Talk:Soil/Archive 1

message: Shouldn't the quotations section be removed? r3m0t 16:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, makes sense. But to where? I am looking at wikiquote.org,  I should probably create a theme page for soil quotes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Themes). Not clear to me how to do this, so I will dig deeper. Paleorthid 16:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove quotations section

message: This is rather off topic, but I thought I'd point out the (apparently unnoticed) humor arising from the fact that there's a tag about how the article needs to be cleaned up, and the article is about dirt.
<Smartass remark>Wouldn't cleaning up this article kind of involve the end result of no article being there?</Smartass remark>
--JD 01:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointing something out 

message: I am working on the following:
Mineral grains in rock parent material is broken down by physical weathering, producing silt and sand size particles. Mineral grains are subjected to the forces of chemical weathering in the soil solution, being converting to more stable secondary soil minerals and solutes.   Clay minerals are the most abundant secondary soil mineral. Soil solutes can be leached out.  Solutes accumulate in a different part of the soil profile than where they originated, producing the genetic characteristics that soil scientists use to classify soil.  Paleorthid 13:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: weathering

message: Uh, this was assigned to me.  Frankly, it doesn't need cleaned up anymore... all I could really do was comma grammar and linking... so I'm removing it from cleanup and my desk.  DoomBringer 04:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup done? 

message: Hats off to Petaholmes for catching on so quick that soil science is not a sub-science of agriculture.  This is a common and absolutely understandable mis-conception, as common as considering soil science a sub-discipline of geology.  The establishment of the International Union of Soil Sciences in 1927 confirmed soil science as an independent science,  separate from the biological sciences and geological sciences.  Interesting is that agriculture does not have an independent international union to represent it. Agriculture appears to be, at best, a sub-discipline of the biological sciences. Paleorthid 16:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soil Science 

message: Changes made today were in response to comments made yesterday by back40 at http://transectpoints.blogspot.com/
Paleorthid 23:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical processes 

message: I have added this article to the long list of targets for improvement listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Science. The intent is to produce articles that meet the standards of a featured article.
The structure and content at www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10t.html is a decent example of the direction we need to head.  Love those geographers!  
Paleorthid 01:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement of this article 

message: The first sentence is a mash now IMO. "Soil is...and contains...soil.." ?? 
There's circular logic in there. Also, soil is earth material? What is "earth material" -- anything that's on planet earth? This needs to be helped along towards becoming a general, (and technically correct) capsule definition, and I think needs some rewording.
=== Earth material ===
While I have yet to locate a dictionary definition of earth material, I have verifiable sources that support it being a broad term of longstanding which is commonly recognized for what it is. The most common use of the term is in conjunction with the terms "earth moving equipment" 
"rammed earth construction" 
and "compost"
The term comfortably encompasses both organic and mineral materials. Similar to compost, peat is an earthy material which has no mineral component. Said another way, earthy material is not restricted to mineral dominated materials. This is a longstanding usage.  The 1881 Household Cyclopedia has the phrase:
Thin clays and peat earths are more friendly to the growth of oats than of other grains. From:  
Defining soils as a type within would be described as forms of earth is also long standing:
Soils, the different forms of earth on the surface of the rocks, formed by the breaking down or weathering of rocks. From:  
The term is still in current use among soil scientists but as something distinct from soil:
Commonly, soil grades at its lower boundary to hard rock or to earthy materials. From  Agricultural Handbook 486
Defining soil is an interesting endeavor when done from an encyclopedic (neutral) point of view. Soil scientists like myself have commonly required a living component to consider a material soil. "Soil without life is just dirt" is one point of view, but not the common point of view. 
Common use of the term, soil, is broad.  For example, it extends to "moon soil", "soil on Mars" and soiled clothing. Even soil scientists have difficulty being consistently narrow, referring easily to sterilized lab samples as soil, simply because it is what it is.  Whenever possible in Wikipedia we need to emphasize the commonly understood meaning of terms. Tying the definition to soil to earthy materials has helped greatly to bridge the differences between the definitions used by soil scientists, civil engineers and newscasters. But  in the end, that is currently just one opinion.  The soils article has had very few significant editors, and that means that currently, the article is weak.  As is any article with less than five significant editors.  But its a start. -- Paleorthid 22:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to intro? 

