Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

YDIH article contradicts YD article statement of Mainstream Cause

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

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

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

contradicts the first paragraph of the Younger Dryas Cause section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

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

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

Comments?

References

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

"Comprehensive refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH) from a few months ago states The working hypothesis for the cause of these events involves the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Specifically, the hypothesis proposes that weakening of the AMOC, in particular by fluxes of freshwater to the North Atlantic, results in cooling of the North Atlantic, which is transmitted globally through atmospheric circulation and changes in the global ocean thermohaline circulation or conveyor belt. In the case of the YD/GS-1, the freshwater flux was apparently related to the rapid draining of Lake Agassiz toward the North Atlantic at the beginning of the YD/GS-1, reinforced by later drainage of the Baltic Ice Lake. So many authors still consider it to be the most mainstream opinion, so it is perhaps the Younger Dryas article that it is incorrect, rather than this one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That may be so. I propose that whatever explanation(s) are considered mainstream be discussed and documented on the Younger Dryas talk page, and not on this one to avoid conflicting assumptions as currently exists. This talk page should remained focused on YDIH, for which IMO there is (and has been) a lack of consensus (putting it politely) whether YDIH is valid, let alone a viable candidate to be mainstream. I posted a similar version of this topic on the Younger Dryas talk page. I suggest that you post your comment (identifying the location as the end of section 2 of this 75 page paper!) on the Younger Dryas talk page in response to my creation of the same topic there to solicit comments from editors who specifically have debated what are the mainstream explanation(s). Dmcdysan (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dmcdysan Please don't use Graham Hancock again. Nor statements from the CRG as they clearly don't tell the truth, eg suggesting that West is a scientist. I need to find time to add the fact about the new journal. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I don't understand your response in the context of this topic. If you meant your response to be a reply to "Issues with Summary First Paragraph" then the mention of Graham Hancock was in the title of the Boslough 2023 citation from skeptic magazine. I did not use it.

I am also unclear as to the context of your last two statements. Please clarify. Dmcdysan (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

No . You used Hancock as a source. I took it out and you replaced it. Do you not understand what reliably published means? Go to RSN if you think it’s reliable. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

After I replied, I looked at the history and saw your undo and believe I now understand the context. If you had included a diff in your initial comment I would have understood the context. I created a new topic and believe some text you deleted was from Boslough, a reliable source. Please respond to that new topic and not this one. Thank you! Dmcdysan (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, Figure 1 of Boslough 2023 Skeptic Magazine Article and the associated text contradicts the meltwater hypothesis and states "There is no evidence that the world’s oceans rose dramatically in a series of deluges during the Younger Dryas. "

This image is on Wikimedia commons [1]. As stated above, I recommend that this could be on the Younger Dryas site and not here. I may post this comment there. That article could use some more graphics and higher level explanations. Dmcdysan (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Potential response to Talk page banner requesting maps

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

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

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

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

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

@Diannaa, the proposed usage of an image from the site https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/fireballs/ has image use policy [2]. I interpret that such usage means it could be uploaded to Wikimedia commons and used in this article. Can you confirm or correct my understanding? Thank you. Dmcdysan (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks ok to use. Tag it as {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. Upload to Commons, in SVG format — Diannaa (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Comet Research Group (CRG)

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts from others? Dmcdysan (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RSP: Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, so I've deleted it. I should have thought of that first. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Understood. In this diff [[3]] I added and edited a further summary from [Boslough March 2023]. Now CRG has a definition, but the usage is now inconsistent with the mentions of CRG in the History section since the author lists of the cited papers have some overlap, but are not the same. Recommend only keeping this one instance of CRG in the article in the History section since the CRG website was created in 2016 there has been no new press releases and the list of Publications only goes to 2018. Using CRG more than this would be in conflict with @Doug Weller: comment in the first post on this topic "Promotional, this is a fringe group and this is not appropriate here." Dmcdysan (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The Comet Research Group and its connection to Hopewell and Tall el-Hammam claims is relevant because the CRG funded the Tall el-Hammam research, and the Bunch et al (2021) paper was authored by most of the same people who wrote most of the YDIH papers. Allen West, the leader of the CRG, was the correspondence author and used the CRG as his affiliation and email address. These claims of airbursts invoke the group's same understanding of comets, cosmic airbursts, and the coherent catastrophist ideas of Napier, and cites the YDIH papers for this understanding. I don't see how any discussion of the CRG is complete without including their Hopewell and Tall el-Hammam papers. Proxy data (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Proxy data, this is the diff of your reverts [4]the changes I made because the cited references were not in the YD timeframe [5], [6], [7]

This is text you added [8]]

I came across this article about 2 weeks ago and wondered why the CRG section was first in the article. As described above, the article has no definition for the CRG (and my attempts to do this were reverted as described above). In particular, I understand that the CRG website cannot be used as a reliable source.

Your comment that Allen West gives the CRG as his affiliation is helpful.

Please see this Talk page topic: Allen West and the CRG. I looked over your contributions and believe your background and experience would be helpful there.

