Talk:Pole shift hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


A question to the author(s) :

When you say : "These theories are currently not accepted by the scientific community..."

do you mean just the two theories mentioned right before that phrase, or are you including Mr. Hapgood´s theory too ?

Thanks in advance.


This page seems to me to be biased, making incorrect assumption's, and directly contradictary to another wikipedia article

Seeing as how there is absolutely zero references or citations in this article, I'm adding an {{unreferenced}} tag at the top. --R.Lange 10:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The government has their escape routes, and space ships to be able to lift them off the planet for 20 hours easily, but what about the rest of us? We need to build a fleet of ships that can remove all species off the planet, a modern day Noah’s arc.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure how this contributes to the article and it smells of conspiracy paranoia

There is no such thing as a fact jack. True wisdom can only be obtained through understanding this principle. response to below----

reply to above[edit]

Not a conspiracy theory, just simply the facts.

I wrote that statement after the rest of the information I had placed in this section. The concept I was trying to put forth is that, if a pole shift may happen at some point, and we can survive it very easily by removing ourselves from the face of the planet, would it not be a good idea to build an excape route for ourselves?. It is a fact that scientists have reported their information to the governments and the reality is, they (the ones in government control) have the means to survive, they have the ability to get off the planet, if it should happen. We do not. That is simply the facts. --My Name Is 3 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who my name is 3 is, but they might need to contact Centropolis about some royalties. Of course, how many times has Emmerich been accused of stealing ideas anyway?Lesliejas (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Spaceships? The US has 3 space shuttles, each of which requires enormous logistical work to prepare for flight and each of which carries only a few people. Even the top of the executive branch - the President, Vice President, and Cabinet - couldn't get off the planet in a hurry. Those are facts; what you wrote has no basis in reality. Fasrad 04:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

it is possible[edit]

It is possible, if we act to build a excape plan for any natural disaster that may fall upon earth at any point, from pole shifts to meteors. We all know it to be true, but the intersting thing is why we are not doing it. If it is such a simple task, a simple insurancce plan, for all our technological advances, why dont we have personal space craft? I discuss this and other subjects in my book which you can read online for free (in its current unedited form - at

I see crazy people. 13:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Spaceships are expensive
    • If the Earth explodes, we have nowhere to go anyway
Sum0 21:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why here are so much crackpots and simply annoying idiots? This article is next to USELESS. I want to read about scientific theories about pole shift, not paranoia kook crap.

Confuses true polar wander with pole shift a little bit[edit]

I'm not much knowledgeable in the subject, but I think that TPW does not propose that the actual axis of rotation has changed, but rather that the whole group of continents wandered conjointly in a upper layer, independently of the axis of rotation, which remains stable; as if there was a second, nearly perpendicular, axis, with slower rotation speed, and affecting only the external layers of the Earth, so that the magnetic poles (whose "cause" is deeper into the planet, with a much more immense volume) do not wander together with the surface, resulting in climatic changes and in the geologic record of "fake" magnetic pole reversals. An analogy would be to spin an egg or an spheroid object in a table, putting it to spin initially in the "taller" position; it would tend to slowly move itself in order to the equator be the part with the largest diameter, but at the same time it spins in a stable, always nearly vertical, rotation axis. --Extremophile 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Illuminati Connection?[edit]

WTF?????! Too much Angels and Demons there, buddy. Muuc (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This may sound silly, and I'm pretty uninformed but I'd like to explore the idea of a connection between the Illuminati/Masons and a physical polar shift? Has anyone ever written or heard anything like that?

I don't know that much about the group, but I believe I read that The Illuminated grew out of Egyptian society and, through many many years, into Germany then Brittan and, of course, if you believe the hype, to America and throughout the world, and in high places.

I'm no expert but if I were to try to think of a civilization prior to ours (who still don't really know if a polar shift is coming) that would understand the physical workings of the solar system it's the ancient Egyptians. Later you'd have to add the Druids and then of course Modern societies.

The Illuminati are said to have followed that same lineage and said to have preserved a great deal of exclusive information though strict tradition. If what they say about the Illuminati/Masons were true and a secret society that old, secretive and studious exists, than you'd have to consider the amount and type of combined knowledge they've gathered over thousands of years, from diverse, evolving cultures, all amassing into a knowledge base that could easily contain information on something such as a polar shift, global warming, you name it.

All the Illuminati theories I've seen seem to point to the groups New World Order taking hold very soon with signs visible in the news every day. Another group (who, sadly, I can't think of a connection with) who would understand astrology/astronomy at a predictable level were the Mians. Coincidentally, their calendar, which counts down, rather than up like ours, ends in 2012.

Almost all religions, including those used to build all the Illuminati rituals, speak of the world ending in fire, if global warming is the reality it seems to be and you believe the charts, most places on earth are going to become uninhabitable, burning waste-lands in the near future. If the polar shift is predicted to be happening soon and the massive climate change is slotted for shortly after there may only be 2 survivable places on earth, the poles. I read that after the polar shift it's predicted that the Northern pole area will be positioned around the US Canadian border (is that correct?) and the southern pole area would barely include the southern tip of Africa, leaving North America as the only inhabitable area.

The theories surrounding the Bavarian Illuminati lead to the idea that they formed as a secret society around the time Europeans took control of North America (of course, simply taking it from the aboriginal people without any complaints from the rest of the world). They are said to own the Federal Reserve and the USA, the majority of Presidents have been either members or connected. Perhaps it's a stretch, but it all seems to add up to me.

If you were a member of a secret group that had knowledge of these things, a group that happened to grow to be as powerful as they seem to have, then what do you think that group would work towards?

I think survival, inclusion, control of the last available place that would support life. You would have to devise a way to govern life in a hostile environment because even at the poles it would be no picnic after the earth going through a change like that.

Billions would die, and if the billions knew for sure it was coming it would be hell on earth, people... the world would go crazy, it would be a living hell, as it will be if (when) the shift and climate change occur. There's no way they'd allow us to know, it would be irresponsible of them to do so. Perhaps that's why they are so secretive and symbolic. As global politics change and the stories about the Masons seem to be more and more realistic; as climate change and polar shift look more and more possible, I think there's reason to suspect a connection. I don’t think the timing is coincidental. The entire thing may simply the somewhat ugly story of how humanity will survive, sadly, putting the majority of us on the losing end.

Just a thought. What do you think?

--bigz--mikez-- 11:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)BM

Hey. I don't want to remove anything from the article without discussing it first but, having listened to Clive Cussler's Atlantis Found, I believe it has nothing to do with polar shifts. The book 'Polar Shift' probably does, I don't know yet, but 'Atlantis Found's doomsday is a global warming and raising of the sea levels and thus should probably be cited under 'Global Warming Cultural References' and not here.

