![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Should this article include the image (Hadean.png) that is an artist's impression of the Earth during the Hadean (created by User:Triangulum)? This image was removed on 14 November 2018 by IP user 86.141.111.80, who justified the removal by claiming that the image is original research. The image was restored by User:Vsmith a day later. How realistic is this image? Currently, there is no evidence that this image is supported by scientific research similar to how NASA's artistic impressions of planetary bodies are supported. Can use of the image be justified e.g. on the basis that although it is only a guess, it may be no less wrong than any other artist's impression because nobody will ever know for sure what the Earth looked like in the Hadean? On the other hand it may be completely wrong. My opinion is that this image currently seems to represent original research and therefore I suggest that it should be removed from the article. GeoWriter ( talk) 16:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
References
This website from the ICS suggests Hadean is pronounced with only two syllables, not three. It shows the syllabification is 'Hade-an'. That seems really odd to me but they are an official body regarding such matters. Any ideas? Jason Quinn ( talk) 04:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I intend to rename the section "Subdivisions" to "Proposed subdivisions". There are no subdivisions. And the article on the " lunar geologic timescale" suggests these are not in widespread use. So the section name is kind of misleading and could falsely make a skimming reader "learn" that the Hadean has subdivisions. Jason Quinn ( talk) 14:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
The lead claims (although uses weasel-wording "may have", "appears") that plate tectonics started in the Hadean. This is simply not the consensus belief. It is believed - according to Wikipedia - that plate tectonics "started" ca 3.4 Gya. Period. That's the Archean, not Hadean. This claim has two references one (July 2024) is far too new to be considered authoritative. The other, published in 2021, has only 33 citations (!!). This is a very low number for a paper making extraordinary claims (i.e "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). I've noted more and more editors seem to need to push their views rather than provide balanced information. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case here. The lead needs to be corrected. The preponderance of the evidence is that tectonics "started" ca. 3.4 Gya, but there is evidence that it may have started much earlier - in the Hadean. Balance requires that mentioning that some (sparse) evidence suggests subduction existed in the Hadean is, clearly, a recent finding and has yet to be generally accepted. Doesn't mean it's wrong. Just means it's not known if it's right (yet). (I personally favor a Hadean "start" - seems most plausible to me, but my opinion isn't science.) Do "maybes" belong in the lead? Well, certainly not upfront, imho. And they require more context (i.e. balance) than the consensus viewpoint. 98.17.181.251 ( talk) 01:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Should this article include the image (Hadean.png) that is an artist's impression of the Earth during the Hadean (created by User:Triangulum)? This image was removed on 14 November 2018 by IP user 86.141.111.80, who justified the removal by claiming that the image is original research. The image was restored by User:Vsmith a day later. How realistic is this image? Currently, there is no evidence that this image is supported by scientific research similar to how NASA's artistic impressions of planetary bodies are supported. Can use of the image be justified e.g. on the basis that although it is only a guess, it may be no less wrong than any other artist's impression because nobody will ever know for sure what the Earth looked like in the Hadean? On the other hand it may be completely wrong. My opinion is that this image currently seems to represent original research and therefore I suggest that it should be removed from the article. GeoWriter ( talk) 16:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
References
This website from the ICS suggests Hadean is pronounced with only two syllables, not three. It shows the syllabification is 'Hade-an'. That seems really odd to me but they are an official body regarding such matters. Any ideas? Jason Quinn ( talk) 04:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I intend to rename the section "Subdivisions" to "Proposed subdivisions". There are no subdivisions. And the article on the " lunar geologic timescale" suggests these are not in widespread use. So the section name is kind of misleading and could falsely make a skimming reader "learn" that the Hadean has subdivisions. Jason Quinn ( talk) 14:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
The lead claims (although uses weasel-wording "may have", "appears") that plate tectonics started in the Hadean. This is simply not the consensus belief. It is believed - according to Wikipedia - that plate tectonics "started" ca 3.4 Gya. Period. That's the Archean, not Hadean. This claim has two references one (July 2024) is far too new to be considered authoritative. The other, published in 2021, has only 33 citations (!!). This is a very low number for a paper making extraordinary claims (i.e "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). I've noted more and more editors seem to need to push their views rather than provide balanced information. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case here. The lead needs to be corrected. The preponderance of the evidence is that tectonics "started" ca. 3.4 Gya, but there is evidence that it may have started much earlier - in the Hadean. Balance requires that mentioning that some (sparse) evidence suggests subduction existed in the Hadean is, clearly, a recent finding and has yet to be generally accepted. Doesn't mean it's wrong. Just means it's not known if it's right (yet). (I personally favor a Hadean "start" - seems most plausible to me, but my opinion isn't science.) Do "maybes" belong in the lead? Well, certainly not upfront, imho. And they require more context (i.e. balance) than the consensus viewpoint. 98.17.181.251 ( talk) 01:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)