Talk:Comet Research Group

The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes

Before adding additional content to this article (see my comments about the relevance of the 2012 phenomenon in a separate section of this Talk page below), I would like to have clarification regarding the inclusion of references to relevant material from the book The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes: How a Stone-Age Comet Changed the Course of World Culture, by Richard Firestone, Allen West, and Simon Warwick-Smith (Inner Traditions – Bear & Company, 2006). Two of the co-authors, Firestone and West, have been key, founding members of the Comet Research Group and this book constitutes some of their clearest statements on issues of "cosmic catastrophes" that are central to the mission of the CRG. I think this book represents a reliable source on the interest and goals of the CRG. It is also one of the earliest publications on cyclical, cosmic catastrophes by CRG authors. For what it's worth Inner Traditions - Bear & Company was also a significant publisher of books that were central to claims about the "Maya Apocalypse" and associated "Galactic Alignment" as well as other aspects of the 2012 phenomenon. Hoopes (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to note that a reference to this book was included in material that has been deleted from this article. At present, it does not appear in the article's References section even though it represents a key reference. Hoopes (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation

I understand the reason for rules like the conflict of interest rule, but I don't see how it's fair that disinformation is allowed to remain on this platform just because i'm not allowed to remove it!

If i'm not allowed to remove it, someone else has to. If you care about the truth, rather than just promoting a narrative based in falsehoods, you would do the right thing and remove it.

The following information on the CRG page are outright lies that should be taken down:

The second sentence is fine, except for the fact that it mentions Gobekli Tepe. No member of the Comet Research Group has ever promoted or advanced any ideas whatsoever about Gobekli Tepe. That is Martin Sweatman, and he is not a member of the CRG, so the link is tenuous at best and borders on WP:SYNTH unless there is a rule that specifically pertains to fallacies of conflation where no affiliation exists.

The reference to the 2012 phenomenon is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH, which Hemiauchenia kindly introduced me to by reverting one of my edits on the YDIH page. There is no claim in that reference that links it with the CRG; whoever added it is synthesising data by doing so, and it should be removed.

The rest of the article is ok as it stands, I'm not really okay with GH being cited on there, he is not a member of the CRG, and is disliked by several of the CRG members because they don't appreciate his ideas, though Allen does appear on an episode of his new TV show, so I suppose that link is acceptable. Incendiex90 (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Cutting off the reference to 2012 after ref number [8] will suffice, the first half of that sentence is fine. Incendiex90 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Marc. I am no expert in this area, so bear with me. I notice that author Graham Hancock is cited as a supporter of the CRG, and he discusses the topic of Göbekli Tepe. You say that "No member of the Comet Research Group has ever promoted or advanced any ideas whatsoever about Gobekli Tepe." So, if I understand you correctly, Hancock's view is his own, but not a view held by any member of CRG. I assume therefore that Hancock is not a member, only a supporter. The same could be said for Martin Sweatman. Am I correct on both counts?

We don't want to attribute views to CRG that are only held by supporters and expressly disavowed by CRG. It would really help if there were any statement by CRG that disavows the opinions of Hancock and Sweatman regarding the topic of Göbekli Tepe as connected to any "cosmic impact events or meteor air bursts on Earth in the distant past." SYNTH violations do occur, often without any ill intent, and we need to sort this out. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. Neither Graham Hancock nor Martin Sweatman are members of the CRG. They simply take the work of the CRG that is published in scientific journals and use it to advance their own theories.

While not expressly disavowed by the CRG in any sort of press release, no CRG member has ever publicly stated they agree with any specific claims made by them in any way that could mean they're considered proponents of their theories, or that they advance them.

Some members almost certainly do agree, other members vehemently disagree. The CRG is not a monolith, everyone has their own beliefs, but NONE of them have ever publicly stated in any official capacity that they agree with the claims advanced by GH and MS.

In Graham's book, America Before, he explicitly details run-ins he had with some CRG members when he tried to associate his work with theirs, merely by presenting his theories after discussing the impact theory, tying them together. I would say this serves as enough of a public statement. Incendiex90 (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

What this means for the article is that we cannot attribute views to CRG without reliable sources that directly prove the connection. Anything else is OR or SYNTH (a type of OR). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hancock is clearly on good terms with the CRG and seems to play a large (if indirect) role in securing them funding.[1][2][3] The CRG's ideas have also clearly had a large impact on Hancock's body of work over the last 15 years, which is notable and worth mentioning in this article. However, I agree that the current sourcing doesn't support attributing Hancock's views (e.g. about Göbekli Tepe) to the CRG or "CRG members". – Joe (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I have just taken a stab at fixing the situation, but there may still be sources that are not from or about CRG. They should be removed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I imagine that an extensively published scientific hypothesis promoted by highly-credentialled and respected scientists, whose collective scientific works have been cited 200,000+ times, has had a large impact on a lot of non-scientist's work.

