Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis/Archive 5

YDIH article contradicts YD article statement of Mainstream Cause
A significant issue exists with this article's statements regarding the mainstream, widely accepted explanation for the onset of the Younger Dryas as detailed below. This post ends with a proposed set of actions to resolve this issue.

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the Summary of this article

"It is an alternative to the long-standing and widely accepted explanation that it was caused by a significant reduction in, or shutdown of the North Atlantic Conveyor due to a sudden influx of freshwater from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America.   "

contradicts the first paragraph of the Younger Dryas Cause section

"The Younger Dryas has historically been thought to have been caused by significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic "Conveyor" – which circulates warm tropical waters northward – as the consequence of deglaciation in North America and a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz. ... The lack of geological evidence for such an event stimulated further exploration, but no consensus exists on the precise source of the freshwater, and in fact the freshwater pulse hypothesis has recently been called into question. ... The lack of consensus regarding the origin of the freshwater, combined with the lack of evidence for sea level rise during the Younger Dryas, are problematic for any hypothesis where the Younger Dryas was triggered by floodwater."

(See the Younger Dryas Cause section for the citations and the text indicated by "..." above.)

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis Other explanations section, has several issues as well.


 * It is duplicative of the Younger Dryas Cause section such that the two articles are inconsistent and may diverge if the topic of YD causes continues to be covered in more than one article.


 * Has a non-working link to the Younger Dryas Cause section

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis Mainstream explanation section also contradicts the first paragraph of the Younger Dryas Cause section.

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis Other alternatives section has the following issues:


 * The jet stream explanation is not mentioned in the Younger Dryas Cause section.
 * The second paragraph that begins: "Another proposed cause has been volcanic activity. However, this has been challenged recently due to improved dating of the most likely suspect, the Laacher See volcano. ...."

contradicts the last two paragraphs of Younger Dryas Cause section that contain the following text:

"An increasingly well-supported alternative to the meltwater trigger is that the Younger Dryas was triggered by volcanism. Numerous papers now confidently link volcanism to a variety of cold events across the last two millennia and the Holocene, and in particular several note the ability of volcanic eruptions to trigger climate change lasting for centuries to millennia. .... Regardless of the ambiguity surrounding the date for the Laacher See eruption, it almost certainly caused substantial cooling either immediately before the Younger Dryas event or as one of the several eruptions which clustered in the ~100 years preceding the event."

"A volcanic trigger for the Younger Dryas event also explains why there was little sea level change at the beginning of the event. ... No consensus exists that a meltwater pulse happened, or that a bolide impact occurred prior to the Younger Dryas, whereas the evidence of anomalously strong volcanism prior to the Younger Dryas event is now very strong. ..."

(See the Younger Dryas Cause section for the citations and the text indicated by "..."

In order to resolve the above issues, I propose the following:


 * Merge the material from Younger Dryas impact hypothesis Other explanations section into the Younger Dryas Cause section. (Some overlap of text and references exists).


 * Revise the summary sentence in this article to align with the Younger Dryas Cause section and use a working Wikilink to that specific section. The mainstream hypothesis for the Younger Dryas cause has changed significantly from the Broecker 2006 hypothesis stated in the YDIH article.
 * Delete the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis Other explanations section

Comments?