At the time of Jesus??`[edit]

May I firstly say that this article leaves a lot to be desired in terms of referencing and even structure. It could also be written/worded better (in my opinion). The " the time of Jesus..." line is absurd. I'm not here to argue religion, but 1. by saying that you alienate the audience, especially those of other cultures/religions who may not be aware when Jesus was around and 2. there isn't even a definitive date for when Jesus lived, so you simply make that statement useless. On that note, I'm altering that line to 0 C.E. Aristeaus 09:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but -to be precise- there's no such 0 AD, but 1 AD (just like there's no 0 Century). Sergio S.

Diagram request[edit]

See above --Jack Zhang (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you expand your request please? It's not clear what you're referring to. --pfctdayelise (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Show the equators before and after said scenarios or a animated GIF illustrating the position of the poles relative to the equator during said event. --Jack Zhang (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I'm not a registered user on Wikipedia, but I was wondering about something and thought this would be the place to ask. Please forgive me if I'm not supposed to ask about this here. So, I was wondering, if a pole shift occours, would it effect Earth's tectonic plates in any way? Would it cause plates to move around, earthquakes and the like? Or, more specifically, set off a volcano like the Yellowstone Caldera? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically it would destroy most life on earth. Virtually every volcano on earth would explode, every potential earthquake, etc. The atmosphere would become unbreathable, the seas heat up, etc. Beetles might survive, some microscopic organisms, etc. The very shape and organisation of the continents would probably change.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

2012. It WILL happen. Doug is right. Massive earthquakes will rip through almost every area on the planet, having enourmous effects on and killing millions. Visit for great facts about 2012 and Doomsday.Muuc (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother as the whole 2012 thing is a load of garbage. The last world (the third) supposedly ended August 11, 3114 BCE and yet no records of any major disaster is noted for that date nor is there any real reference to it. There are many cities whose continuous_habitation not only goes through this date but there are even a few going back through the previous second world's end of c8240 BCE.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Doug is joking (or at least I hope he is!). The Earth's axis is constantly moving with respect to the sun due to precession, and the rigid sphere of the Earth is always moving with respect to its rotational axis (called true polar wander). There are changes in global and regional climate from this (see Milankovitch cycles for the importance of orbital parameters on the ice ages), but nothing major or cataclysmic would happen. If the Earth's axis (for no apparent reason) decided to point towards the sun, then one side of the Earth would have day all of the time. This would hugely impact climate, atmospheric and ocean circulation, and the interactions between the solar wind and the magnetic field. It would be pretty catastrophic. The only physical mechanism (at least that I can think of) to change the pole like this is via the oblique impact of a body that has a comparable (though perhaps smaller) diameter than the Earth. Fortunately, the Earth has swept clear its orbital path, and even if somehow one of these things hit us, we would die anyway so there would be no worry about the shifted pole. Awickert (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

2012 section[edit]

This looks like OR and clearly POV pushing a particular website -- a personal website which is clearly not what Wikipedia considers a 'reliable source' - Muuc, see WP:RELIABLE. What you have written here is your own opinion, what is called 'Original Research' and again please read Wikipedia:No original research if you want to add to an article or even create one. Nor really should you be pushing the website on this talk page. I think this section should be removed entirely, and also note that it is actually not about 'Pole shift theory'.

I agree. This section is ridiculous. Not only is the "reference" for this section a conspiracy theory website, but it is also not properly cited. I have commented the section out. Snottywong (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

NOT a "Theory" as Clearly Stated[edit]

What the hell has happened to science? Psychology and pseudoscience have raped the word 'theory.' Title should be "Polar Shift Hypothesis" THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Done.Doug Weller (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I believe 'Theory' would be more appropriate to the subject manner. Now I'm coming to that conclusion purely from an armchair perspective looking back at references to the terms in question. From my recollection I thought the term 'hypothesis' referred to a belief about a rather limited set of circumstances that could be scientifically tested. However, I think of 'theory' as referring to a system of beliefs about the world that may or may not be scientifically testable. If my definitions are correct, since it would be difficult or impossible to scientifically test the belief about the veracity of a dramatic pole shift having occurred in the past (just as we cannot scientifically test the Pangaea Theory), the term 'Theory' seems much more appropriate.
I think what we're seeing here is a case where a theory is presented that is not a dominant paradigm in the field of science and as a result some people who subscribe to the dominant paradigm go to great lengths to maintain the dominant position that 'their' paradigm enjoys and do so by belittling a competing paradigm/theory such as the pole shift subject matter at hand.
Really, how is dramatic pole shift belief not a theory? It may or may not be well supported by evidence, but that is just a measure of a beliefs epistemology, not it's ontology.Quarky Gluon (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
We have the theory of gravity, electromagnetic theory, the theory of evolution, etc. 'Dramatic pole shift' is a hypothesis about a possible event which needs to be explained by geological theory, just as the Pangaea hypothesis (not theory) is explained by geological theory. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusing orientation of rotational axis and true polar wander?[edit]

I skimmed the article, and can't tell whether pole shift is a change in the orientation of the rotational axis (i.e., due to its precession, or some hypothesized larger change), or whether it is about true polar wander (the axis stays in the same place, but the Earth rotates slowly and freely from it such that, for example, London ends up at the rotational north pole without any movement of the axis of rotation). Which is it? Awickert (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is a regrettable mixture of non-controversial truth (polar wander) and psuedoscience twaddle (just about all the rest). It badly needs hacking William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, to maintain balance, I still believe the article needs to cover the scientific aspects as well as the non-scientific. Should we organize it based on those two divisions? I.e. section 1 = Pseudoscience; section 2 = Science; section 3 = See also.... The 'twaddle' can then be posted into Pseudoscience and sub-divided accordingly.
Yes I agree the article does need a clear definition at the start of the very first section (and in the lead).—RJH (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks like most of the real science is off at true polar wander William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1980 book on Pole Shift[edit]

'Pole Shift'

by John White, Editor of Future Science

Doubleday edition published 1980

A.R.E. Press, 7th Printing, December 1988

ISBN: 87604-162-4

provides a comprehensive discussion from many points of view on the subject of pole shift.

submitted by janus51046 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janus51046 (talkcontribs) 03:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


As currently written, this article presents a series of hypotheses (that the text gradually shifts toward the status of a scientific "theory") about pole shift. It presents very little discussion about why such a pole shift is thought unlikely at present. For the purposes of balance and neutrality, I think both sides should be presented. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Season changes in the poles[edit]

I think the following entry is literally correct, but not in the sense implied by this article:

Research using GPS, conducted by Geoffrey Blewitt of the University of Nevada, has shown that normal seasonal changes in the distribution of ice and water cause minor movements of the poles.[1]

I can not reach the Boston Globe article to be certain, but I believe it is likely based on the following source:

Blewitt, Geoffrey (December, 14 2001). "A New Global Mode of Earth Deformation: Seasonal Cycle Detected". Science. 294 (5550): 2342–2345. doi:10.1126/science.1065328. Retrieved 2009-11-02.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

