71.209.176.252

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (71.209.176.252) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! Aluxosm (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Hello, I'm Sea Cow. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sea Cow (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi, the edits I made today for which I did not provide an additional source were based on the source that was already cited. I'd be happy to go through my edits, one-by-one with you, and point to within the specific source cited for the basis for the edits. 71.209.176.252 (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

A few notes:

• Special:Diff/1065880998 - A good, constructive edit
• Special:Diff/1065883383 - This is the opposite of what the paper says
• Special:Diff/1065884117 - The "YDIH proponents" were not the only ones to suggest this link. The first sentence says that it's undated
• Special:Diff/1065887777 - This should be included
• Special:Diff/1065890139 - Where is your source saying that this study was "conceived" by the CRG? All of this is already prefaced with "reported", we don't need to add "they interpret" before every sentence. "working with the proponents of the YDIH" & "based on their Bayesian age model" is this really necessary?
• Special:Diff/1065895310 - Same as the last one. Think of it this way: could we say the same in reverse? All of the opponent studies have been questioned, does this mean that we should add "they claimed", "they believe", "working with opponents" to every statement by them?
• Special:Diff/1065897658 - "various institutions" this is more correct and should be kept. "inferred from a Bayesian model using": this could be said for most modern scientific articles, is it really necessary? "very modest": this is opposite to what the source says.
• Special:Diff/1065898883 - Again, just think of the opposite case, do we really want to bloat the article like this? Do you have a source saying that every one of the authors of this paper is a member of the CRG? "the evidence" to "their evidence": same same, this sentence talks about their study. "their impact hypothesis": it's not "theirs", what about all of the other scientists investigating the hypothesis?
• Special:Diff/1065902414 - Please add sources that confirm the use of the term pseudo
• Special:Diff/1065903289 - Where is the source that says that bibliography was the only thing Sweatman used?

Aluxosm (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. I have a few responses:

• Special:Diff/1065883383 The paper does not say this in words but the graph shows that the Pt anomaly is much weaker than the one shown in the Greenland Ice Core by Pateav et al. Also age dates in Greenland are based on counting annual deposition layers and much more precise than dates based on Bayesian inference from multiple RC dates in sediment. As a matter of neutral POV, I strongly that this Wikipedia article not to state as a fact that the Pt anomaly reported by this team "is linked to the Greenland Pt anomaly". That needs to be attributed to authors of paper. 71.209.176.252 (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Special:Diff/1065884117 I think that if we say "researchers" we should cite a source. I think the first person to suggest the link was Paul Voosen in announcement in Science so maybe "researchers" can be changed to "journalists" with a citation to that. I also think it is important not to refer to an unconfirmed crater as an "impact crater" because we don't know. There are criteria for defining impact craters. It should be called "possible impact crater" for reasons given here: List of possible impact structures on Earth 71.209.176.252 (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We do cite a source. Please read the whole article (both the Wiki and Voosen's). There is a section titled "Impact crater in Greenland" that already cites the Voosen article: Kurt Kjær, the lead author of the paper, mentioned that the team had considered a link to the Younger Dryas impact but dropped the idea in the final paper because of the controversy around the hypothesis. It was certainly not just journalists that proposed this, nor was it just "YDIH proponents". I have fixed the "possible impact crater" thing though 👌. Aluxosm (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1065890139 I think it is absolutely required, in the interest of neutrality, to state that these are claims made by the authors. Stating them as facts puts Wikipedia in the position of claiming to know the truth rather than writing what people say, because many of these statements are in dispute. So yes it's necessary to say it everywhere unless the entire discussion is prefaced with something like: the following are interpretations of the authors. 71.209.176.252 (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Special:Diff/1065895310 My answer is the same. yes, we should always make it clear, in the interest of neutrality, that any claims made by authors that are in dispute should be attributed to the authors and not stated by Wikipedia as a fact. 71.209.176.252 (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Special:Diff/1065897658 Wikipedia simply cannot arbitrate a contentious matter in favor of either side. We should not be the ones stating that their claimed age is correct, when it is disputed. The only way around it is to explicitly state that this is what the authors claim, and to do it in a fair and neutral way that applies equally to both sides of the disagreement. "very modest" is what the opponents say, so to be fair in needs to be reported as "very modest" when discussing the opponent's positions. 71.209.176.252 (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Special:Diff/1065898883 Again, to be neutral it has to be stated as author's opinions because the facts are in dispute. It might be less cumbersome to re-write as a point-counterpoint for every claim. Without stating explicitly that these are opinions, Wikipedia is taking a position. I also think that it's important to point out which papers are written by the Comet Research Group, which were the authors of the original Firestone et al (2007) paper that defined the YDIH. So it is, in fact when citing papers by these authors, it is "their hypothesis". 71.209.176.252 (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Special:Diff/1065902414 It is Pseudoarchaeology by the Wikipedia definition. 71.209.176.252 (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Special:Diff/1065903289 Acknowledgment: "Acknowledgements: I am grateful ..to Marc Young and George Howard for their assistance with the literature search." I don't think it should say "only thing Sweatman used, but should acknowledge that Sweatman used a source provided by the Comet Research Group. 71.209.176.252 (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to address these individually, but before I get to it please read through WP:original Research and WP:neutral point of view. It's important to note that the section you are mostly taking issue with contains statements about the sources themselves. We are just documenting the studies, not using them to say that something definitely happened. Also, again, please look at this from the other way around; most of the opponent studies have been refuted, it doesn't mean that we should go around prefacing every statement by them with: "this is just their opinion". Thank you for working through this, you have had some good points. Aluxosm (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

---