Jump to content

Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Are personal blogs & social media acceptable sources?

I noticed that there are citations to a few personal blogs (e.g. George Howard's "Cosmic Tusk", 2010; Wallace Broecker's "Broecker Brief", 2017; Marc DeFant's blog, 2020). There is even a citation to a 2021 tweet by Michael Sigl. If these sources are noteworthy enough to cite, why isn't this information available from a more formal and long-lasting source? The lack of any subsequent and more formal publication of this information, or confirming source, calls it into question and I am not convinced that these are acceptable sources for this article. Don't ephemeral sources like these have a short shelf life (maybe a year or two) before a more reliable and durable source needs to be used? The authors apparently didn't think what they wrote was important enough to publish anywhere but a blog or tweet, so why should Wikipedia? Proxy data (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Broeckner's view isn't really so different from the mainstream: according to that source [1] he accepts the impact, but says "The only way I can rationalize these three events is to view the system to be approaching instability in which case, a small jolt of noise pre-triggers a change which was due to occur spontaneously" William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
They can be considered reliable, depending on the author and what they're used for, but they're never our preferred type of source. For an article on a scientific topic like this, I can't imagine why we would need to cite tweets. We're not here to catalogue what individual scientists think about the YDIH, but what the overall scientific consensus about it is. – Joe (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Early speculative hypotheses

This entire section was written by John Hoopes, a vehement critic of the YDIH, and is a clear violation of the WP:SYNTH rule.

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis was first proposed in 2007, it is a specific scientific hypothesis that has been extensively published in scientific journals. This section only contains references that are entirely unrelated to the YDIH, do not mention the YDIH, and have never been used by scientists who promote the YDIH to support their claims.

All citations in this section merely relate to vague narratives of catastrophe around the end of the ice age.

They do not belong in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incendiex90 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

How does it violate it? Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
It is citing using works entirely unrelated to the subject, that do not mention the subject, and that nobody advancing the subject has ever used to advance it, in order to construct a narrative about the subject that is unfavourable to it. Incendiex90 (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Ahh I see, then that would be synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Wasting everyone's time

Hi. I was asked to make this section of the talk page by user Proxy Data, after he reverted one of my edits that both makes the wording of the text more consistent, but also less biased.

In the Impact debris section, the first paragraph begins with "proponents", while the second one begins with "scientists".

Since the proponents being discussed are also scientists, either both paragraphs should start with "scientists", or the second paragraph should start with "opponents".

Could someone please weigh in on this minor edit so that Proxy Data can stop quibbling minor changes that only serve to improve the quality of the article?

Thanks Incendiex90 (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hiawatha Crater and Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

The hypothesis, including people involved, that the Hiawatha Crater is associated a Younger Dryas Impact is discussed in Voosen, P., 2018. Ice age impact. Science. 362, 738-742. Paul H. (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The 2022 Paleocene dating study [2] also mentions the Younger Dryas claims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Kenny et al. (2022), "The 2022 Paleocene dating study," specifically cites:
Pino, M., Abarzúa, A.M., Astorga, G., Martel-Cea, A., Cossio-Montecinos, N., Navarro, R.X., Lira, M.P., Labarca, R., LeCompte, M.A., Adedeji, V. and Moore, C.R., 2019. Sedimentary record from Patagonia, southern Chile supports cosmic-impact triggering of biomass burning, climate change, and megafaunal extinctions at 12.8 ka. Scientific Reports, 9(1), pp.1-27.
On the second page, last paragraph, they present extensive arguments why the Hiawatha Crater has the "...potential for a YDB age...based on several lines of evidence:..." Pardon me if I dread having to prepare the footnote for this paper. Paul H. (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate references

Hi all.

I have been adding citations to the article today, and I notice they are duplicated at the bottom.

Is anyone able to fix this, or direct me to a guide on how to link duplicates?

Thanks Incendiex90 (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The first time a reference appears in the article, write it like <ref name="Smith2000">Smith (2000), ...</ref>,[1] then it can be reused with <ref name="Smith2000" />.[1] See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repeated citations. – Joe (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for that. I will go through and fix up my mistakes shortly. Incendiex90 (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Smith (2000), ...

Consensus?

What "substantial evidence" and "consensus" is this referring too?

"In 2022, an extensive literature review by J.L. Powell investigated the premature rejection of a the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH), for which substantial evidence existed and which later achieved consensus"