Dmcdysan (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * "Comprehensive refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH) from a few months ago states The working hypothesis for the cause of these events involves the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Specifically, the hypothesis proposes that weakening of the AMOC, in particular by fluxes of freshwater to the North Atlantic, results in cooling of the North Atlantic, which is transmitted globally through atmospheric circulation and changes in the global ocean thermohaline circulation or conveyor belt. In the case of the YD/GS-1, the freshwater flux was apparently related to the rapid draining of Lake Agassiz toward the North Atlantic at the beginning of the YD/GS-1, reinforced by later drainage of the Baltic Ice Lake. So many authors still consider it to be the most mainstream opinion, so it is perhaps the Younger Dryas article that it is incorrect, rather than this one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That may be so. I propose that whatever explanation(s) are considered mainstream be discussed and documented on the Younger Dryas talk page, and not on this one to avoid conflicting assumptions as currently exists. This talk page should remained focused on YDIH, for which IMO there is (and has been) a lack of consensus (putting it politely) whether YDIH is valid, let alone a viable candidate to be mainstream. I posted a similar version of this topic on the Younger Dryas talk page. I suggest that you post your comment (identifying the location as the end of section 2 of this 75 page paper!) on the Younger Dryas talk page in response to my creation of the same topic there to solicit comments from editors who specifically have debated what are the mainstream explanation(s). Dmcdysan (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dmcdysan 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 need to find time to add the fact about the new journal. Doug Weller  talk 14:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller I don't understand your response in the context of this topic. If you meant your response to be a reply to "Issues with Summary First Paragraph" then the mention of Graham Hancock was in the title of the Boslough 2023 citation from skeptic magazine. I did not use it.
 * I am also unclear as to the context of your last two statements. Please clarify. Dmcdysan (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No . You used Hancock as a source. I took it out and you replaced it. Do you not understand what reliably published means? Go to RSN if you think it’s reliable. Doug Weller  talk 18:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * After I replied, I looked at the history and saw your undo and believe I now understand the context. If you had included a diff in your initial comment I would have understood the context. I created a new topic and believe some text you deleted was from Boslough, a reliable source. Please respond to that new topic and not this one. Thank you! Dmcdysan (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hemiauchenia, Figure 1 of Boslough 2023 Skeptic Magazine Article and the associated text contradicts the meltwater hypothesis and states "There is no evidence that the world’s oceans rose dramatically in a series of deluges during the Younger Dryas. "
 * This image is on Wikimedia commons . As stated above, I recommend that this could be on the Younger Dryas site and not here. I may post this comment there. That article could use some more graphics and higher level explanations. Dmcdysan (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Potential response to Talk page banner requesting maps
In response to the banner, "It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality." Figure 2 of the Boslough 2023 Skeptic Magazine article and a summary of the associated description could help address this issue. The "Hypothetical impact markers" section could be a good place. to insert this.

The map is at this NASA site In at least some instances in my experience, NASA images are not copyrighted and can be used without obtaining permission. I leave it to Wikipedia copyright experts to determine whether this is true in this case. If not, it may be worthwhile requesting usage from NASA.

At a high-level. the point is that fireballs (evidence of comets) occur all around the world and that at any particular location and sedimentary layer there may be evidence of extraterrestrial markers.

This may also help address the main page issue of "this article may be too technical for most readers to understand.  (October 2022)"

I could create a draft and post it in this topic if others think this might be useful. Dmcdysan (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Diannaa, the proposed usage of an image from the site https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/fireballs/  has image use policy . I interpret that such usage means it could be uploaded to Wikimedia commons and used in this article. Can you confirm or correct my understanding? Thank you. Dmcdysan (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks ok to use. Tag it as . Upload to Commons, in SVG format — Diannaa (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Comet Research Group (CRG)
Regarding Doug Weller's undo, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis&curid=11338425&diff=1206495553&oldid=1205998270

for the reason "Promotional, this is a fringe group and this is not appropriate here"

My original change was because "the article Article didn’t describe CRG, that does have a web page that uses Google Scholar enabling wikipedia readers interested in reading some papers cited in article (both for and against)." was not intended to be promotional, just to indicate that it is a good source for Wikipedia readers to view interesting papers avoiding copyright restrictions and not pay for journal articles.

The CRG section appears to have been moved from a separate article and the placement in this article is not a good flow. In my opinion would be better placed in the History section where there are already several mentions of CRG. There are several links in the History section to the old CRG article, which now links back to this article - so some other definition is necessary.

