Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New Review paper of Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

There is a new review paper about the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis that has been recently published. It is:

Boslough, M, K Nicoll, V Holliday, TL Daulton, D Meltzer, N Pinter, AC Scott, T Surovell, P Claeys, J. Gill, F. Paquay, J. Marlon, P. Bartlein, C. Whitlock, D. Grayson, and AJT Jull (2012) Arguments and Evidence Against a Younger Dryas Impact Event. In L Giosan and others, eds., pp. 13-26, Climates, Landscapes, and Civilizations. Geophysical Monograph Series. vol. 198, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., doi:10.1029/2012GM001209.

The content of this paper is discussed in:

Singer, N (2013) Study rebuts hypothesis that comet attacks ended 9,000-year-old Clovis culture. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Rannals, L (2013) Clovis Comet Hypothesis Called 'Bogus' By Credible Scientist. Red Orbit.50.2.6.18 (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional paper published recently: Evidence for deposition of 10 million tonnes of impact spherules across four continents 12,800 y ago Niado (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

New Paper

Michail I. Petaev, Shichun Huang, Stein B. Jacobsen, and Alan Zindler Large Pt anomaly in the Greenland ice core points to a cataclysm at the onset of Younger Dryas PNAS 2013 ; published ahead of print July 22, 2013, doi:10.1073/pnas.1303924110User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

New Results

This is back in the news with Andrew Madden of Oklahoma finding large quantities of n-diamond at the YD Boundary and smaller amounts occasionally in the record, with n-diamond being an easily synthesized hydrogen doped polymorph created above 1000 C by hydroxylated iron and nickel catalysts in the presence of carbon, either from the bolide itself, or in the case of Corossol, the limestone basement rocks. Clearly it's time for somebody to step in and clean up the mess that SkepticalRaptor has made of this page, the YD page, the Lonsdaleite page and the Laacher See Volcano page. I may have missed others. CosmicLifeform (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

misquote and misinterpretation

The corruption of this quote by Haynes as last entered by CosmicLifeform (talk | contribs) at 18:16, 14 April 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis&direction=prev&oldid=487372612

Less than a year later substantial support for the synchronous nature of the black mat was provided by leading Clovis archaeologist, C. Vance Haynes, also in the PNAS. Says Haynes:

Further analysis is in progress and other Clovis sites need independent study and verification of this evidence. Until then I remain skeptical of the ET impact hypothesis as the cause of the YD onset and the megafaunal extinction. However, I reiterate, something major happened at 10,900 B.P. that we have yet to understand.[7]

to this entered by SkepticalRaptor (talk | contribs) at 18:19, 14 April 2012 and still current:

Additional data supporting the synchronous nature of the black mat was published. The authors stated that the data required further analysis, and independent analysis of other Clovis sites for verification of this evidence. The authors stated that they remained skeptical of the bolide impact hypothesis as the cause of the Younger Dryas and the megafaunal extinction. They also concluded that "something major happened at 10,900 BP, approximately 2000 years later than the presumptive impact.[7]

seems to be destructive editing. Not only has the quote been corrupted but it is implied that the calibrated 14C date of 12,900 years before present is different from the uncalibrated 14C date of 10,900 used by Haynes and explained in his cited paper:

Radiocarbon ages for the Younger Dryas period vary depending on the interpretation of the investigators and perhaps geographically (4). Here, I use 10,900 +/- 50 B.P. for the beginning of the Younger Dryas and 9,800 +/- 50 B.P. for the end, essentially as shown in figure 11 of Stuiver et al. (5). (All 14C ages are given in uncalibrated years before 1950.)

Bkobres (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your use of bolding is impressive. However, your trying to synthesize a conclusion based on YOUR (I can use bolding too) interpretation. I note that you have a relatively long history of copyright violations, but that has no relevance here, I presume. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, using your last quote (which we won't, because we write her, not violate copyrights), it just makes the case even worse for the rejected hypothesis. In fact, maybe I'll use it to make my point. LOL. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If the 'editor' SkepticalRaptor does not understand that the uncalibrated date used by Haynes is no different in calender years from the more recently available calibrated 14C date used by many researchers now, this anonymous person should not be allowed to police this particular topic. There is no 2000 year difference implied by Haynes for the onset of the Younger Dryas; in fact the equivalence between calibrated and uncalibrated date is made clear in the first paragraph of the current biased article:

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis or Clovis comet hypothesis was the discredited hypothesized large air burst or earth impact of an object or objects from outer space that initiated the Younger Dryas cold period about 12,900 BP calibrated (10,900 BP uncalibrated) years ago.[1]

Bkobres (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, Bkobres. Anyone can make mistakes, and we do not stop editors from editing because they make mistakes. If we did, we'd probably have no experienced editors at all. Again I'm asking everyone to stop commenting on other editors. And 'policing' is also a personal attack. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been a week since this 'mistake' was initially made and it is still in the article. Now this same person has attributed Holliday and Meltzer (2010) with this observation:

There is also no historical evidence of paleoindian cultures providing descriptions of the impact event, which would have been noticed over a large area of North America.[16]

I doubt that professional anthropologists would make such a assertion even in casual conversation because paleo is by definition prehistoric. I've read this paper along with all the comments and don't recall any claim of this nature so I want to see a page number and quote from the cited article that backs up this addition to the 'article.' Bkobres (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that makes no sense, and can't find it here[1] - the paper was easy to find. Remove it if you can't find it in the source either, I'm not sure why no one else has. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps no one has corrected these errors due to WP:BURNOUT. I seldom engage in editing WP articles anymore because loud and rude seems to rule and it's not worth the time to argue with such people. There was an interesting NPR piece on this problem recently:

http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/mar/09/professor-versus-wikipedia/

Bkobres (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's really quite sad that the potential for Wikipedia to be a reliable source of contemporary information is so often undermined by personalities who feel comfortable editing subjects that they have little comprehension of. The errors introduced by Skeptical Raptor and pointed out above are still part of the article two months later and it seems this 'editor' continues to alter the article in a hard to follow space at a time fashion. The article was in better shape prior to Skeptical Raptor's efforts and would be more accurate if reverted to the last revision before those edits.

This person's failure to understand scientific dating is particularly irksome as the discrepancy between the carbon 14 dating and actual year count during this time period can be considered support for some form of high energy event taking place in the atmosphere. I pointed this out many years ago:

http://web.archive.org/web/19990203235114/http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbay.html

The formal attempt to produce acceptable geophysical evidence of a Younger Dryas impact is still underway and the hypothesis is still viable. It should be kept in mind that there is no incontestable geophysical evidence of the Tunguska impact and had it not been observed and the devastated area found the event would be lost to history. The astronomical model for Earth encountering the debris trail (not tail) of a recently disrupted comet is for multiple Tunguska like impacts occurring over a period of several hours; this could be very disruptive to the biosphere yet not leave a particularly robust geophysical signature.

Bkobres (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Coincidentally, this announcement was just published today: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-06/uoc--sfn061112.php

Bkobres (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The more serious error is the misquote I mentioned initially. Haynes said nothing about something major happening 2000 years after the Younger Dryas began--his actual statement emphasized that something major occurred at the onset of the Younger Dryas.