As (as far as I am aware) there is no Scientific consensus about this, other than it is hokum. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to have been an overstatement. I've revised the paragraph to remove the claim. Skyerise (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Powell is a long time proponent of the hypothesis, the idea that his literature review is "unbiased" is laughable. I have removed the whole paragraph because in order to include the reference would require a fundamental rewriting, and I'm not sure it would even be due weight anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree that specifically mentioning Powell's latest paper in the lead isn't due weight. It's a brand new primary research paper (not a review) by one of the most vocal proponents of this theory. – Joe (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Doug Weller talk 09:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I concur. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Powell has been a proponent since 2020, not excactly a long time.
How is Powell 2022 a primary paper rather than a review? There is no original research, only analysis of claims made in prior works.
However, the claim that Powell's paper even implies that the YDIH "later achieved consensus" is ridiculous, and whoever added that has little understanding of the issue. Incendiex90 (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
The venue is exceedingly concerning. Science Progress is an obscure pay-for-play journal that is so multidisciplinary that one wonders if any peer-review is actually possible. Its editorial board contains absolutely no experts in the relevant subfields for the paper that Powell published. That is a WP:REDFLAG as big as I've ever seen for something like that. Still, this could be overcome if there were any citations to it beyond the walled garden. I don't see that either. jps (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I would argue there is very little specialised knowledge required; the arguments made by Powell are purely based in logic, he's not putting forward any new data, just applying logic to the review of prior works and the arguments made by them.
Anyone on the editorial board, regardless of their field, is qualified to review logical arguments, there is no conclusions made that require specialist knowledge.
The reason it is so multidiscplinary is because it is concerned with the progess of science, which is as multidisciplinary as it is possible to get. Since the approach to the article is that the premature rejection of the YDIH is an issue that is relevant to the progression of science in multiple different fields, a journal that is concerned with that seems like a perfectly fine choice.
The fact that a journal is "pay-to-play" is of little concern, as the only reason for that is to make it free for people to read, which is a common practice. Scientific Reports is a pay-to-play journal for that reason. I understand that there are pay-for-play journals that are predatory, don't have peer review, and just publish whatever gets submitted, but Science Progress is not one of them.
It is interesting though that when the reasons for exclusion were questioned, the questions were not addressed, but instead an additional excuse was formed.
Is the Powell paper a primary source, or is it a review paper? Is it commonplace to question the credibility of a well-established peer reviewed journal just because the findings in a paper are considered by the curators of a wikipedia article to be counter to their perceptions of the veracity of the science it is discussing? Incendiex90 (talk) 07:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The source is relevant and about this "pay-for-play journal that is so multidisciplinary", aren't many mega journals similar? Seem to me biased to claim a journal is "obscure".. what does obscure actually means? It's a substance-free criticism. As long as Powells claims are attributed to him rather than presented as truth I see no problem in their inclusion. Lappspira (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Most mega journals are also looked at with WP:REDFLAG concerns, it is true. Definitely need to attribute to Powell anything sourced to that paper. It is absolutely common to look at source quality when it comes to extraordinary claims. A simple, "why didn't you publish in Science or Nature?" question should not be met with, "but we published in Scientific Reports. jps (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually if it is (in effect) a vanity press publication then this would fail my barrier for inclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Anyone on the editorial board, regardless of their field, is qualified to review logical arguments, there is no conclusions made that require specialist knowledge. This really doesn't work for us at Wikipedia. It is obvious that this claim is controversial and subject to consideration by WP:FRINGE. That doesn't magically disappear just because some editor thinks the arguments don't need to be looked at by the WP:MAINSTREAM experts. It is only through notice that we can determine whether an idea has been properly vetted because we cannot do our own original research. The fact that the paper has not been cited by independent sources means that it is hard to contextualize and we have WP:WEIGHT here for a reason. To the extent that this paper has been referenced by third parties and, crucially, independent ones -- that is the extent to which we should be including such a paper in article text. jps (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't get it. Is the assertion that a new paper in a mega journal can't be used on Wikipedia because it hasn't been thoroughly cited by independent sources yet? How many uncited papers in PLoS One, Scientific Reports, or other mega journals from 2022 are currently being used throughout wikipedia? Is it just because the YDIH is a fringe theory? Does the fact that it's a fringe theory mean that information pertinent to it being that should be censored and disallowed from the conversation? James Lawrence Powell is not a fringe scientist, he's a former member of the leading skeptic society in the world. He resigned from the society because of the most vocal and indignant critic of the YDIH, Mark Boslough's unethical behaviour.
This paper is not the drug induced fantasy of Graham Hancock like the most sycophantic critics of the YDIH like to claim it is (not a personal attack, generally speaking). This paper is not written by a chemical engineer who "needs it to be true to sell books", it is the level-headed analysis of a highly respected geoscientist, and it of significant relevance for the public knowledge of the YDIH.
His publication was an abridged version of his 2020 book wherein he examined the YDIH in detail, showed how it had been unfairly attacked before it had even been tested, pointed to significant problems with papers published by the same group that attacked it, including that they all used the same frankenstein sedimentary section cobbled together from multiple sites >7km apart, which did not even contain the YD boundary, and that another group modified magnetic separation protocols in ways that made it impossible to replicate the original results, and was unprecedented in over 70 years of established literature on magnetic spherules. Incendiex90 (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
You ask, "I don't get it. Is the assertion that a new paper in a mega journal can't be used on Wikipedia because it hasn't been thoroughly cited by independent sources yet?" Absolutely. Here's the problem. I know you find YDIH to be a compelling idea, but there are so many of these papers and ideas that I can refer to that suffer from the same problem. To pick one arbitrarily out of my mind's hat: Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. The same problems were found in that case as are found in this case: there are (sometimes prominently famous in other areas) proponents who publish single-author "reviews" which purport to establish the right reign of the idea. How are we as lowly Wikipedians supposed to judge whether it is something on which to base an article given WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, etc? The answer has to be a look at WP:FRIND. Independent sources are an absolute must for contextualizing any claim no matter how mundane, logical, or straightforward it may appear to us. We aren't allowed to move forward without that.
You ask, "How many uncited papers in PLoS One, Scientific Reports, or other mega journals from 2022 are currently being used throughout wikipedia?" I have to answer, I honestly don't know, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an out here. Yes, we absolutely should be removing poorly attested to PLoS One, Scientific Reports, etc. papers out of our encyclopedia. Have we done so completey? Hardly. Have we tried where we've seen them? Yes. Feel free to help in that regard if you see some examples, but go to those talkpages, please.
You ask, "Is it just because the YDIH is a fringe theory? Not just because, but it definitely does not help matters. The fact of the matter is that with fringe theories, this sort of thing is very common. Our WP:FTN board is full of similar examples. Our typical practice here has been to effect a dramatically conservative approach when it comes to any WP:ECREE issue. As far as I'm concerned, that's what we have here. I know you see it differently, but the sources you have tried to parlay to that effect have suffered from the critiques that we are identifying here. The advice I give to those who are looking for something that aligns to Powell's approach is to get people who are not YDIH proponents to notice it and comment favorably. Then we will include this seminal work with the attention it deserves. But until then, I'm afraid we are in right great wrongs territory... a place we cannot really be.
You ask, "Does the fact that it's a fringe theory mean that information pertinent to it being that should be censored and disallowed from the conversation? This is strikes me as a somewhat loaded question. Choose another fringe theory that you don't believe in and see if you can identify the problem. We have, for example, global warming denialists who come on this site and demand that the information that they think is vital and important be included in articles about global warming denial, but often that does not happen for similar editorial reasons here. Is that "censorship"? Or is it just the problem of writing with an eye towards the WP:5P? Most WPians would argue the latter but the internet is full of people who disagree with this argument. As a general principle, we more or less keep with the approach I am outlining here. I know it feels like that is censorship to those who want to see their favored ideas included, but I have to keep repeating that the way to overcome it is to get the sources noticed by third parties outside of Wikipedia. We are not in the venue to fight this issue.
The rest of your arguments on the merits of the case, I would say, are somewhat irrelevant. It's too bad that Powell doesn't like Boslough so much that he thinks he is put-upon, but them's the breaks when it comes to this sort of controversy. Boslough is an independent commentator. Powell is not. If Powell wants to be taken seriously, he needs to find other independent commentators who can speak to the editorial points in a way that would likely end up well-attested to in a way that the current citogenesis walled garden of YDIH/CRG sources don't really accommodate.
Sorry, jps (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Michael Shermer reversal