I added back in the link to the Wikidata link for CRG with establishment in 2016 and not a link to the (inactive?) CRG site. In order to criticize something, it should first be defined. Wikidata seemed the most neutral reliable source.

Thoughts from others? Dmcdysan (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:RSP: Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, so I've deleted it. I should have thought of that first. Doug Weller  talk 09:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. In this diff [] I added and edited a further summary from [Boslough March 2023]. Now CRG has a definition, but the usage is now inconsistent with the mentions of CRG in the History section since the author lists of the cited papers have some overlap, but are not the same. Recommend only keeping this one instance of CRG in the article in the History section since the CRG website was created in 2016 there has been no new press releases and the list of Publications only goes to 2018. Using CRG more than this would be in conflict with  comment in the first post on this topic "Promotional, this is a fringe group and this is not appropriate here." Dmcdysan (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Comet Research Group and its connection to Hopewell and Tall el-Hammam claims is relevant because the CRG funded the Tall el-Hammam research, and the Bunch et al (2021) paper was authored by most of the same people who wrote most of the YDIH papers. Allen West, the leader of the CRG, was the correspondence author and used the CRG as his affiliation and email address. These claims of airbursts invoke the group's same understanding of comets, cosmic airbursts, and the coherent catastrophist ideas of Napier, and cites the YDIH papers for this understanding. I don't see how any discussion of the CRG is complete without including their Hopewell and Tall el-Hammam papers. Proxy data (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Proxy data, this is the diff of your reverts the changes I made because the cited references were not in the YD timeframe, ,
 * This is text you added ]
 * I came across this article about 2 weeks ago and wondered why the CRG section was first in the article. As described above, the article has no definition for the CRG (and my attempts to do this were reverted as described above). In particular, I understand that the CRG website cannot be used as a reliable source.
 * Your comment that Allen West gives the CRG as his affiliation is helpful.
 * Please see this Talk page topic: Allen West and the CRG. I looked over your contributions and believe your background and experience would be helpful there.
 * @Jps posted on the topic Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis/Archive 4 that consensus was to merge, but was "now having a hard time seeing how to execute the merge. Consensus can change, and maybe it should."
 * My understanding of Wikipedia guidelines is that If consensus is that the CRG is not a reliable source, then there should not be a section dedicated to it in the article.
 * My edits were an attempt to show how some content would merge (and no longer be relevant to the article's topic and hence should be deleted since they are not in the YD timeframe).
 * IMHO, the CRG should have a paragraph in the History section with a few citations by a third party source, for example, Rex Dalton as mentioned in the Allen West and the CRG topic.  Dmcdysan (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This diff shows the changes that I made to the CRG section today in an attempt to address the above issues. Also, I corrected the Boslough citation from Sodom to YDIH. The sentence where I added Citation Needed template is very similar to that in the summary (which has 3 citations). I believe the issues stated there and in the last sentence are already covered in the History section.
 * Comments? Dmcdysan (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

2013 National Geographic Article - Quotes from Walter Broecker
Found Sept 2013 National geographic article by Robert Kunzig, Did a Comet Really Kill the Mammoths 12,900 Years Ago?

Some interesting quotes. from renowned climate scientist Wallace Smith Broecker that could be useful in this article:

"Most people were trying to disprove this," said Wallace Broecker, a geochemist and climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. "Now they're going to have to realize there's some truth to it"

""The idea is that the system is drifting toward instability, but can't quite make it," Broecker said. "Then an impact comes along and it's like a knockout punch."

Researchers are only beginning, Broecker added, "to figure out what an impact did or didn't do. It's going to take a lot of people a lot of time."

