Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

Grzegorz Racki and Christian Koeberl deprecates YDIH in review paper about Phanerozoic impact event stratigraphy

In the online preprint of their review of Phanerozoic impact event stratigraphy, Racki and Koeberl (2024), Grzegorz Racki and Christian Koeberl write very unfavorably of the YDIH. They comment that it is an extreme example" of of Tsujita’s (2001) “Great Expectations Syndrome”. They also write: To date, any cometary scar is not yet confirmed unequivocally on the Earth surface, and for the even most questionable evidence of a Younger Dryas comet impact, any young and minimally-eroded end-Pleistocene crater is markedly lacking (Holliday et al., 2023). and In protest against such an excessive burden of useless literature, the speculative Younger Dryas impact scenario was refuted in a comprehensive review by Holliday et al. (2023).

Finally, other recent papers, Ives (2023) and Montanari and others (2024), also directly dispute and challenge the YDIH in recently published studies. In thse papers, they both provide detailed arguments in support of their conclusions.

References:

Holliday, V.T., Daulton, T.L., Bartlein, P.J., Boslough, M.B., Breslawski, R.P., Fisher, A.E., Jorgeson, I.A., Scott, A.C., Koeberl, C., Marlon, J.R. and Severinghaus, J., 2023. Comprehensive refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH). Earth-Science Reviews, 247, p.104502.

Ives, J.W., 2023. The PaleoIndigenous Component of the Ahai Mneh Site (FiPp-33), Lake Wabamun, Alberta. Archaeology on the Brink, Papers in Honour of John W. Brink, Archaeological Survey of Alberta Occasional Paper, 42, pp.95-115.

Montanari, A., Koeberl, C., Schulz, T., Smith, V.C., Molnár, M. and Tóth-Hubay, K., 2024. An air-fall ash layer in the Grotta dei Baffoni cave in the Frasassi Gorge (Marche Apennine, Italy): Relevance to the Younger Dryas debate. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 450, p.108067.

Racki, G. and Koeberl, C., 2024. The impact catastrophism and Alvarez theory of mass extinctions in a retrospective, perspective and prospective: towards the Phanerozoic impact event stratigraphy. Earth-Science Reviews, p.104904

Tsujita, C.J., 2001. The significance of multiple causes and coincidence in the geological record: from clam clusters to Cretaceous catastrophe. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 38, 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1139/e00-048 Paul H. (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

PubPeer

20 papers on the article page have comments on PubPeer (which usually are critical and well-founded. I think these arguments should be included here. SCIdude (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure that comments on Punpeer are RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course only those that give references. SCIdude (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No, the reference might be an RS, not the person giving it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I came here to read about the YDIH, what I got was one big criticism subsection.

And that is not to discredit the criticism, although I did read multiple times that some scientists refuted the YDIH only to read that some of the evidence was lacking or wrongly presented as such, which is not the same thing, to say the least. Just use chatgpt if you need any help in rewriting this mess. Thanks. 94.157.9.200 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example of what we need to change? Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah Yes. The YDIH can be called a 'working hypothesis' a category of articles of which Wikipedia has more examples of. For instance: Red Queen hypothesis and Patriarch hypothesis and more. Style and formatting within these articles might not be a perfect example, but they do a better job imho.

Just take the paragraph on the Comet Research Group, it certainly could use a more neutral or respectful tone. The paragraph seems unable to provide even a decent overview on the Group's particulars without immediately providing a very detailed summary of all the criticism or 'refutations'. 94.157.9.200 (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Nor should we, as this is about their claims about YDIH, not them. See WP:FALSEBALANCE, we say what the bulk of RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Many many problems with the article

The article is not objective at all, there isn't any semblance of an attempt to be objective either.

First off, the first sentence is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article, yet it is based on a single source [1] that has its own paragraph among many others further down in the History section. Why use a single paper/source as the basis of the first sentence/summary of the whole article? It is also quite telling of the article's writer's intentions since the first source is a paper from 2023 that is firmly against the hypothesis. The source is also cited TWENTY FOUR TIMES in the article. Most of the other sources are cited once, with a few being cited two times and even fewer three times. TWENTY FOUR TIMES

Second, the second sentence "The hypothesis is controversial and not widely accepted by relevant experts." Not widely accepted by relevant experts. How is "widely accepted" determined? Is it a direct quote from an RS or is it a judgment based on how many RS are for or against? Who decided who the relevant experts are? Is that a quote from one of the RS or is the wikipedia editor making a value judgment?

Third, the very next sentence starts with "It is an alternative to the long-standing and widely accepted explanation". Several things. 1) Why is long-standingness of an explanation/theory relevant? In science it doesn't matter whether a theory is a hundred years old or a hundred days old, what matters is how well supported or unsopported it is by evidence. 2) Is "widely accepted" a quote from an RS or is the wiki editor making the call?

Fourth, that sentence above has 4 citations. One is from 2006, one from 2007 and one from 2013, the fourth citation [6] can actually be taken to SUPPORT the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. Because this is what it says: "The prevailing hypothesis is that the cooling and stratification of the North Atlantic Ocean were a consequence of massive ice sheet discharge of meltwater and icebergs and resulted in reduction or cessation of the North Atlantic Conveyor." Sun et al. (2020) That is what the YDIH also says, that it was precisely the comets impacting the Earth that caused the "massive ice sheet discharge of meltwater and icebergs". How can that source be used as a refutation of the YDIH?

Fifth, under Evidence, the first sentence misrepresents/misquotes what its own citation says. The sentence is: "Proponents believe that certain microscopic debris is evidence of impact and that "black mats" of sediment are evidence of widespread fires." Where is "certain microscopic debris" quoted from? That's not what the source [21] says: "It has been proposed that fragments of an asteroid or comet impacted Earth, deposited silica-and iron-rich microspherules and other proxies across several continents." The source never calls the objects "certain microscopic debris". Neither does the source claim that "that "black mats" of sediment are evidence of widespread fires". In fact, the source even writes what "black mat" means: "In most cases higher water tables, some perched, are indicated by the presence of mollisols and wet-meadow soils (aquolls), algal mats, or pond sediments, including dark gray to black diatomites, at >70 localities in the United States. Therefore, black mat is a general term that includes all such deposits, and some YD marls and diatomites are actually white." Has the wikipedia editor even read the article they're citing?

Sixth, the article doesn't mention the latest research from this year, the paper is from May 2024, and it has 26 co-authors on it. Is that not 26 "relevant experts" saying YDIH is likely true?

"Platinum, shock-fractured quartz, microspherules, and meltglass widely distributed in Eastern USA at the Younger Dryas onset (12.8 ka)"

Mentioned in these RS: Archaeologists uncover new evidence for prehistoric comet

New study reveals comet airburst evidence from 12,800 years ago

Study uncovers new evidence supporting Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

I don't want to go on, because it would take too long, everything needs work. I mean look, I scrolled down to a random place in the article "In 2022, a paper by geologist James L. Powell, a YDIH proponent," Why does it matter if the person is a "YDIH proponent"? Is there a source that calls him a proponent or is that the wiki editor making the judgment? I can't find anyone described as "a YDIH opponent" anywhere in the article, so adding "YDIH proponent" is adding unnecessary context that affects how people view the information that follows.

The whole article needs to be heavily edited to be more objective or at the very least quote the sources correctly. I am happy to make the necessary changes, I just don't want to bother if they're going to be reverted immediately, I figured I should make a case for them first. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The four so-called "reliable sources" that you mention refer to a so-called "journal," "Airbursts and Cratering Impacts", that is published specifically setup to publish papers supporting the Younger Dryas Impacts and retracted ideas, e.g. the Hopwell Impact claims" that cannot pass peer-review and get published elesewhere. It is not a reliable source. Also, websites such as PhysOrg and Hertiage Daily are also not reliable sources as they just aggragate press releases without onducting any peer-review. Researchgate also allows anyone to almost post anything , including fringe papers of many types. It does not peer-review what is posted. Press releases even from univeristies are also not reliable sources. Paul H. (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What about the University of South Carolina [5]? You forgot to comment on that source.

Look at the authors of the paper, they are all archeologists or otherwise experts in the field. For example, Richard B. firestone and Ted E. Bunch are co-authors of that paper and a paper published in PNAS[6] that is cited in the wikipedia article. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

First, I stated

Press releases even from univeristies are also not reliable sources.

The public relationship / media offices do not either vet or peer-review press releases, They just publish whatever the authors hand them. Press releases are nothing more self-publishing whatever the authors decide to say about their papers. As a result, they are considered unreliable sources.

In addition, “Airbursts and Cratering Impacts.” is just a venue for self-publishing by members of the Comet Research Group and fellow travelers to avoid peer-review as stated in "Comet Research Group kicks of new journal with blockbuster papers". The "Cosmic Tusk" stated:

To one degree or another, all 60+ CRG publications since 2007 have navigated this challenging system with patience and respect. In the case of these more recent submissions, for reasons we can only suspect, it had clearly become much more difficult due to the biased conduct of the editors and reviewers.

Over time it became clear that the effort required to publish in “established” but biased journals wasn’t worth it, leading to the decision to start a new online journal that would be thoroughly peer-reviewed. That new journal is “Airbursts and Cratering Impacts.”

It does not matter if "...they are all archeologists or otherwise experts in the field they are all archeologists or otherwise experts in the field...", press releases are nothing more another form of self-publishing that lack any scientific merit. Similarly, it also does not matter if "...they are all archeologists or otherwise experts in the field..." if they to create their venue because publishing in recognized journals has "clearly become much more difficult". Paul H. (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Concur with Paul H. We need to be sticking to publications in mainstream journals. Press releases exist for universities to hype up research that their authors have been part of, and do not provide an objective analysis of the claims made in the research. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Glad that added the comments about the "hype" in press releases, which is all too true. Even worst, some media / public relations departments at universities, often change what they are given by the author in order to "translate" it into "layperson English" and / or add "hype and don't tell the original authors that these changes were made prior to release. Paul H. (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly unless you or an expert is prepared to add a section laying out the actual scientific merits/faults of the alternative position, the fact that an alternative journal exists (that still is peer reviewed), shouldn't be enough to dismiss evidence (at this point over 100 papers since 2007?).

This isn't physics..stop pretending like it is. Softer sciences and their journals are subject to "dogma" capture.

Bottom line this article is poorly executed and has a very sharp biased tone with scant cites backing it up.

So back it up or lighten up. 85.96.177.137 (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The article is not objective at all, there isn't any semblance of an attempt to be objective either. Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man.... If anything, the issue with the article currently is that it goes a bit too much into detail about what some unreliable sources say. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and should, first and foremost, inform people of what is the mainstream scientific position for any claim or hypothesis. Minority views or WP:FRINGE claims should only be given due WP:WEIGHT, this means they should be expounded briefly (to quote the relevant policy: (...) articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views (...)), but the reader should be given the proper context that these ideas have been rejected, or refuted, lest they come out misinformed from reading it.VdSV9•♫ 13:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"the reader should be given the proper context that these ideas have been rejected, or refuted"

But they haven't been rejected or refuted. It's a controversial topic sure, but choosing a side in the debate is an arbitrary decision. Age of a theory or belief in it doesn't add or remove from its veracity and how well it describes and predicts phenomena.

Like I pointed out, one of the sources cited in opposition to YDIH is actually in support of it. How can the article claim the opposite of what a source says? Or how it says "black mats" are evidence of ancient fires, when the source doesn't say anything of the sort, I quoted exactly what the source says about "black mats" and there's no mention of burnt trees or forests. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It isn't about veracity, it is about how well a hypothesis is accepted by the relevant scientific community. YDIH isn't accepted. This isn't "an arbitrary decision", it is a decision based on WP policies and scientific consensus. There is a small group of mostly non-experts who propose this hypothesis, and lots and lots of literature expressing rejection and skeptical refutations. VdSV9•♫ 18:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"...how well it describes and predicts phenomena." is disputed by many reserachers. Also, many researchers have given up on "expressing rejection" on what they consider beating a dead horse and now simply ignore it. It is also a matter of whether anyone either incorporates the YDIH either into their research or textbooks that they are writing or simply ignores it. Unfortunately, researchers rarely bother to quantify and publish reliable sources that be cited by Wikipedia and doing so becomes original research that cannot be used Wkipedia. The same is true of many fringe topics, e.g. the Sage Wall of Montana, for which reliable sources are difficult to find. Paul H. (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

A small change and an addition to a paragraph in the History section

I want to make an addition to the following paragraph:

In 2022, a paper by geologist James L. Powell, a YDIH proponent, claimed that opponents had prematurely rejected YDIH, detailing the example of research published by Firestone and others in 2001 and the inability of a later study by Surovell and others in 2009 that was unable to reproduce these results leading a number of other scientists to reject YDIH. Powell argues that since then, many independent studies have reproduced that evidence at dozens of YD sites.

