Talk:Geology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Science, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Science. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Earth sciences Portal
Geology is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
To-do list for Geology: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • use the structure proposed by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science, i.e.:
    • write a section on applications (estimate risks of eruptions and seisms, search minerals, ...)
    • describe the main geological theories (plate tectonics, mineral formation, ...)
  • add references to the article
Priority 1 (top) 
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Note: The history does not include Nicolaus Steno, which according to his article and a popular book, was one of the pioneers... 21 Oct 2005, dyuret

I think this statment is not correct! I don't want to modify the article as I'm quite new in WP and not english native-speaker. Please do it for me!

"the Earth's crust is fragmented into tectonic plates that move over a semi-molten upper mantle (asthenosphere)"

SHOULD BE

"the Earth's lithosphere (which is composed by the crust and a part of the upper mantle called LID) is fragmented into tectonic plates that move over the asthenosphere (another part of the upper mantle), which is 5% melted."

--129.11.76.216 11:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Say, I recently wrote Teton Dam, and could use a geology person to use plain English to describe a few details of which I am fuzzy. My fields are math / chemistry, not geology. Any takers? -- user:dino

This page could use some serious expansion. Or should it be merely a gateway to more detailed pages on geology? Is there anyone willing to take a section? I might be able to do some work on History, for instance. Gwimpey 00:10, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Although I think geology is way too big a topic to cover comprehensively (and comprehensibly!) on one page, I do think a gentle introduction to the basic concepts on this page would be in order.

For instance, things to cover here might be:

  • More useful definition of what geology is about; i.e. what are the areas of interest and study.
  • An introduction to the structure and geological history of the Earth; timescales, maybe the periods etc
  • An introduction to rock types; maybe a description of some fundamental types
  • Processes; erosion; volcanic activity; plate tectonics; the rock cycle
  • Stratigraphy and palaeontology

Phew that's a lot! I think it should all be covered within a few thousand words, with links to subject-specific articles for each topic for more details. - Thparkth 18:27, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, I have started a WIP alternative "Geology" page at User:Thparkth/Geology. Please feel free to contribute. My prose is hopefully imaginative and interesting, but could hardly be called concise. Please do wade in and edit/change/add whatever.

Eventually I would like this page to incorporate the above suggestions, and also the good stuff from the existing page. The intention is to replace the existing page, unless I hear strong opposition to that idea.

- Thparkth 01:25, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Geology Descriptions

I am a recent masters graduate of Geology and I should like to reply in reference to the request for ideas on how to edit the geology Section. Geology covers many disciplines, which could be used to catagorise this section for you.

They include:-

  • Economic Geology
  • Geophysics
  • Geodynamics, or Structural Geology
  • Historical Geology
  • Paleaontology
  • Petrology
  • Geochemistry
  • Geological Mapping
  • Mineralogy

Each has several sub groups, which should cover the entire subject. I should be glad to edit one or two of the pages if required, as I specialise in Petrology and economic geology, and also dabble in volcanology.

Heleanor Topliss--Pondering Frog 10:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi - don't just ponder, jump right in :). Your expertise is welcome. Note I added a bit of formatting to your message above. This is a great learning experience. I've been playing here for a couple months now. I also recently (in geologic terms) earned a master's in economic geology. -Vsmith 18:14, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Hey, I'm a new commer to the site and I would like to say that I would also be interested in helping out in the definition of geology and all it's aspects. Although I'm not all that experienced, still a first year geology student, I would be glad to help out in any way that I can.

Hello and welcome - just as Vsmith says to the other newcomer above, just do it! Start visiting geology pages, put them on your watch list, and you can begin reverting vandalism like the rest of us :) -- or add well referenced factual material, or find things that need expansion (see Geology stubs for example) - just remember to not do it out of your head, but to find reliable sources to document your additions. And one little tip - when you add something new, like your recent message here, add it to the bottom with a new header (set off by pairs of = signs) - that's where folks usually look for new messages. And if you sign your message with four tildes, people will begin to recognize you and know that you are User:Geologyboy rather than me, Geologyguy! Cheers! Geologyguy 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As a geologist i don't like this defintion of Geology- "Geology is the science and study of the solid matter that constitutes the Earth. Encompassing such things as rocks, soil, and gemstones, geology studies the composition, structure, physical properties, history, and the processes that shape Earth's components". Geology goes far beyond studying the solid matter of the Earth. It would be better to say "Geology is the study of the Earth, its processes and history" and leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.33.33 (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geography - geology?

Geology differs from Geography in that geology studies Earth without a focus on the human element...
Wow! What a claim. Finding energy and mineral resourses; predicting seismic and volcanologic hazards ... There might be a human element focus involved. I deleted that nonsense. Let's get a better comparison or forget it. -Vsmith 04:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] remove pedology link

The link to pedology in the geology article should to be renamed soil sciences and removed to the science article under the heading earth sciences. This change is needed to maintain a NPOV, consistent with the International Council for Science which has accepted as equal Scientific Union members the IUSS and the IUGS.