My usual questions: in the context of YDIH is National Geographic a reliable source? Is Robert Kunzig a reliable source? Is this article considered a third-party, independent source as defined in Wikipedia:Fringe theories Independent sources guideline. Dmcdysan (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Allen West and the CRG
West is a director and co-founder of the CRG. See these articles."It’s Comets!" and following sections. . Science Integrity which says "The Comet Research Group is linked to the Rising Light Group, a 501(c)3, tax-exempt charitable organization with a clear Christian and biblical agenda, registered in Allen West’s name." and other interesting facts about some other authors. which points out that "West is Allen Whitt — who, in 2002, was fined by California and convicted for masquerading as a state-licensed geologist when he charged small-town officials fat fees for water studies. After completing probation in 2003 in San Bernardino County, he began work on the comet theory, legally adopting his new name in 2006 as he promoted it in a popular book. Only when questioned by this reporter last year did his co-authors learn his original identity and legal history. Since then, they have not disclosed it to the scientific community." "West is at the nexus of almost all the evidence for the original comet claims. His fieldwork is described in the 2006 book he authored with Firestone, The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes.' and more. \ West still claims to have a PhD but will only say  "I do have a doctorate in philosophy from a Bible college in Nebraska." If it's a valid degree,  ie from a properly accredited institution, why not name it? I can find no Bible colleges in Nebraska even offering a relevant PhD.  Doug Weller  talk 09:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller thank you for the clarification. So for (at least) these reasons the consensus of the editors active on this article Allen West is not a reliable source. Is my understanding correct?
 * Is my understanding from Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis/Archive 4 is that the CRG is unreliable since (at least) Allen West is/was an officer and/or member of the CRG correct? It also appears that any authors associated with pseudoscience (e.g., Young Earth Creationism (YEC)) are not reliable How authors who are listed on the CRG website as "Scientists and Members" was also discussed there. @Aluxsom posted the  question was posed as to whether any paper where West (or Howard) was a co-author, or any paper associated with the CRG was also unreliable (and/or a fringe theory) and there was discussion about removing a number of references. Not sure if this has been done, and if it were done that would be most helpful to editors (and readers). Other authors (e.g., Powell) were discussed, but I did not see a consensus that his papers should be removed.
 * Would it be appropriate to post this thread to the reliable sources noticeboard (rsn)? Therefore, if another editor searches for "Allen West" or "Cloud Research Group" or "CRG" in the archives there, then they would then be pointed to this thread, the links provided and this discussion would be on record there. Doug, if you agree, could I ask you to do this? Dmcdysan (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller, looking through Archive 4 I found this diff tagged as "Allen West has no credibilty." So, resolving the Adam West as a reliable source issue would be the basis of removing this banner? I mispelled @Aluxosm above who was the creator of Wikidata queries in the Archive 4 discussion.  Dmcdysan (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dmcdysan Yes. No relevant qualifications, won’t even disclose the Bible college he went to. Doug Weller  talk 21:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller   is an interesting reference by Rex Dalton from the publisher PacificStandard, which appears to be a reliable source. I searched on these in WP:RSN, which returned no results. An earlier work by Dalton is already cited in the article. These sources appear to also meet the WK:INDEPENDENT guidelines of being independent as well as a reliable third party source. According to WP:FRIND independent, reliable sources are the best to use. Does anyone disagree with these assertions? Dmcdysan (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dmcdysan Looks good to me. Doug Weller  talk 20:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller, looking into this article further I found a few issues. First, the article states "REX DALTON: UPDATED:JUN 14, 2017 ORIGINAL:MAY 14, 2011." I could not find a reliably sourced 2011 version, I found a blog post that posted the 2011 version but I think doing a comparison would not be allowed by Wikipedia guidelines. Also, there is no list of references (As Dalton did when at Nature, for example Blast in the Past? already cited in the article). Finally, some of the URLs to important references are stale. Despite these issues, I believe there is some good information here, in particular quotes from notable parties in the YDIH debate. Does anyone object to using this according to Wikipedia:Fringe theories Independent sources guidelines? Dmcdysan (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sweatman as Reliable source
Regarding the summary and citation of Sweatman's 2021 paper I reverted the undo of @Hypnôs shown in this diff  with the following comment: "In my update I mentioned looking at Archive 4. I will create a new talk page on the topic of "Sweatman as Reliable source" to discuss. Thanks." I propose that we use the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to address these actions.