What the authors are describing is a vertical deformation of poles by a few millimetres that occurs on a seasonal basis. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and removed the paragraph in question.—RJH (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a scientific analysis to wiki articles except maybe polar tilts and pole shifts are two different things. 2004 tsunami and Japan in March were pole-tilts to a precursor pole-shift. More analytical then the mars colonization artical and true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement about Joseph Adhémar[edit]

The following statement:

In 1852, mathematician Joseph Adhémar suggested that the accumulation of thick ice at the poles periodically caused the Earth to flip and the equator to move to where the poles were.

differs from the various sources that discuss his proposal in Revolutions de la Mer, Deluges Periodics. His proposal was that ice ages were caused by precession of the Earth's poles, rather than a 180° flip of the planet.[1] Unless there is a source for the text, I think it should be taken as an incorrect interpretation and removed.—RJH (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As there is no source for the statement, and evidence that it might be a misinterpretation, I am removing it, Awickert (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a brief mention of Joseph Adhémar's hypothesis on this National Geographic web site. Apparently he "believed that erosion of the polar ice cap could cause the ice to suddenly collapse into the ocean, shifting the Earth's center of gravity and causing a massive tsunami that would wreak widespread carnage." Not quite the same as the original.—RJH (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Adhémar's hypothesis concerns only astronomic causes of climate change and has nothing to do with crustal displacement of even continental drift. Though Adhemar was one of the first to speculate on external forces causing widespread change on Earth, I agree the reference to his theory may be misleading, if not irrelevant to the subject, and I think should be removed altogether.Kohai357 (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Charles Hapgood[edit]

This article puts a lot of weight on the hypothesis of Charles Hapgood, while providing only a single reference. This reference states that, "Hapgood created this theory by documenting three Earth crust displacements in the last 100,000 years." However, it also states that, "Hapgood revised key parts of his thinking because his calculations convinced him that the mass of the ice cap on Antartica could not destabilize the Earth's rotation." I checked through Hapgood's 1970 The Path of the Pole, but that work didn't appear to argue in favor of the ice mass causing a polar shift. It also makes no mention of Adhemar's work, and so I'm dubious about that as well.

It appears that this article is heavily slanted in favor of a particular hypothesis while discarding anything to the contrary.—RJH (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to remedy this.—RJH (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What If ??[edit]

Im just going to ask a question. Based on mathematics, And from that has been found in fossil remains and ELE's from geological time charts . now the question ( would the mag. pole shifts create massive stresses on the con. shelves ? ) And if so . (would it not accure over a long peiord of time) And ending in a grand event? thank you for your time ,. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it depends on the rate of pole reversal and what you mean by "massive". I'm sure there would be some net change in the forces acting on the crust, but I don't know if they would be significant. There have been ~60 pole reversals measured in the Atlantic during the last 20 million years, yet we're still here. I'd probably be more concerned about the potential weakening of the Earth's magnetosphere during the reversal, and the consequent increase in cosmic ray exposure.—RJH (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Doubly no. The continental shelves are largely nonmagnetic sediments, and the Earth's magnetic field would need to be a whole ton stronger to actually impose a non-negligible force on a portion of the Earth's crust (the strength of the present-day magnetic field at the equator is two orders of magnitude lower than that of a refrigerator magnet). Awickert (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Mantle convection models[edit]

Recent papers on the topic seem to focus on mantle convection models during supercontinent assembly and dispersal. There's a decent looking paper here on the topic, but I don't know enough about geophysics to do it justice.

Phillips, Benjamin R.; Bunge, Hans-Peter; Schaber, Katrin (2009). "True polar wander in mantle convection models with multiple, mobile continents". Gondwana Research. 15 (3-4): 288–296. doi:10.1016/  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Is anybody interested? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather knowledgeable on the topic, but I'd rather put it in the True Polar Wander article, since that one is more scientific and this one has not yet decided if it's about true polar or motion of the pole with respect to the sun. If you're interested, many of the original papers on this kind of topic were published by Shijie Zhong, and are freely available on his website (just google him). He also has some pretty good movies of his model results. I won't get to this right away though - busy week. Ping me if I really seem to have forgotten, Awickert (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
That works for me. Thanks. Would it make sense to convert the 'Recent research' into a summary style section on the topic of 'True polar wander' and merge the current content into that article?—RJH (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's been my feeling for a while, but I've never set aside the significant block of time I'd need to do it well (and it's not going to happen in the next couple of weeks). My thought is that there should be a section on changes in the axis with respect to the sun, linking to the main article, and another on true polar wander, linking there. And then maybe its references in pop culture / disaster movies, because that is what seems to steer people to this article, so IMO we should educate as to what is and what isn't scientific ;-). Awickert (talk) Sometime 16-17-ish November 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. There's a small writeup on future changes in the Earth's obliquity at Future of the Earth#Obliquity.—RJH (talk)
Ah, good. I'll read that and add it to my watchlist. I feel bad for making you all wait, but my time will be very limited until late December or maybe past the new year. So I'll add it to my to-do-list as well. I may get to it earlier if I decide to procrastinate my other work... Awickert (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"See also" links[edit]