message: While I have yet to locate a dictionary definition of earth material, I have verifiable sources that support it being a broad term of longstanding which is commonly recognized for what it is. The most common use of the term is in conjunction with the terms "earth moving equipment" 
"rammed earth construction" 
and "compost"
The term comfortably encompasses both organic and mineral materials. Similar to compost, peat is an earthy material which has no mineral component. Said another way, earthy material is not restricted to mineral dominated materials. This is a longstanding usage.  The 1881 Household Cyclopedia has the phrase:
Thin clays and peat earths are more friendly to the growth of oats than of other grains. From:  
Defining soils as a type within would be described as forms of earth is also long standing:
Soils, the different forms of earth on the surface of the rocks, formed by the breaking down or weathering of rocks. From:  
The term is still in current use among soil scientists but as something distinct from soil:
Commonly, soil grades at its lower boundary to hard rock or to earthy materials. From  Agricultural Handbook 486
Defining soil is an interesting endeavor when done from an encyclopedic (neutral) point of view. Soil scientists like myself have commonly required a living component to consider a material soil. "Soil without life is just dirt" is one point of view, but not the common point of view. 
Common use of the term, soil, is broad.  For example, it extends to "moon soil", "soil on Mars" and soiled clothing. Even soil scientists have difficulty being consistently narrow, referring easily to sterilized lab samples as soil, simply because it is what it is.  Whenever possible in Wikipedia we need to emphasize the commonly understood meaning of terms. Tying the definition to soil to earthy materials has helped greatly to bridge the differences between the definitions used by soil scientists, civil engineers and newscasters. But  in the end, that is currently just one opinion.  The soils article has had very few significant editors, and that means that currently, the article is weak.  As is any article with less than five significant editors.  But its a start. -- Paleorthid 22:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth material 

message: I have only recently started to discover WIKIPEDIA and am learning my way arround - not sure if this is the right place to put this, I must also register soon as a proper user...
I am a Geographer/Soil Scientist trained in Germany (Frankfurt University) in German Soil Science (KA 4 - the german Soil Survey Field Manual 4th edition) I am now working for the British Geological Survey establishing a new Programme looking in particular at spatial soil modelling and the knowledge gap between Geological and Soil Sciences, their survey techniques, classifications and outputs in terms of maps and models. I think TWIKIPEDIA has really got me and I intend to dedicate some time towards the grater good and understanding of what we all call the soil...
I have also started to work on the German soil pages and it seems, that the following highest definition of soil could become stable there:
Boden ist die von bodenbildenden Prozessen geprägte Grenzzone zwischen der Lithosphäre (Gesteinsschicht) oder Biosphäre mit der Atmosphäre oder Hydrosphäre. Dieser Bereich (die Pedosphäre) ist meist von Wasser, Luft und Lebewesen durchsetzt.
Soil is the the zone at the boundary of the Lithosphere or Biosphere with the Atmosphere or Hydrosphere and is, or has been, affected by soil forming (pedological) processes. This zone, the Pedosphere, usually  contains water, air and organisms.
What do people think to this one? When is the right time to add something totally different to the article - I suppose the answer is to be BOLD...
What are the rules in WIKIPEDIA about harmonising articles across the different languages? Can there be cross-linkages?
:Certainly consistency between articles and having cross linkages is the ideal. -- Paleorthid 22:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the nature of the contradiction and how extensive it is.  The preferred approach is to work it out on the talk page.  If there are contradictions in usage, those can be described.  For example, see agrology. -- Paleorthid 22:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Could someone provide references for used definition of soil? -- tasc talkdeeds 22:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I have moved the article structure from the to do list (on this talk page) to the article and have deleted the to do list.  This is consistent with the WikiProject Science process of article improvement. It looks a tad barren at this point, but the Project advice is to Be Bold! and do not use a temporary page to develop structure and content. I have also moved the soil article from the restructuring stage to the in progress stage, indicative of filling in the missing sections. I have placed    as to anticipated content. -- Paleorthid 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement of this article (cont.)

message: just one question really... but with all the info here, i really couldn't find it :)
if anyone wants to attempt it, i'd be amused
-jbk
:My estimate would be about 4.55 billion years. (The ground has always been there since the Earth was formed, as far as I know). Cowman109Talk 22:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the following to the article:
Little of the soil continuum of the earth is older than Tertiary and most no older than Pleistocene.
.
-- Paleorthid 20:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HOW OLD IS DIRT?

message: I removed the following from the text because it didn't fit smoothly.  Maybe there will be an opportuity to add it back in later..
Understanding soil development is the main repository, if not the refuge, of the concept of soil as a natural entity to be studied as a thing complete in itself. 
-- Paleorthid 20:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soil is a natural entity to be studied as a thing complete in itself 

message: I am seriously thinking about removing the earthy section of this article from the front. As discussed by others here before, I don't think it fits well, especially in light of the second paragraph that gives, I think, a very thorough scientific as well as understandable definition of soil. Any opinions?
I also don't think the reference to marsian soil, even though I think it is valid, deserved to feature so high up in this article. 
Yes, all Soil Scientists know that our Science is yet to mature and therefore become clearer, but why confuse the isuue straight away in the first paragraph? 
On the previous discussion on age of soils. The mere deposition of soil/dust fro outer space does not make it a soil in the pedological sense. A pedeological soil has to have undergone soil formation or pedogenesis. These are in situ oxidisation, reduction, podsolisation etc., of parent material, which, yes, will always have a component of space dust and other allochtone (not from there)_ materials. 
The previous comment, that soils on earth, under the definition of soil scientists, are usually not older than the Tertiary, as older soils have been subject to recurring geological erosional processes through wind, water and ice. 
HolgerK 21:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  soil is? 

message: As per discussion on WP:DISAMBIG at , reverted the disambiguation link to the single other current meaning for soil. A separate disambig page is not necessary. exolon 16:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation link 

message: Substituted at 22:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment