Talk:Older Peron

Restored article
Somebody removed most of the article. Still needs inline citations. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverted it. The version now is readable, and verifiable as opposed to the version that you restored, which had 3 paragraphs that looked as if they were different attempts at writing an article. If you want to restore the old version, then please make it verifiable, and improve the prose. --Kim D. Petersen 04:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It needs some serious work. But removing all information about it, claiming new studies invalidate the past, isn't encyclopedic knowledge. The old data is still important, now it reads like original research. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources used in the new version don't support what is claimed in the new version. The claims made are original research. The scientific literature has thousands of papers on this issue. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25735658?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104015184241

The removed 'see also' links contain dozens of sources supporting the Older Peron as an important and real period in history. 4.2 kiloyear event 5.9 kiloyear event 8.2 kiloyear event Fxmastermind (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there aren't "thousands of papers" on this issue - in fact there are very very few after 1980, which supports the short version of the article (since it states that the view that it was globally coherent is "out of fashion"/rejected), as opposed to the jumbled non sourced version. And even fewer sources that would support this as a global occurence. So Again: If you want the old version - source it specifically and clean up the prose. May i suggest that you look at the IPCC reports or other highly reliable sources on climate? --Kim D. Petersen 23:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * With regards to globally coherent as opposed to regionally present (fx. Austral-asia) see fig. 5&6 in Fleming et al(1998), --Kim D. Petersen 05:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

New user may not understand talk page, or how things work here
The talk page of an article is used to improve an article. I'm not sure how to proceed, but this is the start. Fxmastermind (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Noting that the editors removing information have not discussed it on talk page
You can ADD information, but please stop removing information, which is sourced. Not agreeing with something, or claiming new research invalidates old information is fine. Add it to the article. Do not remove valid information. Fxmastermind (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is not how wikipedia works. Information that is not verifiable defaults to being removed per our policies. And you haven't addressed my points raised above. (like how no new sources exist, or how Australia cannot be interpolated to be the globe) --Kim D. Petersen 05:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. According to your view of how an encyclopedia should work, there would be no definition or explanation of Miasma theory, since it was later abandoned. Fxmastermind (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but i can't see how i'm wrong. Miasma theory is certainly A) sourced. B) makes clear that the "theory" has been replaced/invalidated/falsified. C) defers to the new paradigm in all but the description of how the old paradigm thought things were. The opposite is the case here with the long version: Not sourced. Doesn't state that this is deprecated. Makes broad claims that are outside of the mainstream. Please read WP:FRINGE on how to handle topics that are outside the mainstream of science. --Kim D. Petersen 01:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You are completely wrong in so many ways. It's not worth it to even to try and educate you. See the current 2014 expert works on the subject for actual fact based information, if you ever desire such. That's what actual scientist and educators use. No, of course it isn't used as a source here. http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/oceanography-and-marine-science/quaternary-sea-level-changes-global-perspective and http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/sedimentology-and-stratigraphy/sedimentary-record-sea-level-change Both explain and reference both the younger and older Peron. While you engage in original research here, and try to change all of the known science about sea level and history, the real world continues to use the terms, and explore the science. Fxmastermind (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop blanking all the sources and links
Reverting to the version that deleted most of the article, results in removing valid data
 * Unless you start addressing the issues raised in several threads here, nothing much other than reverts are going to happen. Unverifiable text is not acceptable per our pillars. And again - you may want to look at recent sources, as well as consider that you cannot use regional extremas to extrapolate global events. --Kim D. Petersen 00:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Kim,

You are writing as if you think this is my information. It's not. Even if you, and others, disagree with the facts, it doesn't change them. The Older Peron has a definition, it has sources, it is a matter of historic and scientific fact. I tried to show you using the Miasma theory as an example, of why information that later is found to be in error, doesn't mean you can delete the information from the encyclopedia. Nor can you argue and use original research on Wikipedia, to change sourced material. Well, you can, but it is against the very idea of Wikipedia. You should know this. Fxmastermind (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you cannot write text as if the Older Peron is still an accepted global sea-level maximum. Just as Miasma theory cannot claim anything other than having been completely overturned. A text can be written that explores how the Older Peron was seen in the 60's - but not without an introductory caveat of this being an overturned hypothesis. That is what WP:FRINGE amongst others is about.
 * In other words you can write about the history - but you cannot do so without making extremely clear that such views are rejected in current science. And you cannot write such text without the text being verifiable. The current text that you are reverting is verifiable. --Kim D. Petersen 23:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You have to support your claim
The two sources do not even mention the Older Peron, much less say it has been overturned completely, as you are claiming. Fxmastermind (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The "older Peron" had a specific timeperiod, and that timeperiod doesn't have anomaleous global sea levels, as the Peron "theory" states. That part is simple calculation. And the sources do state that such older theories based on a simple reading of the the Australasia sea levels are wrong. Again read Fleming et al(1998). --Kim D. Petersen 23:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no such term as you used. the Peron "theory" is something you made up. I'm done here. Trash the science as you will.

Fxmastermind (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And inserting completely unsourced information instead of sourced information is most certainly not acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen 23:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also note that Lewis et al(2013) review directly addresses Fairbanks, and explains how his important work in the 60's was undermined in the 70's and 80's by amongst others Hopley, and how it is now known that sites like Peron is that estimates of past sea-surface elevation are a function of eustatic factors as well as morphodynamics of individual sites, the wide variety of proxy sea-level indicators used, their wide geographical range, and their indicative meaning rather than an accurate estimation of global sea levels. --Kim D. Petersen 23:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by Lewis et al(2013) review? Source? Lewis et al(2013) Modeling insights into deuterium excess as an indicator of water vapor source conditions has nothing like what you are claiming. Baker et al (2005) confirmed that the sea level changes at Peron were not from tectonic factors, and while the conclusions of oscillating levels is controversial, the carbon dating matched the sea level changes measured in Brazil and Asia. Collins et al(2006) also showed the decline from the Older Peron to present. Quaternary Sea-Level Changes: A Global Perspective By Colin V. Murray-Wallace, Colin D. Woodroffe directly contradicts your claims, as well as confirming the sea level rise and history of the raised beaches of Peron. Rather than trying to impose your view, the long running conflict surrounding sea level would be more educational to the reader. Would you you agree?

Fxmastermind (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Holocene Transgression
Directly related to the Older Peron. Of course there is no article. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818101001163 Fxmastermind (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)