Here is a more specific link to to that topic: Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis/Archive 4

There was much debate there, so please review that before commenting here to not repeat similar arguments. I did not see a consensus that Sweatman was not a reliable source and this is why I posted a citation to the article published in a reliable source.

I am new to this topic and when @Doug Weller undid some of my posts regarding Graham Hancock and Comet Research Group, he advised me to look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (rsn) and post something if I disagreed. There one can search the archives. When I searched there I found three instances of discussion and the following reached consensus was that "Graham Hancock" was not a reliable source: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 354. This topic has a link to a blacklist that doesn't work on my browsers. I recalling a page where pseudoscientists authors were listed, but I can't find it now.

I also searched on "Comet Research Group" and "CRG" and found no entries. I just searched on "Sweatman" and "Allen West" and found no entries. As I understand Doug's guidance that if an editor believes a source to not comply with Reliable sources guidelines, then the topic should be posted to WP:RSN where it can be discussed with Wikipedia reliable source experts. Doug is busy and I hope he can respond to confirm and/or correct my above description of the process. Dmcdysan (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * We still have Talk:Comet Research Group - you need to search Wikipedia for pages mentioning him (not articles). And Talk:Göbekli Tepe plus an archive at . This PubPeer commen. and . More at .  Doug Weller  talk 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller thank you for the pointers. I will look at them, but trust they will have statements related to Sweatman as an unreliable source.
 * I have been active on Wikipedia only 2 years and have only had two reliable source discussions with an individual editor and I read the WP:RS policies only in that limited context. I know that this is no excuse and apologize for bringing up a topic that has already reached consensus amongst the editors for this article.
 * Would it be appropriate to post this thread to the reliable sources noticeboard (rsn)? Therefore, if another editor searches for "Sweatman" in the archives there, then they would then be pointed to this thread, the links that you have provided and this discussion would be on record there. Doug, if you agree, could I ask you to do this? Dmcdysan (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dmcdysan I'm exhausted. 81, Parkinson's, chemotherapy (palliative). Today I've done about as much as I can do. Don't post this thread, post your question and any reason you have that Sweatman might be reliable. You can link to this talk page.  Doug Weller  talk 17:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller I am sorry to hear that. Thank you for efforts to clarify these points for me. I will research this more and post to rsn linking to this talk page for the purpose of having it on record so that if another editor searches the archive they will find that link. Dmcdysan (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey there.
 * Your addition was the bold part of WP:BRD, mine was the revert, now we discuss the addition before it is potentially reinstated.
 * Doug already addressed the reliability issue. As the discussion you linked states, Sweatman is linked to the CRG, hence he is not independent from the topic. Hypnôs (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hypnôs thank you for clarifying your viewpoint on where we are in the BRD process, which aligns with my understanding. I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing and have used the BRD process to successfully achieve resolution twice and hope that occurs here as well. I am trying to improve the article and inserted the Sweatman reference as a (candidate) secondary source to address the banner stating that this article relies on too many primary sources. Can you point me to some Wikipedia guideline that I can read which relates to linkage to something (e.g., CRG) that has certain aspects (unreliability, pseudoscience?) and how in order to be a candidate source the author must be independent? I am trying to understand how this differs from reliability. Dmcdysan (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE might help. Or again, RSN.  Doug Weller  talk 17:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller, again thank you for pointing me to the appropriate Wikipedia reference.
 * Fringe theories answers this for me. Association with a fringe group is part of this, and there may some disagreement in the links you provided and COI for one commenter. Another condition for the Sweatman citation to be considered independent is that it has been noticed and given proper context within third-party, independent sources. AFAIK, this has not occurred. Given the above, my opinion is that the Sweatman citation is not an independent source. Dmcdysan (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hypnôs tyring to clarify your statement in this reply. I interpret WP:FRINGE criteria for an independent source as further detailed in Independent sources in particular WP:IIS that neither the Sweatman 2021 paper, nor comments from Jorgensen nor a response from Sweatman  are independent (i.e.., lack of a third party). . This lack of independence criterion may apply to other citations on this site, where it appears that one set of authors have published papers since around 2007 asserting YDIH while another set of authors have refuted it.
 * As I understand Fringe theories if a source is determined not reliable, then independence is irrelevant.
 * Is there a source that is considered "third party" that has been identified? Some of the work mining Wikidata by User:Aluxosm in the Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis may be helpful in determining what reliable sources are independent.
