Some have claimed that his article is POV-ridden, but I personally find it to go beyond that. The intro and first two chapters is not trying to convince the reader about the validity of this hypothesis, it takes it for granted, and present it more or less as a fact. To the extent of my knowledge is there no consensus regarding this hypothesis, and the article ought to reflect that.
--Sparviere (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- The article begins by identifying this as a hypothesis. As I read it now there is no implication that this hypothesis is widely accepted. The Introduction should describe the hypothesis and characterize its status within the scientific community or within the history of scientific knowledge. As it stands the Introduction is already a mess due to the overeagerness of critical editors to blurt out detailed counterpoints and objections before we've even had a discussion of the hypothesis, its history, and the evidence for it, if any. This hyper-critical approach has already left us with a schizophrenic Introduction. Let's exercise some patience and let the article unfold as it would in a classroom or traditional reference book article. 75.73.91.254 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
"The geological community generally accepts this hypothesis"
Got a reference for this statement?
A quick google scholar search of "snowball earth diachronous" will show several hundred counter arguments.
Cwmagee (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Late to the party, but yes, that was a ridiculous statement to have had in the article. 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:99C9:143E:34DB:FD6C (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