I think don't belong according to our guidelines at WP:ALSO. The argument for them is "These are relevant since most polar shift theory relies on eveidence of global Deluge for oceans "slosh" in shift @ 9th mill. BC, 4th mill missed)" but they don't mention the pole shift hypothesis and if the arguments are used by adherents, fine, use some reliable sources to include them in the article. Otherwise what we have is an unusual example of original research and adding these as links is not helpful to our readers. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes the last two 'See also' links seem like a bit of a reach. The Black Sea link is also a stretch.—RJH (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
have either of you even read the background material? Go read a book and once you understand put the links back. Sorry to be fairly blunt but your logic for removing these is absurd. Since when do "see also" links need references? While you are busy deleting content and playing gatekeeper only because you did not think of it, why don't you rewrite the page. (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It would seem to me that one shouldn't need to read the background material to understand the relevance of the linked article to this page. The relevance should be clear from the linked article itself. In this case I checked the articles in question and they do not make the relevance clear at all. Therefore I have to believe the logic of your argument is at least somewhat false.
The WP:MoS states that the 'See also' section is based on consensus. Since several editors have opposed your additions, you don't appear to have that yet. I suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Consensus.—RJH (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You are correct Bob, but Wikipedia:Consensus only applies in this frame if the opposing editors are not acting in collusion and are acting in good-faith, we have not established this. That this many formal editors would have such a strong opinion on a fairly obscure page is suspicious. Granite07 (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. But my first concern still stands. Somebody drilling down onto those pages may be baffled about the connection. That needs to be clarified. Once that happens, I have no objection to adding the links back in.—RJH (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The deluge material has citations in polar shift material. There is no need for the linked-too pages to have any content about polar shift. I am not sure what you are pulling this out of. If your goal is to make a better page you should research the material and write a section on the deluge aspects of polar shift. Please do not request that other editors write content that you yourself are unwilling to write. There is nothing annoying more than deletions based on technicalities by those who do not make contributions. I had planned to eventually write a section on the deluge aspects and the links were for my own future reference. I am not going to attempt further contributions to this page and please do not reply to this note with something about using the sandbox. (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
When you do write your content additions then use the links. Until then, I'd suggest you sign up for an account and store links for future reference on your user page or subpage (i.e. your "sandbox"). Vsmith (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Submitted request for mediation and posted editwar notice as a precaution, until a consensus is reached about 'see also' referencing rules and good-faith discussion Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-20/Pole shift hypothesis, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Pole shift hypothesis Granite07 (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I note that the 2 IP addresses both come from Stanford University, clearly not a coincidence. The idea that people opposing this addition are acting in collusion is both ridiculous and ironic in a situation where you are talking about good faith. You now have 4 editors objecting to your material. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
After review of edit history and analysis it appears that only user:RJHall and user:Dougweller have actually contributed to this site. Possibly originating as admin editors assigned the page to 'babysit'. The edits made by User:Vsmith and user:Ckatz are more recent, almost exclusively consisting of edits reverting vandalism and other such non-contributing (but very important) contributions. A review of user talk pages provides insight into a bunch of guys/gals not particularly known for their light admin 'touch'.
Interestingly the most recent revert by user:Woudloper, is someone that is a friend of user:Dougweller, see conversation on talk page User talk:Woudloper#Apologies. I'd like to play on a level field here in good-faith but the evidence hardly supports the contention that the reverting editors are just a bunch of concerned 'geostabilityphobes' that want a conservative Pole shift hypothesis page applying to the rules of encyclopedic protocol. Granite07 (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You really need to stop these personal accusations. Woudloper and I are hardly 'friends', we've had very limited contact here. Your posts have been full of accusations of collusion, etc. and this is tiresome. Your post above is just a personal attack on other editors and you clearly are not willing to AGF. Ditto the comments about 'admin editors assigned the page to 'babysit'. I have been sympathetic to what I saw as your confusion -- I was thinking that perhaps you are not trying to get me and the two others you named blocked, but this is just too much. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(OD) I have no connections (that I'm aware of) to anyone on either side of this discussion, and the links to me seem quite superfluous, especially the last two. Linking to an entire millenium seems a bit much. Dayewalker (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is linking to an entire millenium a bit much? Polarshift theory works in thousands of years not days so it seems anything less than a millenium would be insufficient.Granite07 (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Because lots of other things happened over the course of an entire millenium, simply linking to a huge period of time isn't really helpful. Dayewalker (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you but not necessarily your argument. Yes, lots of things happened yesterday but I still categorize it as yesterday and not a second by second retelling. Some things happen on a bigger scale. There is precedence for this, see Pages that link to "4th millennium BC" [2]. Are you going to rush and remove these links? Granite07 (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
No, other pages have links on wikipedia. On this page, I agree with the current consensus that the extra links aren't appropriate. Dayewalker (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
That is about as weak of a counter point as they get. Hiding behind Wikipedia catch phrases has unfortunately gone sorely out of style as useful as they are. These are about as useful as any appeal to authority, also a bit of Ignoratio elenchi. Can we please have a good-faith discussion without degeneration into WP:POV type abbreviations. Of course I too am guilty of Proof by verbosity sometime, but not here. Not to point the finger of blame, but that seemed a bit of Oligarchy Bureaucracy speak for a minute. And this is the wrong forum to debase such an establishment if it does exist. Since they typically fall under their own weight at the detriment of the most dogmatic adherents.
Yes, other pages have links to "4th millennium BC" and this one does not, can we appreciate this fact first. We need a mediator, this is getting strange. Granite07 (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty. I tried. I doubt this will go anywhere further productive, so I'll just close by saying I agree with the current consensus on this article, which is unanimously against your insertion of the "see also" links. Dayewalker (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this does seem circular. Claiming personal attacks and posting standard rebuttals such as other pages have links on wikipedia' is not productive, you have lost my faith that you are discussing this in good faith.Granite07 (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation cabal request[edit]

If all parties are agreable, I am willing to open this request and act as mediator. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm agreeable. Maybe we should go ahead even though WC is working on the article, as there are some issues that could use mediation. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Alexandr. Is it possible that everyone interested in the mediation discussion first provide a couple sentences about their background and interest in the polar shift hypothesis? Additionally I'd like to define the mediated topic better. Are we discussing:
  1. see also edit rules
  2. good-faith consensus practices (with all due respect, as opposed to rubber stamping other admins opinions)
  3. The feasibility || precedence of using a skype call to conference a dispute resolution, preferably before a mediator is needed