@Jps posted on the topic Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis/Archive 4#Comet Research Group that consensus was to merge, but was "now having a hard time seeing how to execute the merge. Consensus can change, and maybe it should."

My understanding of Wikipedia guidelines is that If consensus is that the CRG is not a reliable source, then there should not be a section dedicated to it in the article.

My edits were an attempt to show how some content would merge (and no longer be relevant to the article's topic and hence should be deleted since they are not in the YD timeframe).

IMHO, the CRG should have a paragraph in the History section with a few citations by a third party source, for example, Rex Dalton as mentioned in the Allen West and the CRG topic. Dmcdysan (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This diff [9]shows the changes that I made to the CRG section today in an attempt to address the above issues. Also, I corrected the Boslough citation from Sodom to YDIH. The sentence where I added Citation Needed template is very similar to that in the summary (which has 3 citations). I believe the issues stated there and in the last sentence are already covered in the History section.

Comments? Dmcdysan (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

2013 National Geographic Article - Quotes from Walter Broecker

Found Sept 2013 National geographic article by Robert Kunzig, Did a Comet Really Kill the Mammoths 12,900 Years Ago?

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

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

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

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

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

References

Allen West and the CRG

West is a director and co-founder of the CRG. See these articles.[10]"It’s Comets!" and following sections. . Science Integrity which says "The Comet Research Group is linked to the Rising Light Group, a 501(c)3, tax-exempt charitable organization with a clear Christian and biblical agenda, registered in Allen West’s name." and other interesting facts about some other authors. [11] which points out that "West is Allen Whitt — who, in 2002, was fined by California and convicted for masquerading as a state-licensed geologist when he charged small-town officials fat fees for water studies. After completing probation in 2003 in San Bernardino County, he began work on the comet theory, legally adopting his new name in 2006 as he promoted it in a popular book. Only when questioned by this reporter last year did his co-authors learn his original identity and legal history. Since then, they have not disclosed it to the scientific community." "West is at the nexus of almost all the evidence for the original comet claims. His fieldwork is described in the 2006 book he authored with Firestone, The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes.' and more. \ West still claims to have a PhD but will only say "I do have a doctorate in philosophy from a Bible college in Nebraska." If it's a valid degree, ie from a properly accredited institution, why not name it? I can find no Bible colleges in Nebraska even offering a relevant PhD. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller thank you for the clarification. So for (at least) these reasons the consensus of the editors active on this article Allen West is not a reliable source. Is my understanding correct?

Is my understanding from Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis/Archive 4#Undue use of Comet Group material, etc. is that the CRG is unreliable since (at least) Allen West is/was an officer and/or member of the CRG correct? It also appears that any authors associated with pseudoscience (e.g., Young Earth Creationism (YEC)) are not reliable How authors who are listed on the CRG website as "Scientists and Members" was also discussed there. @Aluxsom posted the question was posed as to whether any paper where West (or Howard) was a co-author, or any paper associated with the CRG was also unreliable (and/or a fringe theory) and there was discussion about removing a number of references. Not sure if this has been done, and if it were done that would be most helpful to editors (and readers). Other authors (e.g., Powell) were discussed, but I did not see a consensus that his papers should be removed.

Would it be appropriate to post this thread to the reliable sources noticeboard (rsn)? Therefore, if another editor searches for "Allen West" or "Cloud Research Group" or "CRG" in the archives there, then they would then be pointed to this thread, the links provided and this discussion would be on record there. Doug, if you agree, could I ask you to do this? Dmcdysan (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, looking through Archive 4 I found this diff [12] tagged as "Allen West has no credibilty." So, resolving the Adam West as a reliable source issue would be the basis of removing this banner? I mispelled @Aluxosm above who was the creator of Wikidata queries in the Archive 4 discussion. Dmcdysan (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dmcdysan Yes. No relevant qualifications, won’t even disclose the Bible college he went to. Doug Weller talk 21:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller  [13] is an interesting reference by Rex Dalton from the publisher PacificStandard, which appears to be a reliable source. I searched on these in WP:RSN, which returned no results. An earlier work by Dalton is already cited in the article. These sources appear to also meet the WK:INDEPENDENT guidelines of being independent as well as a reliable third party source. According to WP:FRIND independent, reliable sources are the best to use. Does anyone disagree with these assertions? Dmcdysan (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dmcdysan Looks good to me. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, looking into this article further I found a few issues. First, the article states "REX DALTON: UPDATED:JUN 14, 2017 ORIGINAL:MAY 14, 2011." I could not find a reliably sourced 2011 version, I found a blog post that posted the 2011 version but I think doing a comparison would not be allowed by Wikipedia guidelines. Also, there is no list of references (As Dalton did when at Nature, for example Blast in the Past? already cited in the article). Finally, some of the URLs to important references are stale. Despite these issues, I believe there is some good information here, in particular quotes from notable parties in the YDIH debate. Does anyone object to using this according to Wikipedia:Fringe theories Independent sources guidelines? Dmcdysan (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sweatman as Reliable source

Regarding the summary and citation of Sweatman's 2021 paper I reverted the undo of @Hypnôs shown in this diff [14] with the following comment: "In my update I mentioned looking at Archive 4. I will create a new talk page on the topic of "Sweatman as Reliable source" to discuss. Thanks." I propose that we use the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to address these actions.

