Talk:Earth

POV

The article says, and I quote, "a modern perspective of the world as an integrated environment that requires stewardship." I'll have to argue that this is most certainly Not a modern perspective. Implicit in the idea of stewardship are the assumptions that man is even qualified for such a position, and moreover that humans are some special divinely appointed, superior creatures who's job it is to run the world. To think of ourselves as stewards is to put ourselves above the environment instead of acknowledging that we are in fact a part of it, dependent on it, evolved from it, and in no way separate or superior. Put more simply, the world does not belong to humans. This is a dinosaur of an idea that has been around since people thought the earth was at the center of the universe and that the universe itself was created solely for our use and benefit. To think we are the masters of our ecosystem and not just another member of it is not only stupid, it's an incredibly dangerous idea. We are intimately connected to our environment and if it dies, so do we. Which is why we cannot afford to tamper with it. The human species is maybe 3 million years old at best, but we think we're more qualified to run a biosphere that has been regulating itself successfully for billions of years without any help from us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.238.161 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This was not the place to put that comment (a new heading would be) but I largely agree. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 21:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This article shows extreme bias in stating that life on earth "evolved" 4 billion years ago... After all, evolution is just a theory and this article completely avoids all other explanations of the origins of life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.99.203 (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm... http://www.notjustatheory.com/ 83.150.146.48 (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, the site you linked to shows even more bias than this article. It makes completly unsubstantiated claims out of the blue, then it cites such laughably questionably sources as the "American Heritage Dictionary" and "Decision of the Court Striking Down the Cobb County Evolution Disclaimer." Additionally it attempts to confuse the issue by contradicting itself repeatedly, for example, it includes "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution" when it clearly states later that "Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!" This not only classifies evolution in two incompatible ways, as theory and fact, it also makes redundantly the obvious statement that, while correct, employs deceptive rhetoric in order to confuse readers into thinking that information can be "triumphantly a theory," a clear logical impossibility. They also forgo the inclusion of a superior character encoding such as UTF8 in favor iso-8859-1, an encoding renowned for its use in propaganda, which in itself is a testament to the pure functionality of the site's content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.99.203 (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed here. A scientific theory is not merely a guess. That would be a hypothesis, which evolution is not. --Evice (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

To the original poster - before you make comments such as this, I would recommend you do a great deal more research. This is a talk page and is thus not the place to carry out an evolution-creation debate, but I or others can provide you with some if you so desire. Until then, please make sure your comments and/or suggestions have a strong and verifiable foundation before requesting their influence on the article. RadicalTwo (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely the first time I have heard a character set accused of propaganda and bias. Nice troll! JPotter (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, clearly only non-Unicode character sets can be trusted. Never mind the fact that the creator of this section ignored the fact that Wikipedia uses UTF-8, raising the question of his/her presence on this site. --Evice (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Earth was made 6,000 years ago. how can it been formed 4.54 billion years ago, that's ridiculous. The Bible is clear that Adam, the first man, lived only 6000 years ago. Adam was created on the sixth day of God's Creation Week, so according to the Bible the earth must be only 6000 years old too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.134.124.248 (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article needs to be neutral about the origins of life. The fact is that we simply do not know. Were any of you there at the creation of the Earth (and Universe)? No. Therefore, we cannot know. But, there are only two options (except for the Universe has always existed) for the origin of life, which are: spontaneous Big-Bang, with life arriving by macroevolution OR a personal God created the Earth (as recorded in the Bible). I think you should either make this article neutral, such as "many scientists believe the Earth was created 4.54 billion years ago, but they are not quite sure." OR include a section discussing Big-band vs. God (but not in a debate way; just pure presentation). What do you think?

Absolutely not. I am not going to start a science-vs-bronze age book debate here, but I will say this: The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of an old planet on which evolution proceeded over millions or billions of years. Using false dichotomies and "science isn't sure so let's not trust it" arguments is not going to get you anywhere. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 03:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"We don't know"? There are lots of pieces of evidence pointing to Earth being a few billion years old. Not to mention the fact that people have existed for longer than merely 6,000 years. --Evice (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

When You say "the fact that people have existed for longer than merely 6,000 years", you don't have solid evidence. I believe that "The planet formed 4.54 billion years ago," should be changed to "It is commonly believed that the planet formed 4.54 billion years ago," to remain a little more neutral Earboxer (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with belief, and there is no neutrality problem. We go with what the evidence says, not what is believed. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

My microwave oven works on the principles of a number of physics 'theories,' but no-one doubts its origins or that they will heat your soup. This debate would be better placed under the page Genesis. The literal biblical view is held by a minority of human beings. We would need to provide references to how the Earth was formed in all other religions just to keep a balanced view. If you want proof that science is correct, just go into your kitchen, *bing* Kayakboy (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.168.199 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We should be courteous, even though this is a sensitive issue. Do not use informal degrading words like please. On the subject I do not believe using the supposedly Biblical dating of 5,000 years as the age of earth is scientifically correct as we have records of history dated past 5,000 years. In addition there's no except in the Bible that I know of that directly states the earth is 5,000 years old. Mutation/Evolution is observed and is a fact. On the other hand there shouldn't be attacks on the creationist theory as there is no evidence against it. It is indeed entirely possible that the universe was designed by "higher order" existence. But the page should be scientific and statements must have reasonable scientific basis.