Why is Michael Shermers et al’s reversal of their opinion on the YDIH appended as a footnote rather than written directly in the body of the article? This is more germane to the topic than a footnote would imply. The footnote in question is footnote “g” and itself has 2 numbered footnotes within it. A footnote with footnotes probably bates inclusion especially in the case of two individuals changing their opposing opinions. Patdmulroy99 (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

YDIH text added to Murray Springs Clovis Site Wikipedia article

Editors interested in the Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis (YDIH) might review significant additions of text about the YDIH that has been recently added, Dec. 3rd. to the Murray Springs Clovis Site Wikipedia article to see if these additions are consistent with what has been wriiten in the YDIH Wikipedia article. Paul H. (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Undue use of Comet Group material, etc.

Allen West has been discredited. Eg [3]. George Howard is not a scientist but participated in the unaccredited Trinity Southwest University (which holds that "the only written, divinely inspired representation of reality given by God to humankind, speaking with absolute and authority in all matters upon which it touches." archaeology digs. Steven Collins is executive dean there and a YEC supporter. Phillip Silvia's PHD in Archaeology and Biblical History is from there. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Again, what exactly are you proposing? It's important to note that none of the sources in this article were solely authored by West or Howard. Also, West was "exposed" over a decade ago; none of this is new but people are still publishing alongside him and citing papers that he was a part of. Aluxosm (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Aluxosm yep, they are and that's a good reason not to trust them. Or anything written by YEC supporters unless reliable secondary sources have endorsed them. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Got it, we should purge Wikipedia of all of the references to "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming" because JLP is actually a young Earth creationist that believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, but also that it was hit by comets nearly 13,000 years ago that wiped out all of the... 🤷‍♂️ Aluxosm (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Aluxosm ever hear of WP:AGF? I doubt that we need his article to make the point anyway. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
After that clumsy sleight-of-hand replacing the actual YECs in Doug's actual reasoning by a non-YEC not affected by it, it is difficult for me to AGF for Aluxosm. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling: Devoid of the context of mine and Doug's previous discussion, I don't blame you. My obviously absurd argument was in reference to a link that I had shared above of an article from Powell (Sodom and Skepticism). Silvia and Collins are listed as members of the CRG but neither have co-authored any papers cited in this article. Based on that, it seemed seems as though Doug wasn't just talking about West or Howard, but also co-authors of them, and people like Powell (who has cited the CRG's work and defended it), when he said "that's a good reason not to trust them. Or anything written by YEC supporters." Aluxosm (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
That is a sort of logic I cannot follow. Doesn't matter, it leads too far away from improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling: It directly pertains to it though; if Doug is suggesting that we can't trust anyone who agrees with and cites the CRG we would have to cull a huge amount of the sources here, and surely then apply that same logic across Wikipedia as well? Aluxosm (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Stop pinging me. I have a watchlist, and I revisit pages I edited recently.
We cannot trust WP:FRINGE sources. That is not Doug's idea, it is one of the pillars of Wikipedia: WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Sure thing on the pings, I prefer the opposite but each to their own. I'm in total agreement on the fringe sources; the problem is, without listing the supposedly problematic sources, or giving any specific criteria to measure the sources here by, we're essentially just left with drive by tagging. Aluxosm (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Yup, as well as WP:AOBF. I didn't mean to cause any offence, I'm still just trying to work out what you're suggesting, and was confused by the thought that YEC's are somehow arguing in favour of a hypothesis involving an event that predates their given date for the formation of the Earth. Aluxosm (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
YECs also argue about events involving dinosaurs, which predate it far more. They do not accept accurate scientific dating methods, and if an event predates their date of creation, they just redate it so it doesn't. When they try to publish stuff in scientific journals with coauthors, they will probably keep it under the hat. Also, for a paper to be bad, it is not necessary that all authors are bad apples. See Andrew Wakefield, who faked data without any of his coauthors noticing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling: We're not just talking about a single paper. This hypothesis has been the focus of literally hundreds of articles and has been well discussed and debated in secondary sources. As I mentioned before, the 'expose' of Allen West happened over a decade ago, but there are still articles being published that argue in favour of the impact, not all including West or Howard as co-authors (most recently being Powell's paper). I'm just trying to work out where Doug is suggesting the line is: Any paper where West is a co-author? Any paper that cites a paper where West is a co-author (presumably only if they agree with the hypothesis)? Any independent paper (not just YDIH related) by an author who has at some point co-authored a paper with West? Or is this just about papers that validate the hypothesis? Aluxosm (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Just take WP:REDFLAGs into account. Creationists are suspicious, and someone who has faked something is suspicious. It's not that difficult. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
As always. I'm just struggling to see how Doug thinks that should apply here. The two creationists (Silvia and Collins) aren't cited here at all, Howard is only guilty of working on a site run by TSU, and West (if that's who you're talking about) still hasn't been directly accused of faking anything (unless you're talking about his criminal record, in which case see here). If it was clear cut, it shouldn't be that difficult to suggest where we should go from here. Bringing up West (again) without any concrete suggestions of what to do is just turning this into another case of WP:NOTFORUM. Aluxosm (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Aluxosm bad faith again. I'm trying to discuss whether using these sources is Undue. In other words, should some or all be removed. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Unfounded accusations of bad faith again. I understand your basic premise, you made that much clear when you tagged the article (1, 2) and titled this thread. It's all still super vague though.
  • What sources are you talking about: Anything where West is a co-author? Anything where any member of the CRG is a co-author?
  • How do we measure the completion of this: Do we just pick an arbitrary amount? 10% fewer sources, 90%? How about offsetting the number by including more sources from opponents?
  • How do we decide which sources to cull? Are you really proposing that we could remove the reference to the seminal work?
I'm not looking for an argument, my sole intention here is to improve this article. You tagged the page, I don't think it's unreasonable for me (or anyone else) to ask you for clarification on your thinking. The statement on the template says: "Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.", this is that discussion. Aluxosm (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Yep. I think I've made my thinking clear about the Comet Group. I don't think we should use it at all directly, only through secondary sources. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll add this source with quotes from non-fringe authors.[4] THis[5] also discusses West. And [6]. I see the article still mentions the Nova program which Nova removed two years later after Rex Dalton exposed West.[7]. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Just to be clear, you're suggesting that we remove all sources where one of the authors is a member of the Comet Research Group (CRG)? And presumably that we should apply the same criteria across Wikipedia.

