imply that all chemists are charlatans. Peter Brown (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The fact that science is observational doesn't mean it can't make conclusions about past, unobserved events, because past events leave traces which can be observed.  Hut 8.5  21:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-origin-of-life. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Geological history of Earth into History of Earth
it's all there: Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, Phanerozoic. fgnievinski (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article covers a huge subject, and necessarily must summarize info from more specialized articles. These include History of life, Human history, and a multitude of others. Geological history of Earth is just one of these. It's not redundant, just more specialized. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The geological history is a massive subject on its own. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the suggested merge tags, as it seems unlikely that this will gather consensus. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 10:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021
The statement: "Human activity is now a dominant force affecting global change, harming the biosphere, the Earth's surface, hydrosphere, and atmosphere with the loss of wild lands, over-exploitation of the oceans, production of greenhouse gases, degradation of the ozone layer, and general degradation of soil, air, and water quality." does not include citation(s) to the source(s) supporting the statement. 47.51.27.61 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed the sentence for now. Vsmith (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-placental mammals predate birds
Under the Eons titled section, in the Phanerozoic part of the table, it somewhat misleadingly says, "Several mass extinctions occur, among which birds, the descendants of non-avian dinosaurs, and more recently mammals emerge." But mammals, at least the non-placental variety, are easily as ancient in origin as birds and perhaps even predate them by up to a 100 million years. Mammals 225-160 mya, birds 160 mya, and placental mammals 90-66 mya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.211.178 (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Percentages error
Under Oceans and atmosphere it says: "Stars are known to get brighter as they age, and at the time of its formation the Sun would have been emitting only 70% of its current power. Thus, the Sun has become 30% brighter in the last 4.5 billion years." There is an error with the percentages. If the sun was emitting 70% of its current power, an increase of 30% would mean that the sun is emitting 0,91% of the current power (0,70*1,3). 81.229.248.65 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes the source just says that there has been a 30% increase, so it would have been 77% as bright. I have amended. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Milankovitch cycles
This article fails to mention Milankovitch cycles, and may need an entire section on them. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 00:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

History of Earth → Earth history – However preferred 'History of X' may be as a style on Wikipedia, this page title just reads strangely with respect to reliable sources. This is commonly known as "Earth history", in every major university in the English language world (by a wide margin), just as the science is "Earth science". Even were the current title preferred, 'History of the Earth' would surely have read better. But in any case, Ngrams shows the gap in the actual usage. Then, if we move onto scholarly results, a search for "History of Earth" yields 13,700 raw results, and several early hits for this are not applicable. The fourth result I see is Geophagia: the history of earth-eating. Some other results use the chain of words 'history of earth', but as part of the phrase 'history of earth science', reinforcing the 'earth science' and 'earth history' phraseology. 'Earth history' has 205,000 raw results by comparison, and there are no results on the initial pages not clearly about 'earth history'. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, "History of the Earth" is at least as common and maybe slightly more common than "Earth History" based on the Google Ngrams. And "Earth" and "the Earth" are really just two different ways of writing about the planet we call Earth. However, we don't use the definite article before any other planets (such as Geological history of Mars), so for consistency I think dropping the article in titles like this with Earth in it is fine to do. But if people really want to move the article to History of the Earth I would be open to that. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If we Scholar that term too, we get around 56,000 hits, but most of the prominent ones seem to be from the 20th century (some earlier), rather than recent scholarship. A search of 2022 hits gives us 1,300 hits for "History of the Earth", 498 hits for "History of Earth", and 3,250 hits for "Earth history". The academic term preference appears consistent. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Geological history of Mars incidentally has its pairing in Geological history of Earth. But this article really lacks a direct parallel of quite the same ilk - the point being I'm not sure we should be looking at achieving consistency when there are no directly paralleled articles to be consistent with, and when the field has a clear scholarly name, if not common name. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (Well, I'm averse to adding in a "THE" into the title, as it should be consistent with the many other article titles that use "of Earth".) Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Earth history" sounds bizarre.  If it is first, then it should be in possessive form "Earth's history" (e.g. we say "German history" not "Germany history"), or else leave it in the object ("History of Germany").  I would support the inclusion of "the" in the current title.  Otherwise it sounds like the history of dirt. Walrasiad (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Walrasiad: Ironically, I thought 'History of Earth' sounded like the dirt, capitalisation notwithstanding. However, I assure you that 'earth history' is the prevalent name for the field, as any source analysis will attest, so why avoid using the actual language used for the field? What I haven't figured out yet is if there is some sort of geographical divide on this. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's still grammatically incorrect, and grates my ears. Anyway, we're not naming an academic department, we're looking for an article title understandable to general readers. "History of the Earth" is most straightforward and clear. Walrasiad (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The fact that university departments are called 'Earth history' is irrelevant. A department would be called 'German history' as a category, but a book or web page would be called History of Germany. I would support a change to 'History of the Earth' as discussed above because the current title is ambiguous and could mean history of dirt. Avoiding ambiguity is more important than consistency with other article titles. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I said it was the prevalent subject name in scholarly sources, not a department name. Just a 'history department' is what would cover German history. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My point stands that 'Earth history' makes sense as a topic, not a title of a book or article. There is a book called A Brief History of Earth, none called Earth History. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per above. History of X is the default way to title such articles on Wikipedia, so gets a nod on WP:CONSISTENCY grounds, and I'm not convinced that Earth history is truly the commonly used term for exactly this topic. Certainly it sounds odd to my ears in this context, just as it does above. I get the impression from looking at Google results that "Earth history" is more of a specialist name referring to geological study, rather than the broader topic we have here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)