Here is a more specific link to to that topic: Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis/Archive 4#Undue use of Comet Group material, etc.

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

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

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

We still have Talk:Comet Research Group - you need to search Wikipedia for pages mentioning him (not articles). And Talk:Göbekli Tepe plus an archive at [15]. This PubPeer commen.[16] and [17]. More at [18]. Doug Weller talk 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller thank you for the pointers. I will look at them, but trust they will have statements related to Sweatman as an unreliable source.

I have been active on Wikipedia only 2 years and have only had two reliable source discussions with an individual editor and I read the WP:RS policies only in that limited context. I know that this is no excuse and apologize for bringing up a topic that has already reached consensus amongst the editors for this article.

Would it be appropriate to post this thread to the reliable sources noticeboard (rsn)? Therefore, if another editor searches for "Sweatman" in the archives there, then they would then be pointed to this thread, the links that you have provided and this discussion would be on record there. Doug, if you agree, could I ask you to do this? Dmcdysan (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dmcdysan I'm exhausted. 81, Parkinson's, chemotherapy (palliative). Today I've done about as much as I can do. Don't post this thread, post your question and any reason you have that Sweatman might be reliable. You can link to this talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I am sorry to hear that. Thank you for efforts to clarify these points for me. I will research this more and post to rsn linking to this talk page for the purpose of having it on record so that if another editor searches the archive they will find that link. Dmcdysan (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey there.

Your addition was the bold part of WP:BRD, mine was the revert, now we discuss the addition before it is potentially reinstated.

Doug already addressed the reliability issue. As the discussion you linked states, Sweatman is linked to the CRG, hence he is not independent from the topic. Hypnôs (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hypnôs thank you for clarifying your viewpoint on where we are in the BRD process, which aligns with my understanding. I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing and have used the BRD process to successfully achieve resolution twice and hope that occurs here as well. I am trying to improve the article and inserted the Sweatman reference as a (candidate) secondary source to address the banner stating that this article relies on too many primary sources. Can you point me to some Wikipedia guideline that I can read which relates to linkage to something (e.g., CRG) that has certain aspects (unreliability, pseudoscience?) and how in order to be a candidate source the author must be independent? I am trying to understand how this differs from reliability. Dmcdysan (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE might help. Or again, RSN. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, again thank you for pointing me to the appropriate Wikipedia reference.

Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Independent sources answers this for me. Association with a fringe group is part of this, and there may some disagreement in the links you provided and COI for one commenter. Another condition for the Sweatman citation to be considered independent is that it has been noticed and given proper context within third-party, independent sources. AFAIK, this has not occurred. Given the above, my opinion is that the Sweatman citation is not an independent source. Dmcdysan (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hypnôs tyring to clarify your statement in this reply. I interpret WP:FRINGE criteria for an independent source as further detailed in Wikipedia:Independent sources in particular WP:IIS that neither the Sweatman 2021 paper, nor comments from Jorgensen nor a response from Sweatman are independent (i.e.., lack of a third party). . This lack of independence criterion may apply to other citations on this site, where it appears that one set of authors have published papers since around 2007 asserting YDIH while another set of authors have refuted it.

As I understand Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Reliable sources if a source is determined not reliable, then independence is irrelevant.

Is there a source that is considered "third party" that has been identified? Some of the work mining Wikidata by User:Aluxosm in the Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#Wikipedia articles for YDIH related people may be helpful in determining what reliable sources are independent.

I am interested in trying to improve the article, but am not clear on what sources I can cite that is reliable AND independent. If I have misinterpreted the above guidelines, then please comment.

Thank you Dmcdysan (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I received a message on my talk page User talk:Dmcdysan#February 2024 from @Diannaa that my post was removed from the history of this article because "t appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder." You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words." I hope that my quoting that editor is not another violation, and if so please point it out to me. In my experience with other publications (e.g., IEE) a quote was acceptable without seeking copyright permission as long as attribution was given. It appears the Wikipedia policy differs. I responded that I would not do this again. Dmcdysan (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a quotation because there were no quotation marks or anything to indicate that this was not prose that youy had written yourself. You can see for yourself by visiting the CopyPatrol report and clicking on the iThenticate link. — Diannaa (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa, I thought that I had put in quotation marks but couldn't retrieve my post - I trust your statement. Good to know that a direct quote can be used in Wikipedia as long as quotation marks are used. Dmcdysan (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Short quotations are allowed, but only when there's no alternative. It's very much preferable that you should write ytour own content. — Diannaa (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It appears that have been searching on WP:RSN and need to also search on WP:FTN., which returns the following for a search on "Sweatman"

May 2017 Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 56#New  Coherent catastrophism