So that it looks like:

In 2022, a paper by geologist James L. Powell claimed that opponents had prematurely rejected YDIH,[133] detailing the example of research published by Firestone and others in 2001[90] and the inability of a later study by Surovell and others in 2009[41] that was unable to reproduce these results leading a number of other scientists to reject YDIH.[133]: Table 4  Powell argues that since then, many independent studies have reproduced that evidence at dozens of YD sites.[133] In a later paper, Powell argues that unethical language is used against YDIH proponents and that such language "discourages research on existing hypotheses, deters funders, corrupts the scientific record, and delays or prevents the advancement of science."

2 changes:

1) Why is he a "YDIH proponent" since nobody else is described as a "YDIH opponent"?

2) I added another one of his papers in a paragraph where he is mentioned. How is a paper written by Powell on the topic of YDIH from a WP:RS not an appropriate addition to a paragraph discussing a paper by Powell?

Journal of Academic Ethics is WP:RS.

The Journal of Academic Ethics is an academia-focused journal. It discusses a range of ethical issues related to research, teaching, administration, and governance at post-secondary level.

• An interdisciplinary, hybrid, peer-reviewed journal.
• Publishes original, review and opinion articles and book reviews.

The journal also appears on the Wikipedia page of "peer-reviewed, academic journals in the field of ethics."[List of ethics journals] TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Noting first that you are a single purpose account. Here is what PubPeer has to say about that journal.

After a cursory review of publication ethics and a brief introduction to the author’s summary of the current version of the YDIH, the author on page 3 includes an example of the unethical behavior of critics of YDIH. I provide the entire section below for the reader’s convenience:

"Impacts, Mega-Tsunami, and Other Extraordinary Claims (2008)

The first response to Firestone et al. (2007) came from Pinter and Ishman (2008), who argued—without evidence—that the alleged impact markers were terrestrial.[1] The authors criticized Firestone et al. for not having settled on the nature of the impactor, despite the fact that Firestone et al., as quoted above, had proposed a comet strike. Pinter and Ishman described the hypothesis [2] as “a Frankenstein monster, incompatible with any single impactor or any known impact event.” This unethical tactic treated as despicable a hypothesis introduced in a prestigious journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, by two dozen respected authors. It would have been good practice for Pinter and Ishman, writing so soon after the original publication, to call for further study of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH). Instead, they concluded with a series of ad hominem attacks [2] seemingly aimed at shutting down further research. [emphasis added]

Both the 12.9-ka impact and the Holocene megatsunami [an unrelated hypothesis] appear to be spectacular explanations on long fishing expeditions for shreds of support. Both stories have played out primarily in the popular press, highlighting how successful impact events can be in attracting attention. The desire for such attention is understandable in an environment where science and scientific funding are increasingly competitive. The National Science Foundation now emphasizes ‘transformative’ research, and few events are as transformative as an impact. In an era when evolution, geologic deep time, and global warming are under assault, this type of ‘science by press release’ and spectacular stories to explain unspectacular evidence consume the finite commodity of scientific credibility.

This statement implied that Firestone et al. (2007) first invented the hypothesis and then sought evidence to support it; that the evidence was unconvincing; that the hypothesis was first announced in a press release; that the authors had chosen the topic because funding was available; and that merely entertaining the YDIH reduces scientific credibility in the eyes of the public. None of these claims is true."

Thus ends this section.

My concerns, taken from the emphasized statements shown above:

The first response to Firestone et al. (2007) came from Pinter and Ishman (2008), who argued—without evidence—that the alleged impact markers were terrestrial.[1]

[1] I find it concerning that the author uses the phrase “without evidence” in this sentence despite the many citations to peer reviewed papers that specifically discussed terrestrial origins of the features asserted in Firestone et al. (2007) as extraterrestrial in nature. A selection of those citations shows below:

“Yet, of all impacts in the solar system, only a handful represent strikes capable of generating visibly elliptical forms (Pierazzo and Melosh, 2000).”

“Ignoring a half-century of mainstream research focused on geomorphic mechanisms and age control documenting formation over extended time (Grant et al., 1998; Ivester et al., 2007).”

“Similar elliptical depressions in Argentina… were recently debunked and are now recognized as eolian (Bland et al., 2002).”

Glassy and metallic spherules are found in Antarctic ice (e.g., Taylor et al., 1998), in deep-sea sediments (e.g., Petterson and Fredriksson, 1958), and in peat bogs (e.g., Franzén, 2006).

In addition, both anthropogenic combustion and natural wildfires produce both glassy and carbon spherular forms (Franzén, 2006).

It is true that this short paper - a commentary really - did not include original research, but it did include roughly 20 citations to support the comments made by the authors. That the assertion "without evidence" was not challenged during peer review, suggests that the peer reviewers and editors for this paper were not familiar with, and did not make themselves familiar with, the Pinter and Ishman (2008) paper. As the focus of this journal is on ethics, they are undoubtedly not subject matter experts about YDIH, but simple fact-checking should have been done.

described the hypothesis [2] and ad hominem attacks [2]

My concerns about the phrases marked with [2] are related to each other. While the author of this paper characterizes Pinter and Ishman (2008) as making ad hominem attacks, that is contradicted by the author’s own words. The definition of ad hominem is kindly provided via a quote from Carl Sagan, “Ad hominem arguments—arguments about the personality of somebody who disagrees with you—are irrelevant…,” but that never occurred in Pinter and Ishman (2008). The personalities of the authors are never mentioned; the critique, while biting, was focused solely on the credibility of the various hypotheses and the fact that contradictory evidence was ignored in the papers they criticized (supported by citations). To be clear, as this author did not, the Pinter and Ishman (2008) paper critiqued multiple papers by a group of authors, not only Firestone (2007) – and they believed that the hypotheses across this set of papers were not consistent with each other.

The author of this paper may certainly take offense at Pinter and Ishman (2008)’s dismissive tone, the colorful language used, and the fact that they did not find these authors’ hypotheses credible, consistent, or convincing, but I believe to jump from personal offense to a public charge that someone has behaved unethically has no place in a peer reviewed paper – especially without any evidence. This author provided no evidence of an ad hominem attack and I can’t find any after reading the paper. Again, I can only surmise that the peer reviewers and editors did not make themselves familiar with the Pinter and Ishman (2008) paper.