Here are some Wikidata queries that might help (results are not going to be exhaustive) :

I'm still wondering about your thoughts on people who have co-authored papers with a member of the CRG (the third and fifth queries), but I guess this is a start. For the record, I do not think this is an appropriate course of action. Aluxosm (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd start with those that West is listed. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: How about articles that cite (as authority) articles where he was a co-author? Here are some more queries (again, not going to be exhaustive):
Could you share what you have in mind as the end goal with all of this? Thanks. Aluxosm (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
This looks like WP:PROFRINGE editing on the part of Aluxosm. I suggest removing almost everything sourced only to CRG publications and looking for sources that are truly independent of that fringe group. jps (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree, but we need to be mindful of the fact that there are some pro-YDIH papers that are written to appear to be independent of the CRG but are not really independent. Sweatman is not independent for example. His "independent review" was entirely based on a bibliography prepared for him by CRG. The CRG "bib" incorrectly classified papers according to whether or not they supported the YDIH, and Sweatman accepted that incorrect classification as true. Sweatman was basically told what to say by the CRG. LeCompte posed as an independent researcher but was actually not. The title of his 2012 paper "Independent evaluation of conflicting microspherule results from different investigations of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis" was demonstrably intended to mislead readers by falsely claiming to be an independent evaluation. Proxy data (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be useful if we had an accounting of this that was careful. I think that Sweatman and LeCompte sourcing obviously ought to be considered part of the community of YDIH. The real question is which sources are actually independent? jps (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