Jan 2022 Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

Nov 2022 Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 89#Sweatman is back

Note that Sweatman has published a number of articles across a range of subjects: [19] Does the consensus that an author is not a reliable source in one context imply unreliability in all other contexts? If only in a related context, then how is consensus reached that it is related? Dmcdysan (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it;s appropriate to present Sweatman's "review" of the YDIH as a neutral, impartial assessment of the validity of the claims as Sweatman is very much an advocate of the hypothesis and has advocated other theories related to the Last Glacial Period that have not gained wide acceptace among scholars. That said, I do think it can be used sparingly to present the YDIH advocate viewpoint. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, I recall seeing several articles that claim to be independent (of YDIH either pro or con) that are in fact not. From the discussion in Archive 4 there is also a potential association with usage of CRG website material. Sweatman is definitely not a third-party, and if his paper is deemed not reliable, then I don't want to spend time reading it. I believe it is a secondary source in that there a no co-authors from the 2007 initial paper and the first rebuttal in 2008. I'll wait to see if others respond.

I came here looking for information on YDIH and found some answers in Late Pleistocene extinctions where you are listed as a significant contributor. Can you provide some background on the banner "This page may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints?" I have been reading Powell 2022 (I believe it has not (yet) been deemed unreliable), the Prates paper is cited there and I plan to add a summary sentence to the Late Pleistocene extinctions article, South America section. Dmcdysan (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't add the banner to that article, and the article has been substantially rewritten since the banner was added, I think it should probably be removed. Powell is another advocate of the hypothesis. It's okay to use him (sparingly) for the pro impact viewpoint, but otherwise I would be cautious about citing him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, I agree that Sweatman is a YDIH proponent (equivalent to CRG?) and not independent as defined WP:FRIND (of YDIH either pro or con), as also stated in other references that claim to be "independent," which I can identify from the article. BTW, I have seen a number of editors using the phrase "not independent of the CRG" on the Talk page for this topic as a basis for inductive reasoning to state that a source is unreliable (e.g., Sweatman). I don't believe such reasoning is in line with WP:FRIND. Comments? Dmcdysan (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, regarding " Sweatman's "review" [Sweatman 2021] "can be used sparingly to present the YDIH advocate viewpoint," I searched on [Holliday 2023] and found "Sweatman" mentioned 230 times.

Martin Sweatman appears to be a busy fellow, for example see draft responses to [Holliday 2023] on his blogspot below (Note, for discussion on talk page only, not proposed for inclusion in this article)

January 29, 2024 Holliday et al.'s Gish Gallop: Summary

February 18, 2024  Holliday et al.'s Gish gallop: Introduction

I didn't know what Gish gallop meant, but provided a wiki link (Wikipedia so often a good reliable source of information, you gotta love it!)

Sweatman may get this published in a reliable source,and [Holliday 2023] may not be the final word in this ongoing debate, for example, see the topic NYTimes Magazine piece that shows a gifted article [20] added by jps.

I believe that usage should be driven by merit and not preconditioned. Sweatman may be a researcher that was not on the scene in 2007 when YDIH began. Powell may also be in this category. Comments? Dmcdysan (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Additional reliable sources - Mahaney YDIH paper summaries, citations

William C. Mahaney is not mentioned in the article as of 7 Mar 2024. I believe (at least) the following citations are relevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments?

References

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

Wikipedia articles for YDIH related people

While working on the references for this article I've regularly found myself referring to a list that I generated with a Wikidata query, so I thought I'd add it here for easier access. Hopefully others find it useful too; some of these articles could really use some help! Feel free to update the work count or add any notes as things progress. Aluxosm (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Bump. This is still coming in handy. Aluxosm (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 365 days. Aluxosm (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, this list is very useful. Clearly this topic has been misrepresented as fringe, probably because certain fringe theorists have used it to support their fring-ier theories. However, the current state of research and review very clearly suggests

A) this hypothesis is being taken seriously by geologists, archeologists, and archaeomythologists,

B) there is physical stratigraphic evidence for the hypothesis, and no consensus interpretation for dismissing this evidence or finding an alternate interpretation has been emerged or been reached.

C) there is a great deal of bad-faith argumentation from moral and political crusaders who think they're fighting disinformation just because this hypothesis was featured on certain podcasts. No, this hypothesis is, by itself, a valid scientific hypothesis. 108.81.205.36 (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Having recently started reading about YDIH agree that this is a very useful list.

What does the column "Work count" mean?