Bkobres (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it's the beginning of August 2013, the topic is back in the news with more supportive evidence but this glaring case of 'editor' error is still in the article! This WP article is a 'poster child' of what too often happens with subjects involving novel research, particularly if opinionated, non-neutral individuals are allowed to bully and block attempts to produce a fairly balanced account of the topic. Bkobres (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... I rarely edit Wikipedia articles, but have a great deal of interest in the process. Having stumbled upon this page, and the incredible controversies here, I reread the various Wikipedia policies regarding NPOV, original research, primary vs. secondary sources, etc. It is remarkable to me that this particular article has gotten so far afield. Wikipedia is not about "novel research"... it's about building a tertiary source of reliable information. My own summary of the situation: absolutely too much reliance on primary sources. Try this exercise: remove every reference to a primary source, then see if there is still something you can write about which exactly and accurately reflects the various consensus POVs already synthesized in those secondary sources -- not your OWN synthesis, but that of another secondary source author. THAT should be the basis for the article. Does this make sense? This is how I interpret the guidance of NOR, NPOV, and RS. JoGusto (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is an article discussing an original hypothesis supported by original research, by definition it requires primary sources. That is not the problem here. The problem here is that a single aberrant editor accused these authors of fraud and then proceeded to edit a large number of related wiki pages with utter nonsense and false claims in order to express his disbelief of the hypothesis. This is well documented here. If you have something to add, great, but what happened to this page and several other related pages is irrefutable, and until that is resolved nobody will be willing to further edit this page. The controversy is wonderful, but the bias of the editor is clear. CosmicLifeform (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

JoGusto, have you read the entire back and forth of this misquote issue? There is a blatant error in the current article that was introduced by Skeptical Raptor in April of LAST YEAR! This has nothing to do with point of view; it has to do with factual reporting from a referenced source! Bkobres (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that the quotation in dispute is easily verified, I've corrected it to match what's in the 2008 PNAS article. Voronwae (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Allen West legal proceedings

Given the fact that Allen West is the key individual responsible for sample collection and preparation for the pro-impact papers, this factual information about his past is relevant to the acceptance of evidence based on his samples by the mainstream scientific community.

On March 4,2002, Allen Whitt (now known as Allen West) was convicted in the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino of the charge of violation of Business and Professional Code section 17500 (Reference: People of the State of California vs. Allen Whitt, Case No: FVI-012305).

Text of the prosecutor's brief deleted by me per WP:BLP. It would be acceptable to discuss the relevance of RSs that report on the judgment of the court, but the prosecutor's trial rhetoric (as well as the defense's trial rhetoric) is inherently a violation of WP:NPOV, and the prosecution's brief also transgresses BLP.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.186.135 (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This entire section is an asinine attempt to smear one of the principles of the hypothesis, and completely falls flat on its face since an independent group on Oklahoma has QUANTIFIED the occurance of large amounts of cubic nanodiamonds (hydrogen doped n-diamonds) throughout the historical record, independent of sedimentation or fire history, peaked at the Younger Dryas but also randomly spiked in lesser amounts throughout the record. Clearly these proxies are real and are a record of something, and to bring this up merely demeans the discussion since it has been widely demonstrated to be irrelevant to the evidence. It be be extremely helpful if you are considering editing this page post-SkepticalRaptor, that you familiarize yourself with the peer reviewed literature and not just the junk science journalism. They actually brought a psychologist into the project in order to verify the existence of the spherules. Thanks. CosmicLifeform (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Links to actual details of the incident: http://cosmictusk.com/allen-west-defense/ Bkobres (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition to having problems with the claim that ONLY one group has offered proxy evidence for an impact, I also take issue with the claim that the Pt spike paper does not support the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, when in fact a simple reading of the abstract demonstrates otherwise. It may not support a catastrophic multiple impact scenario with volatile carbon based bolides, but it sure indicates that something happened. With the existence of the Corossol crater and other possible impact scenarios this entire discussion is rapidly becoming a moot point. Any attempts to begin editing these pages with that kind of bias will only lead to its further degeneration and divergence from the published hypothesis, evidence and probable causes, even if the hypothesis turns out to be entirely wrong, which is still possible as well. CosmicLifeform (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And one more thing, directed at 71.211.186.135, you are not doing your cause any good running over and complaining to SkepticalRaptor on his talk page. All that does is amplify your biases with respect to this topic and subject. Thanks. CosmicLifeform (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The Corossol crater is rather thin evidence for a terminal Pleistocene impact. Judging from what has been published about it, it has been significantly eroded to the point that the actual crater has been extensively modified, if not largely removed. The degree of modification indicates that it is most likely an exhumed, quite likely glaciated, impact structure that significantly predates the Younger Dryas. The terminal Pleistocene sediments on top of it just dates the latest period of sedimentation on top of its eroded surface and does not date when the structure was created. Any connection between the Corossol crater and any terminal Pleistocene remains undemonstrated and is more wishful thinking then science Paul H. (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless if Corossol is wishful thinking, it's an impact crater large enough to produce a multi-year atmospheric perturbation and satisfies all of the evidence presented thus far in terms of impact proxies, and has a minimum age of 13 Kya. What is NOT THIN evidence is an independent quantifiable and tested result by an independent group of the existence of a nanodiamond spike at 13 Kya that begs investigation, a platinum spike in the ice core that indicates a hypersonic iron differentiated impact somewhere, and a 4 km impact crater upwind of Greenland. You cannot wish this stuff away even if it is all wrong, you need to FALSIFY it. And in addition to that, you have a large unusual feature just south of Lake Nipigon that also begs explanation, even if it involves something as prosaic as a catastrophic discharge of Glacial Lake Agassiz to the east, another rather controversial hypothesis. We already know that any impact onto the ice is going to vaporize a lot of ice (as per my discussion), water and embedded glacial rock, gravel, dust and rock flour, so the metal and silicate spherule detection itself is unremarkable. Two things can do this, an iron hypersonic impact onto ice, water and limestone, and a volatile carbon impact into ice. Both would tend to leave the type of features that have been observed by multiple groups. Skepticism of all of this is great, as long as it doesn't effect the REPORTING of the controversy, which is has with you guys. If you people are having that much problem with this page, then I suggest it be deleted entirely. That should make you happy.

First, the "large unusual feature just south of Lake Nipigon" is a vague circular feature, which is centered around 49˚ 10’ 41” N., 88˚ 43’ 9” W. and is about 25 to 26 km in diameter. Because of the mineral deposits that found in this area, it has been studied by surface mapping and subsurface drilling and coring by both the the Ontario Geological Survey and various mining companies in great detail. As discussed in Preliminary Evaluation of a Proposed “Younger Dryas Impact” Crater and documented in a number of Ontario Geological Survey publications, this vague circular feature is underlain by undeformed, relatively flat-lying sedimentary rocks of the Sibley Group. There is a complete absence of any deformation associated with this feature, that can be attributed to an impact structure. There is more then enough published data, which can be readily found in the peer-reviewed literature, to refute any theory about this feature being an impact structure if people would take the time to look it up and read about it before jumping to conclusions. The feature is a classic example of the mistakes that can be made and the craterwrongs that can be created by people relying solely on surface morphology to identify impact structures.

Finally, in case of the Corossol impact structure, you completely overlook the fact that this impact structure shows clear evidence of having been subject to a significant amount of glacial erosion. Such erosion would argue against it being a terminal Pleistocene impact crater. In addition, the 13 Kya age is a minimum date that corresponds to the point in time when the area within which this structure lies was deglaciated according to the various maps that Arthur S. Dyke and V. K. Prest have published that show the stages in the deglaciation of North America. All the 13 Kya age represents is the point in time that the ice sheet that was scouring this feature melted back far enough so sediments, containing datable materials, could accumulate on it. Based upon morphological evidence, Jacques Locat and others estimated this impact structure to be older than 20 million years old. If so, this makes this impact structure far too old, by at least and likely more than 20 million years, to be associated with an Younger Dryas impact. Go look at:

Locat, J., P. Lajeunesse, G. St-Onge, M. Duchesne, M. D. Higgins, R. Sanfacon, and J. Ortiz, 2012, A morphological analysis for estimating the age of a possible impact structure; the Corossol Structure on the seafloor of the northwestern Gulf of St Lawrence Eastern Canada. Congres Geologique International, Resumes. vol. 34, pp. 3440. Paul H. (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all I think its great we can duke it out in the talk pages without having this crap be edited into the wiki pages. However, I completely fail to see how a crater that old (tens to hundreds of millions of years) sitting on the bottom of the ocean, will not have been filled in with at least some sediment. The bottom of that crater looks clean, which is difficult to reconcile with the claims of this abstract. Secondly, on the Nipigon Embayment feature (Darwin's Valentine) you again completely fail to understand that there was a several kilometer thick ice sheet sitting at this location 13 thousand years ago. Epic fail. You just can't seem to understand the large variety of impact scenarios available on a terrestrial planet with a thick atmosphere and large oceans and ice sheets, with a large variety of impact body compositions, angles of incidence velocities and masses. I can easily disregard anything you say on this subject. We know the Canadian shield features have nothing to do with impacts and everything to do with glacial and proglacial lake discharge and flooding, related specifically to the geometry and evolution of the numerous ice sheets that have waxed and waned there over two and a half million years. This feature is highly anomalous. Something HAS to happen in the ice there to create this, either a repetitive drainage nexus or some kind of flooding event. Unfortunately, an oblique volatile rich carbon based impact onto thick ice still appears to satisfy the constraints and until you falsify that its still on the table, as is Corossol, considering the new nanodiamond results be the Oklahoma group. If you wish to falsify those results as well I would be more than happy to listen to your arguments. In fact, I would be happy if this entire scenario was soundly falsified, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Again, I can only advise you and others that if you are that unhappy with the reporting of this controversy, then DELETE THE PAGE like it never happened. That would be eminently more desirable than incorporating demonstrably false claims or irrelevant claims into it. We all know the page needs to be rewritten. It would be nice if this kind of rabid interest was extended to the Glacial Lake Agassiz Moorhead phase discharge controversy which also appears to be ramping up. We all want resolution of these problems. Throwing out (or in) new hypotheses in science is always welcome to the open minded. There is nothing wrong with being wrong in science. It happens all the time. Thanks. CosmicLifeform (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No smear intended .Just some factual information that may be relevant to reason for skepticism by the mainstream scientific community. This information did not come from either the peer reviewed literature or from science journalism (junk or otherwise). It came directly from publicly available legal docuhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis&action=edit#ments on file with the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino, Victorville District, Case No. FVI012305. Also, sorry for my inexperience at editing. I think I accidentally deleted some comments but I hit undo so they should be back. I don't intend to continue to edit but just wanted to make sure that everyone is aware of all the relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.186.135 (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You have made several UNTRUE anonymously sourced statements on this page already. 1) That all the evidence for an impact comes from a single group, and 2) that the platinum spike paper does not support a YD impact - both demonstrably false statements. We all agree that this page needs to be rewritten. An anonymous biased observer is not the person to do that. CosmicLifeform (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I provided information from three sources, and I gave the names of the sources as well as links and a case number so you can confirm that the quotes are accurate, if you wish. I will repeat them here so you don't have to scroll back and read what you apparently missed: 1) Faye Flam (http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/09/reporters-cheerlead-claim-asteroid-wiped); 2) Nicola Jones (http://www.nature.com/news/evidence-found-for-planet-cooling-asteroid-1.13661); 3) Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California (Reference: People of the State of California vs. Allen Whitt, Case No: FVI-012305). None of the information I provided was anonymously sourced. With regard to your assertion that what I quoted is untrue, you would need to take that up with the science reporters and the CA Attorney General, whose brief was a sworn statement and would subject the AG to a perjury conviction and disbarment if what he said was untrue (as you assert).

Since you bring it up, it is also worth noting another finding that the AG stated under oath: Whitt and his partner, at the time they were charged with fraud, "...were not geophysicists or geologists." This is a direct contradiction of claims made by Allen West (formerly Allen Whitt) and his current partners about his scientific credentials. If you have a verifiable source that contradicts the testimony of the Attorney General, please provide it. The reason that this information is relevant to the subject matter is that a scientist's credibility in the eyes of his peers is critically dependent on the perception that he is honest and forthright in all matters. Being forthcoming about one's educational background and formal training, and making one's cv available, is paramount in the scientific community. This is especially true when they evaluating a hypothesis for which the evidence is so dependent on the work of a single individual.

With regard to your other claims 1) I didn't say all the evidence for an impact comes from a single group. But evidence for "an impact" should not be conflated with evidence for the "YD impact hypothesis". 2) I didn't say the Pt spike paper does not support a YD impact. The authors suggest that the spike is evidence for the impact of an iron meteorite, which contradicts the hypothesis. They very clearly reject the hypothesis in their abstract. If you want to post the entire abstract here for others to read, please do. I am providing these sources for editors of this article to use as they see fit. ----71.211.186.135 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.186.135 (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What you did is make several demonstrably FALSE statements on this talk page, and then tried to back it up with complete cut and paste crap totally unrelated to the evidence. This is SkepticalRaptor all over again. This is not how science works. There is no 'THE HYPOTHESIS'. There are many competing hypotheses that wax and wane with the evidence. Get a clue before you start editing this page because you are digging yourself an anonymous hole that will be filled by those in the know. You are making things up in a manner that reveals your bias in the most glaring and obvious manner. So please get current on the published literature and get yourself a real wiki handle. I'll be here watching. And if you continue to make edits to the page I will be all over it. This sort of nonsense with this page has gone on far enough. Thanks CosmicLifeform (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the question of Allen West's run in with the law there is a full account at the link I provided earlier. However the dialog above suggests that an excerpt needs to appear on this page:

I (George Howard) have spent a month looking into the true story. Here it is:

Allen West was employed 13 years ago as a consultant for a company in California that contracted with several cities for water studies. Geophysicists can work without a license in California under some conditions. He thought they were following the law, but in this case, he needed a license.

That inadvertent mistake led to a misdemeanor and a $4500 fine. The District Attorney acknowledged that there was no intent to defraud and allowed the misdemeanor to be reduced to a simple infraction that was subsequently removed from his record. Allen West’s record in the State of California is completely clean, and he has no “criminal record,” contrary to the claim by Rex Dalton in his article (see 1).

Dalton disparaged the quality of the work in question despite the fact that he is aware that West’s California geophysical work continues to be referred to positively in 10 reports by four Federal and State governmental agencies, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the California Department of Water Resources, and the California Energy Commission (see 2).

In 2005, seven years after Allen completed that work, he retired and contracted to write the Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes. Preferring privacy, he chose the pseudonym “West” instead of his given name “Whitt,” and filed the name with the State of Arizona as a legal tradename under the designation “author” (see 3). He continued to use the new name in his scientific career and changed his name legally, meaning it is not an “alias” as erroneously reported by Dalton. People often change their names for various reasons, as for example, Isaac Asimov, who changed his name from Ozimov — nobody accused Asimov of deception.

Allen’s mistake 13 years ago was failing to navigate California’s “guild” bureaucracy. It has no bearing on the excellent science that he has done, as monitored by scores of collaborators. Aspersions by Rex Dalton that Allen West somehow falsified evidence of magnetic spherules, nanodiamonds, and other impact markers are preposterous considering the impossibility of generating these materials in one’s basement.

All of the YD impact data that Allen has produced have been independently verified by other researchers. Indeed, considerable new evidence will soon be published. Critics who failed to verify some aspects of the work should be advised that the “absence of evidence is not the evidence of its absence.”

REFERENCES:

(1) Link to dismissal of case.

(2) Links to reports citing West’s work in California. Search for “Whitt.”

a) U.S. Geologic Survey

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5267/sir2004-5267.pdf

b) U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Hi-Desert Water District: http://margosturges.com/californiadroughtupdate.html

c) Calif. Dept. of Water Resources:

http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/7-10.pdf

http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/7-12.pdf

http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/7-62.pdf

d) California Energy Commission for solar power plant installations:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/genesis_solar/documents/2009-11-13_Data_Requests_Set_1A_1-227_TN-54067.pdf

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/solar_millennium_palen/documents/2009-12-7_Data_Requests_Set_1_TN-54349.pdf

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/genesis_solar/documents/2010-06-25_Staffs_Prehearing_Conference_Statement_TN-57332.PDF

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/genesis_solar/documents/2010-06-29_Staffs_Rebuttal_Testimony_TN-57363.PDF

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/genesis_solar/documents/staff_assessment/04_CEC-700-2010-006_SectC5-C9.pdf

(3) State of Arizona tradename filing for name change as “author.” June 3rd, 2011 | Category: Uncategorized

Bkobres (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

George Howard and the Cosmic Tusk

George Howard and his blog, the Cosmic Tusk, were quoted by Bkobres as sources. I would like to provide evidence that Mr. Howard is neither an expert nor an unbiased source of information about science. He neither a scientist nor a journalist. According to his "about" page, his educational background consists of a BA in Political Science and his professional experience includes six years as a staffer for the late Senator Jesse Helmes (R-NC) promoting conservative political causes. This was at a time when Sen. Helmes was a leading anti-science voice, attacking mainstream scientists who had proven that tobacco causes cancer. Mr. Howard also provides no information to suggest that he has any training or experience in law.