 * I am interested in trying to improve the article, but am not clear on what sources I can cite that is reliable AND independent. If I have misinterpreted the above guidelines, then please comment.
 * Thank you Dmcdysan (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I received a message on my talk page User talk:Dmcdysan from @Diannaa that my post was removed from the history of this article because "t appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder." You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words."  I hope that my quoting that editor is not another violation, and if so please point it out to me. In my experience with other publications (e.g., IEE) a quote was acceptable without seeking copyright permission as long as attribution was given. It appears the Wikipedia policy differs. I responded that I would not do this again. Dmcdysan (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a quotation because there were no quotation marks or anything to indicate that this was not prose that youy had written yourself. You can see for yourself by visiting the CopyPatrol report and clicking on the iThenticate link. — Diannaa (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Diannaa, I thought that I had put in quotation marks but couldn't retrieve my post - I trust your statement. Good to know that a direct quote can be used in Wikipedia as long as quotation marks are used. Dmcdysan (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Short quotations are allowed, but only when there's no alternative. It's very much preferable that you should write ytour own content. — Diannaa (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears that have been searching on WP:RSN and need to also search on WP:FTN., which returns the following for a search on "Sweatman"
 * May 2017 Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 56
 * Jan 2022 Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 84
 * Nov 2022 Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 89
 * Note that Sweatman has published a number of articles across a range of subjects: Does the consensus that an author is not a reliable source in one context imply unreliability in all other contexts? If only in a related context, then how is consensus reached that it is related? Dmcdysan (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it;s appropriate to present Sweatman's "review" of the YDIH as a neutral, impartial assessment of the validity of the claims as Sweatman is very much an advocate of the hypothesis and has advocated other theories related to the Last Glacial Period that have not gained wide acceptace among scholars. That said, I do think it can be used sparingly to present the YDIH advocate viewpoint. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hemiauchenia, I recall seeing several articles that claim to be independent (of YDIH either pro or con) that are in fact not. From the discussion in Archive 4 there is also a potential association with usage of CRG website material. Sweatman is definitely not a third-party, and if his paper is deemed not reliable, then I don't want to spend time reading it. I believe it is a secondary source in that there a no co-authors from the 2007 initial paper and the first rebuttal in 2008. I'll wait to see if others respond.
 * I came here looking for information on YDIH and found some answers in Late Pleistocene extinctions where you are listed as a significant contributor. Can you provide some background on the banner "This page may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints?" I have been reading Powell 2022 (I believe it has not (yet) been deemed unreliable), the Prates paper is cited there and I plan to add a summary sentence to the Late Pleistocene extinctions article, South America section. Dmcdysan (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't add the banner to that article, and the article has been substantially rewritten since the banner was added, I think it should probably be removed. Powell is another advocate of the hypothesis. It's okay to use him (sparingly) for the pro impact viewpoint, but otherwise I would be cautious about citing him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hemiauchenia, I agree that Sweatman is a YDIH proponent (equivalent to CRG?) and not independent as defined WP:FRIND (of YDIH either pro or con), as also stated in other references that claim to be "independent," which I can identify from the article. BTW, I have seen a number of editors using the phrase "not independent of the CRG" on the Talk page for this topic  as a basis for inductive reasoning to state that a source is unreliable (e.g., Sweatman).  I don't believe such reasoning is in line with WP:FRIND. Comments? Dmcdysan (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hemiauchenia, regarding " Sweatman's "review" [Sweatman 2021] "can be used sparingly to present the YDIH advocate viewpoint," I searched on [Holliday 2023] and found "Sweatman" mentioned 230 times.
 * Martin Sweatman appears to be a busy fellow, for example see draft responses to [Holliday 2023] on his blogspot below (Note, for discussion on talk page only, not proposed for inclusion in this article)
 * January 29, 2024 Holliday et al.'s Gish Gallop: Summary
 * February 18, 2024  Holliday et al.'s Gish gallop: Introduction
 * I didn't know what Gish gallop meant, but provided a wiki link (Wikipedia so often a good reliable source of information, you gotta love it!)
 * Sweatman may get this published in a reliable source,and [Holliday 2023] may not be the final word in this ongoing debate, for example, see the topic NYTimes Magazine piece that shows a gifted article added by jps.
 * I believe that usage should be driven by merit and not preconditioned. Sweatman may be a researcher that was not on the scene in 2007 when YDIH began. Powell may also be in this category. Comments? Dmcdysan (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Additional reliable sources - Mahaney YDIH paper summaries, citations
William C. Mahaney is not mentioned in the article as of 7 Mar 2024. I believe (at least) the following citations are relevant.