Found a list of Opponent publications at Boslough.US [[21]] and a list of opponent and proponent publications at CRG [[22]] that appears to only go to 2018 that I will compare to this list as I review the article. Dmcdysan (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see Christopher R. Moore" on the Proponents list. Here is a December 2023 paper for authors in the Proponents list. (There are also earlier papers by C.R. Moore). [23]

Is the 2022 July 2023 paper for Holliday et al authors in the Opponents list? Dmcdysan (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Aluxosm, I proposed some new sources in Additional reliable sources - Mahaney YDIH paper summaries, citations. I don't see Mahaney in the list of Proponents. I also don't see Allen West in the list of proponents either. Looking through posts on this Talk page I did not find consensus in Archive 4 Undue use of Comet Group material, etc. declaring Allen West as an unreliable source in all articles There you created the query: YDIH related scholarly articles co-authored by Allen West Some publishers, e.g., "Scientific Reports" are questionable and "Airbursts and Cratering Impacts" is too new to yet have a reputation, but there are still a number publications that appear reliable. I think the Mahaney one is unassailable. Comments? Dmcdysan (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

Proponents Work count Article Wikidata QID (Scholia) Notes 4 David G. Anderson Q5233911 (Scholia) 11 James L Bischoff Q47453794 (Scholia) 2 Marie-Agnès Courty Q3291438 (Scholia) 15 Jon M. Erlandson Q6271166 (Scholia) 31 Richard B. Firestone Q42735928 (Scholia) 12 Albert Goodyear Q4710335 (Scholia) 1 Richard A.F. Grieve Q33083285 (Scholia) 2 Gordon Hillman Q5585292 (Scholia) 5 Volli Kalm Q12378886 (Scholia) 33 Douglas Kennett Q62125127 (Scholia) 57 James P. Kennett Q62126196 (Scholia) 9 Dante Lauretta Q5221172 (Scholia) 1 Ernest Lundelius Q66316876 (Scholia) 17 William Mahaney Q2579838 (Scholia) 5 Adrian Melott Q4685216 (Scholia) 1 Dick Mol Q1209749 (Scholia) 6 Andrew M. T. Moore Q4757831 (Scholia) 7 William Napier Q862335 (Scholia) 3 James L. Powell Q16104533 (Scholia) Fully accepts the hypothesis  1 Mario Pino Quivira Q1898981 (Scholia) 1 Ihor Rassokha Q56368887 (Scholia) 1 Jelle Reumer Q21387812 (Scholia) 3 Peter H. Schultz Q7174459 (Scholia) 2 John Francis Thackeray Q26820569 (Scholia) 1 Antonio Zamora Q57844789 (Scholia) EN wiki article deleted in Jan 2023 Opponents Work count Article Wikidata QID (Scholia) Notes 1 Jessica L. Blois Q57928088 (Scholia) 12 Mark Boslough Q6597448 (Scholia) 1 Clark Chapman Q85317535 (Scholia) 2 Margaret Collinson Q36622537 (Scholia) 1 R. Lawrence Edwards Q22582853 (Scholia) 1 Ludovic Ferrière Q55215156 (Scholia) 6 Jacquelyn Gill Q47451028 (Scholia) 4 Vance Haynes Q7914032 (Scholia) 14 Vance T. Holliday Q15129872 (Scholia) 1 A.J. Timothy Jull Q4647219 (Scholia) 1 Moritz Kinzel Q93439025 (Scholia) 2 Christian Koeberl Q1080720 (Scholia) 1 H. Jay Melosh Q5628326 (Scholia) 6 David J. Meltzer Q27443414 (Scholia) 13 Andrew Cunningham Scott Q16442080 (Scholia) 1 Marco Stampanoni Q88852202 (Scholia) 2 Millarca Valenzuela Q29610805 (Scholia) 1 Thomas van der Hammen Q3525732 (Scholia) 4 Michael R. Waters Q20675761 (Scholia) 5 Cathy Whitlock Q62714533 (Scholia) Other commenters Work count Article Wikidata QID (Scholia) Notes 1 Wallace Smith Broecker Q911079 (Scholia) Accepted the core impact hypothesis but disagreed with the idea that it caused extinctions  1 George Dvorsky Q5538697 (Scholia) Writer for Gizmodo 1 Graham Hancock Q370235 (Scholia) Fully accepts the hypothesis  6 Richard Kerr Q58494892 (Scholia) Critical  2 David Morrison Q5237750 (Scholia) Critical  2 Heather Pringle Q5694050 (Scholia) Has written two articles about the YDIH in New Scientist 1 Michael Shermer Q126225 (Scholia) Initially critical , but less so recently. References

NYTimes Magazine piece

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

@ජපස, interesting article. Certainly gives a different perspective based upon quotes from AW and other participants, such as MB in the YDIH debate.

My usual questions, in the context of YDIH is The New York Times a reliable source? Is Zach St. George a reliable source? Considered a third party? Dmcdysan (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It's always contextual. To the extent that the NYTimes has identified the marginalization and suspicious characteristics of the CRG and personalities involved, it's as good a source as any other. The piece is not intended to be an evaluation of the ideas on their merits, and so cannot be used for that purpose. But we could use it as a source for a section on something like "Fringe marginalization and popular advocacy" with attendant discussion of how the group and its advocacy for this idea ended up gaining support from the likes of creationists, Graham Hancock, and Joe Rogan. jps (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@ජපස, possibly a one or two sentence mention in the existing In popular culture section that summarized the conclusion paragraph of this article

"In a sense, what West and his collaborators think now hardly matters. The hypothesis has already penetrated deeply, and perhaps indelibly, into the public imagination, seemingly on its way to becoming less a matter of truth than a matter of personal and group identity. Nobody I spoke with seemed to think it would go away soon, if ever. West, though, took a measured view. “All we can say is this is a hypothesis,” he said. “It’s still a debate. We may be wrong; we may be right. But only time will tell.”

