Talk:Earth/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

"Earth" name

“ About 70% of the earth's surface is covered with water. Planet Earth should actually be called "Ocean" --Monty Halls ”

Perhaps this quote can be inserted, also I actually think that "Earth" is better changed to a number eg in the form 11,15,50 . The name could then also inmediatelly give the position of the planet in the univers using the Cartesian coordinate system; see Cartesian_coordinates. Include a section on alternative names in the article. KVDP (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose—I'm not sure that the first is sufficiently notable to be worth including; we had enough trouble with "Blue Planet", which seems like a trivial name that is rarely used. The second would fall under WP:OR. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion for this talk page

Could we add a disclaimer at the top of this talk page (I suppose under the one related to Mostly Harmless) stating that the information on the Earth article is scientifically oriented, especially the age of 4.54 billion years? The complaints from young earth creationists are getting repetitive. --Evice (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that has been debated before and we did try putting in a notice. But the consensus was then to remove it. Instead, such complaints are usually just directed to the prior discussions, or to the Age of the Earth article. Another approach would be to view all such postings as a "teachable moment" and don't sweat their non-scientific viewpoint. You could also write a carefully thought out opinion piece on the subject and post it. :-) —RJH (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of this page is to detail the technical undisputable scientific facts about the earth. The fact that it's round, goes around the sun, has a moon going around it, and has existed for over 4 billion years. None of it is theory. If creationists choose not to believe it that's up to them, but all the data in this article should be what science has proven and nothing more. If we start adding crackpot stories from books of fiction then where do we stop? I'm sure there are plenty of science fiction novels we could quote from as well as quoting from (fiction that is) the bible. It's a story book with some rules designed to try and bring order to a society that needed it at the time. Not that any of the followers of that book follow the rules in it anyway. How many people have been executed for having an affair recently? The bible states they should be. You'd think the creator of the planet would have known it was round also. Well, if the book had been written by God then he'd have mentioned it. But no, it was written by people. God didn't create man, it was the other way around. How brainwashed must people be these days to believe in that nonsense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.246.115 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with most or all of that comment, I just want to point out that this is not the place to start a debate on the topic of religion or Christianity, which is what the post morphs into halfway through. Back on topic to the article and the notice, I think a notice would be a bad idea, as it hints too much at the popular "Teach the Controversy" so many scientists now hear. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? It's the opposite of "teach the controversy." It's saying that YEC views have no place on this article, and that only scientific facts do. The point of the notice would be to discourage pseudoscientific complaints from young Earth creationists, an example of which can be found near the top of this page and in the archives. --Evice (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, you seem to be under the impression that the notice is for the article itself. I clearly said it's for the talk page, which has repeatedly ended up with YEC-based complaints. --Evice (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

[re-indent]: I did misinterpret your comments, yes. Your original post states that "the information on article is scientifically oriented"; I have enough debates with creationists to know that they will seize on the phrase "this information is scientific(ally oriented)" as "evidence" that there are other (and as they would assert, equally valid) viewpoints. Your new post makes it much clearer that it would be more of a discouragement from placing YEC-based comments. For the record, I never, as far as I can remember, thought the notice would be on the actual article; Just clearing that up. Back on track, as long as the notice is explicit like "Young Earth Creationism-related posts have no place on this talk page" then I approve. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 01:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Update: I added a disclaimer; edit it as you see fit. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 01:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to use the term "scientific" positively toward science, rather than the anti-science usage you've encountered. I wasn't aware of the usage you mentioned since I don't specialize in biology and don't debate often. --Evice (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a biologist either - I'm a propulsions engineer - but yes, creationists will try anything to make their views look credible. On a sidenote: Within minutes of adding the notice, it was taken down due to being deemed "pointless and dumb". I've re-added it - and improved it in an effort to pacify the complaint - but I do believe that, as I believe the the phrase is, "the box's days are numbered". -RadicalOne---Contact Me 01:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I know the list of headers is getting decidedly bloated, but we may want to consider including the {{RecurringThemes}} template to create a list of such topics.—RJH (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That isn't a bad idea, since the talk page for the evolution article has the FAQ template that debunks common complaints, similar to what you're suggesting. --Evice (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Moon Theory

