User:Viriditas/Snowball Earth hypothesis

Requested move
Snowball Earth hypothesis Short reason. ~

Draft

"Snowball Earth" is a nickname for a period in Earth's geological past when the planet was thought to be covered with ice. The term is often used in quotes to indicate it is being used to refer to this period. "Snowball Earth hypothesis" (SEH) refers to the collection of evidence supporting the idea. SEH is the primary topic where the "Snowball Earth" period is discussed. The term "Snowball Earth hypothesis" is widely used, from popular books to specialist encyclopedias, from newspapers and magazines to journals and university press releases. To avoid amibiguity and to insure accuracy, Wikipedia uses full titles whenever possible. The use of the word "hypothesis" in article titles is a common and standard naming convention. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. This includes article titles, so long as they are compliant with Wikipedia policies. The secondary and tertiary literature favors the term "Snowball Earth hypothesis". The primary literature also uses the term when reporting new research or analysis. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and it would be instructive to see how other tertiary sources treat the subject. The best example can be found in an encyclopedia entry titled "Snowball Earth hypothesis", published on the Encyclopædia Britannica Online website:

"in geology and climatology, an explanation first proposed by American geobiologist J.L. Kirschvink suggesting that Earth's oceans and land surfaces were covered by ice from the poles to the Equator during at least two extreme cooling events between 2.4 billion and 580 million years ago. The evidence for this hypothesis is found in old rocks that preserved signs of Earth's ancient magnetic field. Measurements of these rocks indicate that rocks known to be associated with the presence of ice were formed near the Equator. In addition, there is a 45-metre- (147.6-foot-) thick layer of manganese ore in the Kalahari Desert with an age corresponding to the end of the 2.4 billion-year “Snowball Earth” period; its deposition is thought to have been caused by rapid and massive changes in global climate as the worldwide covering of ice melted. Two important questions arise from this hypothesis. First, how, once frozen, could Earth thaw? Second, how could life survive periods of global freezing? One proposed solution to the first question involves the outgassing of massive amounts of carbon dioxide by volcanoes, which could have warmed the planetary surface rapidly by enhancing the planet's so-called greenhouse effect, especially given that major carbon dioxide sinks (rock weathering and photosynthesis) would have been dampened by a frozen Earth. One possible answer to the second question may lie in the existence of present-day life-forms within hot springs and deep-sea vents, which would have persisted long ago despite the frozen state of Earth's surface. Alternatively, meltwater ponds on the surface of the ice or warmer refugia near active volcanoes may have provided sanctuary to early life-forms. Much debate continues to surround this idea, and many critics have voiced their support for a competing premise called the 'Slushball Earth hypothesis.'"

Another good tertiary source on the subject is the current entry for the "Snowball Earth Hypothesis" in the Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments (2009), authored by Grant M. Young of the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Western Ontario:

"The snowball Earth hypothesis (SEH) suggests that the Earth experienced surface temperatures so low that virutally its entire surface was covered by glaciers and/or thick sea ice periodically during its early history. Such a condition has been hypothesized for parts of the Neoproterozoic Era from about 750 million years ago (Ma) to about 500 Ma [...] A similar frozen state has been proposed during the early part of the Paleoproterozoic Era at about 2.300 Ma. There is little evidence of glaciation in the long intervening period but recently Williams (2005) presented evidence for glaciation in the Kimberly region of Western Australia at about 1.800 Ma."

When two major encyclopedia entries, authored by published experts in their respective fields, choose to use the term "Snowball Earth hypothesis" while Wikipedia does not, should an attempt be made to reconcile the difference? Is this a red flag? Could editorial bias or ignorance be at work here? For example, noting the above, I moved Snowball Earth to Snowball Earth hypothesis. My page move was reverted approximately ten minutes later by a user who had never edited the article before and disputed the move. Looking into this further, the user in question had only 20% of their edits in article space, while a whopping 32% in project space. All of this with a total of only 16,373 edits since 2003, with almost no activity between 2003-2005. The evidence points to this account being used primarily for administrative purposes only, not for editing. When asked why the page move was reverted, I was promptly informed that the user was an expert and they personally knew the page move was wrong. When it was pointed out that reliable sources clearly and explicitly prefer the term "Snowball Earth hypothesis" over the ambiguous "Snowball Earth" (which, depending on the context, can refer to the glacial period or the hypothesis) and that the person who coined the term uses "Snowball Earth Hypothesis", I was informed by the user that the use of the term in primary sources were more important. The user argued that "my personal experience as a geophysicist is that scientists in papers and presentations don't feel compelled to use the extended form and often do not." The problem is that this rationale contradicts WP:PSTS. Scientific papers and presentations are generally considered primary sources, and Wikipedia articles are named and composed based on secondary sources first, and specialist literature second. Even so, the "papers and presentations" don't need to use the term "hypothesis" but often do, even when the authors are communicating with their peers. Because the user in question has such a low percentage of their work in article space, I might assume that they are not familiar with the applicable policies and guidelines. In addition to the two reliable tertiary sources cited above, the table below shows that the secondary literature favors the term "Snowball Earth hypothesis" to describe the topic, often using "Snowball Earth" in quotes as a nickname for both the glacial period and also as shorthand for the hypothesis.

Other questions

 * How many articles currently use the word "hypothesis" in their title?
 * How many use redirects instead?

Table

 * Sample of published literature