Sept 2022 Mahaney et al, Late Pleistocene Glacial-Paleosol-cosmic record of the Viso Massif—France and Italy: New evidence in support of the Younger Dryas boundary (12.8 ka)

January 2023 Mahaney The Younger Dryas Boundary (YDB): terrestrial, cosmic, or both?

Search on [Holliday 2023] shows Mahaney mentioned 33 times, mostly in conjunction with black mats interpretation.

A highly cited source in Geology, Geomorphology and Paleoclimatology according to Research Gate, William C. Mahaney. I believe the publisher of the above are also reliable sources. I believe that Mahaney is a good secondary source. Any disagreement?

Mahaney may not qualify as a third party since he was a co-author in a 2018 paper with over 30 other authors (Wikipedia automatic citation supports a maximum of 15), some identified elsewhere in this article as YDIH proponents: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322879765_Extraordinary_Biomass-Burning_Episode_and_Impact_Winter_Triggered_by_the_Younger_Dryas_Cosmic_Impact_12800_Years_Ago_2_Lake_Marine_and_Terrestrial_Sediments Extraordinary Biomass-Burning Episode and Impact Winter Triggered by the Younger Dryas Cosmic Impact ∼12,800 Years Ago. 2. Lake, Marine, and Terrestrial Sediments]

Adding a link to the 2007 Rex Dalton Blast in the past? Nature article could help address the banner comment "This article may be too technical for most readers to understand." The photographs and description there helped me and could help readers better visualize what a "black mat" is.

Does anyone object to addition of a brief summary at the end of the "Black mats" section, where all of the citations are older except for the simulation by Jorgensen in 2020, which has been called into question since it is only a simulation and not a field measurement. Not clear if all the references given in the 7 Mar 2024 version of that section are relevant, many appear to be a primary source, and unclear if the summaries are verifiable. Suggest replacement with "black mats" section opponents view with a summary of secondary source [Hollliday 2023]   Could help address issue of usage of too many primary sources. Suggest there be a banner added at beginning of the article stating this. I'll look into how to do this unless someone objects.