Round and Round

Creation/Evolution arguments will go on round and round and back and forth until we recognize the distinction between subjective belief and objective understanding. Creation arguments arise from the subjective belief that the universe was miraculously created by a supernatural creator, i.e., God. From an objective point of view - that is, based on what we can see or touch or otherwise experience - God's existence cannot be proven. Articles such as the current one should be based on the best available objective understanding of the Earth and its characteristics. At this writing, the modern theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the best and only objective description of physical mechanisms for the origins of life on this planet. The same goes for the many other theories describing the origins of the Earth and its moon. When better theories come along, they will no doubt replace the ones currently described here.--Virgil H. Soule (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Moreover, we should certainly disregard the "be courteous to the Young Earth brethren" nonsense about not losing our objectivity. The worse offense for this article to take is to uphold the loony choice out of some misguided attempt of offering a polite nod to a faith based theory of Earth's origins; a belief that has no place in this particular Article that deals with a scientific understanding. Everything else, as someone suggested, should be referred to other Wiki articles that were designed to allow for all of the debates/questions etc., surrounding the supposed controversy. Oh, and the post about the microwave oven made as a rebuttal to the insanity of YEC followers was brilliant! Cheers! 67.101.3.208 (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)La-Tonia Denise Willis

Please keep the discussion civil. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Any information about Young-Earth creationists should stay in the cultural views section. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 16:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added an entry about young Earth creationism to the talk page FAQ.—RJH (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Round

I think this article should remain neutral about this dispute. Until someone can actually prove that the Earth is round, the article should only treat the round earth theory as theory, and not fact. Change it so that it states that the Earth is flat, and unbiased article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.69.135 (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you are saying that you believe the world is flat? Uh, yeah. Whatever you say, buddy. Doomshifter (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It probably was a facetious posting. :-) —RJH (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

gt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.108.53 (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

gt? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

uh we have sattelite pix to SHOW its round. look at the moon. if keep sailing and walking in a straight line ull end up where you started. is this not proof?? *dream on*dance on* 20:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane (talk • contribs)

Occam's razor applies here. If the Earth is not a simple and elegant spheroid resting in gravitational equilibrium, then the anonymous editor will need to justify the turtles all the way down with suitable citations. ;-) —RJH (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

1. a lunar eclipse shows the earth is round 2. laws of gravity would not work with a flat earth 3. when's the last time you heard the news say some fell off the edge of the earth. ;) (excuse me for the sarcastic joke) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.168.199 (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Earth Mass Properties

I see values for the Earth's mass and principal moment of inertia in the article. Have any estimates been made of the planet's other moments and products of inertia? If that level of detail is considered beyond the scope of the present article, perhaps a reference could point to a source of more-detailed information about the Earth.--Virgil H. Soule (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yoder (1995) has information on Earth's moments of inertia. Perhaps it would be of interest on the Earth's rotation sub-article?—RJH (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Science

In science we are learning about the solar system. When we are watching video's every time we go on to different subjects like the stars, solar system stuff like that. When you watch the video it seems that you want to watch the solar system again and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.113.63 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

g —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.192.46.164 (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Standard salinity units

Currently, the text says "About 3.5% of the total mass of the oceans consists of salt." It should state promille (salt content) instead of percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.226.125.80 (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we should be giving the average using the standard units for salinity.—RJH (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for making the change. __ Just plain Bill (talk)

Sound Byte

I don't know if this is a common complaint, but on my computer, the pronunciation of 'earth' sounds terrible. It sounds like 'earse' or something like that. Can this be changed? Kevin Gable 23:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgable10 (talk • contribs)

The pronunciation comes from a sound file on the commons. If it is incorrect then somebody would need to contact the person who made the recording and/or upload a replacement.—RJH (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

To me it just sounds like the file is cut off, like "Er...". This seems to be a problem with a lot of pronunciation sound files, they are cut off at the end and are too short. Maybe people were overzealous in keeping the files a small size. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Life elsewhere

First para "Home to millions of species,[11] including humans, Earth is the only place in the Universe where life is known to exist."