However, based on all your other interactions on here, which are almost entirely devoid of fact, but rich in narrative, I'm willing to bet you don't have a clue about a single paper of the 100+ that support it. Incendiex90 (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I have read the papers and I can answer this question as well as the other comment you added later, in which you say, "I would really love to hear which papers have, in your opinion, incorrectly been designated as supporting the YDIH. As the editor and curator of the bibliography in question, I am certainly open to well-reasoned arguments as to why papers claimed to support it actually do not." The best example of a misclassified paper is Petaev et al (2013) which was listed in the CRG paper as providing "crucial" support. Anyone who has read that paper knows that it actually rejects the YDIH. The authors have also subsequently stated very clearly that their findings do not support the YDIH. It appears that whoever prepared this part of the CRG bibliography didn't read the papers and hasn't followed the research. 2600:1011:B00A:CB2F:F4B3:1FBF:9F03:7C15 (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
LeCompte's independent evaluation was indeed independent. The claims made by Mark Boslough claiming otherwise are based on assumptions that he did not research. Albert Goodyear appeared as a coauthor on the Firestone et al. 2007 paper, due to the fact he was the site supervisor at Topper, one of the archaeological sites they examined sediments from. Goodyear is also a coauthor on LeCompte et al. 2012, but for the same reason. In order to replicate the evidence from Firestone et al. 2007, LeCompte sought Goodyear's assistance to locate the correct position of the YD boundary layer at Topper, and thus he is also a coauthor on LeCompte's paper.
Boslough's accusation that LeCompte is a CRG member and thus the review is not independent is incredibly sloppy and provably false. The CRG was founded more than 3 years AFTER LeCompte's publication; at the time of the publication there was no affiliation between LeCompte and the CRG other than corresponding with them regarding their methods, as anyone attempting to replicate a previous study should rightly do. Claims by Boslough that LeCompte and Allen West appeared on some university's website as faculty is a complete fabrication. In 2010, while LeCompte was working on the replication of the paper, he invited Allen West to lecture his students on how the magnetic separation protocols for magnetic microspherules works, and the announcement of this lecture is what Boslough is basing his accusations on. West was never a faculty member at LeCompte's university.
The Independent evaluation was indeed independent, and you are perpetuating lies spread by the most vehement critic of the YDIH, while hiding behind an invisible user profile that people can't read, effectively avoiding any accountability you might otherwise have. He is so vehemently against them that he committed several ethics violations in his non-peer reviewed attack on the Bunch et al. 2021 TeH paper, in which he drags West through the mud and implies he has committed systematic fraud in his promotion of the YDIH.James Powell's latest paper in the journal Research Ethics details this. Incendiex90 (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Rather than take the word of one wikipedia editor who is a member of the CRG, I recommend that other editors look at the evidence. According to the CRG's official website, the CRG existed as a collaboration long before its 2016 filing for tax-free status as a faith-based nonprofit. We can stipulate that in 2012 LeCompte collaborated with Goodyear (an author of the original 2007 Firestone paper after the CRG became a collaboration according to the CRG website). It also appears that Incendiex90 has direct knowledge that LeCompte and his students were collaborating with Allen West, in person, when he came to his university as a lecturer. This contradicts Incendiex90's previous claim in the same comment that "there was no affiliation between LeCompte and the CRG other than corresponding with them regarding their methods." The best way to gauge the reliability of this information is to test Incendiex90's claims with evidence. Incendiex90 says, "Claims by Boslough that LeCompte and Allen West appeared on some university's website as faculty is a complete fabrication." Here is a link to Elizabeth City State University's 2008 Staff website. So in fact LeCompte and Allen West did appear (and still appear) on some university's website, suggesting that their collaboration began as long ago as 2008. 2600:1011:B00A:CB2F:F4B3:1FBF:9F03:7C15 (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
According to Incendiex90: "Claims by Boslough that LeCompte and Allen West appeared on some university's website as faculty is a complete fabrication." I searched for this claim but could not find it. Can you provide a link to the source please? 2600:1011:B00A:CB2F:F4B3:1FBF:9F03:7C15 (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Here you go: https://pubpeer.com/publications/36327E9B6171AB6EB008E64D5B757F
Comment #1, Paragraph #3 Incendiex90 (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
The ESU link provided lists West as an afternoon guest speaker. People who give afternoon guest lectures are typically not employed by the university as staff. The capacity in which he guest lectured is as I described above; to present the magnetic separation protocols used in Firestone et al. 2007 to facilitate LeCompte's replication.
While Boslough did not specifically use the word "faculty" in the above pubpeer post, it was heavily implied, and the following is a direct quote from Malcolm LeCompte in his response to me inquiring about Boslough's accusations:
"When the paper came out, he accused Allen West of being a faculty colleague at Elizabeth City State University where I taught."
Regarding Goodyear's supposed collaboration, this is Goodyear's response he wrote himself to my inquiry, which was rejected when I attempted to post it in the pubpeer thread with his permission:
"Malcom came by himself to Topper wanting to collect sediments to independently test the YDBI hypothesis. He asked me if he could come and I said yes. My role in our PNAS paper, like it was when Allen West came in 2005 (?) resulting in the original Firestone PNAS paper, was to verify the stratigraphic position of Clovis. In Malcom’s study the excavators were leaving the Clovis artifacts in place preparatory to recording and removing them. I suggested to Malcolm that he take sediments from around the artifacts the presumed impact surface. Then after the artifacts were removed get sediments beneath the artifacts which presumably would have shielded the ground from impact related materials. As set forth in our 2012 PNAS paper the density differences in microspherules was dramatic. To my knowledge Malcolm was operating by himself to satisfy his own curiosity not part of any team. Because of the way the sediment bearing microspherules were collected, Topper thus far might provide the most precise association of microspherules and Clovis culture.
Al Goodyear" Incendiex90 (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I should clarify the following: "The CRG was founded more than 3 years AFTER LeCompte's publication; at the time of the publication there was no affiliation between LeCompte and the CRG other than corresponding with them regarding their methods, as anyone attempting to replicate a previous study should rightly do." There were no CRG members at the time of the publication, as there was no CRG. By corresponding with "them", i am referring to the authors of Firestone et al. 2007, who later became the core membership of the CRG, when it was founded several YEARS after LeCompte's publication. Incendiex90 (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
According to a September 22, 2016 news item on the Comet Research Group's official website. "The Comet Research Group (CRG) has evolved quite a lot over the last two decades, from our early days as an informal collaboration between scientists to our role today as part of an official non-profit and a global leader in comet impact study." (see https://cometresearchgroup.org/news/re-branding-comet-research-group/). I think you are confusing the incorporation of the CRG and filing with the IRS as an official tax-exempt religious organization with its "founding." Documents clearly show that LeCompte was collaborating with the CRG in the years between when it was created as an informal collaboration and when he he became a cofounder and director once it gained official status. 2600:1011:B00A:CB2F:F4B3:1FBF:9F03:7C15 (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
The Comet Research Group was officially founded in 2016.
"informal collaboration between scientists" refers to the original authors on Firestone et al. 2007. There was no collaboration between the Firestone et al. 2007 group and LeCompte until after the 2012 paper. Unless of course you consider consulting on methods a form of collaboration, in which case Surovell et al. 2009, that also claims to be independent, would also be lying, as they consulted on methods with Allen West. Yes, you are correct. Documents clearly do show that LeCompte was collaborating with the proto-CRG prior to 2016, however, there are 4 years between 2012 and 2016. After the independent evaluation, LeCompte sought further collaboration, as he was able to replicate the evidence and found the research compelling. Had he been unable to replicate the evidence, he would likely not be a member of the CRG today, as presumably there would be no further desire to from either party.
Likewise, if Surovell had successfully replicated the evidence and sought to collaborate with the proto-CRG, that would not invalidate his claim that his evaluation was independent. Incendiex90 (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I suppose I should have used "collaboration" in place of "affiliation" to be more accurate. I will admit to that error. Incendiex90 (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, Sweatman's review, while it was indeed based on the bibliography, he did not use the editorial classifications assigned to the papers to make judgements on them. In his Youtube series that pre-dates his 2021 paper, he clearly details how he came to his conclusions regarding each individual paper, diving into their data and making arguments against them. He didn't just read through the list, look at the colours, and say "yep, looks like the YDIH is supported!!" He meticulously went through the data and judged whether the data supported the conclusions of the paper. He actually pointed out several problems with pro-YD papers. Your characterisation of his review is derogatory and not based in reality. Incendiex90 (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I would really love to hear which papers have, in your opinion, incorrectly been designated as supporting the YDIH. As the editor and curator of the bibliography in question, I am certainly open to well-reasoned arguments as to why papers claimed to support it actually do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incendiex90 (talk • contribs)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence of this article

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH) or Clovis comet hypothesis is a theory attempting to explain the onset of the Younger Dryas (YD) as an alternative to the long standing and widely accepted cause due to a significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic "Conveyor" in response to a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America

is ungrammatical, and, frankly, incomprehensible. It seems to have been in the article for quite a while so I'm reluctant to change it without agreement here first. It's a very long sentence, that should be split. Furthermore, what is "...cause due to..." supposed to mean? What I think it is trying to say is that the "widely accepted cause" is (not "due to") " a significant reduction...". And, also, a "hypothesis" is not a "theory". So, what I propose is a rewrite along the lines of

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH) or Clovis comet hypothesis is an attempt to explain the onset of the Younger Dryas (YD) as the result of one or more impact events. This is an alternative to the long standing and widely accepted consensus that it was due to a significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic "Conveyor" in response to a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America

I know it's longer, but it's more grammatical, and clearer. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Seem to be an improvement. Current wording states it is "speculative", I think think this should be removed as it disparages YDIH, or is it that all theories and hypotheses under discussion are speculative? Sietecolores (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Comet Research Group and the June Cosmic Summit to be run by CRG's director

See [https://cosmicsummit2023.com/} a lot of the usual suspects. And a disclaimer saying it isn't a presentation of the CRG. True, it just has a lot of its members speaking, alongside Hancock, Randall Carlson, etc. For those who don't know Kenneth Tankersley, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre at Ywahoo Falls and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 85 (note he has changed his ethnic identity). Not until June - and it will cause problems then I'm sure, but it's relevant to the CRG now. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Comet Research Group