Paleorthid 17:44, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... academic semantics and turf wars :-) Put soil science back in and renamed section to Fields or related disciplines. Soil is a bit related to geology, without rocks, minerals, weathering, and erosion, there would be no soil to abuse and fertilize. -Vsmith 00:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That works. Thx for understanding. Semantic/turf deal inevitable. Soils curricula sufficient for a BS in soil science always a challenge to keep in class catalog. Soil Science departments get folded into ag, bio, env, eng, geog or geol depts. Natural to see soilsci as branch of same. Fallout in the not-academic world: state regulations get passed for soilsci practice to require non-soilsci license/reg (Sanitarians, PEs, or RPGs) or certif (crop or ag practitioners). That said, would have been lost mapping soils without my geomorphology class. Geo 60 Mineralogy leveled me tho. ouch. Paleorthid 06:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Need a geologist

The Flood geology page is making some very bold and unsubstantiated claims. It would behoove a geologist to go over there and do some heavy editting if your up to the task of taking on the creationists. 67.172.158.8 21:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I went to Flood geology and the talk page and saw a positive and unfolding discussion going on. For instance, creationists admitting that certain theories they had in the past were unsupportable, even within their community. This gets my attention because it speaks to a dynamic that we old-age-earth.ers would typically assume to be incompatible with biblical literalism. And I saw a gallant defense against some of the most damning criticisms one could make of the scientific credentials and sincerity of their supporters within the geologic profession. Look past the dogma, and you see a legitimate tension between uniformitarianianism as a model and our need to understand the effects of catastrophic events. Certainly geologists should visit the Flood geology page and review, contribute, and offer criticism. And look forward to a reasoned response. This free exchange of diverse views between professional scientists can only be good for geology. An invitation to engage in 'heavy editing' suggested by an Anonymous_Coward sounds to me like a call to vandalism, and I hope you will join me in not taking that bait. Paleorthid 21:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Flood geology has gone through a major transition since two months ago and now seems to be ready to actually accept edits from those who know a bit about geology. In particular, it would be nice to have someone to come through and make substantitive critique of the page. We need someone familiar with editting geology articles to help tighten up the article and provide the alternative offered by actual science. Thank you. Joshuaschroeder 06:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sikkim

I need a someone to make sense of the geology subsection in the Sikkim article and see if it is noteworthy. Nichalp 18:10, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New content heeds home

The history of science was getting too long, in mav's estimation. So I am looking for a new home for some of the content. Would it be allright with everyone if I injected some of the content here? Ancheta Wis 19:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manipulation of geological data

A new user has just asked me to look over his first article; I've made some comments on the formatting, etc., but it would be good if more expert users could take a look at it. I'm sure that everyone will be gentle... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bunter

Could somebody have a go at starting Bunter (geology), please? Andy Mabbett 08:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Continent

In the second paragraph of continent granite is described as an example of "metamorphic and sedimentary rock". Can someone check this? -- ran (talk) 17:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

This now seems to have been fixed - now saying metamorphic and igneous rocks of granitic composition. GB 03:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] supernatural?

Hello, there is a content dispute at Methodological naturalism that I've filed an article RFC for [1]

The original question is whether or not the scientific method is a natural method or a supernatural method of scientific investigation. One editor (Markus Schmaus) refuses to allow the scientific method be listed as a natural method unless a link can be provided to support the claim. I assume he is a proponent of Intelligent Design which pushes the view that ID is "scientific" even though it investigates supernatural causes such as how God must have creaeted life on earth. I assume it is this POV that is getting pushed, and Schmaus will not allow the scientific method be listed as an example of MN because then ID would not fit in the scientific method.

In an attempt to resolve the dispute until some sort of consensus was reached, I removed the mention of the Scientific Method as an example of methodolgical naturalism and instead inserted "astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics" are examples of methodological naturalism. Schmaus is now disputing that these are examples of MN and insists on a URL to prove that they are natural methods rather than supernatural methods of scientific investigation.

[2]

Since methodological naturalism is a minor article with only a few editors, the dispute has remained unresolved for lack of any sort of consensus. Please weigh in with your comments at the following links:

Scientific method is natural or supernatural

astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics are natural or supernatural methods

If you have links to support whether it is supernatural or natural, that would be greatly appreciated. FuelWagon 18:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Principle of Uniformitarianism

Removed the comment:

Recently many geologists are backing away from this principle in light of evidence of major meteor impacts and results of recent natural disasters.

from the Principle of Uniformitarianism section as it is quite untrue. Geologists recognize that catastrophic events occurring today are a part of the Principle of Uniformitarianism and help explain previously (early 1900s) perplexing problems in Earth history. Vsmith 05:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree with removing that comment. Jay Gregg

[edit] dablink

I put in a hatnote to cover the journal with the same title. This seems a bit intrusive on a major article, but I can't think of an alternative - I am suspicious that the journal may well be linked to incorrectly as just "Geology". Feel free to revert if you don't think WP:HAT has been satisfied here. TheGrappler 19:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hard Rock / Soft Rock / Gardening