By contrast, the sources I quoted are: 1) Bill Lockyer, the Attorney General of California, whose statements were made under oath. Affidavits filed by AGs are heavily researched and if found to contain errors must be rescinded. 2) Faye Flam, a professional journalist who has a geophysics degree from the California Institute of Technology. She was writing for an institutional blog of one of the world's most prestigious institutions, MIT, which is heavily fact checked. 3) Nicola Jones, a professional journalist with a degree in chemistry and oceanography, and a masters degree in journalism. She was writing for the world's most prestigious science journal, Nature, which is also heavily fact checked.

Mr. Howard maintains a personal hobby blog that is not subject to any oversight or fact-checking. He often makes claims without evidence. It is primarily a forum for unprovoked ad hominem attacks on mainstream scientists who have expressed skepticism about the YD impact hypothesis, or published evidence that contradicts it. He often refers to those scientists with disrespectful and disparaging nicknames. It is also noteworthy that one of the blogs on the Cosmic Tusk's blogroll list of "Other Great Blogs" is "Watts Up With That?" a notorious anti-science favorite of climate change deniers.

Mr. Howard is not unbiased. He was a co-author of the original Firestone et al. (2007) paper and is a personal friend of Allen West. In his defense of Mr. West, he says, 'Allen’s mistake 13 years ago was failing to navigate California’s “guild” bureaucracy.' The term "guild" is a pejorative reference to any profession that requires formal training, degrees, and certification (like medicine, law, engineering, and pharmacy). According to Mr. Howard, his friend is incapable of navigating the California education and certification bureaucracy. Still, Mr. West is the only known person who has been successful, so far, at following his own sample preparation protocol. ----71.211.186.135 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.186.135 (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither Mr. Howard nor Mr. West are editing this wiki page. This wiki page is about the Younger Dryas. I do happen to know a bit about the Younger Dryas, and so let me explain where we are with this. We know fresh water forcing involved, as are ocean currents and circulation. We know there was a dramatic change in northern hemisphere climate centered around Greenland and we know the largest source of fresh water available at the time was from Lake Agassiz. We also know that there are a variety of initiation and sustaining feedbacks like sea ice, atmospheric circulation, the presence of huge ice sheets, rainfall, discharge and megafloods. The entire problem is highly controversial, not only can nobody agree on this impact, nobody can agree on the relationship between all the forcing elements, Agassiz discharge to the east, to the northwest, no discharge at all with evaporation etc. Major players like Teller, Colman, Broeker, Carlson, etc, the list is long, all credible workers int he field and get this, NOBODY AGREES. Just lately now another group proposes Greenland ice sheet decay and certainly that puts it front and center. So by dragging in nonsense you are NOT contributing to the topic at all. But by all means, carry on. The talk pages are the place for this nonsense. But once you start editing the page itself, expect all hell to break loose. So tell us your theory, we'd love to hear it. If you have some proxy evidence, that's even better. I have suggested that the Wilmette bed cores may contain some answers. There is a conference at the end of the month, and Madden's group will be presenting. That would be a good chance for you are others interested to ask some pointed questions about those nanodiamonds. CosmicLifeform (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP violations in this talk page thread

I'm not a regular here, but I observe that this thread is hosting some material that violates WP:BLP. In particular, there is an excerpt from a legal brief about Manning. Briefs filed by one's courtroom opponent are by definition non-neutral, and are crafted to emphasize one end (and not the other) of an open controversy. They are inherently rife with WP:POV and impermissible.

In addition, seems to me that this article would be covered by WP:DS WP:AC/DSas applied to climate articles "broadly defined" pursuant to WP:ARBCC. Effective use of DR might help here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

PS I have removed some of the worst offending material per BLP. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume you meant WP:AC/DS above? As well as I could determine from a quick look at the various climate change pages, none mention impacts, which is interesting. There seems to be a notion that the YD impact hypothesis is a recent construct designed to cast doubt on other ideas regarding the cause of this rapid climate change. As pointed out above, I suggested a comet debris trail encounter as the cause of YD cold-event and mega-fauna extinction in the late 1980's when it was becoming apparent that the change in climate was very rapid. What is recent is the formal attempt to provide acceptable physical evidence of impact rather than simply dismissing the possibility on the basis of statistical probability.

http://web.archive.org/web/19990203235114/http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbay.html

http://web.archive.org/web/19990220131720/http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/discd.html

Bkobres (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:AC/DS, yes. Thanks for the correction NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Peer Review

A couple of reports now claim that the PNAS papers supporting the hypothesis did not go through standard peer review.

According to science journalist Faye Flam, "Standard peer review isn’t always required if a member of the National Academy of Sciences wants a paper to be published." She asks, "Is it possible the data don’t support the conclusion?"

See http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/09/reporters-cheerlead-claim-asteroid-wiped

According to Nature reporter Nicola Jones, "Steven Stanley, a paleobiologist from the University of Hawaii at Manoa in Honolulu, has acted as a ‘personal editor’ on several of the PNAS papers on this topic, including the new work by Sharma and the original 2007 paper proposing the idea. “It has been very controversial,” he admits. “It’s my view that I should help to get this stuff published. It needs to be aired; it’s not outlandish.” PNAS typically uses a 'personal editor' option for papers considered too controversial to receive a fair hearing from the standard review process Stanley says he is increasingly convinced by the impact theory as a mechanism for what prompted the freshwater floods. “I’m not sure how people can be so negative at this point. The case just builds.”

http://www.nature.com/news/evidence-found-for-planet-cooling-asteroid-1.13661

Wiki Article Removal Request

I will be formally requesting that this article be removed entirely due to continued aberrant editing. If these people are so passionate about the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis to the point of compromising honesty and accuracy then it is time to remove this article from Wikipedia. CosmicLifeform (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(B) Suggest you re-read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, because next time you describe my acts as "Heavy handed uninformed editing" I'll complain more formally.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You removed a critical primary reference from a cutting edge and highly controversial subject. SkepticalRaptor all over again. Deal with it. CosmicLifeform (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

POV Dispute

I am restoring the POV tag due to continued aberrant editing and removal of primary references. I can source everything I say here with confidence in this highly technical and evolving subject, but I may not get to those references in a single session. Heavy handed uninformed editing is not helpful with a subject as controversial and exceptionally cutting edge as this one is. CosmicLifeform (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(A) Suggest you work in your WP:sandbox until you have the sources plugged in.

(B) Suggest you re-read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, because next time you describe my acts as "Heavy handed uninformed editing" I'll complain more formally.

(new signature) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If you were as informed enough to honestly edit this subject then you would instantly recognize what those references would be. These are breakthrough results in an extremely fast moving and cutting edge field of inquiry, nanodiamond formation and structure, the carbon hydrogen phase diagram and this subject itself, nanodiamonds and impact proxies in terrestrial sediments vis a vis - the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. I'm doing this for your benefit, if you don't like it then it is well past time to remove this page entirely from Wikipedia. This article and subject is a mess. CosmicLifeform (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

CosmicLifeform please present your objections to the article's POV clearly and your proposed edits to fix this (with the corresponding WP:RS) so they can be discussed. Otherwise the POV tag will have to be removed. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I was generous giving this page one more chance at redemption. I clearly stated my objective in the first paragraph of this new talk page after archival, and I edited in the new critical primary reference with commentary in good faith as in indisputable expert on this subject. I myself removed the POV tag since the inclusion of a new critical primary reference effectively moots any dispute. I was also being generous in not completely rewriting the page. NewsEventsGuy took it upon himself to remove a critical primary scientific reference without discussion in exactly the same manner as SkepticalRaptor, and thus I restored the POV tag and I am stating clearly right here and now that you have effectively forfeited the PRIVILEGE of an expert editing of this page, namely, me. It's your problem now. You do not get a second chance with me. I am washing my hands of this page. You'll just have to find another expert. Good luck! I'm done. 18:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicLifeform (talk • contribs)

Skeptical Raptor is the New Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis Editor