Comet Research Group was at AfD and the consensus is to merge whatever is appropriate from there to here. Please discuss. HighKing++ 12:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this consensus was correct. Having come over in good faith hoping to effect this change, I am now having a hard time seeing how to execute the merge. Consensus can change. Maybe it should. jps (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

History section is problematic

In addition to (or maybe because of) relying too heavily on primary sources, there are a lot mistakes and misinterpretations in this section. It appears to have been written by an uncritical YDIH advocate who is just parroting what the CRG authors are saying. It would be good for a neutral party with a lot of knowledge about the history of the hypothesis to take a crack at it. Proxy data (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Contradicts Carolina bays

And doesn’t even link to the article so most readers won’t see what it says about the comet hypothesis. Doug Weller talk 21:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

sorry, Carolina bays, my iPad won’t let me see the section heading to edit it. I’ll try to set up a redirect tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
First, I fixed the link. Finally, the contradiction comes from the way history section simply repeats without any commentary, what is stated only in a figure caption on page 15 of "Firestone, Richard B.; Topping, William (March 2001). "Terrestrial Evidence of a Nuclear Catastrophe in Paleoindian Times". Mammoth Trumpit. 16 (2): 9–16." This is a symptom of the larger need to rewrite the history section. Paul H. (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting commentary in Fiedel (2022)

Fiedel's 2022 review of the human colonisation of the Americas has some interesting commentary on the impact hypothesis. A choice quote The bolide and its effects have been characterized inconsistently from one paper to the next, which makes this hypothesis difficult to refute Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Note; the full citation for the paper for those people, who lack access to Wikipedia Library is:
Fiedel, S.J., 2022. Initial human colonization of the Americas, redux. Radiocarbon, 64(4), pp.845-897. Paul H. (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent article by Mark Boslough

Why Graham Hancock’s Use of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis in His Netflix Series Ancient Apocalypse Is All Wet.Downloadable somewhere as I have a copy downloaded. Can send it to anyone who emails me. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The “comet research group” section, and much of this article, is highly biased.

The relevant contributors are “name-called” numerous times, a rudimentary fallacy, before even discussing the content of the relevant claims. This is not scientific. Please address their claims directly, and explain why they’re wrong through evidence, if you believe them to be so.

Wikipedia is far better than dedicating the entire opening paragraph of a section to opinionated claims. Please use facts and logical argumentative tactics. Bodehcaz2 (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

We can only go by what wp:rssay. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

the use of 'subject matter experts; is misleading

the article suggests 'subject matter experts' is defined , or worse , is being defined within the article and is misleading the reader Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, but since you mention it 'subject matter' experts is a bit of management speak we ought to avoid in articles. – Joe (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

“ Younger-Dryas Impact. Science or Pseudoscience”

[8]. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting article. Not sure its usable though as a self-published source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Doug, that's a good post. I think there's already been some dispute about whether Feagans is a reliable WP:SPS or not (maybe on WP:FRINGEN?). I'd say definitely yes, but it would be easier if it was in journal. If nothing else, we can look at his references. – Joe (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

New paper on the hypothesis

Comprehensive refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH) from Earth Science Reviews. Just published yesterday, but folks may be interested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, there is Mark Boslough - YDIH Bibliography: 15 Years of Skeptical Literature Paul H. (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
It may be time to reword the article to The younger dryas impact hypothesis was, instead of is. Lama5000 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I doubt this is the end of the hypothesis. I doubt this will shake the true believers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Where did the name Younger Dryas impact come from?

First off, there is no mention of my own work, Man and Impact in the Americas (2005) which preceded Firestone et al.'s. Second, there is no mention of Hibben's fossil deposit. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY WHERE AND WHEN DID THE LABEL YOUNGER DRYAS COME FROM? "Younger Dryas" referred to the meltwater outflow, which was not the time of either impact. And yes, there were two of them, as can be seen from the gamma radiation evidenced by 14C production proxy. 2603:6010:8020:7A85:FA6E:448A:F1CE:6A38 (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

E P Grondine, did you ever find a reliable publisher for your self-published book? Doug Weller talk 13:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Greenland Pt anomaly paragraph is inaccurate

This entire paragraph seems to be based mostly incorrect interpretations of Petaev et al (2013). For example, it says, "In 2013, scientists reported a hundredfold spike in the concentration of platinum in Greenland ice cores that are dated to 12,890 YBP with 5 year accuracy." According to the supporting information in Petaev Table S1, the spike is dated in that paper at 12,887.3 cal BP but I cannot find an estimate of accuracy. It appears that the editor who inserted this paragraph was confusing accuracy with precision. The paper does say, "a spatial resolution of ∼12.5 cm" corresponds to "a time resolution of 2.5–4.6 y" but that should not have been conflated with "accuracy." Petaev has now coauthored a paper that shifts this time estimate later by more than 60 years, showing that it actually occurred after the YDB and therefore cannot be related to any event that caused the YDB. I think this paragraph should either be rewritten or deleted as moot. Proxy data (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"Widely rejected" vs. "not widely accepted"

