Talk:Kenorland

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. 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, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Australia Craton

There is no such thing as the "Australia Craton" as stated in the introduction to this article. The Yilgarn Craton was an essential part of Kennorland, dating back to 4.4 Ga, but it is only one of numerous cratons in Australia. Both the Yilgarn Craton and Pilbara Cratons make up Western Australia: Altjawarra Craton in Central Australia, Curnamona Craton in South Australia and Gawler Craton in Central South Australia.

There is ongoing paleogeomagnetic research involved in identifying and analyzing the continental crust and makeup of Kenorland. We still do not know with 100% certainty whether or not Kenorland was a single global supercontinent or if other large landmasses existed alongside it. There is a subjective bias towards favoring the theory that Kenorland was a defacto supercontinent and no other landmasses existed at this time. I think a note should be added to the article that informs the reader of the alternative hypotheses.Valich 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree; there is also a lot of crap in here besides. For instance "sanukitoid" is used liberally to describe the supercontinents, but in reality it is a volcanic rock, such as a latite or alkalic boninite (in the strict sense of the sloppy definition given, which is not an IUGS term anyway) not a plutonic rock. There is also a lot of similarities between sanukite and diorite, let alone igneous protolith gneiss. Which is like saying "cratons are made of cratonic material" except couching it behind wobbly and technical terms.

Secondly, I also agree with the problem of correlating the cratons around simplistic dates like 3.3Ga. The best preserved material of 3+ Ga is in the Dharwar Craton, the Pilbara and smashed up around the margins of the Yilgarn. The correlation, for instance, is hung off the famus Jack Hills date; its scientific chaff thrown out the bullshit and confuse the issue.

Palaeomagnetic data from cratons is virtually worthless, in my opinio, not being an expert. These rocks have been up and down the see saw and metamorphosed and shunted around innumerable times; eight deformations recognised since 2000Ma in the north Yilgarn alone. Correlating and comparing like goes on here...dangerous. Rolinator 12:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"Core formation occurred within 100Ma of earth fomation"? I really do wish you could find the article on this. As far as I know - which isn't too far I admit - we have no indication of continental crust even forming this early. Do you have any sources? Valich 03:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The introduction here was translated from the German Wikipedia article.172.192.42.246 03:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Error regarding Nena

I removed the following sentence about Kenorland:

It also formed a substantial part of Nena, the supercontinent associated with the Sudbury Basin Impact.

This had no source cited, and is untrue and confusing. The name Kenorland has two uses: one is the supercontinent or very large continent Kenorland (in this article). The other use is for a sub-section of Laurentia. The removed sentence refers to this latter, much smaller "Kenorland". It doesn't belong in this article, but it could be added to the Laurentia or perhaps the Canadian Shield article, with some rewording and a citation. In any case, the supercontinent Nena formed at least 200 million years after the supercontinent Kenorland broke apart. 2601:441:467F:9E00:F907:6112:FCDE:50 (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. Can you help with citations for your suggested changes, please? GeoWriter (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. The Arctica article says "The core of Arctica was the Canadian Shield, which Williams et al. 1991 named Kenorland." Nena (supercontinent) says that Nena formed c. 1.9 billions years ago, while this article has Kenorland break up by 2.1 billion years ago. Therefore, the Kenorland supercontinent cannot be part of the Nena supercontinent (besides this contradicting the definition of "supercontinent"). 2601:441:467F:9E00:F907:6112:FCDE:50 (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Maps Source?

The maps look like original research to me. They're labeled "own work" and don't cite any sources used to draw them. The first map somewhat resembles one in Slabunov, Guo, Balagansky, and Lubnina 2017, but if that's one of the sources it isn't attributed. The second map doesn't resemble anything I'm seeing in a quick Google Search. (2017 publication is https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320423424_EARLY_PRECAMBRIAN_CRUSTAL_EVOLUTION_OF_THE_BELOMORIAN_AND_TRANS-NORTH_CHINA_OROGENS_AND_SUPERCONTINENTS_RECONSTRUCTION) 2601:441:467F:9E00:F907:6112:FCDE:50 (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)