"Some of this object's mass would have merged with the Earth and a portion would have been ejected into space, but enough material would have been sent into orbit to form the Moon." this is a sentence after the moon theory is described. It is told as a fact, though it is not. Different simulations yield different results. I will re-write the paragraph from a non bias (or bullshit) perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Holmes II (talk • contribs) 23:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Watch it. Your wording does you no favors, and if your edits are unconstructive, they will be reverted. Rapidly. And if you repeatedly add them, you will suffer consequences. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 23:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. The line about not being proven - what hypothesis do you favor, by the way? - has been left in, albeit made slightly more neutral. I also re-added the previous sentence. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 23:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The new editor would benefit from reading Wikipedia:Civility.—RJH (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 19:17, 30 January 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 is the second time I've seen this article up on the Main Page, ending with the same sentence "The human inhabitants are grouped into about 200 independent sovereign states..." This just seems like a very strange and irrelevant thing to mention in an article about the Earth, as they are usually unobservable in physical measurements, and are properly features of culture of humans who live on Earth i.e. down two levels of specialization. A passerby might prefer to note that humans have formed self-sustaining colonies on six of seven continents, a racist would propose another way to classify people, a religious person might focus on their beliefs, etc. I understand that U.S. classrooms love to use maps with an excessive emphasis on politics (even, sometimes, to the extent of not marking the distinction between oceans and Canada) but it's not actually a feature of the planet. Wnt (talk) 15:24, 22 April 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.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.68.174 (talk) 04:26, 22 April 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)

Just to update, this is no longer an FAC requirement.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:32, 22 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)

The earth is not perfectly circular. It's not even perfectly spherical. Saros136 (talk) 09:57, 22 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)

It's the 1709th semiprime, and it interests me that 1709 is a prime. It is the 257th prime. 257 not only is prime but is a Fermat prime. Saros136 (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that. 1709 is the 267th prime. Saros136 (talk) 10:54, 22 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)

Error in page

The Earth article cites a sidereal year as 366.26 days, which is incorrect; 365.26 days is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukehasnoname (talk • contribs) 05:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the definition of "day." I think it's clearer now. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected?

But how are we going to get through the day without a dozen wags changing the article to "Mostly harmless"?! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Biggest Planet?

Out of the terrestrial planets I'm fairly certain Venus is bigger than earth, so the sentence in the opening paragraph would be false...Jman279 (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Earth is bigger than Venus. As simple as its. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

They're close in size, but Earth is a bit bigger. --Evice (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that practically every other country uses the metric system . . .

I appreciate that the metric system is the world standard - but how about the inclusion of customary units for us Yanks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.43.45 (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the USA use the metric system in scientific areas? -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The use of the metric system is standard in the sciences worldwide, including in the US. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In scientific areas, yes, SI is used, but for "everyday scale" stuff like terrestrial distances, US customary units are usually used. If something is microscopic, the media will quote nanometers, but in most other circumstances they'll quote miles. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Third rock from the sun?

Yes, I know that this is occasionally used as a name for the earth, but does it belong in the lead paragraph of this summarising article? John of Reading (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  11:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

Is there a conflict of interest here? I have a suspicion that most of this article was written by its inhabitants :-) Seriously, congratulations on a well-written and informative article. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, AfD perhaps? GedUK  11:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Three weeks ago possibly! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly you are not the first alien life form to mention this fact. ;-) —RJH (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

I always seem to say this about most pages I lay my eyes on, but this one seems worthy enough. It's a featured article on the most notable topic in, er, the world. At least keep an eye out for vandals. This afternoon, things might start to heat up, so will semi-protection be even conceivable today? 2D Backfire Master ^{words deeds} 11:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

To use the template from WP:RPP, featured articles are almost never protected. As the most visible articleon the encyclopeida anyone can edit, it's rarely good to protect it. It's also one of the most watched articles, vandalism is quickly reverted. If it picks up hugely, then report it at RPP if one of the watching admins, like me, hasn't already protected it. GedUK  11:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Though, the guideline does also say that "pages which are already indefinitely semi-protected because of vandalism are generally left protected while on the Main Page." Pyrrhus16 11:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Half a billion years until not enough CO₂.

The ref says 0.5 billion years, but the article (used to), and the Main page says 1.5 billion. Was there a better ref with 1.5 billion before? -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-04-22t12:01z

There was vandalism that has since been reverted back to the original 1.5 figure. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry just a novice user here so I don't know how to update the references correctly. I think the answer to how much longer life on Earth will exist has not been settled. http://www.universetoday.com/2009/06/15/life-on-earth-and-other-worlds-could-last-longer-than-expected/ Novice user Lewis Haycraft 68.84.138.141 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 2010-04-22t12:50z

True. This is mentioned in Future of the Earth#Climate impact. Also a recent study has also shown that changes in the net amount of continent surface area may help explain the faint young sun paradox. I wonder how much of an impact that will have in the future, assuming that the continents continue to increase in size as they have in the past?—RJH (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Caps

Wondering why Solar System is capitalized twice in the lead paragraph? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Solar System" is also capitalized at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Celestial bodies. It's also the consensus of this Google search. Art LaPella (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow you learn something new every day at Wikipedia. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Cite Notes Out of Order

All the cite notes are out of order in the text. Shouldn't they be arranged such that cite note #1 shows up first in the text, followed by #2 then #3 then #4 and so on? Also, the style is inconsistent in one place, it has [note 4] and another place it has [11] for the little superscript note.