Comments? Dmcdysan (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles for YDIH related people
While working on the references for this article I've regularly found myself referring to a list that I generated with a Wikidata query, so I thought I'd add it here for easier access. Hopefully others find it useful too; some of these articles could really use some help! Feel free to update the work count or add any notes as things progress. Aluxosm (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg
 * Thanks, this list is very useful. Clearly this topic has been misrepresented as fringe, probably because certain fringe theorists have used it to support their fring-ier theories. However, the current state of research and review very clearly suggests
 * A) this hypothesis is being taken seriously by geologists, archeologists, and archaeomythologists,
 * B) there is physical stratigraphic evidence for the hypothesis, and no consensus interpretation for dismissing this evidence or finding an alternate interpretation has been emerged or been reached.
 * C) there is a great deal of bad-faith argumentation from moral and political crusaders who think they're fighting disinformation just because this hypothesis was featured on certain podcasts. No, this hypothesis is, by itself, a valid scientific hypothesis. 108.81.205.36 (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Having recently started reading about YDIH agree that this is a very useful list.
 * What does the column "Work count" mean?
 * Found a list of Opponent publications at Boslough.US [] and a list of opponent and proponent publications at CRG [] that appears to only go to 2018 that I will compare to this list as I review the article. Dmcdysan (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see Christopher R. Moore" on the Proponents list. Here is a December 2023 paper for authors in the Proponents list. (There are also earlier papers by C.R. Moore).
 * Is the 2022 July 2023 paper for Holliday et al authors in the Opponents list? Dmcdysan (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aluxosm, I proposed some new sources in Additional reliable sources - Mahaney YDIH paper summaries, citations. I don't see Mahaney in the list of Proponents. I also don't see Allen West in the list of proponents either. Looking through posts on this Talk page I did not find consensus in Archive 4 Undue use of Comet Group material, etc. declaring Allen West as an unreliable source in all articles There you created the query: YDIH related scholarly articles co-authored by Allen West  Some publishers, e.g., "Scientific Reports" are questionable and "Airbursts and Cratering Impacts" is too new to yet have a reputation, but there are still a number publications that appear reliable. I think the Mahaney one is unassailable. Comments? Dmcdysan (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

NYTimes Magazine piece
Potentially a useful source. Note that the link is to the gift article. jps (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @ජපස, interesting article. Certainly gives a different perspective based upon quotes from AW and other participants, such as MB in the YDIH debate.
 * My usual questions, in the context of YDIH is The New York Times a reliable source? Is Zach St. George a reliable source? Considered a third party?  Dmcdysan (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's always contextual. To the extent that the NYTimes has identified the marginalization and suspicious characteristics of the CRG and personalities involved, it's as good a source as any other. The piece is not intended to be an evaluation of the ideas on their merits, and so cannot be used for that purpose. But we could use it as a source for a section on something like "Fringe marginalization and popular advocacy" with attendant discussion of how the group and its advocacy for this idea ended up gaining support from the likes of creationists, Graham Hancock, and Joe Rogan. jps (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @ජපස, possibly a one or two sentence mention in the existing In popular culture section that summarized the conclusion paragraph of this article
 * "In a sense, what West and his collaborators think now hardly matters. The hypothesis has already penetrated deeply, and perhaps indelibly, into the public imagination, seemingly on its way to becoming less a matter of truth than a matter of personal and group identity. Nobody I spoke with seemed to think it would go away soon, if ever. West, though, took a measured view. “All we can say is this is a hypothesis,” he said. “It’s still a debate. We may be wrong; we may be right. But only time will tell.”
 * I already added text referring to Hancock's Netflix series and Boslough's Skeptic magazine critique there, so I think that mention in this article is already covered. Joe Rogan is already mentioned in the In popular culture section, but it is not clear if the podcasts mentioned in the NYTimes article is a verifiable, reliable source.
 * Comments? Dmcdysan (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the spirituality, religion, and creationism connections probably could use some coverage. jps (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing and as I understand the process, go ahead and make the changes you see as appropriate. I suggest keeping "In popular culture" section for now instead of creating a new section. You may want to embellish the Boslough critique on the Hancock Netflix Apocalypse series (e.g., speculation of YDIH as cause for biblical flood). Also suggest you look at, Holliday 2023, Sec 15 (I believe considered a reliable source) and ensure that these instances are mentioned in this section (I believe that some are). Dmcdysan (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)