I do not accept Proxy Data's assertion that it's "just my opinion" that the YDIH is "not widely accepted" rather than "widely rejected". Even among researchers who don't agree with the hypothesis, a lot of them are still not willing to dismiss it outright, e.g. Naughton et al. 2023 Others argue that an extraterrestrial impact event on or near the Laurentide ice sheet caused abrupt environmental changes driving YD cooling and substantial large-scale mass extinctions (e.g. Firestone et al., 2007; Kennett et al., 2009; Sweatman, 2021). The evidence for this major cosmic impact has been found around the world (e.g. Kennett et al., 2015; Moore et al., 2015; Sweatman, 2021), even if there is still no real consensus about this possible YD driver (e.g. Pinter et al., 2011; Van Hoesel et al., 2014). Regardless of the merits of the hypothesis, I think "widely rejected" goes too far with regards to actual consensus on the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia thinks that "widely rejected" goes to far, but that's what the cited sources say. Reference (1) says "the YDIH has never been accepted by experts in any related field". Reference (2), which was written by 13 experts in related fields, says "We demonstrate that research in numerous fields has shown the YDIH should be rejected". Reference (3), which was written by an advocate of the YDIH, takes exception to the widespread rejection but does not deny it and states in the title that it was prematurely rejected. That author says, "One would hope and expect that in the internet age, with its online journals, instant communication, and vastly improved scientific methods and instrumentation, premature rejection would be a thing of the past. The reaction to the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH), introduced in 2007, shows that this assumption is incorrect." Proxy data (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Imho, the tendency in contentious subjects to introduce some quantifcation of agreement is a distraction, or worse turns into a justification for one side or the other to attempt censoring the other side.
This is a classic fallacy and WP should do its best to lead the reader past this fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
The criteria I think we should use are:
- Coherence as a hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
- Notability
To me, YDIH has this, and the talk about "widely accepted" or not should be removed. Pablo Mayrgundter (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I don’t think you understand our policies and guidelines. Notability has nothing to do with how something is described, and coherence asa hypothesis isn’t in our policies or guidelines. We need reliable sources reported according to NPOV. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I find that this article is much too one-sided. Recently I shortened and made more accurate a long paragraph criticizing the Comet Research Group, and someone reverted it as "whitewashing"! That's unacceptable. The whole article seems aimed at discrediting the whole idea of an impact around 10,800 BC. But it seems, from what I've read, that there was an impact. For example, I found a paper[1] that disagrees with the idea that an impact caused the Younger Dryas, but it doesn't deny that there is evidence that there was an impact. I think this article needs extensive editing to give it a more neutral point of view. Maybe it should be renamed to something like "10,800 BC impact event", and discuss the evidence for an impact, mentioning of course that the impact has been proposed as a cause of the Younger Dryas but that this aspect is not accepted by most researchers. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hai Cheng; et al. (Sep 8, 2020). "Timing and structure of the Younger Dryas event and its underlying climate dynamics". PNAS. doi:10.1073/pnas.2007869117.

Inconsistent and self contradictory ages

The introduction says that the YDIH is an "attempt to explain the onset of the Younger Dryas (YD) cooling at the end of the Last Glacial Period, around 12,900 years Before Present". Later, it says, "The YDIH posits that fragments of a large (more than 4 kilometers in diameter), disintegrating asteroid or comet struck North America, South America, Europe, and western Asia around 12,850 years ago.." This is self contradictory because years BP is defined to be years before 1950 whereas "years ago" is defined to be years before this year, which is 2023. 12,900 years BP is therefore 12,973 years ago and an abrupt cooling at that time could not have been caused by an impact that happened more than a century later. There are other issues with the ages throughout this article. These problems may be attributable in part to the fact that the cited sources were published before the YDB was accurately dated and YDIH advocates used their undated or poorly dated "marker" layers to define a presumed boundary of uncertain age. I suggest adding proper caveats to all the ages given in this article. Proxy data (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure the difference is significant. Nobody, as far as I know, can date an event that happened that long ago with more than ±30 years or so of precision, which is why each of those dates is preceded by "around". It's quite common to use BP and "years ago" interchangeably when writing about prehistory for a general audience. – Joe (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you in principle but not for this specific case. For events that are millions of years or longer ago the difference is indeed insignificant but for an event on the order of 10,000 years ago and known to good accuracy it becomes significant. According to Holliday et al (2023)[1], "the age of the onset of the last stadial (Fig. 1), termed the Greenland Stadial 1 (GS-1), was established as 12,846 +/- 4 yr [BP 1950, GICC05 or 12,896 +/ 4 yr [b2k, GICC05]." In this case the difference between "years BP" and "years ago" is 73, which is greater by an order of magnitude than the +/- 4 years of uncertainty. Proxy data (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Holliday, Vance T.; Daulton, Tyrone L.; Bartlein, Patrick J.; Boslough, Mark B.; Breslawski, Ryan P.; Fisher, Abigail E.; Jorgeson, Ian A.; Scott, Andrew C.; Koeberl, Christian; Marlon, Jennifer; Severinghaus, Jeffrey; Petaev, Michail I.; Claeys, Philippe (2023-07-26). "Comprehensive refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH)". Earth-Science Reviews: 104502. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2023.104502.

Reductio ad Hitlerum

Just because this hypothesis got featured on Graham Hancock, Joe Rogan, or Comet Research Group does not mean the hypothesis page should be vandalized or brigaded. For example, I just had to correct a sentence in the opener which directly contradicted its own citation. The sentence said "most experts reject" the hypothesis, whereas the citation, by a respected geologist, said that, in his informed opinion, some scientists were prematurely rejecting the hypothesis. Totally the opposite meaning. There are a number of legitimate, peer-reviewed papers going either way on this topic- this is not "settled science" and there is NO consensus on this topic. 108.81.205.36 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@108.81.205.36 - You are mistaken. Those variations hardly have "opposite meanings". The author is merely saying that, in their opinion, it is too early to reject the hypothesis. Their meaning could well be 'wait a bit as more reliable data arrives, THEN reject it'.
Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Review of papers

[9] ”Comprehensive refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH)” in the Earth-Science Review Doug Weller talk 18:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

From the link above: "Evidence and arguments purported to support the YDIH involve flawed methodologies, inappropriate assumptions, questionable conclusions, misstatements of fact, misleading information, unsupported claims, irreproducible observations, logical fallacies, and selected omission of contrary information. In this comprehensive review of the available evidence, we address and draw attention to these critical failings. We demonstrate that research in numerous fields has shown the YDIH should be rejected." Seems likely we have an unlikely hypothesis, based on this "comprehensive refutation." BusterD (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Being pushed in Clovis culture

See the article and sources used. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