Oh, I get it, weak unoriginal refuting references are ok (retroactive C14 dating analysis), but references to strong original confirmatory work (Andrew Madden's nanodiamonds from Bull Creek, OK, properly dated) are unacceptable. Go Figure. Carry on. CosmicLifeform (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you sad that the scientific consensus goes against your belief? That's the great thing about science is that it trumps whining. Cherry-picking here and there to confirm your beliefs is not what we do here. We gather ALL the evidence, ignore fringe ideas, and write about the scientific consensus. So there's that. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course not, it's just a hypothesis. I'm just documenting the previous editors refusal to include Madden's fairly definitive and dramatic PNAS article and results into the primary reference list, as compared to your zeal and bias to include another far less dramatic primary PNAS reference, as a definitive refutation of an already refuted hypothesis that has changed dramatically since it was first proposed many years ago. When any of you can come to grips with the nanodiamond in terrestrial sediments problem, get back to me. I'll be glad to assist. Until then, good luck! I'll be watching you with amusement. CosmicLifeform (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Madden and Nanodiamonds

Ok, fine, let's start again. Andrew Madden's PNAS paper has now been published, providing independent confirmation of a robust nanodiamond spike (cubic hydrogen doped n-diamonds) at the Younger Dryas boundary, in the residues of his full sediment soil digestions at Bull Creek, Oklahoma, at a level of 190 ppm in the residue. He also finds an additional spike in recent times (<3000 BP) which may or may not be the result of industrial metallurgy, or another impact, or some other process. Since these results are robust, independently derived and do not appear to be associated with any other process besides high temperature synthesis or cosmic deposition (NOT wildfires, soil erosion or any other in situ process), it should be pretty clear that this page needs to be entirely rewritten. Any takers? Clearly this is not some crackpot result, even if the ORIGINAL hypothesis turns out to be wrong (which it most likely is). It's obvious that something, yet to be determined, happened at the Younger Dryas Boundary, not associated with the more traditional hydrogeological hypotheses, that may or may not be associated with the regional cooling event. Good luck! CosmicLifeform (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Continued Removal of Primary References

No, NewsEventsPrickGuy, no need to be generous. Anyone who removes a PRIMARY REFERENCE from a highly technical scientific topic deserves my ire and the ire of the scientific community, as well was the wiki editing community. You are no different than SkepticalRaptor. You did it, you will have to live with it. All I am doing is getting myself banned from wikipedia editing, a far less charge than what you face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.174.82 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are the editor that you claim to be then you should stop now or edit from your account to really get it banned. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Ban my ass. I'm finished with Wikipedia editors editing from ignorance. Thanks.CosmicLifeform (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem of unbalanced removal of supportive primary references has been an aspect of this 'article' for far too long. Whether the first published hypothesis stands in its original form is not the issue, there are several strands of evidence that suggest some very unusual event/s occurred at the onset of the Younger-Dryas. The fair thing to do is to include references to all academically published papers on this topic and for certain 'editors' to stop assuming this is some sort of fringe-science notion. For instance I pointed out two years ago to the day that the paper by British astronomer, Bill Napier, had been removed earlier for no apparent reason. The title of the 2010 article is Palaeolithic extinctions and the Taurid Complex and the YDIH is mentioned specifically within the text. There is no legitimate reason to exclude this paper published in The Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society! Below is my talk-page post from two years ago:

This Wikipedia 'article' obviously has no direct influence on determining whether an impact event triggered the abrupt climate change that is know to have occurred at the onset of the Younger Dryas. The bias shown here currently can however affect the way students who might have an interest in further investigating this subject proceed. I've been actively searching for evidence of recent environmentally significant impact events since the early 1980s and know all too well the general level of ignorance that unfortunately still exists among many professional investigators regarding this fully natural phenomenon. This subject was simply not taught until recently because impacts were thought to be a waning influence only important to the early formation of Earth. Why perpetuate the notion that trying to find convincing physical evidence of a recent environmentally significant impact is somehow a fringe activity? The study of the Taurid debris streams was begun by Harvard astronomer Fred Whipple in the 1940s and evidence of the robustness of this debris complex has continued to accumulate as investigative tools became more sophisticated. This debris complex was created by a large comet that became trapped in the inner solar system over 15,000 years ago. The orbital period of this parent comet was less than 4 years and crossed the orbit of Earth so it would have been a visible feature of our ancestor's sky that tended to change appearance in a difficult to predict fashion. The distribution of this debris as well as recently detected degassed fragments of this object indicate that it had a long history of disruption that would have made the sky even more exciting for our predecessors. Given the culturally widespread notion of powerful sky dwelling gods as well as the idea that star positions could predict the future, it is quite likely that this one unusual event --the capture of a massive comet in a short period Earth-orbit-crossing orbit-- led to a recent increase in the rate of environmentally significant impact events well above the long term rate of occurrence.

How can a fair objective article on this subject not include a mention of this supportive paper by astronomer Bill Napier?:

Palaeolithic extinctions and the Taurid Complex

http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.0744/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16579.x/abstract

It seems that mention of this pertinent article was removed in November of 2010:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=394405391

Bkobres (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You are failing to understand that secondary sources trump primary ones. Note how nobody has repeated that data in 5 years. LMAO. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Kennett went to Greenland and detected nanodiamonds in Younger Dryas ice, They were contested on the basis that they were not hexagonal nanodiamonds, with claims that only lonsdaleite is indicative of impacts. Further research has refuted that claim, the nanodiamonds are not delivered in situ, they are created in the impact. In fact, further research has concluded that the nanodiamonds are a mix of cubic, hexagonal, new previously unknown polymorphs and are always accompanied by a mix of carbon sheet polymorphs that transition nearly continuously to nanodiamond. Then Madden also found nanodiamonds in the Younger Dryas sediments in Oklahoma, a completely independent secondary result, that you insisted on deleting from the reference list. Now Kennett again finds nanodiamond at half the sites, and then studies them extensively confirming previous experimental laboratory claims about their composition. This has moved well beyond the primary and into the tertiary.

Get a life. I refuse to try and correct you here anymore. You are not up to speed on this at all.CosmicLifeform (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Editors Froglich and Bkobres have been pushing to insert basically the same edit into the article since late August. They have both refused to come to the TP and discuss the edit as WP:BRD indicates. William M. Connolley & SkepticalRaptor since you have also reverted these editors I'd like to hear your input on this. Gaba ^(talk) 22:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Journal of Geology reference was first added here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=623359331

I commented a few days later above. Bkobres (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The paper is RS-sourced to a relevant peer-reviewed journal in the appropriate field. It is therefore improper for the lead to describe the thesis as "refuted". "Debated" or "hotly-debated" or "contested" represent preferable neutral terminology.--Froglich (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct, the hypothesis cannot be considered "refuted" if mainstream journals are publishing articles that claim to present evidence in favor of it. In that case it is still a contested question in the scientific community.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Editor behavior complaint (about me NAEG) unrelated to article content

Unhelpful complaining

You can redact all you want newseventsguy, the demonstrated fact here on this talk page is that you, gaba p, skepticalraptor, Connelley and a wide variety of other wikipedia editors on this page are guilty of the exact same thing that you are complaining about, editing out contributions to the page WITHOUT DISCUSSION, multiple times over a long period of time, while admitting that you are not familiar with the peer reviewed literature. Look at the top of this page. What do you find? Discussion. And these are trivial edits merely attempting to add secondary and tertiary peer reviewed references to the controversy. You are unable to justify that, so you just 'edit it out'. Feel free to add some credible discussion to this page if you can, but all you've been doing thus far is stifling discussion and removing credible scientific references from the page. CosmicLifeform (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC) The prior thread, which I started, has produced constructive criticism about a recent edit. You can choose to address those article content issues or not. Up to you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC) If you had bothered to read the talk pages and discuss the proposed edits before you stomped them then you would have probably noticed that I have been discussing the article content extensively across three archived sets of talk pages, including this one. The problem is that since you and several other editors have demonstrated that you are willing to stomp any edits without discussion, which you and several others have done several times now, and then complain that the editors are not discussing the edits in the talk pages, which is demonstrably NOT TRUE, then nobody wants to edit the page anymore. I've consistently indicated my desire to discuss the content and have somebody else edit the page, but nobody wants to edit the page anymore because every single minor edit gets stomped without discussion, and then we have to endure your complaints and we can't fail to notice your complete lack of content discussion. Blah blah blah. CosmicLifeform (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Clearly I suck. Anything else? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC) No, that's about it with me. Until you or one of the aberrant editors are willing to add the Bement and Madden et al. PNAS nanodiamond paper to the reference list, with discussion, or some other future primary, secondary or tertiary result is publicized on the nanodiamonds, AS I HAVE DISCUSSED, I'm not willing to either edit the page nor discuss this subject any further. This subject and several other wiki pages associated with it are already contaminated beyond belief or even bothering with by the primary aberrant editor. It's no longer worth anyone's effort to either discuss the problems nor edit the pages. CosmicLifeform (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Ok then, close the door on your way out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC) No problem, will do, because quite honestly, any unbiased rational observer reading through these talk pages and looking at some of the bizarre edits you people have allowed to stand on a wide variety of wiki pages associated with this subject, and looking at how you have handled any possible edits, one can see quite clearly that yes, you do suck. But you admitted as much, and so that's a step in the right direction. Good luck! CosmicLifeform (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