I already added text referring to Hancock's Netflix series and Boslough's Skeptic magazine critique there, so I think that mention in this article is already covered. Joe Rogan is already mentioned in the In popular culture section, but it is not clear if the podcasts mentioned in the NYTimes article is a verifiable, reliable source.

Comments? Dmcdysan (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the spirituality, religion, and creationism connections probably could use some coverage. jps (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing and as I understand the process, go ahead and make the changes you see as appropriate. I suggest keeping "In popular culture" section for now instead of creating a new section. You may want to embellish the Boslough critique on the Hancock Netflix Apocalypse series (e.g., speculation of YDIH as cause for biblical flood). Also suggest you look at, Holliday 2023, Sec 15 (I believe considered a reliable source) and ensure that these instances are mentioned in this section (I believe that some are). Dmcdysan (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Issues with Summary First Paragraph

@Slatersteven reverted my good faith edit shown in the following diff [25]

The existing paragraph:

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH) or Clovis comet hypothesis is a speculative attempt to explain the onset of the Younger Dryas (YD) cooling at the end of the Last Glacial Period, around 12,900 years ago. The hypothesis is controversial and not widely accepted by relevant experts.

has several issues:

• The first sentence needed at least a citation.
• The summary should first define YDIH (without stating that it is "speculative") in order to address the overall comment on the website that "This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies.  (August 2022)" I proposed that [Powell 2022] is a good source for this and moved the text up from reference [9] to here. (The text was already in the article, I just moved it and replaced the first sentence.)
• There are many instances of refutation, and I believe that [Holliday 2023] is the best and I added a quote from the abstract. The Boslough Skeptic Magazine citation was to a list of 50 articles opposing YDIH, which I believe is not appropriate for a summary paragraph. I recommended moving this later.

References

Dmcdysan (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I added two more sentences from the Powell abstract as well. Dmcdysan (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, I made the following changes today to the second paragraph: the first removed the citation needed template by citing Toon 1997 [26], the next [27] addition of a "better source needed" template since in general PubPeer is not a reliable source (suggested citing [Holliday 2023] instead) and the third [28] to align with the [Powell 2022] quote. In my note to this change I requested Previously I had proposed moving the quote to the first sentence but it was reverted. Please discuss on Talk page before reverting again.

Still awaiting a response to my comments above to the first paragraph where I made no changes, but I believe with the changes proposed above the summary would better achieve Wikipedia:NPOV.

Comments? Dmcdysan (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, reading over the Wikipedia:BRD policy, I propose that we move to the WP:BRD#Alternatives approach on a sentence by sentence basis for the two sentences in the first paragraph of the summary:

• "Bold, revert, bold again: Don't stop editing, and don't discuss. Make a guess about why the reverter disagreed with you, and try a different edit to see whether that will be accepted. It's often helpful if your next effort is smaller, because that may help you figure out why the other editor objected to your change."

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH) or Clovis comet hypothesis is a speculative attempt to explain the onset of the Younger Dryas (YD) cooling at the end of the Last Glacial Period, around 12,900 years ago.

In this diff, I provided a citation for "speculative" and propose that deleting "speculative " here and making changes that I suggested above. If you do not object, then we could proceed with:

• "Bold, discuss, bold: You make a bold edit, then open a discussion. After the discussion, you or others boldly improve the edit based on the discussion suggestions. This cycle is useful if your edit is helpful, but needs to be improved, and if feedback would be valuable to improving the edit."

Do you agree to proceeding cooperatively in this way to improve the article? Dmcdysan (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I am waiting to see what others say, I am not the only person here, I objected to the edit. 17:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Previous unsigned remark from @Slatersteven[29]

@Slatersteven OK, thanks for responding. Looking back through the history, I found that the phrase "is a speculative attempt" was created on 22 Aug 2022 by an anonymous IP address as shown in this diff: [30]

That anonymous user also deleted text and a reference by a renowned climate scientist WS Broecker[31] on 12 Aug 2022 as shown in this diff: [32] IMHO this is important information from an expert in the field (It is reference 109 in [Powell 2022] dated to 2013). I am undoing that change since it is separate from this topic.

Some, some questions and hopefully@User:Doug Weller and/or others can provide some advice or give some pointers:

• Do Wikipedia editors have to accept (older) input from an anonymous IP address, or can it be undone without discussion?
• If true, can such a reversion be done manually, with explanation in Notes, for example referring to this topic?

Briefly in early January 2023 "speculative attempt" was changed to "theory" and reverted back to an earlier version where another anonymous IP replaced user "speculative attempt" with "theory attempting" as shown in this diff [33] I agree with what Doug stated there in his revert, paraphrasing, look at the title - this is a hypothesis, not a theory.