That should read '.... where life is known by humans to exist ........'. If there is life elsewhere in the universe(and there are a thousand billion galaxies each with a thousand billion stars)are we to assume that none of this life is self aware? Or do we take the view that America was discovered by Columbus, when people had been living there for tens of thousands of years. They both smack of self-centred arrogance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.84.25 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed on several occasions in the past. The rationale is that Wikipedia is a chronicle of human knowledge, written by and for human beings. There may be life elsewhere in the universe, or for that matter there may be species on this planet that know something we don't. However, we cannot presume to write from their perspective as we cannot know what that perspective is. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a FAQ template and included this question. We could probably add one or two more frequently asked questions.—RJH (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I for one, disagree with consensus. Personally, I think the reference to this should just be removed altogether to avoid conflict. If the argument is that Wikipedia is written by humans for humans, then why don't we just write "Earth is home to millions of species, including [[human|us]]"? Wikipedia is written in a third person outside perspective. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 01:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Many people have been disagreeing with this supposed consensus, all being promptly reverted by the same few editors. I do not think there is a consensus at all. The statement is rather naive, and does not belong in the article, because it is not a fact about Earth, but a guess about the rest of the universe. −Woodstone (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Compare to the statement in the World Book entry:

"The planet Earth is only a tiny part of the universe, but it is the home of human beings and, in fact, all known life in the universe."

I disagree with your assertion that the statement is naive or a guess. It's a factual statement about the knowledge we, the authors of this encyclopedia, currently possess. It's an essential and unique quality of the planet, so it needs to be covered in some manner. In fact, I think it is required per FA criteria 1b. We also don't need to say "us", because that is part of the assumption about the readership. It is by humans, for humans. Ergo, the us are obviously humans. I don't think we need to re-interpret the article to include an alien and/or dolphin perspective... at least not yet.

My suggestion is to change the wording very slightly to say "definitely known" rather than "known". I.e. proven, rather than conjectured.—RJH (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My objection is not against the implicit human viewpoint, but the absolute sound of "exist". My preference would be to make it a negative statement: "It is not known if other places have life forms". However, I would settle for replacing "where life is known to exist" by "where life has been observed" (or "discovered"). That explicitly draws in the activity by an observer, who can then implicitly be supposed to be human. −Woodstone (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs in the wording. And the conclusion I get is it seems you are trying to inject into the statement the belief that there must be other life in such a large universe. The word "known" is already in there. I really don't care that much about the change in wording since the change isn't even that big, but I think the sentence right now is a fact and is very neutral so why change it. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the phrases "is known to exist" and "has been observed" are virtually synonymous, and the same issue about the perspective of the observer (conjectured alien vs. known human) could still be raised with the latter. I guess I'm neutral on the two choices at this point.—RJH (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Until someone comes up with a source saying that life is known elsewhere, it is fine as it stands. No need for speculative circumlocutions giving any weight at all to hypothetical extraterrestrials' possible knowledge or lack of it. This really belongs in the "Oh, please" department, in my opinion. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Life is the defining characteristic of Earth, and the fact that it is unique to Earth as far as we know is also a defining characteristic. We could qualify just about any fact about any subject with "known by humans", or other inane qualifications, but it's not necessary. Do we really need to have a metaphysical, psychological argument here? I think the wording is fine the way it is, but you could precede "known" with either "definitely" or "currently" if people really want. About the "including humans" part of the sentence, I can see the argument for just removing that, it's not really necessary. And the fact that Earth is so dominated by humans is covered in the last paragraph. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition, can it not be said that life exists on other planets, with the discovery of microbes in the martian soil. If this is correct, than clarification is required in the article, perhaps 'Sentient' or 'Eukaryotic' life may prove more correct. If this is incorrect, then the issue is moot.

Leading Image?

For as long as I can remember, the leading image on this page was the famous blue marble photograph taken by Apollo 17 - however, this has recently been replaced by another set of images (confusingly also called 'the blue marble' by NASA), but I think the original should be returned to the top of this article.

My reasons for saying this are:

1. The original image is one of the most famous photographs ever taken, and easily the most famous picture of the Earth.

2. The original is a Featured Picture (and has been since Nov, 2004).

3. The original is practically the only picture of the Earth used in scientific articles on Wikipedia, and is even cut/pasted in multiple pictures of astronomy-related articles.

4. The original is linked to on well over 2,000 Wikipedia pages (including user pages and talk pages), while the new one appears on a total of 14.

5. The new picture, though it encompasses more land mass, is significantly smaller when sized at 260px, and the details are far harder to make out.