Granite07 (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The way I worked on my previous (and only) mediation request was the following:
  1. All parties agreed to mediation
  2. All parties agreed to define together the locus of what required mediation
  3. Common ground was found and agreed on
  4. Disputed areas were listed with each party commenting
  5. A proposed solution was offered and all parties commented
  6. A final solution was proposed and agreed on
I appreciate that this case looks at first glance to be more complicated that my first case, however, the skills of a mediator that I have acquired outside of Wikipedia lie more in the ability to get people to work together and resolve differences than to rule on a content issue. When I undertook the previous case I had no knowledge whatsoever of the content issue and as such approached the case as a totally neutral party. With respect to Wikipedia core policies, general policies, guidelines and any behavioural issues, the problems were addressed fairly easily. My objective was and would be here to find a common solution, not to rule that editor X was right and that editor Y was wrong. I would be interested to see what the other parties involved in this case think about the possibility of a Skype call as a form of dispute resolution. There are both technical and transparency issues that I forsee in this approach. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Alexandr, thanks very much for stepping in. Based on the conversations below about working these links into the main article, it seems like this can be reasonably settled. I agree with Granite07 above on clarifying the topic better, however I disagree on two of his points. Editors should not be required to declare what their background or interest is in a topic before editing a page, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We're looking for editors who can find notable reliable sources, not editors who have personal knowledge or experiences.
As for the possibilities of a Skype call (or any other off-wiki mechanism) to handle this matter, absolutely not. To begin with, asking editors to go to another forum to resolve an on-wiki dispute could result in all sorts of loss of anonymity. Furthermore, an open discussion on a wikipedia page is viewable by everyone involved, while a off-wiki decision effectively limits the numbers of parties involved in the consensus. Using Skype or some other form of off-wiki chat might be a possibility in the future, but we'd need some kind of policy about this. If I came to a page and found out consensus on the page came through Skype/Messenger/IRC and I didn't have access to that discussion, I wouldn't think very highly of the process. Dayewalker (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree entirely. A non-transparent mediation to determine consensus is simply not the way Wikipedia should work. We have had enough problems with off-Wiki activities recently. Also, who we are, unless there is a clear conflict of interest (in this case being an author of a pole theory work would count as COI), it doesn't matter - our interests and background are irrelevant and I think there is another misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works involved in this request. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest therefore opening the case with the following parameters:
  1. Users involved: Granite07, Dayewalker, Dougweller with anyone else involved welcome to participate. I note Vsmith and RJHall were initially listed as parties: do they need to be included as well (I can drop a note on their talk pages)?
  2. How do you think we can help: removing point 3 "Is there precedence for Wikipedia dispute resolution through skype dialog. It seems easy to hide behind text wars but when spoken the adversity may not actually exist."
Granite07, as filing party are you happy with this and for me to redact the mediation request accordingly? -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am happy with this. There is confusion about the following statements:
  • [can] everyone interested in the mediation discussion first provide a couple sentences about their background and interest in the polar shift hypothesis? (Granite07)
  • Editors should not be required to declare what their background or interest is in a topic before editing a page, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. (Dougweller)(Dayewalker)
Can we first find consesus on this statement. The confusion may be the use of the mediation discussion ratehr than a more correct this mediation discussion.
Before moving forward should we provide more time for others, such as Vsmith, RJHall and other, to join the discussion, maybe five days with an invitation sent to those having several previous posts or edits to this page. The skype conversation does not appear to be off the table it looks to be 2:1 for/against, close to tied, may need more discussion. Granite07 (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I am unwilling to take part in this unless it considers Granite07's comments on other editors which explicitly denied good faith and appear if taken at face value to be personal attacks (unless of course Granite07 retracts them). I also won't take part in a Skype conversation or indeed recognise any mediation which takes place off-Wiki in any form, until such discussions are built into our guidelines on dispute resolution. Mediation should be transparent so that anyone can see the record of the discussion. Dougweller (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(OD) To clarify, the quoted comments above are mine, not Dougwellers. I'll reiterate what DW says above though, Skype (or any other form of off-wiki discussion) is not a matter of consensus. It's completely against Wikipedia policy. If someone wants to suggest it on a policy board, that's their decision, but I won't be taking part in any off-wiki discussions unless they're approved by WP. Dayewalker (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have left messages for Vsmith, RJHall, William M. Connolley and Awickert requesting their input. If anyone can think of anyone else to add, please do not hesitate to contact them. For the record, I foresaw problems with using any method not on-Wiki such as Skype as problematic due to transparency concerns, and this has been clearly confirmed by interested parties. As a result, I am only willing to conduct this via the usual channels, on the Mediation request page itself. I note that lack of assumptions of good faith should also be examined in this case. With regards to stating one's background and knowledge in the area, I agree that this is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I boldly think that I can sum up the issue and propose a resolution in two sentences.
  1. Problem: the links were removed and Granite07 assumed bad faith; conflict ensued.
  2. Resolution: consensus has been made to reinsert the links in context (the context has to be written), and the conversation has become more polite, so I think we can hit the insertion of context as an actionable item and just agree to apologize and get along.
If the involved parties are amenable to this, this is the quickest and most painless resolution I can think of, Awickert (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The request to present our backgrounds and interest in the PSH has been misconstrued to be some type of exclusionary filter. Obviously Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The intention is to find a common context that we all share so to avoid the cycles of miscommunication that are occurring, for example, accusations of not good-faith. The assumption that leads to defining context is that we are all using different semantics. Therefore, the result is habitual miscommunication. For example, a natural sciences geologist, an engineer, a social scientist and a medical doctor walk into a bar, and a bar fight ensues when one said pardon me. Why did they get into a fight, who knows, they just did. If we provide some insight into where we are coming from then we can adjust our perception accordingly and maybe understand when we need to state things more explicitly and when the statement can be left implicit. In the most strict sense we could all revert to predicate logic notation so to ensure there is no misunderstanding or we could simple make generic POV and OR type statements. The solution seems to be somewhere between these extremes. Granite07 (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I feel that this entire issue has been blown well out of proportion, and primarily by the comments of a single anonymous editor. After all, this only appears to be regarding a few links in the "See also" section. I'm amenable to whatever reasonable solution will achieve a happy consensus.—RJH (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Everyone likely agrees with you as far as this specific instance is concerned. It obviously would be easy to brush this aside as a minor event and ignore the bigger issue. Setting aside the context (this has been provided implicitly through discussion) and procedures for skype discussion, we still have the rules for see also edits. Why were the original edits reverted? And was this justified or done appropriately. If for no other purpose than so a newbie such as myself and any others reading this will not make, if I erred or the reverting editors erred whatever the case may be, the same error in judgment. Granite07 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Why do you call yourself a newbie? You've been editing since July 2007 and this is your second experience with mediation. I've just seen the discussion on your talk page. Why do you call Admins 'pseudo-editors'? The basic problems here are your lack of understanding or failure to recognise consensus, and your personal attacks and lack of good faith. As for 'rules' for "See also", the relevant guideline section says " However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.". That's where consensus is very important. None of this would have happened if you had sought consensus and accepted the good faith of the editors you disagreed with. Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I was away for a few days and was unable to comment. Granite07 has left a message on my talk page asking my assistance here again. Now as I see it, pretty much everyone is keen to put the incident in the past, agree to be polite and work together based on consensus. My personal feeling is that if everyone can agree to this, we can avoid a formal mediation case. If not, then mediation would need to address why this is not possible, which would change the focus somewhat of the case as it has been requested. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is agreed that putting this issue in the past is prudent. The sticking point preventing this; it is inconsistent with the principles of Wikipedia that the underlying issue that sparked this mediation happened. In theory it seems possible for an edit made in good-faith to be removed by other editors but to actually occur seems rare. Granite07 (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I've left a note on Granite07's talk page to see whether or not he or she would prefer it to be marked as closed or withdrawn as it seems that all parties agree that the matter is fortunately in the past now. Thank you everyone for your time and efforts in bringing this to what I hope is a satisfactory end. I shall be marking the case as closed in the next few days if I receive no contrary indication. Regards and happy editing -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Marking as closed. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion re links[edit]