That's a long list of component topics. Most people in the field divide quite cleanly between the hard rock and the soft rock sides of the business. /Discuss ? A Karley

So do you mean that the list should just be "Hard Rock" and "Soft Rock"? I feel that most users (who are not "in the field") who come to this page would probably like to see all the subdivisions and click on the links in the list for more info. (Incidentally, I'm among those who are not "cleanly divided" - I work as a geophysicist, indirectly studying the basement igneous and metamorphic rocks, to make inferences about tectonics and structure that have impact on the sedimentary section with the goal of finding oil and gas and minerals). Cheers --Geologyguy 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

":Geology (from Greek γη- (ge-, "the earth") and λογος (logos, "word", "reason"))[1] is the science and study of the solid matter of a celestial body, its composition, structure, physical properties, history and the processes that shape it."

I object to the word solid in this definition. It includes the study of all (non-living) matter, solid liquid (as in water) and Gaseous (as in air) and even the study of its Physical properties such as gravity, light and magnetism. unsigned comment by 203.32.87.250

The definition could be improved. I don't see how the average user, reading the lead to this article would come to the conclusion that geologists study the planet earth, rocks, minerals, and stuff lack that. However, geologists do indeed study water and the atmosphere (hydrogeologists), measure gravity for numerous reasons (geophysicists), and study light (crystallographers and mineralogists), and magnestim (igneous petrologists, historical geologists, stratigraphers). KP Botany 23:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just asked a Soil Scientist for his definition of Geology and he claims that some geologists (but maybe its Soil Scientists) now see their ambit of Geology beginning below "weathered rock" (and this could be some 50 meters down) - above this is the province of Soil Science (Categories: Ecology | Land management | Natural resources | Soil science).

Specialization has a lot to answer for by complicating things. Just look at the threads! unsigned comment added by 210.11.233.243

I think it is now a product of both trends: extreme specialization and collaborations among scientists from different fields. Many geologists also study soils, particularly those who study the ecosystems of various depauperate soils created on specific bedrocks (serpentine soils is one example). I could see a dividing line between "below weathered rock" and above it, although geomorphologists might have an issue with having to concede mass transport of soils to soil scientists. KP Botany 18:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Soil processes and geologic processes occur simultaneously in the same physical media, especially in that stuff commonly recognized as "earthy materials". Geologists and soil scientists study mass movement of soil from different but overlapping perspectives. Clay mineralogy is equally important to soil science and to geology. Certainly soil science is associated with that portion of earthy material that supports life, but that will not exclude others from studying biogeochemistry. My preference is to include the term lithosphere in the definition of the realm of geology because it is both as comfortably definable conceptually as it is ambiguous in application. Any definition must leave ample room to encompass a connection to biogeochemistry, weathering, erosion, material transfer, energy transfer, and any number of other aspects always considered fundamental to geology. The lithosphere/pedosphere distinction is workable from a soil scientist's perspective. We soil scientists have a saying: "Water is just dilute soil". It is absolutely true from our perspective, but it is not an encyclopedic observation. Similarly, all planetary solids are not geologic materials from an encyclopedic perspective. -- Paleorthid 20:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] catastrophism - Geologists accepting more creationist ideas

I believe it can be readily shown that geologist are accepting more of the ideas asssociated with creationist geology (namely the doctrine of catastrophism). I believe this should be noted in the article. 136.183.154.18 04:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This fundamentally ignores what catasrophism and uniformitism actually mean: The processes that maintain our planet's surface over the aeons. The concept that meteors striking the earth, massive, widespread volcanic eruptions, etc. shaped the earth, even though they are not seen today are the basis of modern catasrophism. This is not tacit support for some concept of global flood, even if creationists call it the same thing. It is the admission that some forces not seen today, such as meteor strikes, planetary collision (creation of the moon), and so on have happened in the past four billion years. Adam Cuerden talk 08:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

...And "creationist geology" has, of course, been disproved. This is banned user "kdbuffalo" attempting to evade his ban. This address has now been blocked, but he may use others. --Robert Stevens 09:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it is disproved or not, the "creationist geologist" and other nonscientific earth scientists can have their own pages should they be required. No room or reason for young earths and young gods here. KP Botany 03:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Basin Groups

There has been a proposal to delete the article Basin Groups, which is a subdivision of the Hadean eon. If you have an opinion on this, please let it be known here. Lunokhod 18:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Geology

Anybody interested in creating WikiProject Geology? It involves in creating or improving geology-related topics. M&NCenarius 06:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Created. Please join. Solarapex 03:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add importance of Geology

My basic worry is that the importance of geology is not entailed in this Article especially in relation to civil engineering since they work hand in hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.201.250 (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, the article as it stands gives the impression of geology as a purely academic/philosophical pursuit. The everyday importance of engineering and environmental geology should be mentioned at least briefly.J.S.Salonen (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)