New Paper About Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

There has been a new summary paper published about the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. It is:

Holliday, V. T., T. Surovell, D. J. Meltzer, D. K. Grayson, and M. Boslough, 2014, The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: a cosmic catastrophe. Journal of Quaternary Science. vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 515–530, August 2014

Abstract of paper

Online PDF file of Holliday et al. (2014).

This will add more food for thought about this controversy. Paul H. (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, PDF files of this and related papers can be downloaded from Todd Surovell's Home page and The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: a cosmic catastrophe. Paul H. (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sentence starting "general hypothesis"

There's been some back and forth attempts and reverts over wikilinking phrase "a trail". In describing the general hypothesis (which that sentence does) I don't think it's appropriate to name a specific comet unless the RSs all agree on a specific comet. In fact, I rather think that the phrase "a trail" is somewhat redundant with "fragments". Since it doesn't really add import or clarity to the sentence, I would favor just deleting "a trail" and minor wordsmithing accordingly.....

...which I set out to do, only to find that air burst is all about nukes and barely touches meteoroids....

....Next, the RS on this sentence makes only a glancing reference to the YD hypothesis. Since we're trying to describe the general theory here surely there's an RS about the general theory as opposed to specific details into nanodiamond research?

CONCLUSION, suggest instead of warring over wikilinking specific comet names to "a trail" we take a stratospheric view of the sentence in the big picture, starting with identifying an RS whose thesis is the general hypothesis. After all, that's what the thesis of the sentence purports to be, right? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

it would be good if editors read the references:

Palaeolithic extinctions and the Taurid Complex

W.M. Napier

(Submitted on 3 Mar 2010)

Intersection with the debris of a large (50-100 km) short-period comet during the Upper Palaeolithic provides a satisfactory explanation for the catastrophe of celestial origin which has been postulated to have occurred around 12900 BP, and which presaged a return to ice age conditions of duration ~1300 years. The Taurid Complex appears to be the debris of this erstwhile comet; it includes at least 19 of the brightest near-Earth objects. Sub-kilometre bodies in meteor streams may present the greatest regional impact hazard on timescales of human concern.

Bkobres (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree things would be improved with greater attention to RS's..... however, your criticism here - though it might be well deserved - is too ambiguously stated for me to make any changes in my behavior or thinking. To paraphrase, it would help if editors were blunt, concise, and yet remain civil while doing so. What exactly are you trying to tell me? What should I think/do differently? I read your post, which appears to be an abstract, but your point escapes me. Civil help, please? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC) PS Anytime you want others to read specific RSs please provide a link, non-paywalled if possible. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The open ref tying the Taurid debris complex to the YDIH is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.0744/ it is also mentioned and linked above. It is this unusually robust debris complex (multiple trails) with a short period orbit (less than 4 years) that makes the YDIH plausible. The wiki link I provided was to a discussion of that particular feature. Bkobres (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Your last comment implies that the RS excludes any other scenario but I don't agree. Rather, as I read it the source established that there is at least one plausible scenario. With all recent tweakings to this sentence the current text reads

The general hypothesis states that about about 12,900 BP calibrated (10,900 14C uncalibrated) years ago, air burst(s) or impact(s) from a near-Earth object(s) set areas of the North American continent on fire, disrupted climate and caused the extinction of most of the megafauna in North America and the demise of the North American Clovis culture after the last glacial period.

I've got no problem describing the results of that paper somewhere in the article, but is there a compelling reason to articulate any speculation as to the nature or origin of the hypothesized NEO in this grand-summary sentence? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Lonsdaleite, n-diamond

While you guys are arguing over the rewriting of this page, it might be useful to point out that it has recently been demonstrated that the extraterrestrial Lonsdaleite (hexagonal diamond) does not even exist, and is rather a highly defective form of cubic diamond. As such, the Lonsdaleite page (in addition to this one) needs a complete rewrite or addendum in a manner even more dramatic than this page. Also, it might be useful to start an n-diamond page since n-diamond also has several working hypotheses related to its structure, although the hydrogen doped and glitter hypotheses seem to be the front runners. Since the Madden et. al. terrestrial n-diamond detection is somewhat of a crucial data point it this controversy, I would still consider if highly useful to include it in the reference list here. The entire extraterrestrial meteoritic - terrestrial sedimentary nanodiamond subject basically pivots on that single paper and arbitrarily excluding it here does nobody any service. CosmicLifeform (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

New Paper on Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

A new paper on the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis has been published. It is;

Thy, P., G. , G. H. Barfod, and D.Q. Fuller, 2015, Anthropogenic origin of siliceous scoria droplets from Pleistocene and Holocene archaeological sites in northern Syria. Journal of Archaeological Science. vol. 15, pp. 193-209. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.11.027

Online articles are:

Study casts doubt on mammoth-killing cosmic impact. University of California, Davis, CA. Science Daily

and Study casts doubt on mammoth-killing cosmic impact. University of California, Davis, CA. Paul H. (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The ref above is volume 54 not 15 and concludes:

There is in the present study no support for scoria fall-out from a distant impact source at the Syrian archaeological sites. Our results, however, do not necessarily discredit the Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis, although we caution about relying uncritically on findings from similar particles from other sites and locations.

Bkobres (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the argument about?

I just reviewed this diff by (18:09, September 27, 2014‎ Bkobres). Admittedly I have not read much of the source material for this topic, but from a NPOV perspective, the edits struck me as reasonable and relatively well thought-out. Based on what I know now, I think this is an improvement.

Query - on what basis do the reverting eds object to this edit?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

On my part I'd say the objections on the edits themselves are really minimal:

• "a proposal, debated within the scientific community, that", this is WP:OR (and debatable). "The proposal that" is sufficient.
• Complete removal of "The hypothesis has been refuted by research showing...". The sentence needs a re-write to avoid concluding in WP's voice something that should be properly attributed. Deleting it entirely is unreasonable given several WP:RS are (were) in place.
• "Lonsdaleite has also been made artificially in laboratories." was removed and seems relevant. Usually I would prefer secondary sources but this whole article is built pretty much on primary sources so I see no reason why this statement should be removed while many similar others remain.
• "but he did conclude", is a way to lead the reader to presume that what was previously mentioned is probably true. "He concluded" is enough.