Sorry, that was me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this article too humanly biased?

Consider this: "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist.".

Now, if intelligent life were to, theoretically, exist elsewhere, then wouldn't that imply that life is known to in fact exist elsewhere? I'm wondering if parts of this article should be reworded to speak from a universally neutral perspective. I mean, in theory, if other alien beings (alien meaning not from Earth)were to read this article, then sections such as that would be contested. I know what you're thinking, and no I'm not crazy, and yes I realize this is an article written by humans who only know of the existence of themselves and the creatures on Earth, but I think that when we are talking about neutral point of view, we need to assume that Earth isn't the only place with life. Or at least talk as if we were an outsider looking in. 150.176.164.16 (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Check the FAQ section at the top of this page for an answer. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

See also Fermi Paradox and related articles. FWIW there's a fairly broad scientific consensus just on the basis of common sense and the currently known facts that not only are there many other worlds with life but there are certainly also other worlds with intelligent life although perhaps not in this galaxy. As for adopting a superhuman perspective, this is unreasonable. It is difficult enough to get a human (as opposed to male, a particular country or race, religion, language, etc.) perspective. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We have an article that is dedicated to the topic: Extraterrestrial life. While there is little doubt that life may exist elsewhere, I think it is appropriate for this article to keep its focus on the planet Earth and leave the speculation about extraterrestrial life to other articles. By introducing statements about life elsewhere, you also have to include the arguments about why this is so (to satisfy the completeness requirement for a featured article). This would likely prove to be a significant distraction from the article topic, and would also be subject to frequent editing. That's why I think it is better to leave this side-track discussion out of this article as much as possible. It's already a challenge to try and cover the topics we know for certain in an article of this length.—RJH (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So do we now agree to take out the sentence about no life elsewhere? −Woodstone (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Is life known to exist elsewhere? Maurreen (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Maurreen is absolutely right to insist on the distinction between knowledge of an empirical fact and one for which there is as yet no empirical verification. Until first contact, the most that can be stated and sourced is that there is in fact a scientific consensus that when the empirical verification can be made it will be confirmed that life is not unique to the Earth in the universe and that the numbers simply make it absurd to think anything else could be the case without knowledge of why that would, in fact, be. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the best we can say is that we do not know; intelligent life may be common or rare - we don't know. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The right question to ask is: Do we have to talk about "(no) life elsewhere" in an article about "Earth". We should include only statements about "Earth", not about "elsewhere", and even less if they are speculative, neither about "(human) knowledge". As stated above, a lot of arguments would be needed to explain what is really meant. −Woodstone (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In the article about Earth, it makes sense to compare Earth to other planets. Maurreen (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but only by stating known facts. The list of things we don't know is endless. Why not add "it's the only known planet where most of the surface is covered by water". Just as true. That the "earth is the only place with life" is not a scientific fact. Only the knowledge (by humans) is—which makes it not a statement relevant to Earth, but to human knowledge. When you notice how often readers stumble on this sentence, don't you agree that it rather harms, than enhances the article? −Woodstone (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