New publication

Folks on this board might be interested in Holliday, Vance T.; Daulton, Tyrone L.; Bartlein, Patrick J.; Boslough, Mark B.; Breslawski, Ryan P.; Fisher, Abigail E.; Jorgeson, Ian A.; Scott, Andrew C.; Koeberl, Christian; Marlon, Jennifer R.; Severinghaus, Jeffrey; Petaev, Michail I.; Claeys, Philippe (December 2023). "Comprehensive refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH)". Earth-Science Reviews. 247: 104502. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2023.104502. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It might be noteworthy that Michail Petaev is a coauthor of this comprehensive rebuttal of the YDIH at the same time he's listed on the Comet Research Group website as a member of the CRG. It would be interesting to know any of the other CRG "members" are actually skeptics and if they even know they are listed as members. Proxy data (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I think this is the best, most recent and comprehensive rebuttal of YDIH. I copied the last part of the abstract and replaced the last sentence of the first paragraph in the Summary as shown in this diff [[10]]
As suggested by @Slatersteven I created a Talk topic to discuss this proposed change. Dmcdysan (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of revert of text in CRG section

@Doug Weller undid my edits of the CRG section as shown in this diff [11] with reason "Graham Hancock is never a reliable source, they are not all scientists or even qualified"

I reverted that undo and suggested that we use WP:BRD. @Doug Weller then undid my reversion for the reason "BRD doesn’t mean you can use unreliable sources, go to rsn," which I assume is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I will search for Graham Hancock and Allen West there and may post questions specific to this article. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and have limited experience with reliable sources (e.g., not knowing about the perennial list of unreliable sources (e.g., Wikidata)) and appreciate the pointer.

The context of your statements in your reply to "YDIH article contradicts YD article statement of Mainstream Cause" make more sense to me now if it refers to your undo. "Please don't use Graham Hancock again. Nor statements from the CRG as they clearly don't tell the truth, eg suggesting that West is a scientist. "

I restored only the phrase at the end of the first sentence that was deleted "by a group of authors of the first YDIH publication in a per-reviewed journal in 2007" shown in this diff [2] this was from Boslough 2023 Skeptic magazine, and identities a specific set of authors as the founders of the CRG, which is better than what was there initially regarding a definition of CRG (i.e., nothing). I assume that Boslough is considered a reliable source - is this correct? I believe that deletion of information verifiable from a reliable source is within the scope of BRD and my change is intended to reduce the scope of BRD discussion here to that specific text.

I am trying to help improve this article as requested in the banners at the beginning. I repeat my earlier assertion that in order to criticize something it must first be defined.A similar issue appears to occur in other places in the article and makes it difficult for a reader unfamiliar with the subject (like me) or other readers of Wikipedia to understand the text in this article.

Dmcdysan (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dmcdysan Among other things you restored Graham Hancock, why are you denying that? I reverted you saying if you think he is a reliably published source go to RSN. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller, as I stated on 19:07, 17 February 2024 I didn't understand the context of your undo and comment to the "YDIH article contradicts YD article statement of Mainstream Cause" topic and that is why I restored it (which included the Graham Hancock website) and suggested BRD. After your revert, I did not restore the text associated with Graham Hancock or CRG.
If you read what I stated above, I said that I would go to RSN, search on Graham Hancock and also plan to search on "Comet Research Group" there. After doing this, I may comment there.
As I stated above, some text you undid was from Boslough 2023 Skeptic magazine and I manually restored only that. Dmcdysan (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments about Wikipedia by editorial staff of new New CRG journal

Back on December 1, 2023, references to a New CRG journal called Airbursts and Cratering Impacts recently founded by a geologist, Kord Ernstson, were made in the edits of 03:14, 1 December 2023 and 10:57 1 December 2023. A poster, which is coauthored by Kord Ernstson, expresses his views of Wikipedia. This poster is titled The Canadian Earth Impact Database, Wikipedia and the Azuara and Rubielos de la Cédrida (Spain) Impact Case. It was displayed in public and at an international scientific meeting, The Meteoritical Society Meeting 2023 (Abstract #6058). The comments in this poster, I believe, bears on any potential discussion of the New CRG journal as a reliable source for this article. Paul H. (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Airbursts and Cratering Impacts has no established reputation as a journal, and appears to be a vanity press for Ernston, who has failed to get his research regarding this topic published elsewhere. He even got rejected from MDPI during peer review, which must sting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia@Paul H. I posted this at FTN recently. I think something needs to be added to the section on the CRG.
Found this on Brad Lepper’s Facebook page.
You may remember that Kenneth Tankersley and his colleagues’ paper on a comet supposedly wiping out the Hopewell culture was retracted back in August by Nature’s 'Scientific Reports.' Well it’s back from the dead – in the pages of a new journal devoted to 'Airbursts and Cratering Impacts.' The journal’s editorial policy privileges papers that “run counter to a prevailing view” and “have been rejected by other journals.” And Tankersley is on the editorial board, which should help to ensure that this somewhat revised version of the paper won’t be retracted:
https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14293/ACI.2024.0001 Doug Weller talk 11:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Airbursts and Cratering Impacts Policy appears to contradict several Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines, for example:
  • "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (i.e., the @Hemiauchenia statement "no established reputation as a journal,.")
    • "Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."
    • "POV and peer review in journals – Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals."
Suggest including a mention of this new journal in the History section for Feb 2024 and indicate that papers from this journal are not included in this article since it contradicts (at least) a summarized list of the above. This may prevent editors from contributing summaries from this journal and/or give a reason deleting any such contribution. I believe adding this to the section on CRG as suggested by @User:Doug Weller above would be promotional to the CRG as described in my 13 Feb 2024 comment in the Comet Research Group (CRG) topic. Dmcdysan (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Dmcdysan that might work although it depends on the wording. Do you want to start a new section with suggested text? I’m off to bed soon, Doug Weller talk 21:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller, after thinking about this some more, I have changed my mind. I no longer believe that mentioning the Airbursts and Cratering Impacts website in this article's history is a good idea. I also believe that commenting whether it ts reliable source is premature, and I don't believe that I would be qualified to do so. As I stated in other replies, I plan to reach on the RSN and re-read the reliable sources guidelines, which I recall seeing can apply to individuals and re-reading it I see "For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard." and "This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors." Dmcdysan (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
@Dmcdysan Thanks. I thought I had left but noticed that I hadn’t saved my explanation about the source, and when I saved I saw this. There’s quite a learning curve here and it’s good to hear what you’ve just said. Bye now. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
It is interesting that James L Powell and Martin Sweatman, who both wrote "independent" reviews of the YDIH, are also co-editors of this publication along with several members of the CRG including founder Allen West. Proxy data (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis/Archive_4&oldid=1224478600"