My primary concern was (and still is) with the lack of willingness to follow due process and push an edit by force into an article. I'll await your comments. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If process is the concern, now that there is an enumerated list of objections regarding the content, my notion of good process is to recruit a response on those specific points from Froglich (talk · contribs) and Bkobres (talk · contribs) ... which I am attempting to do by pinging you two. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you what the argument is about here newseventsguy. It's about YOUR retroactive reversion of a simple edit trying to include secondary independent verification of sedimentary nanodiamonds in Younger Dryas sediments by Bement and Madden et al., WITHOUT DISCUSSION, a reference that I notice has NOT YET been included in the reference list still, after all this time. This is after you ADMIT that you are ignorant of the peer review literature and the controversy. Any attempt to do simple reference list edits on this page have been stomped by no less that five admittedly biased and ignorant editors. The honorable thing to do here would be to recuse yourself from editing the page, as I have. But I haven't seen that happening until now. Good luck with it, you've already made complete fools of yourselves. CosmicLifeform (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As you have expertise in the subject matter, I welcome you to stay --Froglich (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No thank you. The nanodiamond problem will eventually work itself out with new atomic-probe tomography techniques and better sedimentary and meteoritic nanodiamond extraction techniques, and when and if Osiris-Rex ever returns some pristine carbonaceous materials that should provide some better selection of working materials as well. At best I am only willing to comment on new results, pro or con, when they arrive, here in these talk pages. The order of hypothesis rejection at this point needs to progress from 1) the sedimentary nanodiamonds do not exist, 2) these nanodiamonds are not real 3) the nanodiamonds are not impact nanodiamonds 4) they do not represent impact proxies and 5) there was not an impact at the Younger Dryas boundary. Many of the original points of the original hypothesis have already been refuted, and I have my preferred alternate already. Falsifying that has demonstrated to be a difficult and expensive long term task. CosmicLifeform (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Pinging Froglich and Bkobres: it's been a week now and neither of you have commented on the points I raised above. If there's no discussion in the TP I will assume you've moved on from the article/issue and will make the pertinent changes. NewsAndEventsGuy since you became the "mediator" on this issue, I'm notifying you too (and apologizing in advance for dragging you into this). Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Your attempt to pretend that no discussion over these very issues had already taken place (even though you replied to it back in February and within the last few weeks claimed to have been following the subject closely) has been noted. (I have Merged the TP threads to reflect that they indeed have been discussed.) As far as particular individual aspects which you could have boldly changed and then came here to discuss -- what's would be the point, given that you haven't done so? Instead, your edit pattern in the article has entirely been one of wholesale reversion, not sole aspect tweaking. From the reversion you prefer, you favor unencyclopedic "refuted" wording in the lead despite the theory still being highly contentious with recent supportive papers in RS prestigious journals. The fact that you think the authors are wrong is immaterial.--Froglich (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Froglich, once again, these are the points I have issues with regarding the content dispute, please address them stating either your agreement/disagreement/counter-proposal to each Gaba ^(talk) 19:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As other user(s) have interjected in the middle of Gaba's list, I'm taking the liberty to insert sub-labels and copy-paste Gaba's sig to keep the who's speaking clear NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• A - "a proposal, debated within the scientific community, that", this is WP:OR (and debatable). "The proposal that" is sufficient.Gaba ^(talk) 19:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

saying the hypothesis is still debated succinctly indicates it is neither adopted or refuted. Bkobres (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree there is enough contrary evidence that our writing would be enhanced with a qualifier, however I favor the succinct and less side-taking expression ..."the disputed hypothesis that"...NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Since the word "hypothesis" is used just previous to that ("Clovis comet hypothesis") I changed NAEG's proposed edit to "the disputed proposal that"[2]. Gaba ^(talk) 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I've revised the opening paragraph to address this and related wordsmithing issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• B - Complete removal of "The hypothesis has been refuted by research showing...". The sentence needs a re-write to avoid concluding in WP's voice something that should be properly attributed. Deleting it entirely is unreasonable given several WP:RS are (were) in place.Gaba ^(talk) 19:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

this should be in the criticism section. Bkobres (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As the word "refuted" does not appear in the current version (# 627933471) this bullet point appears to have been overtaken by events. Is there a pending proposal under B and if so, what is it exactly? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It does not appear in the current version because it was removed by the edit pushed by F and B. In the previous version you can see it as the second sentence in the lead. I would propose changing it to: "The hypothesis has been refuted by several researchers...". Gaba ^(talk) 02:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We have RSs to support statement that it is disputed. What is your single #1 biggest bullet RS saying that the global scientific community has consensus that it has been refuted? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that "the global scientific community" consensuated in refuting the theory, I said "several researchers" did. I really see no much of a difference between disputed and refuted, so I guess I could go either way. Personally I would say that these two articles [3][4] (couldn't access the others, will try tomorrow) refute the hypothesis (ie: the researchers do) rather than dispute it. Would you say that dispute is a better term? Since neither is verbatim mentioned I would favor refuted, but as I said, I could compromise on disputed if its a deal breaker for you. Gaba ^(talk) 03:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No RS for "refuted", we shouldn't say it. Besides, the text you favor does not say so-and-so says they refuted X; rather the text you favor says X was refuted (by god). That's a big difference.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I say that researchers refuted it, not just that it was "refuted (by god)", I'm not that reckless :) How about "The hypothesis has been rejected by several researchers..."? Could that be a middle-ground compromise? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 11:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To a lay audience, "researchers" is ambiguous. Does that mean a couple 5th graders for a science fair project, or the combined might of the world's science academies, or something inbetween? If you're going to explicitly report or implicitly hint at a summary state of the science, methinks an RS is in order. Otherwise, we kinda need to report on the efforts made on both sides of the fence without our own opinions getting in the way. Besides, does "several" mean a "few" or a "tad more than a passle" or a "dallop less than a bunch" or something else? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• C - "Lonsdaleite has also been made artificially in laboratories." was removed and seems relevant. Usually I would prefer secondary sources but this whole article is built pretty much on primary sources so I see no reason why this statement should be removed while many similar others remain.Gaba ^(talk) 19:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

totally unrelated to the subject; the statement was likely added to suggest foul play. WP:OR for sure. Bkobres (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Lacking RS's that explicitly explain why lab-created stuff sheds light on the impact hypothesis, I agree with Bkobres.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, will come back if I find some primary or secondary sources on this. Gaba ^(talk) 02:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• D - "but he did conclude", is a way to lead the reader to presume that what was previously mentioned is probably true. "He concluded" is enough.Gaba ^(talk) 19:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

read the article, it's open--uses however rather than but. Bkobres (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph of our article (where phrase "but he did conclude") has a bigger problem. It just pops up, without context. Seems to me that debating "but he did conclude" is a bit premature, as the entire paragraph is stuck into our article without context.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've re-phrased it a bit, perhaps it's acceptable for both of you. Agree with NewsAndEventsGuy and actually would say that the entire section has issues. It's called "History of the hypothesis" but it's created entirely by WP:OR combining different journal articles into an attempt of a history-line. The two sections above, "Evidence" and "Consequences of hypothetical impact", don't look much better. Gaba ^(talk) 02:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(1) I couldn't care less about Lonsdaleite, although others may. (2) It is incorrect to maintain "this whole article is built pretty much on primary sources" when the bulk of article referencing consists of journal citations. (3) The fact that some RS describe the RS as "refuted" does not mean that an encyclopedia should be authoritatively siding with them in an uncited, non-quote-mark-bracketed passage in the lead. Such constitutes sloppy, bombastic, biased writing more befitting a propaganda placard rather than a scholarly article prudently couched in neutral observation of a quarrelsome field.--Froglich (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)"

No evidence has been given to support the claim that this is a "competing hypothesis". Please cite a source. Virtually every paper that has been written by subject matter experts in all related fields have dismissed it from the very beginning. The claim that the hypothesis is "competing" appears to be synthesis (and/or wishful thinking) by an editor. 64.134.63.29 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Research is continuing and the hypothesis is still being discussed in academic institutions: http://www.indstate.edu/news/news.php?newsid=4352 Bkobres (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So far no evidence.....

From abstract of 2015 Van Hoesel, et al , "The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis suggests that multiple airbursts or extraterrestrial impacts occurring at the end of the Allerød interstadial resulted in the Younger Dryas cold period. So far, no reproducible, diagnostic evidence has, however, been reported."

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So the maybe 30 something fledgling's results trumps a prominent emeritus professor's work? https://www.linkedin.com/in/anneliesvanhoesel?_mSplash=1 Bkobres (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So the maybe ___ year old wikipedia editors should just follow the sources? If any RS reports that someone has reproduced other researchers' "diagnostic evidence", by all means we should include that cite.

(A) Can you provide one?