I think the manuscript needs to be revised to address the inaccuracies I’ve identified:

Evidence for Pinter and Ishman (2008)’s views about a terrestrial nature was provided by ample citations, contradicting this author’s statement;

The accusations of unethical ad hominem attacks that did not occur should be removed.

I hope the author will be kind enough to reply.

permalink

1. 2 Actinopolyspora biskrensis

The author continues in the following section:

“The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis: A Requiem (2011)

Pinter et al. (2011) escalated to more strongly dismissive language. By this time, evidence that many would regard as stemming from an extraterrestrial impact had been replicated at a number of YD boundary sites. The abstract of their article ended:

”Throughout the arc of this hypothesis, recognized and expected impact markers were not found, leading to proposed YD impactors and impact processes that were novel, self-contradictory, rapidly changing, and sometimes defying the laws of physics. The YD impact hypothesis provides a cautionary tale for researchers, the scientific community, the press, and the broader public.

Pinter et al. (sic) did not explain exactly how the hypothesis is self-contradictory nor how it violates the laws of physics. Moreover, novel hypotheses that change as new evidence comes to light should be welcomed, not condemned. The last sentence, like the quotation above from Pinter and Ishman (2008), seems intended to warn scientists against researching the YDIH and can therefore be considered an attempt at suppression.

In their last paragraph, Pinter et al. (2011) escalate to even more abusive language:

Many scientists are unaware of the surprising number of hypotheses that have gone badly astray, often after widespread initial interest and support [15–17]. Characteristics of these wayward hypotheses include claims that are spectacular, data that are subjective or at the limit of precise measurement, and criticisms met with ad hoc excuses and/or shifts in the original claims (after [15]). We suggest that much can be gained by stepping back and looking at the broader lessons for the earth sciences, impact science, archeology, and other affected fields.

Citations [15–17] in Pinter et al. (2011) refer to three books on pseudoscience titled, respectively, Pathological Science; The Undergrowth of Science: Delusion, Self-Deception, and Human Frailty; and Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud (Gratzer, 2001; Langmuir & Hall, 1989; Park, 2002). These books use as examples of pseudoscience UFOs, cold fusion, perpetual energy and motion, extrasensory perception, eugenics, the “Jewish Physics” of the Nazis, homeopathy, the works of Deepak Chopra, animal magnetism, and more. It could not have been more clear that Pinter et al. (2011) were labeling the YDIH as pseudoscience, without coming right out and saying so. Opponents would do that in the next article we review.”

Thus ends this section.

My concerns about this section:

The author characterizes the language of Pinter (2011) as “strongly dismissive” and "abusive,” without defining the terms. The author earlier explained that pseudoskepticism is skepticism presented without evidence or true belief, and that this can be considered unethical, but the excerpts reprinted here are merely from the abstract and conclusion. Similarly, the author defined ad hominem attacks as unethical attacks on “the personality of somebody who disagrees with you,” not arguments about evidence or conclusions, but the excerpts here are merely from the abstract and conclusion Pinter (2011). In academic research, evidence is traditionally presented in the body of the paper, not the abstract and conclusion.

An example sentence from the introduction of this paper itself may illustrate why extracting sentences from a paper’s abstract is a completely invalid method of critiquing the supporting evidence that may follow. This author states in the abstract:

”While robust debate is essential in science, the use of derogatory language is unethical, for it discourages research on existing hypotheses, deters funders, corrupts the scientific record, and delays or prevents the advancement of science.”

In this paper’s introduction, the author has not yet established that “debate is essential in science,” nor that the use of derogatory language is unethical, nor that the use of derogatory language discourages research on existing hypotheses, nor that this language deters funders, corrupts the scientific record, nor that it delays or prevents the advancement of science. In fact, these statements in this paper’s abstract are unsupported in any way and can only be considered the conclusions of the author until proven by the paper that follows. This is understood by the academic audience reading the paper.

So does this author then go on in this section to demonstrate that the authors of Pinter (2011) have made unethical pseudoskeptical conclusions or have made unethical ad hominem attacks in their paper? No. The only excerpts in this section are from the abstract and conclusions of Pinter (2011). I believe this author has significantly misrepresented Pinter (2011) to the readers of this paper, as I will illustrate below.

In fact, this author explicitly admits, “It could not have been more clear that Pinter (2011) were labeling the YDIH as pseudoscience, without coming right out and saying so.” This may certainly be the opinion of the authors of Pinter (2011), however, making implications and leaving it to the reader to decide on the merits of the argument is a far cry from making unethical statements in an academic paper. Again, I find it remarkable that the peer reviewers and editors of a journal on ethics would not be more discerning in the characterizations made in this paper without seeing evidence of their veracity.

And did the authors of Pinter (2011) present evidence of their negative hypotheses? Yes they did.

While this author states, “Pinter et al. (sic) did not explain exactly how the hypothesis is self-contradictory nor how it violates the laws of physics,” in the paper readers will find otherwise. The authors organized the paper into sections about different bodies of evidence where they balanced the evidence presented by the supporters of the hypotheses (there are more than one hypotheses) with evidence presented by others. They then made a conclusion on the weight of the evidence into which category each section of evidence fell, in their opinion:

Outcome 1 the original observations and their interpretations reproduced, confirming the impact origin of that evidence.

Outcome 2 the original observations themselves reproduced but not their interpretation; those interpretations instead being consistent with alternative mechanisms other than a YD impact.

Outcome 3 the original results proven to be non-reproducible, self-contradictory, or physically impossible.

The authors of Pinter (2011) then go through multiple categories of evidence with citations to supporting peer reviewed literature before reaching their conclusion of which outcome they believed the evidence supported:

2.1. Micrometeorite particles and/or tracks in archeological chert

2.2. Magnetic fragments in tusk and bone material

2.3. Fullerenes and ET helium

2.4. Iridium

2.5. Radioactivity peaks

2.6. Carolina Bays

3.1. Carbon spherules, carbon elongates, and glass-like carbon

3.2. Magnetic grains and spherules

3.3. Wildfire combustion products (fire evidence)

3.4. Nanodiamonds

4.1. Catastrophic vs. non-catastrophic mechanisms

4.2. Terrestrial vs. ET mechanisms

4.3. Impact signatures at the YDB

This ethics paper is purportedly not concerned about a scientific dispute, it is purportedly concerned with the ethics of the critics of the various YDIH hypotheses. This author has stated that these critics, and in this section, specifically that the authors of Pinter (2011), have behaved unethically by being skeptical without evidence or true belief, and that they have engaged in ad hominem attacks.