Regarding [3] I am (perhaps somewhat surprisingly) of granite07's opinion: these links do in deed belong, though it would be better to work them into the article. All (or at least some of) this nonsense is of a piece, and well worth linking together. I'm going to have a go at doing this William M. Connolley (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not at all against adding to the article any relationship to the links, only against a bare addition of them as 'see also' (especially as the reason seems to be that they would act as a reminder for the editor). My first comment above is " if the arguments are used by adherents, fine, use some reliable sources to include them in the article.". It wouldn't just have to be adherents actually, any good source that mentions them in connection the the pole shift hypothesis can be used (the usual caveats about our guidelines, etc still applying and this being a fringe article). Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, there is something here I'm not familiar with, the link between this and the Black Sea deluge idea - I did a quick search and nothing came up. Shouldn't we have sources for these relationships? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 18:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think this is the key issue with those links. Their connection to the current topic is not explained by the content of the articles. It doesn't matter that somebody has supposedly establish a connection in their minds or in a source that is not used here. But that somebody is always free to apply the appropriate edits to those articles to make the connection clear.—RJH (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree here, it's not that the proposed links are irrelevant, they're just not clear enough to be separate "see also" links. I've got no problem with those being linked in the article where their context can be clearer. Dayewalker (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I *thought* the idea was that the kind of nutters that believe in the PSH also believe in these other thing William M. Connolley (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to sound surprised but I thought everyone understood that the Pole shift hypothesis and the entire page is firmly anchored in dogmatic pseudoscience. It is notable as such. The true polar wander page seems to be a more scientific approach with the associated editing constraints likely in effect. A summary of this page has been made in the recent research section. I think there needs to be a sub-section for pseudoscience only to capture some of the more tangential topics relying on citations referencing "glossy" magazines and their online derivations. I am a fan of a good pseudoscience theory just like every other sky watcher. As far as the rest of the page goes it should be open to post edits as long as they are within the citable frame given by the leading proponents of this theory, and any new proponents that manage to publish anything substantive in the future. Some of these proponents spent a good portion of their life on this topic while some seem to have written a few articles. The deluge theory does not specifically fit under this pseudoscience category and should be placed in a subsection specific to the deluge in context with the theory as a whole. The same goes for rapid climatic change theories and maybe work-in the hypothesizes time frames of these events. When do Brown, Hapgood and et al. propose these events occurred. I recall a 5,000 year interval with most imediatly preceding event having failed to occur due to exceptional geostabilization in the current goeconfiguration. The fine line between OR and embodying the theory on a obvious minimum of literature to work with seems to be within the capabilities of Wikipedia to accommodate without crossing that line. Don't go to the beach and find a sea-shell in a cliff and post it here as evidence of PST, that is OR, linking to a page relating corresponding theories that are more fully embodied is on the line but legitimate in this context. They both have deluge in the title right. Granite07 (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally I prefer to spend my time editing and not describing || discussing || finding consensus for the edits. In the time I spent writing this post I could have just written the section and posted it and likely would have not given the preceding discussion on see also edits. Granite07 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Can this issue be put to bed now? :-) Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To do list[edit]

  • Several sources list Immanuel Velikovsky as an originator of the pole shift hypothesis. Needs a mention.

RJH (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

sounds good. If there are citations is it necessary to find consensus first? Granite07 (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I added in a paragraph about Velikovsky's works. I know he was considered a bit (far) off the wall and was completely off base with his wild hypotheses, but in general the concepts of migrating planets, chaos theory and protoplanetary collisions have become more widely accepted in astronomy these days. So, if anything, it's a teaching opportunity for real science.—RJH (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above, I'm actually professionally knowledgeable about true polar wander. I was going to put this on my back burner, but this intense discussion has led me to think that it should be on the front. My off-the-top-of-the-head checklist is:

  1. Figure out whether this term covers obliquity or true polar wander or both, and create blurbs with "main article=bla" links to those
  2. Make the reason that the see alsos are included make sense, probably by inserting in text as has been suggested
  3. Explain how it is used in the mass media and entertainment, and how this is related to the science

Awickert (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the topic of this article?[edit]

The page starts by saying that this is a hypothesis in the change of the locations of the poles. OK.

It then goes on to saying that it is only true polar wander. OK.

It says that this is less accepted than geomagnetic reversal. WRONG.

OK: Pause. So once it becomes the same thing as true polar wander, it stops being a wacko hypothesis and starts being mainstream science. If this is all the article is, it should be merged into the real science of true polar wander and be done away with. But if it is about the crazy speculation, then pole shift is a hypothesis and could be either true polar wander or a change in the rotational axis with respect to the sun. In that case, the article should be changed to reflect this.

So I really can't start to touch the article until I know which of these the article is. I'm going for the latter pseudoscience category myself.

Your opinions, please? Awickert (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My opinion, it is both and all. Brown proposed the change in the rotational axis with respect to the sun which Hapgood modified to include the physics calculation that the forces do not equal, therefore resulting in the skin slip theory. The more recent Norwegian north sea core drilling study suggests that whichever is the case the maximum change does not exceed 40 degrees and may happen over a longer duration than that envisioned by Brown or Hapgood, therefore implying something incorporating true polar wander. Just a reality check, has everyone read the material, I will be the first to admit it has been a few years. Anyone interested to conduct a literature review and provide a bibliography and cliff notes, not it Granite07 (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a nice discussion and review, including detailed comparison and contrasts of the ideas of Hapgood, Brown, and other advocates of catastrophic pole shifts and the evidence on which they based their interpretations, in "Predictions and Prophecies of the Ultimate Disaster: Pole Shift" by John White. This book is a good starting point before reading through the various books by these people. Paul H. (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The Charles Hapgood work labeled the effect as Cataclysmic Pole Shift, rather than just pole shift. Perhaps this article should focus on the cataclysmic aspect of the topic, with the true polar wander providing the scientific work? I would favor renaming this article to Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis in order to clarify the focus. In that case it should only have enough science to maintain neutrality. But doing so would still require a WP:SS description of true polar wander.—RJH (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I have not read the material, so if someone could change this article to use what the material says, I will be able to integrate it into the more mainstream science articles. Awickert (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I renamed the page and did some reorganization. Hopefully it is an improvement.—RJH (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The removal of pseudoscience material is not appropriate given it is properly cited and has been discussed to consensus. I did not look at the history to see who removed it but given recent revert 'war' I am going to refrain from anymore reverts. Granite07 (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The material is located under the "Recent conjectures" section. I refrained from using "Pseudoscience" to keep things neutral. But none of the content has been removed; merely reorganized.—RJH (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

someone make this correction[edit]

...including psychic readings, often linked to other beliefs such as Tollmann's hypothetical..., often is too strong a word, please change it to possibly. Granite07 (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

about shifting of poles[edit]


Well, organisms are constantly going extinct so that isn't really a change. The primary difference now is the rate of extinction, which is comparable to that of an extinction event. I think a mass extinction due to a sudden pole shift has extraordinarily low odds, so I wouldn't worry about that possibility. There wouldn't be much we could do about it in any event.—RJH (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Entry removed[edit]

The following entry was tagged as unsourced since September:

A high-velocity asteroid or comet which hits Earth at such an angle that the lithosphere moves independent of the mantle.[citation needed]

I did a search but couldn't find a suitable source. In any event, it seems pretty unlikely to have that effect without having sufficient energy to simultaneously destroy the lithosphere. Cf. giant impact hypothesis.—RJH (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You should put it back, that is a near direct quote from Hapgood (or Brown). The theory of an impact was proposed to better reflect the calculations that show gravitational pull is not sufficient in itself to pull the core into a new axis. The second theory is that only the mantle is moved. (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
If so, then you should be able to supply a concise reference. See WP:CS. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

About the history of pole shifting theory[edit]

Hello, I just like to point on the fact, that in the 1956 Book "The Calendar of Tiahuanaco" by H.S. Bellamy and P. Allan (p.30) the theory of earth crust shifting was also part of Hoerbigers theory. Maybe this should be inserted in the text of the article.-- (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this part of the Welteislehre theory by Hans Hörbiger?—RJH (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory statements?[edit]

Here's a quote from the head of the article:

Among the scientific community, the evidence shows that no rapid shifts in the Earth's pole have occurred during the last 200 million years.[2] True polar wander is known to occur, but only at rates of 1° per million years or less.[3] The last rapid shift in the poles may have occurred 800 million years ago..