However, that is not sufficient to claim they are affiliated.

Your extensive derogatory comment history on the YDIH thread is evidence enough to anyone of your biases, and despite admitting over and over that you don't know what you're talking about, you're more than happy to pretend you know enough to control the narrative.

Instead of characterising it for what it actually is, a legitimate scientific theory supported by hundreds of scientists worldwide, with extensive published evidence in major scientific journals, you view it as straight up pseudoscience.

Anyone who takes this view without a firm grasp of the literature supporting it is ideologically driven, and should not be allowed to openly defame people on a public platform like this.

@Valjean, given that you're a veteran editor on this site, I implore you to go through the talk section of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis page and see how these guys have been acting over there. Incendiex90 (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Incendiex90 I would encourage you to read WP:1AM. I am an overall uninvolved editor in this particular discussion, and it looks to me like you have a consensus against your ideas here and on that other talk page. Wikipedia editing is decided by consensus, which is a complex thing for new editors to undestand. I would direct you to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:1AM. Read those, and see if you get what I mean about how to handle this situation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Incendiex90: I have no idea what you are talking about; perhaps you've confused me with someone else? If we have reliable sources saying that the CRG has influenced other notable theories then we can add to this article too. I don't see what that has to do with how we describe Hancock's work in this article? Also, please listen to Shibbolethink. Your time here will be much more pleasant if you approach Wikipedia as a collaboration rather than a battleground. – Joe (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Criticism

Such a section should not exist, its content should be moved to other sections. See WP:CSECTION. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I have just removed the heading. The content seems to be relevant to the Claims section, so it has not been moved. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

2012 phenomenon

User:Incendiex90, is it this content you find objectionable?

...while interest in claims that such events were a driving force in prehistory and in history was revived as speculation grew regarding the surrounding the 2012 phenomenon.

Are both sources problematic? This content is problematic on another level as neither the content or sources are used in the body, and most content in a lead must first be used in the body. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Valjean, yes, both sources are problematic. Neither of them mention the CRG or any CRG members.

The quoted sentence should be removed in its entirety.

Thank you for being reasonable about this! Incendiex90 (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

As long as you are specific and reasonable, we will try to help you. Try to avoid attacking other editors, as you're doing above. That will just turn editors against you. Comment on content, not editors. You need allies here, so don't alienate anyone. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources cited are books by Anthony Aveni a renowned astronomer on the faculty of Colgate University. They therefore represent reliable sources. The books cited discuss the issue of cosmic catastrophism, a topic that is central to the concerns of the Comet Research Group. They document historical context, so they are therefore directly relevant to the article. It is not necessary for every source cited to refer specifically to the CRG or to CRG members when it discusses research of direct relevance to the article. Reliable sources are cited, so I have restored the language in question. Hoopes (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. The reliability of the source is not the issue, it's the fact that the source does not discuss the YDIH, nor the CRG. You are synthesising data by including it. Incendiex90 (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This is NOT a violation of WP:SYNTH, much less a clear one. It is not necessary for the source to specifically discuss the Comet Research Group or its claims about the YDIH, Tell el-Hammam, or the Hopewell tradition to be relevant. The point is that the cited sources by distinguished Colgate University astronomer Anthony Aveni directly address the issue of "cosmic catastrophism" and Apocalypse (as in Graham Hancock Netflix series Ancient Apocalypse (2022) that are central to the concerns of the CRG. Hoopes (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

References

If we have sources that put the CRG in the tradition of coherent catastrophism, then it's fair enough to include this historical context. – Joe (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

A CRG member, Bill Napier, was literally one of the people who coined the term Coherent Catastrophism back in 1994, but the link between CC and the 2012 phenomenon is tenuous at best.

If you visit the Wikipedia page for the 2012 phenomenon, there are dozens of scenarios posited there as being related to it (which is likely a SYNTH violation in itself, but I'm not going to be bothered going through it).

Cosmic catastrophism is a MASSIVE umbrella, and it's absolutely absurd to claim that a legit scientist who puts forward a scientific theory based on decades of observational studies should be labelled as promoting theories like Nibiru and all the other nonsense associated with that.

There is no justification to include that material on this page. The CRG does not promote the 2012 phenomenon, the CRG has never used the 2012 phenomenon to advance their theories, and the citations used to support the claims made by Hoopes in this article make no mention of the CRG, or any CRG member. Incendiex90 (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

To attribute belief or promotion of the 2012 phenomenon requires very specific claims to me made by the alleged proponent in order to be attributable to them. Namely, that some unknown catastrophic event would occur sometime at the end of the year 2012.