This second section was intended as the 2nd example of those unethical behaviors but I can find no evidence in Pinter (2011) that the authors behaved unethically, as defined in this paper. Rather, this is a merely a typical scientific debate – in Pinter (2011) a hypothesis was put forward, the authors presented evidence that they believe supported their hypotheses, and then they reached a conclusion. I fail to that see that this author supplied any evidence that ethical violations are present in this section. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"Here is what PubPeer has to say about that journal."

What do they say? You copy-pasted an article against Powell's article, what you posted does not mention the Journal of Academic Ethics at all. The Journal of Academic Ethics is a WP:RS. If you disagree, state your reasoning and then explain why it is included among "peer-reviewed, academic journals in the field of ethics." at the List of ethics journals page on Wikipedia.

"I fail to that see that this author supplied any evidence that ethical violations are present in this section."

How does that affect whether the journal is considered WP:RS or not. The article underwent peer-review and got published.

"Noting first that you are a single purpose account."

It is a new account and my time is limited. There's plenty on wikipedia that needs fixing, so don't worry, I'll be correcting other articles too. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Wp:undue, and wp:blp. Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Should we remove the whole paragraph then? Why include one paper by the author, but not the other? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

YOu would need to ask those who added it, but one reason may be illustrative, it gives his opinion, but we do need to give it great empahisis. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, that's fine.

Can you comment on one particular source being used/cited 24 times in the article, as well as being the source of the opening paragraph? The wikipedia page is titled "Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis" but an article that is against YDIH is used 8x as frequently as the 2nd most frequently used sources (3 times).

The criticism and counter-evidence should be mentioned in the article, like it is for many other topics on Wikipedia. But there should be an honest, impartial and objective summary and presentation of the theory and its claims first.

The first paragraph is supposed to be a summary of the body, yet it is based on a single source. Especially a biased source. Take a look at the description/first sentence "...was the result of some kind of extraterrestrial event with specific details varying between publications." That is blatantly incorrect. I just asked an AI what YDIH is and it gave a better, actual WP:NPOV summary "The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH) proposes that around 12,900 years ago, Earth was struck by one or multiple fragments of a large comet or asteroid, which had dramatic effects on global climate and human civilization." Saying "some kind of extraterrestrial event" implies that it may have been aliens, when the YDIH proponents say no such thing.

YDIH falls firmly into WP:FRINGE/QS since there is reasonable amount of debate going on. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Because an RS says that, and I have not read every piece of YDIH literature (have you)?, so I have no way of knowing if there are other "extra terrestrial" suggestions out there. Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It also calls it a "cosmic event". From the source:

"While the specific details of the YDIH vary from publication to publication, the general premise is that at ∼12.9 ka¹ North America and other continents were subjected to some sort of extraterrestrial ‘event’ (either supernova shockwave; meteoritic, cometary, or very low-density object - impact(s); bolide airburst(s); or some combination thereof). The term ‘impact’ in “YDIH” represents all these possible cosmic events."

It also calls it that in the abstract: "The YDIH invokes a cosmic event"

Cosmic event is a much better word to use, it comes from the same source. Wikipedia is not a scientific publication aimed at geologists, astrophysicists or other scientists. In the scientific vernacular "extraterrestrial" refers to objects and events that originate outside of the Earth, yet in common vernacular "extraterrestrial" most often has connotations to aliens. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

YDIH has not been compared to cold fusion or creationism

The cited source has this to say: "The cold fusion fiasco is not directly comparable to the YDIH but there are similarities."

YDIH is not compared to creationism either. The authors of the cited article say that the argumentation technique they themselves have been accused of using (gish-gallop) is used by Young Earth Creationists. The article then goes on to compare the strategies of the proponents, not the theories themselves. 77.241.129.12 (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any quotes that support the comparison either, so maybe someone can provide them? Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did you revert the deletion of the line when you can't find the quote to support it? 77.241.129.12 (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Becasue this needs to be discussed, as I have not been able to read in full each of those sources, so I assumed good faith and took it that those who added them have. I am now asking to to prode the quite that backs up their addition, if they fail todo it it fails verification. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

How about "Cold fusion As a contrasting example of a theory unequivocally refuted SPW, in their conclusion point to cold fusion. “[T]he concept was so simple that the chemists already had the necessary laboratory equipment. Initial results seemed to confirm cold fusion, but then more and more reported that they could not replicate it, and within a few months, cold fusion was refuted.”"

"ircumvention of peer-review. Nonscience sources. The title of the unpublished rebuttal of HEA by the authors of SPW refers to it as a “Gish Gallop,” apparently unaware that this is a tongue-in-cheek name for the chaotic debating method of a cofounder of a young-Earth creationist organization that publishes catastrophist papers (Scott, 2004). The YDIH proponents’ understanding of cosmic catastrophes is strongly influenced by biblical catastrophist publications they cite, which often misrepresent cited sources.1 A prominent example is their repeated citation of Silvia (2015), who pioneered the idea of using the Old Testament as a guide to our understanding of cosmic airburst phenomena (discussed further in Section 3.4). Brazo and Austin (1982) is another example. They are cited by Bunch et al. (2021), which includes West as a coauthor, in regard to the Tunguska airburst event, despite their demonstrably false claims. The Institute for Creation Research is listed as both Brazo’s and Austin’s affiliation, which publishes exaggerated versions of known catastrophic events. Brazo and Austin (1982) appears in the journal Origins, which" Doug Weller talk 11:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I accessed the academic article with my university login, here is the section referenced by the editor in the edit. I read it again also and yes they do compare it to cold fusion, but not to creationism (I still believe they only compare strategies of proponents). I tried to keep the same emphases as they are found in the article.

==quote==

2.4. Fringe connections

In defending the YDIH, SPW reference examples and align themselves with other forms of unconventional scientific theories, including elements of pseudoscience that are connected in various ways to the YDIH.