Those, in short, are my reasons. Now I'm looking to find some consensus on the matter, whether in support or against the argument I have made. Spinach Dip 08:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Not bothered one way or another, but I find the "equal representation for all land masses" notion amusing. What about a view that shows mostly the Pacific Ocean? That would represent the fact that earth's surface is mostly covered by water. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• That image seems to flip-flop every time somebody gets a notion to put in "something new". My thinking is that the current global view may reduce that somewhat. I don't have an issue with the new image.—RJH (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Probably no surprise I would support my own change, the reason I made it was that there was a previous instability with people changing from one image to the other, the obvious answer for me was to use a version with both. Spinach Dip, you make good debating points, but the compromise seems to me a better option. I did make it a little larger to see the detail better but didn't want to stretch the infobox too much. That all said I have no problem with whatever image ends up there, I just thought a compromise would help article stability and also answer any perceived US bias arguments. I just noticed it makes an awesome desktop background on a widescreen monitor :-) Kind Regards. SeanMack (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• I fail to see how the original Blue Marble photograph supports any perceived US bias, seeing as it is a picture of Africa and Antarctica. Spinach Dip 04:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The "US bias" came up because another editor inserted a (good quality) picture of the Earth showing the North American continent. This was changed back later.—RJH (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Support the Apollo 17 version. The replacement version is a composite image, while the Apollo 17 image is one of the few extant true, photographic images of Earth. This is a big deal - there are millions of composite map images created by synthetic fusion of photos of smaller regions of the Earth. The Apollo 17 blue marble photo is unique because the astronauts were actually far enough away to capture our entire planet in a single photograph frame. It is famous for a reason - it ranks among the most significant images created by the human species. I also take issue with the pseudospectral color in the replacement, which is a false color image. The blue oceans are a little too "syrupy" - that color does not seem to match the aesthetic dull blue hue of our oceans that actual photographs from space (or indeed, surface photographs) show. Nimur (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Serendi^podous 07:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As I read it, three opinions favor the blue marble photo, one supports the new image, and two are somewhat neutral (including myself). As there is not an overwhelming support for the new image, I think precedent has some weight in terms of determining consensus. That, to me, indicates the blue marble image should be used. Is there any strong disagreement?—RJH (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I support adding the Blue Marble photo back in. Not only is it the most iconic photo of Earth, it is also a more "realistic" visual depiction of Earth from space, as explained by Nimur above. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have close to a consensus then. I put back the original image and will add an entry to the FAQ.—RJH (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Does "earthy" count as an adjective?

I mean it doesn't really apply to the planet Earth, but then neither does "Earthly" really. Serendi^podous 07:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I usually take "earthy" to indicate soil, as in an earthy scent. That's the primary interpretation on the wiktionary as well, although the final meaning indicates it can be used in the sense "of the Earth".—RJH (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt text

Note that none of the images on this article have Alt text configured, per WP:Alt text. This is a recent requirement that is being checked for FACs. Is anybody interested in addressing this? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made a start, but some images will be tougher to characterize than others, and I probably will not get them all. For example, this article's alt text for the Sun's timeline is pretty verbose, but still does not describe the image's details completely. For now I am assuming that wikilinks in alt text are not a good idea... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Will wikilinks work in alt text? For most users alt text appears in a java pop up where wikilinks don't appear. I don't know how it appears for people who actually use alt text though. LonelyMarble (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Blatant Orbital Speed Mistake

The notion that the Average Orbital Speed of the Earth is over 29000 km/s, or ~1/10 of the speed of light, as displayed in the information box at the top of the page is ludicrous and absurd. Of course, I suspect that the author intended to write ~29000 m/s, which is more reasonable. Would someone with the proper editing privileges please rectify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.245.42 (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you have misread the infobox. It actually says: 29.783 km/s not 29,783 km/s. SCΛRECROW^CrossCom 00:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Might this be a case of confusion over the thousands separator? Some nations use the decimal rather than the comma. But the usage should be clear from the other fields.—RJH (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Semiprime

I've just noted that the mean Radius of Terra is a semiprime, 6371 (the 1709th semiprime). This is purely a curio as it's quite interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkania (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the radius is not an integer, it's "approximately" 6371 km. Secondly, if the radius is measured in any other unit besides kilometers, it will not be 6371. Finally, because kilometers were originally defined based on the radius of the Earth, you will also note that the Earth's circumference is about 40,000 km. The earth is not perfectly circular, so more precise measurements will give slightly different results; but you'll note that for this reason, the radius of the earth necessarily is approximately 40,000/(2π) km (with inaccuracy because the Earth is not exactly spherical, and also because modern kilometers are defined another way - see kilometer). Nimur (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said I just thought it was an interesting curio, wasn't meant to be taken that seriously. Hawkania (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Circumference

The article has some very precise numbers for circumference: 40,075.02 km (equatorial), 40,007.86 km (meridional), 40,041.47 km (mean). I have not seen these elsewhere -- anyone know where the numbers are from? -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured article

I just wanted to say: wow. I don't think I'd ever looked at this page before, and I'm amazed to discover it's a featured article - it must have been one of the hardest to write, as there's just so much to say. Huge congratulations to everyone who's been involved in writing this article and maintaining its quality. Robofish (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)