So which one is it? 200 million or 800 million?--Namaste@? 09:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How are these contradictory? If the last rapid shift occurred 800 mya, it is still a true statement that no rapid shift occurred within the last 200 million years. This is just a way of saying that evidence has been found for a rapid shift 800 mya. It doesn't rule out a rapid shift 300 mya; there's just been no evidence found.—RJH (talk)

5/5/2000 - novel? Publication Date[edit]


Looking at this discussion page, it's clear a lot has been done to clean up this article over time. I have only two minor points to raise.In the "recent conjectures" section, is the following text:

"In 1997, Richard W. Noone published the novel 5/5/2000, ICE: The Ultimate Disaster"

I am currently reading this book, which is how I wound up on this page. While it contains considerable speculative data, it is not a work of fiction in the traditional sense (ie, no characters, plotline,etc.) The Library of Congress has classed it under BF1999 - occult sciences, not fiction or literature. Therefore the descriptor "novel" is inappropriate, and should be removed.

Its original date of publication is listed as 1986, so this fact is also listed inaccurately.

Otherwise, thanks for the clarifying article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Also, I'm significantly rewriting the article, so check back and be sure to ask if you think of points that you'd like addressed here. Awickert (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, it's great to have a geologist on the matter at hand. There's too much hypish misinformation about the 2012 meme, and this seems to be one of it's pseudoscientific manifestation. Will the earth flip over or something..:)--Namaste@? 02:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, but I promised RJHall that I would do this a long, long time ago... so I feel a little guilty about that. Anyway: is there anything that you think should be mentioned? Awickert (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the sentence That is, either the planet remains stationary but its spin axis moves, the spin axis remains fixed and the planet (or layers of it) move with respect to it, or a combination of these two occur. is redundant, its content having already been given in the preceding sentence. It is also ambiguous because it does not mention the reference with respect to which the planet (or the spin axis) remain stationary or fixed. I, therefore, recommend dropping it. Nfr-Maat (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for removing. By "fixed", I meant w.r.t. a celestial reference frame. Awickert (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

True Polar Wander - ~55° rotation - Article is Implying Hypothesis as Fact[edit]

The final sentences of the second paragraph are: "Between approximately 790 and 810 million years ago, when the supercontinent Rodinia existed, two geologically-rapid phases of true polar wander may have occurred. In each of these, the Earth rotated ~55°.[4]"

This claim cites the following paper: (readable openly at, which suggests several lines of evidence used to provide the hypothesis that a true polar wandering event was a cause of such observations. There was no direct evidence of this, however a true polar wandering event provides one possible explanation. Language indicating such should be used in presenting that paper's findings in this article. The language used in the current article does not meet that standard, and suggests that this hypothesis is an established fact.

A summary article summarizing this paper, while pointing out this is a "best fit for [the] current evidence, [but] not a certainty", is at: [[4]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klassica (talkcontribs) 07:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Pole Shift a theory???[edit]


I would Like to point out that the author of the article is incorrect at saying this is only a theory, it is a scientific fact that the Earths magnetic poles do completely shift at I believe it is about every 500 thousand years or so. this has been shown from ice cores taken from the Antarctic Region... What is theory is how these shifts occur, do they shift rapidly, immediately, or over an extended period of time... the complete shift was shown to have occurred approx 750 thousand years ago and the previous one to that 500 thousand years ago... Pole wobble is also a fact and occurs more often... right now, pole the poles are shifting about 40 miles a year, it is not known if this is just a wobble or a slow shift as the movement is steadily moving away from the current north-south orientation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Pole Shift a theory??? 2nd post[edit]

sorry wanted to update some info... the shifts occure approx 300 - 500 thousand years...

also wanted to site an official source to show scientific fact of this: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Early proponents[edit]

In the sentence "Velikovsky supported his work with historical records, although his studies were mainly ridiculed by the scientific community." what is the value of mentioning that his studies were ridiculed by the scientific community? In no way is this a good reason to reject Velikovsky's position because it merely shows that he was a victim of an ad hominem attack perpetrated by some individuals resting on the support of the argument from authority. Given that this article is intended to examine the veracity of the hypothesis at hand and not the struggles of its proponents, the mention of ridicule by the scientific community should be removed. Phiborjam (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In the paragraph: "However, in his subsequent work The Path of the Pole, Hapgood conceded Einstein's point that the weight of the polar ice would be insufficient to bring about a polar shift. Instead, Hapgood argued that the forces that caused the shifts in the crust must be located below the surface. He had no satisfactory explanation for how this could occur." The last sentence should be removed as it is POV. The term 'satisfactory' in this context without giving any empirical criteria that needs to be met, implies a reaction by the reader to Hapgood's explanation; he or she was not satisfied by his explanation. Instead the editor should present Hapgood's explanation(s) and let the Wikipedia reader decide whether or not it constitutes a satisfactory explanation. Phiborjam (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this article is not 'intended to examine the veracity of the hypothesis at hand'. Please see WP:TRUTH. Any physical theory mentioned in a wikipedia article requires reporting on its acceptance by the community at large, and in this case, the community of geologists, physicists, etc. Ashmoo (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Then the edit should state as much and provide reference to where the theory was rejected. The problem being is that the term 'community' is highly vague, especially in the realm of science where every statement is supposed to be so empirically specific. BTW this is Phiborjam here(I can't remember my password so now I go by Quarky Gluon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarky Gluon (talkcontribs) 07:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

'Pseudoscientific' as an ad hominem label[edit]