Cold fusion As a contrasting example of a theory unequivocally refuted SPW, in their conclusion point to cold fusion. “[T]he concept was so simple that the chemists already had the necessary laboratory equipment. Initial results seemed to confirm cold fusion, but then more and more reported that they could not replicate it, and within a few months, cold fusion was refuted.” They appear to be unfamiliar with its history, which has striking parallels to the YDIH. Cold fusion was initially rejected by most physicists on theoretical grounds, because (like the YDIH) the experimental or observational results contradicted the prevailing understanding of the laws of physics.5 Physicists concluded that the most likely explanation was that the experiments were faulty or misinterpreted, which turned out to be correct. Likewise, physicists were initially skeptical of the YDIH claims because “consideration of basic laws of physics indicate that such a fragmentation or high-altitude airburst event would not conserve momentum or energy, would lie outside any realistic range of probability, and therefore did not occur during the YD as described by Firestone et al. [2007]” (Boslough et al., 2012, p. 24).

Ironically, like the YDIH, the cold fusion proponents continue to refuse to accept the lack of replication, theoretical arguments, and evidence-based rejection of their hypothesis. Four decades after the refutation of cold fusion, versions of it are still being pursued and promoted at the for-profit pseudoscience-themed “Cosmic Summit” fan conventions organized by CRG cofounder and director George Howard, who has co-authored many YDIH papers.6 These conventions featured cold fusion proponents Malcolm Bendall and Bob Greenyer, YDIH proponents including most notability two authors of SWP7 who firmly declared “cold fusion was refuted,” and many fringe science speakers/exhibitors.

The cold fusion fiasco is not directly comparable to the YDIH but there are similarities. Both started with a handful of scientists and quickly grew. However, cold fusion was based on laboratory experiments in a narrow field of physics and was quickly dismissed by most physicists (Goodstein, 1994). The YDIH involves a broad range of disciplines and is based on: 1) faulty assumptions regarding Clovis archaeology, extinctions, and the nature of the environmental changes during the last glacial/interglacial transition; 2) indirect field evidence, none of which was conclusively related to impacts; and 3) weak numerical age control. Cold fusion was easy to refute and was done so quickly. The YDIH can be refuted, based on data from impact physics and mineralogy/geochemistry, as well as late Quaternary geology, paleoclimatology, paleobiology, and archaeology. The fundamental problem with the YDIH is that proponents repeatedly fail to deal with its many contradictions, discussed in detail by HEA, through their circumvention of peer-review.

Nonscience sources. The title of the unpublished rebuttal of HEA by the authors of SPW refers to it as a “Gish Gallop,” apparently unaware that this is a tongue-in-cheek name for the chaotic debating method of a cofounder of a young-Earth creationist organization that publishes catastrophist papers (Scott, 2004). The YDIH proponents' understanding of cosmic catastrophes is strongly influenced by biblical catastrophist publications they cite, which often misrepresent cited sources.1 A prominent example is their repeated citation of Silvia (2015), who pioneered the idea of using the Old Testament as a guide to our understanding of cosmic airburst phenomena (discussed further in Section 3.4). Brazo and Austin (1982) is another example. They are cited by Bunch et al. (2021), which includes West as a coauthor, in regard to the Tunguska airburst event, despite their demonstrably false claims. The Institute for Creation Research is listed as both Brazo's and Austin's affiliation, which publishes exaggerated versions of known catastrophic events. Brazo and Austin (1982) appears in the journal Origins, which like the new journal Airbursts and Cratering Impacts (see Section 2.1) claims to be peer reviewed, but the effectiveness of their peer review is questionable.

The YDIH proponents are entitled to their faith, but their beliefs should not be propagated into the scientific literature for the YDIH and related cosmic catastrophes as arguments (unless they can be tested, in which case they no longer rely on faith) or claimed as “peer reviewed” evidence (unless they have been subjected to actual peer review). The definition of faith excludes the requirement for evidence, which may partially explain why YDIH advocates do not seem to feel that it is necessary to provide the underlying data on which their claimed evidence is based. Because of this, we feel that it has become futile to continue the repeated cycles of line-by-line refutations and rebuttals of this data-free “evidence”.

==end quote== 77.241.129.12 (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how they are talking about strategies. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

IN addition, this may well be supported by other sources such as [[7]]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a WP:SPS. Hypnôs (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, just posting out that there may be sources out thre, so it is not so clear cut as to deserve deletion without discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Joe Roe we allow self-published sources, what do you think about Carl Feagans? Doug Weller talk 12:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say Feagans is a clear WP:EXPERTSPS on archaeology. – Joe (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Cold fusion

SPW[8] bring up cold fusion first, arguing that "It does not take nearly 100,000 words to refute a hypothesis: it can be done in four."Then they compare it to the YDIH: "What of the YDIH? Here the history is reversed."

HEA[9] do say "The cold fusion fiasco is not directly comparable to the YDIH but there are similarities." Yet, that sentence in context does not mean it is not comparable, rather it means it is comparably, but not directly:

“Initial results seemed to confirm cold fusion, but then more and more reported that they could not replicate it, and within a few months, cold fusion was refuted.” They appear to be unfamiliar with its history, which has striking parallels to the YDIH.

Ironically, like the YDIH, the cold fusion proponents continue to refuse to accept the lack of replication, theoretical arguments, and evidence-based rejection of their hypothesis.

The cold fusion fiasco is not directly comparable to the YDIH but there are similarities. Both started with a handful of scientists and quickly grew.

Creationism

HEA point out the links to creationism:

The YDIH proponents’ understanding of cosmic catastrophes is strongly influenced by biblical catastrophist publications they cite, which often misrepresent cited sources.

[Silvia (2015)] invoked faith-based understandings of airbursts by citing Collins (2002), who described a Biblical airburst in his fig. 1 caption: “[r]egardless of the nature of the destruction that befell the Cities of the Plain, one thing is clear from the biblical text: the fiery blast came from above. Superheated air and/or some kind of impact, like that of a disintegrated comet fragment moving at a high rate of speed, could have obliterated virtually everything….”

Conclusion

The YDIH has been compared to cold fusion and is linked to creationism. But "has been compared to creationism and cold fusion by its critics." begs the question in what way it has been compared. I think it should be changed/amended.