Also in January 2023, @Ghmyrtleproposed alternative text:Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis/Archive 4 § Opening sentence

Please look at their proposed text and comment as to whether the current text or that proposal is best for the article. Thanks

(Wasn't easy for me to find the above! Possibly there is a better way to search, I am still learning.) Dmcdysan (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Aloha, and Thanks for All the Fish!

Attributing topic title to this great work [34],

in order to attend to personal matters I will be only intermittently active on Wikipedia, if at all, for several months. ....pause .... waiting for cheering and applause to subside .....

Seriously though, I intended to help, but realize sometimes such statements are not well received. [35] (Click past the donation request to see content).

I tried to make an number of suggestions that I viewed as constructive to improve this article and asked if anyone one was interested - I did not interpret lack of response as WP:SILENCE and tried to ask questions in the sense "that if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so." However, before expending more effort, if you are interested in me expanding on my proposals to improve this article please let me know by a positive response over the next several months. The good news is that I have already posted many of my ideas as topics on this talk page; the bad news is that I have more ideas only in a draft state.

I have been desperately seeking reliable third-party sources (e.g., college textbooks) on this subject and will purchase them for my own education. I think citing such sources would help address the too many primary sources issue that this article has. So far, I purchased the 2021 text Vanished Giants which supports the YDIH opponent view for Late Pleistocene extinctions. I plan to cite this reference there and that may help with the large number of primary sources used there. I am still searching for other such college level textbooks and if anyone has recommendations, I would greatly appreciate that.

The following may be disturbing to some, and although not directly relevant here, before reacting I suggest recalling and/or (re) reading WP:CIVIL - I have found this to be a helpful coping method for past stressful situations on Wikipedia. Others are reading this Wikipedia article and criticizing it, for example the 22 Oct 2022 Wikipedia's bias - a case study: The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis and the related discussion starting 25 Oct 2022 at Wikipedia FTN Talk thread M Sweatman publishing a blog attacking Wikipedia and two editors. Looking over that critique and the current state of the article, not much has changed for the better. Personally, I consider some of Sweatman's statements rude according to WP:CIVIL (e.g., the comments on the Evidence and History sections) but in IMHO (IETF parlance), the critique does make some valid points that editors of this article should consider. I found this only recently after going over hundreds of pages of archives. I had already independently made some recommendations along these lines previously.

The above FTN thread clarified to me in how some ways the article has come to its current state that may actually worse than that critiqued above by deleting a number of sentences and text that stated the YDIH proponent (which at my current level of understanding is equivalent to CRG member (however that is defined)). In a number of cases, the deleted statements had little content and may have been written by an editor sympathetic to YDIH opponents and the deletion was justified. However, the result is now that many sections/ paragraphs (e.g., the summary) begin with the YDIH opponent view while the YDIH proponent view is never described. IMHO, this is a major reason why I believe the article has an even less WP:NPOV than it did on 22 Oct 2022. Through cooperative editing, I believe this could be resolved. I have little experience with WP:BRD, and see that it has been used extensively in Talk:YDIH. I found that WP:BRD does describe many optional strategies and I suggest that interested editors consider those as well. I made such a proposal in Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis § Issues with Summary First Paragraph.

IMHO, there was some good discussion about reorganizing the article to list the proponent view (without undue weight) and follow it with the opponent view but no consensus that I saw. There was also some discussion about starting over on the article and rewriting it from scratch and I did see some interest for other editors in this approach. Some secondary sources have also become available and rewriting using only those could help condense and improve the article. For my own usage, I have started to do this in my sandbox, but it is not ready for review. If and when I have something worthy of your review, I will post a draft on this talk page. I can't find an official Wikipedia guideline for this, but please don't mess around in my sandbox. If you do, you will find a bunch of stuff there unrelated to this topic, but I believe that I have avoided Wikipedia:BADSAND (cool acronym) and have followed guidelines in Wikipedia:User pages so I have nothing to hide. By stating this I realize that I have opened myself up to an investigation, and if I have done something inappropriate please message me with @ so that I can attempt to resolve it and learn. Doing Wikipedia work on an iPad is limited, so I will not be able to provide a detailed response but would appreciate the opportunity to attempt a response and learn.

Mahalo Dmcdysan (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Internal Links (Wikilinks) versus Section Links

Response and questions to reversions in these diffs by @Beland [36], and @Doug Weller [37]

Searching on "inappropriate usage of internal link" I found: Help:Link § Wikilinks (internal links), which states "A wikilink (or internal link) is a link from one page to another page within the English Wikipedia ...."

Within Wikipedia, I have seen the internal link syntax used to link to a section within the same article many times, and obviously the Wiki language syntax allows this (since it generates HTML). Links within an article (implemented as a web page by Wikipedia) to other sections (HTML anchors) in the same article are valuable in at least some cases, and that is what I wanted to do here After more searching, I found the following:

Template:Slink, which states: "This template is appropriate ... to reference sections within the same article. (Wikilinks to sections in other articles appear to be used appropriately here).