In the 'Recent Conjectures' section, the first sentence states: "The field has attracted pseudoscientific authors offering a variety of evidence, including psychic readings." The term 'pseudoscientific' is an ad hominem label that is epistemologically irrelevant to any arguments or reasoning made by the authors listed in the 'Recent Conjectures' section. The listed authors may or may not have provided any good scientific reasons for believing in their theories, but that can be assessed by anyone that reads their works. Phiborjam (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There is fine line between promoting an agenda and supporting a position. I think I've found in this article an excellent example of promoting an agenda. In this case there is clearly a group of editors bent on promoting the position that certain authors deserve the label 'psuedoscientific.' While promoting a position is supposed to be against the principles of Wikipedia, I'm starting to wonder if an exception is being made for those that are promoting the skeptics agenda. I thought the purpose of an encyclopedia, of which Wikipedia attempts to portray itself as such, is to present facts and information, and where necessary an explanation of those facts and information in a manner that the reader can acquire knowledge. However, drawing conclusions about the nature of particular individuals (authors) in one article based on a description of a practice(pseudoscience) presented in an entirely different article veers away from the objective presentation of information and into the presentation and promotion of a particular point of view. This is especially true with the case at hand given that no citation or evidence has been presented to support the position that any given author fits the category of 'pseudoscientific.' In fact there is a great deal of vagueness about who the editor is referring to as pseudoscientific. Does the term necessarily include all those authors listed in the section that the term is used? If so why is that not stated? I'm sure many different hypothesis, theories, conjectures whether accepted by academics or not have still attracted a large variety of characters that would fit into a myriad of different categories that are listed as entries on Wikipedia. Does that mean every time we find an author that an editor thinks fits category X that wrote about subject Y, an entry needs to be made stating that subject Y has attracted an author who is an X? To me this all seems like I'm fighting against childish name calling, especially when the authors in question I'm sure have never identified themselves as being, nor would they ever like being called, a pseudoscientific author. So let us leave the conclusions about authors, and any possible name-calling to the reader and keep this encyclopedia a professional, serious place for objective learning.Quarky Gluon (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

In case of Pole shift hypothesis, the application "pseudoscientific" depends upon the specific author being discussed. In case of Dr. Charles Hapgood, the term "pseudoscientific" is clearly inappropriate. He argued for the validity of Pole shift hypothesis somewhat within the accepted context of what was known about Pleistocene geology, geochronology, tectonics, and other aspects of Earth Science in the 1950s. However, some later authors, i.e. Hancock and Rand Flem-Ath in their arguments for the Pole shift hypothesis can be reasonable regarded to be "pseudoscientific" as they make their case by completely ignoring tan enormous accumulation of knowledge about basic Earth processes, i.e. plate tectonics; Quaternary paleoenvironmental, paleoclimatological, and palevegetation changes; Quaternary paleomagnetism; glacial processes and ice sheet prehistory; and basic geology that readily refute their ideas. Instead, they cherry pick the material, which they cite, often form popular nonscientific sources, and spin-doctor them to support their ideas. Both authors are classic "Cafeteria Catastrophists." They accept or reject data, papers, interpretations, and arguments in the way that a person selects or rejects food at a cafeteria based on either how tasteful or distasteful the food is. If something supports their ideas, they accept it and use it in their arguments. If something is "distasteful" in that it contradicts or refutes their ideas they reject and ignore it in their arguments. This is clearly a pseudoscientific way of arguing for a specific hypothesis. Their books would likely get and "F" in any undergraduate geology or geomorphology course. In the case of the Pole shift hypothesis, there are authors, which the scientific community agree are pseudoscientific in the manner in which they make their arguments for such an event. Garrett Fagan, i.e. Antarctic Farce, and others have written about them in various articles in papers at Ma'at papers. This web site has been reviewed in Archaeology Magazine in the Seductions of Pseudoarchaeology: Pseudoscience in Cyberspace. Paul H. (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The label 'pseudoscientific' has still been assigned due to a conclusion by editors for reasons that require an argument. There is however no way to support the appropriateness of the label through either direct observation (they don't have a sign flashing on their foreheads nor have they assigned themselves the label of 'pseudoscientific') or through a crisp logic syllogism having exclusively premises that are prima fascia evident facts. But instead the authors are deserving the label because you would give them a grade of 'F' in undergraduate geology. I didn't think Wikipedia had become a forum where grades were given to any given authors and labels applied to those authors based on those grades. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an objective resource that was not here to promote any POV agenda such as the skeptic agenda that seems to be behind the insistence that the 'pseudoscientific' label remain in place.Quarky Gluon (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually we use the description (a less charged word than 'label') in a number of articles where appropriate. I don't know what you mean by objective, but our policy that is probably most applicable here is WP:NPOV. If the prevailing opinon amoung the sorts of sources we accept (see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, particularly academic ones, is that something is pseudoscience, we describe it that way. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
You call the label a description but without presenting the means to describe. By that I mean the label pseudoscientific or pseudoscientist is not applied due to some particular empirical datum that can be measured, weighed or counted. Rather it is a judgement about the ontology of a person and therefore non neutral. If some professor has described author X as being a Y, then a non objective neutral way of describing that state of affairs is to state that 'professor Z has described author X as being a Y' and provide a citation for that statement. Instead I've seen in this case Wikipedia as acting being used as a means to actively further the agenda of a dominant paradigm by badmouthing advocates of a competing paradigm.Quarky Gluon (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservation of angular momentum[edit]

Why aren't radical and sudden changes to the pole orientation a violation of conservation of angular momentum (except in the case of encountering another large body so that transfer of angular momentum can occur)?

They are, which is very likely why this conjecture hasn't gained much if any traction in the scientific community. Without some form of external perturbation, you would probably need an internal source to serve as a transfer mechanism of angular momentum. I.e. the core would likely need to be rotating at an obtuse angle or in the opposite direction. True the core does rotate more rapidly, but I believe it has the same spin axis as the crust. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
In general, the theory is that there is no change in net angular momentum. The spin axis remains fixed in space (as would be judged by a hypothetical external observer), but the entire Earth shifts relative to that axis. Changing the orientation of the Earth relative to a fixed spin axis doesn't require any change in the total angular momentum (though it will in general require a change in the total rotational kinetic energy). As discussed at true polar wander, there are conditions under which the orientation of the whole Earth can spontaneously change (i.e. when the change results in a net reduction in rotational kinetic energy) with only very minor external perturbations. The most severe of these scenarios, "inertial interchange true polar wander", would give rise to a rapid pole shift, but it requires rather exotic conditions on the surface of the Earth (e.g. placing most of the continental mass near the poles), and it is unclear if such conditions have ever occurred. Dragons flight (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Pole shift hypotheses are not connected with plate tectonics...nor with continental drift[edit]

This doesn't appear correct to me. Crustal displacement and pole shift obviously does relate to plate tectonics and therefore the principles behind continental drift (also once considered a ludicrous concept). The new discovery of an "ultra-hard layer of rock within Earth’s lower mantle" may provide the mechanism that's currently missing in the pole shift hypothesis. [Nature Geoscience[[5]]: Slab stagnation in the shallow lower mantle linked to an increase in mantle viscosity] Ward Arminius (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYN as doubtful that the Nature article says anything about the pole shift stuff (only have access to the abstract). Vsmith (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I am a geologist, have access to the Nature article, and have read it. The article lacks any reference to either pole shift hypothesis or pole shifts. There is nothing in it that provides an alleged mechanism for any pole shift hypothesis. Paul H. (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, what?[edit]

> From 1982 to 2005, the pole drifted southeast toward northern Labrador

Is it written about the north geographic pole? But how it can drift anywhere but southward? Where "sotheast from the north pole" is supposed to be? Hellerick (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Boston Globe News article concerning study of earth's movement.