How about:

"The hypothesis is widely rejected by relevant experts. It is influenced by creationism, and has been compared to cold fusion by its critics due to the lack of reproducibility of results." Hypnôs (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I added "due to the lack of reproducibility of results.", so it's clear why it has been compared to cold fusion. Hypnôs (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's good to include "lack of reproducibility" but it might be worth also mentioning another, more fundamental, similarity. Both were rejected because they were in violation of the known laws of physics. They wouldn't just contradict understandings of electrochemistry or earth science, but would overthrow the paradigms of Einstein and Newton if they turned out to be correct, and that's a high hurdle for any hypothesis. "Cold fusion was initially rejected by most physicists on theoretical grounds, because (like the YDIH) the experimental or observational results contradicted the prevailing understanding of the laws of physics." Proxy data (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

How does YDIH violate the laws of physics? Wikipedia takes the stance that comets are real and they do impact the Earth from time to time, right? 77.241.129.12 (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Elephants are real, but you will never find one in your butter (which is also real). We go by what RS say, it has been shown RS make the comparison. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It is talking about the airburst aspect: there wouldn't be enough momentum conserved from a comet airburst for the fragments to cause the damage that YDIH proponents say happened. It does not mean whole of YDIH defies physics, it is important to read the context not just copy words. From the source:

"physicists were initially skeptical of the YDIH claims because “consideration of basic laws of physics indicate that such a fragmentation or high-altitude airburst event would not conserve momentum or energy, would lie outside any realistic range of probability, and therefore did not occur during the YD as described by Firestone et al. [2007]"

So Firestone, et al. describe a version of YDIH with an airburst component and the source is referring to that specific theory "...as described by Firestone et al." 77.241.129.12 (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

References

CRG mission statement doesn't come from WP:RS

First of all, the source quotes ONE person. The wikipedia article presents one person's opinion as fact.

From the source:

"Comet Research Group, whose mission, Bik said, “appears to be to show that ancient cities were frequently destroyed by comets” and to do something about comets before “your city is next”."[10]https://science.thewire.in/society/religion/tall-el-hammam-sodom-asteroid-destruction-image-manipulation/

Second, the source is a news site, as @Paul H. has stated in another topic "websites such as PhysOrg and Hertiage Daily are also not reliable sources as they just aggragate press releases without onducting any peer-review." The same rule should apply to science.thewire.in as it is not a peer-reviewed article. 77.241.129.12 (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why a mission statement would be peer-reviewed.

For comparison, here's the mission statement from the website of the Comet Research Group:[11]

Think our last space attack was 65,000,000 years ago from the “dinosaur-killer” asteroid? Think again. Killer comets are more common than you’ve been taught. At CRG, our mission is to find evidence about comet impacts and raise awareness about them before your city is next. Hypnôs (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Not the mission statement, but the article from which it is sourced. Why not cite the CRG website for their mission statement, rather than some random person on a random news site?

"CRG's mission is to find evidence of comet impacts in the past and raise awareness of possible impacts in the future."

and we can link to their website as the source. I think it satisfies WP:NPOV. What do you think? 77.241.129.12 (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

NO as that is what the search "CRG mission statement brings up". Here is another "The mission of the Comet Research Group is to accurately assess the effects of comet impacts on human history, to educate the international public about these effects, and, ultimately, to provide governments and the scientific community with the information they need to stop comets from hitting Earth in the future." https://grahamhancock.com/comet-research-group/. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where Graham Hancock found this mission statement but it doesn't appear to have come from the CRG website. The first text that comes up on the CRG splash page when you click on its website is the mission statement that should be quoted. [12] Proxy data (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Retraction Watch, Science Integrity Digest and The Science Wire are not WP:RS

Why are these sources heavily cited and relied on for whole paragraphs in the article when they are news releases and blog posts, not peer-reviewed articles?

https://science.thewire.in/society/religion/tall-el-hammam-sodom-asteroid-destruction-image-manipulation/

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/10/01/criticism-engulfs-paper-claiming-an-asteroid-destroyed-biblical-sodom-and-gomorrah/

https://retractionwatch.com/2023/02/21/journal-investigating-sodom-comet-paper-for-data-problems/

https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2021/10/01/blast-in-the-past-image-concerns-in-paper-about-comet-that-might-have-destroyed-tall-el-hammam/

The first source also references the next two, and the fourth one is a personal blog of one of the people mentioned in the news report, so a whole section is based on four articles that refer to one another.

To summarise why they aren't WP:RS,

- The Science Wire is a news site/aggregator.

- Retraction Watch is a news site/aggregator.

- Science Integrity Digest is a personal blog.

Any section, paragraph or claim relying on these sources should be removed if a WP:RS can't be found.

77.241.129.12 (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

THis should be taken to wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

All three of these sources appear to be reliable secondary sources, consistent with the WP:RS guidelines. They are used as sources for other Wikipedia articles without any apparent objections. Science Integrity Digest is the personal blog of Elisabeth Bik. According to WP:RS, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." In 2021, Bik was awarded the John Maddox Prise, "for outstanding work exposing widespread threats to research integrity in scientific papers". Thus she seems to meet the criterion for being regarded as authoritative in this subject area. Proxy data (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

"samples from the site no longer exist so these results cannot be confirmed"

They do still exist, the source that was cited for the discontinued existence of the samples has this to say: "...pieces of YDB meltglass are archived in London and available through Andrew M.T. Moore [email redacted]." 77.241.129.12 (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The above excerpt form the Data Availibilty in Moore et al. (2020) above only applies to unspecified pieces of melt glass and non-Younger Dryas sediment samples. It specifically states that "...there is no more bulk sediment available from the YDB layer..." In addition, their September 2023 Airbursts and Cratering Impacts paper (Part 2) states that only "limited" sediment samples form above and below the YDB layer are available for study and lacks any mention of samples of the melt glass. Paul H. (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Additional note: Moore et al. (2023), an earlier Airbursts and cratering paper (Part 1) than the one (Part 2) mentioned above, states in the Data Availibility statement:

"Multiple previous studies have completely expended the samples; hence, no more unprocessed sample material is available from the authors."

Reference cited:

Moore, A.M., Kennett, J.P., LeCompte, M.A., Moore, C.R., Li, Y.Q., Kletetschka, G., Langworthy, K.A., Razink, J.J., Brogden, V., Van Devener, B. and Perez, J.P.L., 2023. Abu Hureyra, Syria, Part 1: Shock-fractured quartz grains support 12,800-year-old cosmic airburst at the Younger Dryas onset. Airbursts and Cratering Impacts, 1(1), p.20230002. Paul H. (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

A.M.T. Moore did not lead group that wrote Abu Hureyra paper

The section on the 2020 Abu Hureyra paper is misleading. The current version says, "In 2020, a group led by Andrew M. T. Moore found high concentrations of iridium, platinum, nickel, and cobalt at the Younger Dryas boundary in material from Tell Abu Hureyra. They concluded that the evidence supports the impact hypothesis. However, samples from the site no longer exist so these results cannot be confirmed."