First, you are misquoting the text, and therefore the logic of your statement doesn't hold. Second, from my experience, the people who bring it up are usually those who have an agenda about spreading message about the possibility of life elsewhere. Sometimes it seems like a quasi-religious meme. The fact that life exists here is a distinctive feature of the Earth and therefore needs to be mentioned, just like dust storms on Mars, the crushing atmosphere on Venus or the large mass of Jupiter. As for being the only planet where stable bodies of liquid water exist on the surface, I don't think it would harm the lead to mention that as well.—RJH (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is getting pretty tiring. Anon IPs say the same thing over and over and then the same users argue the same points again. Most users who start this discussion are not thinking clearly. Just notice this statement from the original poster: "we need to assume that Earth isn't the only place with life." No, we don't assume anything, we present facts about what we do know (the word "known" is in the sentence in question). As for why mention life, it's a very distinctive feature of Earth as RJHall has stated many times. It would probably seem just as odd to people if we simply said something like "Earth contains life", but made no mention it's the only place known to have life currently. That would seem like leaving out a glaringly important fact to me. Also the fact that the example Woodstone mentioned was about water proves again the need to mention life, because water is mainly important to us because of it's connection to life. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, Earth being the only known planet to have liquid water on its surface has already been mentioned in the lead for a long time, and no one seems to ever complain about that sentence. This being brought up over and over is just a sign of humanity's fascination with life and ET life, not a sign anything is wrong with the wording of the article. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, these type of statements are problematic because they lead to carbon chauvinism. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, I noticed RJHall has reverted overlinking to life in that sentence in the past. I think it's probably warranted to link life in a sentence that garners so much attention. And it's not like life is such a simple concept. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. It was merely an attempt to keep the page in line with WP:OVERLINK. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You do a good job reverting overlinking. I agree with all your other delinking in your recent edit. Users just seem so fascinated with the concept of life, we might as well point them to the article about it. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Putting a coda to my participation in this thread (as 72.228.177.92). The reason that life and indeed intelligent life at and likely beyond our level is certain is a simple application of the known facts, the Copernican Principle, and ordinary reasoning. We know that this galaxy contains at least 1 technological civilization in it's some 400 million systems. Unless you think that one of some 10 ⁸ galaxies is the unique snowflake, there must be others, probably at least proportional to that number, probably greater, and thus at least some having much greater lifetimes as technologically advanced species. You only have to understand these simple facts, the single basic principle, and the common sense reasoning applied to understand the certainty of that which is as yet unverified by SETI. Also because it is now known that the earth has had life most of its existence, that planet formation is relatively rich, the number of planets with "life" of any kind is by the same common sense reasoning many orders of magnitude larger than the SETI number. Should informed and critical thinking be able to overcome knee jerk application of various wiki policies, that is what will make its way into the article's text. Lycurgus (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is entirely about the possibility of life elsewhere. This is not in dispute. Please see extraterrestrial life and see if it covers your concerns. Also, with regard to your attempt at social engineering, please see WP:CIVIL.—RJH (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is only on average one intelligent life form per galaxy (at the present time), we humans may never encounter another intelligent life form ever, the space is too large (2.5 million light years to the nearest galaxy). We haven't even encountered any life forms at all as of yet. Anyway, this conversation doesn't apply to this article anymore. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Lack of clarification

There's a lot of mention that Earth revolves around "the" sun, but no mention of WHICH Sun. If it's Sol, why not name it? Same goes for instances of "the" solar system (Milky Way) and "the" moon.

The proper name for our star in English is the Sun. Sol is the Latin name. Also, the Solar System is NOT the same thing as the Milky Way. The Milky Way is a galaxy containing billions of stars. The Solar System contains one star... the Sun, and all the planets and other objects orbiting it. As for the Moon... again, that's the proper name in English. --Patteroast (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the confusion stems from the Press' not infrequent use of "other suns" when describing other stars, or "other solar systems" when describing separate stellar and planetary systems. This article consistently uses the capitalized name when referring to the proper name of the Sun as Sol, or the Solar System as the Sun's system of orbiting objects.—RJH (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If the press do that, I wouldn't know. The closest thing to press I read is the "in the news" section on the main page. Anyway,Patteroast, the Milky Way as galaxy not solar system was my mistake. Not thinking properly. However, if the English language allows for no distinction between suns, should we not work around it by writing "Earth's sun".

We would be incorrect in doing so, as that is a misuse of the word "sun" - which properly only refers to the star at the centre of the Solar System. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say using the word sun in a general sense, as in 'other suns,' is almost a poetic usage... referring to 'the' Sun, capital S, can only mean the star that the Earth orbits. Just because we can talk about the possibility of other habitable worlds in the universe by using the phrase 'other earths,' or say that the stars are billions of 'other suns,' or that Jupiter has over 60 moons, the context and use of capitalization always makes it clear what bodies are referred to as the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon. Adding 'our' to every reference of those bodies, or referring to them in another language won't make things clearer in my opinion. --Patteroast (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that, judging by usage in science fiction, the generic term "sun" will eventually be applied to stars as relates to their planetary systems, much like a woman is a mother in relation to her children. Serendi^podous 09:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that'll be a problem until we have people living around other stars. ;) --Patteroast (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is what I keep telling everyone who complains about us not calling the Sun Sol. But do they listen? Do they hell. :) Serendi^podous 06:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Earth archie 13

The Earth is round.It rotates around the world.We live on earth.

Earth archie 13

The Earth is round.It rotates around the world.We live on earth.