Talk:Seamount/Archive 1

Archive 1

Acknoledgment of Copied Resources

This article is forked from Encycolpedia Brittania. ResMar 17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias

"Overall there is also a significant bias in distribution towards the southern hemisphere." I have 2 problems with that statement. First, how can a seamount be biased? I realize the statement was lifted word for word from its source, but that's no excuse for bad writing, and anthropomorphism has no place in encyclopedia articles about geology. Second, the accompanying map shows more seamounts in the Northern hemisphere. The sheer number of seamounts in the Emperor chain alone would appear to disprove the statement in the article. In addition, I second what GeoWriter wrote, and suggest the entire article be gone over with a sharp editorial eye, and rewritten. Tenorlove (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Tenorlove

Okay, I agree the "bias" phrasing is problematic here. It's not clear whether it accounts for the greater area of ocean in the southern hemisphere, for one thing. But I wouldn't put as much credence as you do on that map, which seems quite biased in itself - towards well studied seamounts, which tend to be those associated with richer countries. For instance, if I'm reading the map right, it shows over 10 of the 80+ seamounts in the Hawaiian-Emperor chain, but only 2 or 3 of the 70+ seamounts in the Louisville chain. It's so incomplete that I don't think it sheds much light on the "bias" statement, let alone disproves it. Of course, the article could benefit from careful revision. Feel free to improve it! --Avenue (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)