Moore served as the first author, presumably because he excavated the site and provided samples to the Comet Research Group, led by Allen West, who was the correspondence author for the paper in addition to directing the laboratory part of the project (Moore directed the field work before the site was flooded by Lake Assad, and gave his materials to West and his group).

The citation to Cheng et al (2020) is also misleading. It is cited in support of the statement that They concluded that the evidence supports the impact hypothesis. But Cheng et al wrote, "While this YDB age range agrees within error margin with the YD onset at 12,870 ± 30 B.P., a most recent simulation work demonstrates that this set of 14C samples are extremely unlikely to have been deposited synchronously, calling into question the YD Impact Hypothesis."

I propose that Allen West be given proper credit for leadership of this group of authors, and that the citation to Cheng et al be removed. Proxy data (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I concur with your proposed changes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering now if it might not be better to retain the Cheng et al citation, but with the context provided by the quote in which they show that the dating is problematic and calls into question the validity of the YDIH. The Comet Research Group maintains a spreadsheet containing a bibliography of YDIH related papers with a link from their Cosmic Tusk blog. They have categorized papers according to their "stance". The categories are, "strongly supports", "supports", "neutral", "critical", and "negative"). Cheng et al (2020) is classified as "stance critical". I have found quite a few mistakes and biases in the classifications and other subjective metadata in this spreadsheet (e.g. papers that are flagged as "independent" but were actually written by CRG collaborators and contributors). Proxy data (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

CRG's YDIH bibliography is full of mistakes

The Comet Research Group's Cosmic Tusk bloggers have created a bibliography of YDIH papers. They have categorized papers according to their "stance". The categories are, "strongly supports", "supports", "neutral", "critical", and "negative"). I have found quite a few mistakes and biases in the classifications and other subjective metadata in this spreadsheet (e.g. papers that are flagged as "independent" but were actually written by CRG collaborators and contributors). For example, it classifies Schultz et al (2021) as "stance neutral, evidence strongly supports", but in fact the paper says "the glasses formed between 12.3 and 11.5 cal. kyr B.P., a range constrained by the age of sediments from which they formed." The YDIH requires that the impact be 12.9 ka which is outside the age uncertainty. The bibliography also gives this paper two checkmarks, which mean "Authors unaffiliated with YDB group (2007-2016) or the CRG (2016-2024)" and "Authors have no established bias against the YDIH". However, two of the authors (Schultz and Harris) were both coauthors of Firestone et al, (2007) and were also members of the CRG. It might be worth going through this web page to identify citations to other papers that might have been incorrectly described as supporting the YDIH, but actually did not, or that suggested independent studies that were not actually independent. It appears that authors of the review articles (Sweatman and Powell) might have gotten some of their information from the Cosmic Tusk bibliography, but did not check the original sources to see what they actually said). Proxy data (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Another example of a paper and authors that have both been categorized incorrectly in the Cosmic Tusk bibliography is Petaev et al. (2013). The paper is categorized as having a stance that "strongly supports" the YDIH. The authors reported their discovery of a platinum anomaly in the GISP2 ice core across the Bølling-Allerød/YD boundary in Greenland. They also reported the lack of a prominent iridium anomaly, and suggested that it "hints at an extraterrestrial source" but that it would have come from a highly differentiated object, which would eliminate the possibility of a primitive object like a comet. They concluded their abstract by saying that such an iridium poor iron meteorite would be "...unlikely to result in an airburst or trigger wide wildfires proposed by the YDB impact hypothesis." In other words, no comet, no airburst, no wildfires. This conclusion seems incompatible with the the Comet Research Group's bibliography classification that it "strongly supports" the YDIH. Subsequent publications by authors of this paper reinforce their original conclusions. They do not consider their GISP2 data to support the YDIH. Proxy data (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for digging into this. Are there any actionable changes that need to be made to the article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I made a very minor change pointing out that the lead author of Petaev et al (2013) was also an author of Holliday et al (2023) which made further clarifications about the platinum anomaly. Proxy data (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

For context, it is worth considering the fact that the source of the bibliography had already published a strong, but mistaken, interpretation of the conclusions of Petaev et al (2013) on the Cosmic Tusk blog. The nascent bibliography and how it was organized and classified was described a few years later by the Cosmic Tusk on Jan . 13, 2019. More information was published about it on Nov. 8, 2019, with another update on Nov. 23, 2019. The Cosmic Tusk had blogged about Martin Sweatman's reliance on the CRG bibliography on Oct. 21, 2019, writing, "Martin used the Tusk’s Complete YDIH bibliography to stage his investigation, which is gratifying, and well timed..." In a June 13, 2020 blog entry, the Cosmic Tusk wrote, "Soon after The Bib was released, Dr. Martin Sweatman University of Edinburgh picked up and leveraged the easily available information." Sweatman (2021) wrote in his acknowledgments, "I am grateful for the insightful comments of two anonymous referees that significantly improved the original manuscript, and to Marc Young and George Howard for their assistance with the literature search." Nevertheless, the most recent version of the bibliography gives the Sweatman review it's highest ranking (strongly supports the YDIH), with a checkmark that identifies it as an "Independent Study". Proxy data (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Powell (2022) likewise relied on the CRG for his review of the YDIH, stating in his acknowledgments, "I thank James Kennett and Allen West for manuscript review, and the anonymous reviewers, who made significant and appreciated contributions to the final article." Kennett and West are co-founders of the Comet Research Group, which presumably funded the CRG bibliography. The most recent version of the CRG bibliography also gives the Powell review its highest ranking (strongly supports the YDIH), with a checkmark that identifies it as another "Independent Study". Proxy data (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Allen West

@Slatersteven The CRG is "a division of Rising Light Group, Inc.".[13] President and Director of the Rising Light Group is Allen West.[14] Also mentionened in a NYT article: "In 2016, West and several colleagues formed Comet Research Group Inc.,"[15] Hypnôs (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Only one of those sources says that West set up CRG, and that is "West and several colleagues." So, if saying these it up we must also say others set it up as well or fails wp:v (as we say it was his idea alone), we need to say "West (and others)." Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Why not add that instead of a verification failed template? Hypnôs (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way per wp:brd it is down to those who want to make a change to make a case, not those who want the status qou. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:SQS. Hypnôs (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That it's not a policy WP:BRD is. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

BRD isn't a policy. Literally the second sentence says "This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy". Hypnôs (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Yes BRD is an essay, and as there are sources we should use them, "and others" if sourced seems fine. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

My mistake. Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)