This is the first sentence of the 2012 phenomenon article:"The 2012 phenomenon was a range of eschatological beliefs that cataclysmic or transformative events would occur on or around 21 December 2012"

No CRG member has EVER claimed that any catastrophic event will/would occur in 2012.

Thus, the 2012 phenomenon should not be associated with the CRG.

To include it is not only disingenuous misinformation, its inclusion only serves to attack the credibility of a group of scientists who do not hold the beliefs being attributed to them. Incendiex90 (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Merely being a proponent of "Coherent Catastrophism", which, like the YDIH, is a very specific scientific hypothesis, which makes very specific claims, and importantly, does NOT make specific claims related to the 2012 phenomenon, is not justification to have a wide range of unrelated beliefs and claims attributable to the proponents of that hypothesis.

Once a hypothesis is published, the proponents have little to no control over how that information is used by other people.

The fact that information is used by people other than the proponent of the information to promote alternative theories has nothing to do with the proponent.

To attribute the claims made by people who take that information and use it to advance their own theories, to the original proponent who initially advanced the hypothesis, is abject lunacy. Incendiex90 (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you've perhaps overestimated how much WP:SYNTH covers. As a part of the no original research policy, the general idea is that we shouldn't synthesise sources to reach a conclusion that isn't in any of them. It doesn't prohibit us from using sources about logically related topics in an article. It doesn't mean that every source cited in article must include that article's title somewhere in it.

So if we have reliable sources that say that the CRG falls under the catastrophist 'umbrella' (which is sounds like we do), there's nothing wrong with including contextual information about catastrophism, including the link to the 2012 phenomenon. We can't expect our readers to come with any background knowledge of the history of ideas here; context and background information is a key part of a good encyclopaedia article.

I would also remind you that this is an article about the CRG, not a dissemination outlet for the CRG. We are not limited to outlining what CRG members think. If what others have done with their theories (e.g. their embrace by Hancock and other pseudoarchaeologists discussed above) forms a significant part of coverage about the CRG, then we should include it. – Joe (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no conclusion in any of the citations related to the CRG. You need to go at least 2 levels of abstraction to link anything on the topic of 2012 to the CRG. Any reasonable person sees that this is WP:SYNTH.

If something is at the absolute best tangentially related to another thing, using citations that only discuss the thing that is tangentially related, and is not actually related, opens up a whole world of trouble.

I have an analogous hypothetical scenario for you below:

Let's say the University of Kansas's anthropology department had a wikipedia page. Using your slanted view of the WP:SYNTH rule, I could legitimately write a section on their page about how archaeologists at KU are associated with racist people, solely because they are archaeologists, and they share some core paradigmatic views with archaeologists from 70 years ago who happened to be racist, as long as I cited some articles about racist archaeologists that share those views.

The KU archaeologists were never affiliated with those racists; they still share some fundamental, paradigmatic core beliefs with them, just not the racist stuff.

It is true that archaeologists in the past were racist, but is that justification to include a section on the racist past of archaeology on KU's anthropology department's wikipedia article? By doing so, you're linking the faculty of KU anthropology with racist views, and that's exactly what Hoopes is doing here, except replace racist views with "x unsavoury thing" to attribute that unsavory thing to a group that it should not rightly be attributed to.

Even if you could tangentially link the 2012 phenomenon with the CRG, which you can't, it still doesn't form a SIGNIFICANT part of coverage about the CRG, which you wisely state as your standard for inclusion. Incendiex90 (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Your hypothetical scenario sounds reasonable, yes. It is often important to note how anthropology's racist origins has shaped the history of archaeology. Written well, it would not imply that current faculty are racist any more than "the CRG's ideas belong to the tradition of coherent catastrophism" or "the CRG has influenced the work of Graham Hancock" implies that current CRG members are all coherent catastrophists or Graham Hancock. I haven't looked in detail at the sources here, I'm just trying to respond to your comments and explain the relevant policies that will determine what the article does and doesn't include. By your own admission you learned of WP:SYNTH a few days ago, and I've been here for 17 years, but sure I guess it's possible that my interpretation is "slanted" and you have it right. Regardless, probably what we really need now is to hear what the sources actually say. I'm starting to wonder if there's enough significant coverage for an article at all. – Joe (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I have not raised an issue regarding the sentence that was there until the user Hypnôs removed it, claiming that CRG members have published books linked with cosmic catastrophism; that is true, and cosmic catastrophism as a subject matter is perfectly respectable, except when it's hijacked by lunatics like the 2012 phenomenon.

Likewise, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the CRG's work has influenced Graham Hancock; this is patently obvious, and is not derogatory towards the CRG, it does not imply that the CRG endorses his views. Hell, i'd even add that myself right now, and I could cite it really well, because of how familiar I am with his work.

