Talk:Chiemgau impact hypothesis

Reviced version
It is incomprehensible why this article was put back. The reworking was objective and also showed the dispute. Again made other putting back is announced and can cause a blockage of the side for other changes.Pmelten (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute within the scientific community. There is a well established scientific position, consistent since the earliest research in the area in the 1920s and there are a few crackpot theorists with a completely unfounded claim that has been refuted by geologists, biologists and archaeologists. The so called "Chiemgau impact" did not happen. It is utterly impossible. The problem is, that tourism managers including elected representatives of the region have embraced the "impact theory" in order to attract visitors. They have established a local association with the help of the chamber of commerce, there is a small and utterly comical -to those who understand the science behind the issues- museum, there are large interpretive tables on a pretty new "nature walk" interpretive trail. But all of this is bogus. Refuted by historical, modern and very recent research while the propagandists have absolutely nothing but their unfounded claims. Wikipedia is obliged to tell the scientific story. Not to elaborate the bogus claims and give them undue attention. --h-stt !?  07:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, H-sst, you have twice undone the extensive additions I had contributed to this article. My reasons for expanding it are the following ones: Both the references you are quoting (Doppler/Geiss; Fehr et al.) have been published in 2005. Logically they could not discuss all the research presented in the various publications of CIRT and other scientists in the years 2006-2011. Hence, you cannot base your verdict of an “obsolete scientific theory” on those two references. Furthermore, you refer to a press release for supporting your statement. A press release is an insufficient reference. Seemingly you did not know the contribution of Doppler et al. (Antiquity, 2011) which provides a much more actual and critical point of view than a press release and is published in a high-ranking journal. But of cause Wikipedia is meant to be neutral. Hence, mentioning Doppler et al. means to quote also the reply of Rappenglueck et al. (Antiquity, 2011) to the objections of Doppler et al. in the same journal. I did a lot of research to get as much as possible of the scientific literature concerning the Chiemgau impact and have tried to present it adequately. Your contribution on this discussion page claims the refusal of the Chiemgau impact theory by scientists of many other fields. Why don’t you underpin this claim by contributing the references of their relevant scientific publications? If anything of the scientific literature has escaped my attention, please add it to ensure that we get a good covering of the debate. Another small aspect: you refer to the webpage of the Chiemgau Impact Research Team as “the claims of the Chiemgau Impact Research Team”. The word “claim” in this context has a derogative undertone. Why shouldn’t we use the neutral term “webpage of ...”? I hope that you now understand my restoring of my last version (including corrections by Kiriakism) and step back from deleting it again. --Sina03 (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The impact as it postulates the creation of the lake Tüttensee, (beside others very smaller and actually not reported ones) is disproved and refuted by different investigations, last one from of the LfU in Bavaria. Kunderbunt (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Kunderbunt, the references you request to check are unfortunately of limited value: the one is the press release already known, the other one - as I managed to figure out - is a very short report of the results of the drilling at lake Tuettensee and an extended presentation of the results of radiocarbon dating. Neither the one nor the other include a discussion of the arguments presented in scientific publications by the Chiemgau Impact research team as well as by other scientists (see version Sina03 29 August 2011). Basing the strong claim of the impact theory being obsolete on a press release which lacks the fundamental requirements of a scientific publication, and a report which confines itself to such a limited perspective is very problematic. I understand that you want to display the arguments of the critics of the impact theory. On this background, why do you withhold to refer to Doppler et al. (Antiquity 2011) as I have done in my version? In case you don’t know the article please acquaint yourself. The journal is available in university libraries all over the world. Doppler et al.s response includes all the essential information given in the report of Kroemer and presents some more in addition. But of course a neutral description must also mention the reply of Rappenglueck et al. (Antiquity 2011). The fact of these publications in a high-ranking international journal - article of Rappenglueck et al. (Antiquity 2011), response of Doppler et al. (Antiquity 2011), reply of Rappenglueck et al. (Antiquity 2011) - clearly contradicts H-sst’s claim of a missing dispute in the scientific community. Please take part in a constructive manner. --Sina03 (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not neutral. When in doubt, we follow the scientific point of view. The impact hypothesis is dead: There was no impact, as proven by the 12.000 years of undisturbed peat bog horizons in the Tüttensee. Since this publication there can be no valid reason to continue the claims of an impact. None. Please stop promoting an oblosete theory. --h-stt !?  13:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, h-sst,: 1. You argue for a scientific point of view. O course I do the same. From my version of the article you see that there are a lot of scientific publications dealing with the subject of a potential meteorite impact in the Chiemgau region, most of them taking this possibility seriously. Presenting the different scientific arguments pro and contra a theory is the indispensible basis of science. 2. "Undisturbed peat bog horizons as prove against an impact": a) CIRT has rejected the supposedly “prove” by explaining the special conditions of impact physics (Rappenglueck et al., Antiquity 2011; see illustrative graphic on the webpage of CIRT). b) There do exist criteria for prove of an impact, one of it being shock metamorphism of rocks, especially planar deformation features. CIRT presents such prove (Rappenglueck et al., Antiquity 2010; Ernstson et al. 2010; Rappenglueck et al., Antiquity 2011). Hence, the scientific debate is of course worth being continued and only its presentation in the article here fulfils the scientific aspiration of Wikipedia. 3. "Stop promoting an oblosete theory": I simply try to cover the scientific debate by presenting the arguments available in the scientific literature. --Sina03 (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in any further debate with you over this matter. The case is settled, CIRT and you are riding a dead horse. --h-stt !?  08:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, h-sst, you had claimed that the impact had been "refuted by geologists, biologists and archaeologists". I had asked you to refer to scientific publications (apart from Doppler et al. 2011, cited by myself) for supporting your claim. By now you fail to do so. Hence, please stop to cling to your verdict of an "obsolete scientific theory" and to reverte the article.--Sina03 (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Same, same. Your claim lacks any scientific publication, which makes it hard to publish a rebuttal in a serious journal. From a conservative scientific point of view the whole impact hypothesis does not even exist, because it is still unpublished. So why do you demand a rebuttal to have a higher formal status than the original claim? --h-stt !?  11:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, h-sst and Kunderbunt, I have adjusted my version of the article to the suggestions of the dispute resolution noticeboard by extending the introduction of the debate passage. I hope this is a good compromise. --Sina03 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems to be reverted because your version is still suffering from the same shortfalls than any before. --h-stt !?  11:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, H-sst: 1. It is evident that you are lacking arguments, because you fail to give scientific references for your claim, that the impact had been "refuted by geologists, biologists and archaeologists". 2. It is evident (from postings of you at other Wiki-articles, too) that you urgently must hide the fact, that the so-called unambiguous rebuttal of the impact theory by the Bavarian State agency has with good arguments been rejected by the impact proponents in their publication Rappenglueck et al. 2011 in "Antiquity" vol. 85. Obviously the arguments of the agency are not good enough to survive the confrontation with the arguments of the impact proponents.--Sina03 (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiki isn't here to publish your fringe theory. That must have become obvious to you by now. Please stop being disruptive William M. Connolley (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)