Talk:Wellheim Formation

Sources

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Birgit-Niebuhr-2/publication/233590854_On_the_age_of_the_Upper_Cretaceous_transgression_between_Regensburg_and_Neuburg_an_der_Donau_Bavaria_southern_Germany/links/6019277692851c2d4d0dcd2e/On-the-age-of-the-Upper-Cretaceous-transgression-between-Regensburg-and-Neuburg-an-der-Donau-Bavaria-southern-Germany.pdf On the age of the Upper Cretaceous transgression between Regensburg and Neuburg an der Donau (Bavaria, southern Germany)] Discusses the Wellheim formation in some detail. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Creation of the draft

I created this draft as a result of this discussion, which came from this deletion debate.
Related drafts and articles: Draft:Hoffmann Mineral, Neuburg siliceous earth --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

For clarification: I transferred Paul H.'s editorial note from his previous work on Draft:Siliceous earth. (Which I forgot to mention in my previous entry, sorry.) --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I am now transferring said ed note here:
Exact definitions might become an issue later on, so your results should be preserved here, but not neccessarily within the article text, I think.

For purposes of commerce, especially when comes import - export regulations and tariffs, siliceous earths are also classified as either "siliceous fossil meals" or "siliceous meals." Despite the abundant usage of both terms, I have yet to find specific definition of either term. -editorial note by Paul H.

--ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Marketing claims weight

We need to be careful with the weight that is being given to the mining companies claims. The entirety of the geologic liturature on/related to the Wellheim Formation seems to rather regularly downplay or falsify the claims the company has made in older statements. --Kevmin § 16:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, the mining company's claims should always be attributed, as ultimately their purpose it to promote the product. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• I absolutely agree, we should be very careful and always source such statements well. But, looking at the current state of the draft, I have a good feeling about this issue.
  Just for the gallery: I am willing to listen to any criticism and if the issue is doubtful, would rather yield and comprise to avoid damage to Wikipedia.
  I think the scientific foundation for their claim is pretty weak: Even if the idea should come up to give more weight to Göske & Kachler's 2008 claims about the ("non-biogenic") formation of the Neuburg Member, one could always point at Göske's 2008 paid expertise (see "Further reading") with very similar contents and results which is only a few months older. His neutrality might be doubted in such a case. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Given the clear POV editing that Göske and other paid editors have on the material, it should be used very sparingly (if at all) and more recent lit should be regarded as taking precedent on claims.--Kevmin § 21:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't get why they are even bothering. On the German Wikipedia the Neuburg Siliceous Earth article only gets on average 4 views per day, I imagine that the interest on the English Wikipedia will likely only be a fraction of that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I asked myself the same question and have two possible hypotheses to explain their motivation:
a) There was a minor Kieselerde scandal, about its use as a nutritional supplement, in 2007 (see ARD TV documentary (2007) in "Further reading") that targeted diatomaceous earth.
b) When they find and open up a new deposit for pit mining they would not feel obliged to call a geologist to first document and possibly preserve the fossilized fauna if they previously assume that no such thing exists.
This is a good point to ask this question: Their 2008 SEM image of their product looks so different from several other such images in the studies we used, I thought it might be misleading to the reader, too. To me it appears that they put it through their refining washer before imaging: You cannot recognize any 'skeleton' diatomaceous fossil structures in it, as you would typically expect after seeing comparable images. Do you agree that it should go, to avoid misleading the reader? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I've just thrown out said 2008 SEM image (dated ostensibly 2002) and re-arranged the one remaining image of the sediment sample on a spoon. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Infobox: location

This currently has "open pit mines in Wellheimer, Germany".
Did you mean Wellheim or the Wellheim Dry Valley, perhaps? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Paul H., I think this was your edit. Would you please clarify what you meant there? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Given that there is a lack of any mention of the Wellheim Dry Valley / Wellheimer Trockental in either Niebuhr et al. (2009), Schneider et al. (2013), and other pertinent references, I meant Wellheim, Germany. However, there is a geologic field trip excursion, whose abstract includes the Neuburg Kieselerde Member and Wellheim Dry Valley which I will try to geta copy of. Paul H. (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I have requested a copy of the above mentioned geologic field trip excursion through interlibrary loan. Hopefully, I will soon be able to read what has to say about the Wellheim Dry Valley Paul H. (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Help with my sources research, please: RömppOnline, 2015