Perhaps learning a rule recently gives me a fresh perspective on things that veterans will have come to be more relaxed with over time as it is normalised more and more. That's not to say either of us are right, but like anything in life, it's best to seek alternative interpretations and incorporate the best parts of each into an approximation of the middle ground. Incendiex90 (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I would add one more thing.

"Your hypothetical scenario sounds reasonable, yes. It is often important to note how anthropology's racist origins has shaped the history of archaeology. Written well, it would not imply that current faculty are racist any more than "the CRG's ideas belong to the tradition of coherent catastrophism""

Yes, it is certainly important, to note those things, however, those things are more appropriately noted on the "archaeology" or "anthropology" articles, rather than the articles pertaining to specific faculties/research groups, which only serves to inappropriately expose those groups to the implications of being linked with such a topic.

That kind of section doesn't belong on the wikipedia article for the Max Planck Extreme Events Research Group, nor the KU Anthropology Departmenty's article.

Further, other users have agreed with my interpretation of WP:SYNTH on various talk pages, including an 18 year veteran. Incendiex90 (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your support for the addition of this content. I completely reject the assertion that it violates WP:SYNTH. In fact, I'm skeptical that User:Incendiex90 has even read the source material that I cited. If it's appropriate, I would be happy to include direct quotations from the works cited. I did not think that was necessary, but if it bolsters my argument it would be an acceptable addition. If a determination of WP:SYNTH is to be made, it should be made by Wikipedia editors who do not have a direct conflict-of-interest with this article, as does User:Incendiex90. In fact, as a member and employee of this organization, I think that he should be prohibited from making edits to this article. The issue of WP:COI is clear in contrast to that of WP:SYNTH, on which a determination should be made by experienced Wikipedia editors who do not have a direct conflict-of-interest with respect to the content of this article. Hoopes (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to draw attention to the harassing comments that User:Incendiex90 has posted on my Talk page: User talk:Hoopes. I do not consider this to be an ethical use of Wikipedia. This is yet another reason, in addition to violations of WP:COI, that User:Incendiex90 should not be permitted to edit this article. In fact, I think all of their contributions of content to Wikipedia merit review for violations of Wikipedia terms of use. Hoopes (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

In order to avoid an edit war, I have not made additional manual reversions of the content related to the 2012 phenomenon that I had initially added and then manually reverted. I would prefer to have resolution on the issue of WP:SYNTH with respect to mention of both that and the supposed Nibiru cataclysm (a.k.a. Planet X) relative to the Comet Research Group. Hoopes (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

van Hoesel et al. 2014 does not support claims that the CRG promote pseudoscience/pseudoarchaeology

The following citation has been used to support the dubious claim in the article that the CRG are promotors of pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology: https://cosmictusk.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Younger-Dryas-impact-hypothesis-a-critical-review.pdf

Can anyone please highlight the section in this citation that states the CRG promotes pseudoscience or pseudoarchaeology? Incendiex90 (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

COI editing. Also dubious effort to delete in spite of parity of sources

User:Incendiex90, why on earth are you editing the article? Minor edits are one thing, but editing areas of conflict is clearly not allowed. Period. You risk getting blocked, and I see that the article is now nominated for deletion. Nice going. Never engage in that type of editing. Normally editors like you get punished by getting excluded from editing the article and then allowing RS to speak without unwarranted defense by COI editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Comet Research Group and User:Incendiex90 — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Dubious deletion attempt

jps, deletion seems to be a cheap way to avoid documenting the pseudo-scientific nature of CRG. No wonder Incendiex90 supports deletion. This move smells because we should document the group's nature. Parity of sources covers this subject, so the existence of a few scientific sources does the job. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

What do you think the best source about this group is? Most of the ones currently in the article do not really talk about the group per se. jps (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean this is exactly why I think the best way forward is to take this content and merge it into YDH, where we can have many of the same sources and things, but without the possibility of becoming a POVFORK. Also satisfies concerns that a lot of what we have here is about the CRG's theories and how BS they are, not about the group itself. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

That may well be the best solution. We just need to remember WP:PRESERVE. The topic deserves coverage somewhere at Wikipedia, but not necessarily its own article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

There is content in this article that is not directly relevant to the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. The Comet Research Group promotes claims that do not pertain to the YDIH at all. These include the claims regarding the supposed effects of comets on Tell el-Hammam and also on the Hopewell tradition. Those are among the reasons that the CRG merits a separate article. Hoopes (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I have commented on the other page that perhaps the merge consensus is not correct. I was hoping to effect the merge today, but it seems to me that it doesn't really work. jps (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)