(B) If not, then we should include the Van Hoesel RS posted in the first comment in this thread, and the text should still say the conjecture is one of the conjectures, but as of early 2015 "reproducible diagnostic evidence" is lacking.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Just because a person is a emeritus professor fails to prove that they are infallible and completely above reproach in all of their research and conclusions. For example, in case of the Channeled Scablands, a still relatively undistinguished, 30 something, fledgling geologist started studying some unusual erosional features in Oregon. When he was in his 40s, this geologist, Dr. J Harlen Bretz, published his ideas about what he called the Channeled Scablands and was confidently opposed by the prominent emeritus professors, including Dr. Richard F. Flint, of his time. In time, the ideas of this 30 to 40 something fledgling geologist did trump the the prominent emeritus professors of his time. He was held back, in part, because people wrongly trusted the authority of the prominent emeritus professors over the detailed research of a less well-known geologist. Ultimately, a person has look at the merits of a person's research and arguments instead of disparagingly and mindlessly dismissing them out-of-hand as a something fledgling. Paul H. (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that you invoked Bretz as an example, Paul. He was an excellent example of a researcher that did not bow to academic peers who ridiculed him: http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nicd.html I'm not being critical of Van Hoesel; only the notion that any paper published thus far has refuted the Y/D impact hypothesis. Bkobres (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

New Paper About the Younger Dryas

There is a new paper that questions whether climatic shifts such as the one that happened at the start of the Younger Dryas "...spread synchronously on continental to hemispheric scales." In a new study, Muschitiello and Wohlfarth (2015) "...found distinct and spatially consistent age differences between the inferred ages of the Allerød interstadial – Younger Dryas stadial pollen zone boundaries among the four sites. Our results suggest an earlier vegetation response at sites along latitude 56–54°N as compared to sites located along latitude 60–58°N." According them, the gradual cooling of the Younger Dryas started as early as c. 12,900 – 13,100 cal. BP further south and "significantly later" to the north around c. 12,600 – 12,750 cal. BP with the establishment of full stadial climate conditions. Thus, people are incorrectly presuming the start of the Younger Dryas is synchronous on either continental or hemispheric scales when in reality the vegetation changes that define it occurred at different times in different regions. The reference is:

Muschitiello, F., and B. Wohlfarth, 2015, Time-transgressive environmental shifts across Northern Europe at the onset of the Younger Dryas. Quaternary Science Reviews. 109:49–56.

PDF files of other papers and posters about the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis can be see in Younger Dryas impact on academic.edu. Paul H. (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way on academic.edu, there are PDF files of additional papers about the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis online at Younger Dryas Boundary Impact and Younger Dryas Boundary Impact research. Also, there some PDF files of papers about hypothesized Holocene impacts online at Holocene Impacts. Unfortunately, there are multiple pages for the same or similar subjects on academic.edu. Paul H. (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Kennett et al

FWIW, https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/from-the-journal-of-younger-dryas-impact-hypothesis-studies/ discusses Kennett al a,d why Richard Telford doesn't actually believe this stuff. Since I tend to trust him, I'm convinced William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Michael Davias' Ideas Need Reliable Sources Acceptable to Wikipedia

Before material concerning Michael Davias' Saginaw Impact Structure is used in this article, a person needs to find suitable peer-reviewed or other reliable sources that are acceptable for use in Wikipedia. The best that I can find is that all of Davias' and colleagues publications have been either self-published material or conference abstracts that have not been peer-reviewed. For example, at similar Geological Society of America annual and section meetings, Young Earth creationists have been able to published the results of their research. Nowhere that I can find, has Davias' ideas been published in a venue where it has been officially reviewed by professional geologist or planetary geologist with expertise in impact mechanics that Mr. Davias lacks as an avocational, citizen researcher. Paul H. (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Michael Davias argues ...that ~800 kya a catastrophic impact manifold deposited a blanket distal ejecta... Thus, he places his hypothesized impact, which is regarded by Earth scientists in general as being entirely imaginary, at 800,000 BP. This makes it far too old to associated with the start of the Younger Dryas. Paul H. (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

As notified in private correspondence, as far as I am aware Davias was formerly in favour of a chronological link between the Carolina Bays and the Younger Dyrias. But was persuaded to seek an earlier date because of the C14 and OSL dating that appears to show an earlier date for the Carolina Bays.

Instead I have added the material by Prof Richard Firestone. This presents some problems, because Firestone does not give the source of his Carolina Bay orientation idea. It may well have been inspired in part by the prior work of Michael Davias - I will write to Firestone to find out. You will also note that Firestone includes the peculiar idea that the Carolina Bays were formed by a gust of wind no greater than a hurricane and a shock wave no greater than a military jet. But since Firestone is a peer-reviewed scientist, this peculiar claim must be correct and so I have included it.... ;-) Tatelyle (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There is one matter about which you are quite confused about. I suspect that there is no such person as a peer-reviewed scientist. There are only scientists, who have written peer-reviewed papers books, and other publications. For example, Dr. Firestone has obviously written peer-reviewed papers in Nuclear Chemistry. However, the book that he coauthored, The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes, was published by Inner Traditions (Bear Company), which is the same book company that publishes books that includes books such as The Slow Down Diet by Marc David; The Healing Intelligence of Essential Oils: The Science of Advanced Aromatherapy by Kurt Schnaubelt; Gobekli Tepe: Genesis of the Gods by Andrew Collins; The Council of Light: Divine Transmissions for Manifesting the Deepest Desires of the Soul by Danielle Rama Hoffman; and There Were Giants Upon the Earth by Zecharia Sitchin. The fact that company publishes books authored by Zecharia Sitchin might indicate what they think about the necessity of peer review for their books. Paul H. (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Guilt by association, how typical. You have already clearly explained that the scientific establishment (including yourself) will not entertain the impact theory for the YD or the Carolina Bays, so do you really expect any such papers to be published by the scientific establishment? This is what 'consensus science' does - it eats away at scientific integrity and the scientific method. Traditional science used to publish, review and contend. Only tyrannical dictatorships have to invoke censorship. 95.21.211.182 (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You clearly don't like our policies - and just as clearly disagree with them. Which is fine, except you also seem to want to ignore them, and that's not acceptable. You can of course try to change those policies, or go to WP:RSN and argue that the book meets our criteria. Attacking other editors though for backing our polices is also not acceptable. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Might I remind you that the first non peer-reviewed references were added by Paul H in the Carolina Bay page (see the Ivester references), and they are still there. And I did not see any criticism of that. Tatelyle (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I will fix that tonight or tommorrow night. If you look at the the list of changes, I am working section by section from the start in revising the citations. You are remarkably and excessively impatient, to an annoying extent, given that you not my boss and I am not working for you. :-)  :-) Paul H. (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

12,900 before present

This date is used in the introduction. But the present changes each year, so it would be better to put a date on it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bubba73: You didn't click on the link - BP. It's a scientific way of expressing radiocarbon dating. We can't change it as that is what sources say, and BP doesn't translate automatically to calendar years. You might want to read calibrated as well. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Then how about 12,900 BP as of the year it was measured? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, "Before Present" doesn't mean "before the present", it means "Before 1/1/1950". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bubba73: Only if they are calibrated dates and even then we need to make it clear they are rc dated (resuming that they were). If they are not calibrated dates than the actual years might be more or less than the calendar years. And of course there's always the confidence range. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I was concerned about what if someone reads this "before present" 1,000 years from now? My thoughts were that if it is in print, the reader can check the publication date, but that doesn't work for Wikipedia. But if it is understood that they are correlated to 1950, it is OK. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Dividing Criticism and Evidence sections into subsection

It's hard to compare the material in the Evidence and Consequences sections with corresponding material in the Criticism section, since so many lines of evidence are mixed together in the same sentence or paragraph. If no one minds, I'd like to create subsections such as Megafauna, Paleoindians, Greenland platinum spike, etc, with the same titles used for subsections under Evidence and Criticism. This would have to be done gradually and carefully, one topic at a time. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120407090947/http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/comet-claim-comes-crashing-to-earth-31180/ to http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/comet-claim-comes-crashing-to-earth-31180/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081028205814/http://allendale-expedition.net/publications/comet.pdf to http://allendale-expedition.net/publications/comet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

New Impact Crater Detected

Hiawatha Glacier. Discuss! prokaryotes (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)