Would someone be so kind and look what Römpp has to say about "Neuburger Kieselerde" exactly? (see sources list: Groteklaes, Michael (ed.), 2015)
My Wikipedia Library card has been deactivated as I am currently blocked on the German Wiki (ArbCom trial on-going) and I can't access Römpp, as it is paywalled with a small preview only. Thank you very much. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, and to defend my previous use of the source, I say that I only used the part of the text that is freely visible in their preview. (Namely, the definition of Kieselerde being composed of kieselgur, which is defined as having a biogenic origin.) --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@ΟΥΤΙΣ: I think theres a free trial that you can use to access the source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, Hemiauchenia: I really hadn't seen that offer.
The deal for that includes that you have to allow them to spam you with ads for 6 weeks, how charming. Ok, I'll do it.

Wow, Römpp first generally defines Kieselerde as consisting of kieselgur and other biogenic substances, but then makes an exception only for Neuburg Kieselerde and repeats the producer's claim that it is of a mineral and non-biogenic nature and origin. They also list the company website of Hoffmann Mineral as a source, with a date of 2005.
As I had written above, I had previously only read the free, general definition, not the special exception they make for the Neuburg kind.
I'll remove Römpp as a source for the moment, but leave it under "Further reading", until we have discussed here if this has any impact on what this article should be saying about the geologic origin. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I only removed the ref where Römpp was used to backup the statement "Substances called siliceous earths are usually defined as having a biogenic origin."
Wow is this complicated: The source does say what it we had previously used it to back up (that in general siliceous earths are biogenic), but in the next paragraph makes an exception only for this special deposit.
I'm quite stumped what to do here: I think (but am not certain) that Römpp is a reputable glossary for German mineralogists.

Currently, it is still (correctly) used in the article to back up the historical uses. What do you think about the situation? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

From what can find, Neuburg Kieselerde seems to be of polygenic origin. It once was a spiculiferous limestone / calcareous spiculite and subsequently has been decalcified with its spicules dissolved and redeposited as fine-grained silica. It is a biogenic deposit that has been greatly modified by abiogenic diagenetic processes. Thus, it is mixture of both and can classified either way depending whether a person wants to emphasize either the original sediment or the alterite that resulted from its modification. (Note: I am talking about the rock called alterite, not the mineral alterite Paul H. (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explaining that. What do you think of this draft for the Neuburg Member's origins?

“ This member's formation involved a mixture of biogenic and mineral processes:

First, biogenic limestone, containing sponge spicules, was decalcified (and thus mineralized) over millions of years (during the [geo era]), forming a partly hollow karst formation. Later, (during the [geo era]) marine sediments (mostly dead diatoms) were deposited into the spicule hollows. Even later, those sediment deposits were also mineralized into alterite rock.
Claims of an exclusively mineral origin are considered misleading by mainstream research.

” — ΟΥΤΙΣ

Please correct any layman's errors I may have made. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Lüttig's 2007 "contested" claim could be mentioned in a footnote anchored at "claims". --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I re-wrote that to become a new subsection of "Depositional Environment":

“ === Biogenic vs. mineral origin ===

The Neuburg Kieselerde Member has a complex formation history (see above). The original, karst-forming limestone had a biogenic origin itself, before it was decalcified (and thus mineralized) over millions of years (name geo era). While it was submerged in an ocean (name geo era), pelagic sediment was deposited into the hollows formerly occupied by sponge spicules, bringing fresh biogenic material, as it consisted mainly of the remains of dead diatoms. This new material was then itself mineralized (name geo era) into alterite rock. It thus has mineral as well as biogenic origins.

The sole exploiting company of the Neuburg Kieselerde Member has repeatedly issued claims that they are selling a purely mineral product with a purely mineral origin. Such claims are occassionally repeated in other sources, however that position has not been supported by mainstream geologic research.

”

What do you think? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding a notelist, to display my draft section's notes. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)