In the future, I suggest not only mentioning inappropriate usage of a wikilink, but recommend use of Template:Slink.

Questions: Are the internal links in the first paragraphs of Wikipedia:BRD inappropriate internal links (i.e., links to the same page, not another)? Should a section link be used instead? Does the indirection via the redirect WP:BRB change this?

Unless I hear an objection I plan to begin using section links. I have already begun using them on Talk pages. On some other pages I am aware of, internal link syntax should be changed to section link syntax.

Comments?

Looking though all these administrative guidelines and sampling the contributions of senior editors, I have gained an appreciation for the work that goes on behind the scenes to keep Wikipedia at the level of quality it has in many articles. Than you for all that you do! Dmcdysan (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dmcdysan: Normally article introductions don't say "as explained below" because readers are simply expected to continue reading if they want more information, or click on the table of contents. Typically every piece of the intro is simply summarizing more detailed information in the body, so cross-referencing in this way would lead to a lot of bloat and make article intros harder to read. If you think readers will doubt what they are reading in the intro and need immediate access to reliable supporting sources (as MOS:LEADCITE implies is more likely for controversial subjects), the most common way to do that cleanly is to add inline citations that point to the same footnotes as the body. If you put a "name" field in the ref tag like, <ref name="Bik">...</ref> in the body for the Bik paper, and then <ref name="Bik" /> in the intro, they will both point to the same footnote without duplicating the citation in the wikitext. -- Beland (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beland, thank you for the response and general guidance but that was not my question. The pointer needed is not to a footnote but a section in the same article. I want to insert a link to sections on the same page (and other pages), similar to what is done twice in the first paragraph of Wikipedia:BRD as described above. This uses an internal link (wikilink), which is what had I done her: you deleted it, I added some text back trying to address what I apparently misunderstood your concern and then @Doug Weller reverted my edit because it was an inappropriate internal link (the same as used in WP:BRD).. I was trying to confirm that I should use the Section link template should be used so that you, Doug or some other editor doesn't delete the link and instead would advise the editor to use the section link. If you or Doug can provide me a pointer I can try to get the Internal link (wikilink) document revised to help make such editing consistent. Thank you. Dmcdysan (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dmcdysan: I think the point is that while a link to an anchor on the same page is syntactically possible, as a matter of style they are not used in these circumstances. Internal links to other article pages are extremely common and not at issue here. Policy pages like WP:BRD don't follow encyclopedic style, and not useful to emulate when editing articles. -- Beland (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beland, can you identify Wikipedia documentation for the matter of style where section links are not to be used in particular circumstances? My intent was to us this in more than the instance being discussed.

I guess I could put it in the text as follows: "these items are described in the evidence section" I don't believe it would be obvious to a reader just looking at the table of contents in this case.

According to Template:Section link it is used on approximately 68,000 pages and explicitly states: which states: "This template is appropriate ... to reference sections within the same article." Dmcdysan (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beland, this page https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Links shows in the table in the Internal links section that states "If you're trying to create a wikilink to the current page, you probably want to link to a specific section or to an anchor within the page; see the examples below."

See in the table the row header "Link to an anchor on the same page" that gives an example to the section "See Also" on that page. I believe this is similar to the syntax that both you and @Doug Weller indicated as inappropriate use of an internal link when deleting and reverting my edits. Dmcdysan (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beland, Here is an example of an article that is not a policy page and uses multiple such links as described above, Great Pyramid of Giza § Interior

I recall seeing it in a number of other instances as well.

Seems like technically a search could be done across Wikipedia for usages of this type of link, but I am not sure if such a thing has been implemented.

In the absence of a written policy it is unclear how consistency of this could be achieved in Wikipedia. I am going to hold off doing any more edits of this type and just type things in text until I can read some documentation regarding matter of style.

I am trying to be difficult, just get some clarity on the applicable guidelines. Thank you. Dmcdysan (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dmcdysan: Text like "these items are described in the evidence section" should be unnecessary, as readers are expected to simply continue reading past the intro if they want more details. If you're worried about people curious about the proposed boundary layer not being able to jump to the right section from the table of contents, we could change the section title from "Hypothetical impact markers" to "Hypothetical impact markers and boundary layer". Or whatever other section title changes you think would be helpful to navigation.

The Help:Links page is just showing what is technically possible and how to do it; it is not part of the English Wikipedia's style manual. (As you can see, it's on a different, though affiliated, website.)

Counting the number of articles using {{section link}} doesn't tell us much; I use that template all the time to make links to anchors on other pages, which generally seems to speed navigation. I could search a database dump to see how many articles link to same-page anchors from their introductions, but that wouldn't necessarily tell us whether they should be doing that. To answer this type of question in the absence of style guidelines, I like to see what a random assortment of Wikipedia:Featured articles are doing in similar situations; these articles have been highly vetted and generally represent best practices at the time of approval (though they may decay over time).

Great Pyramid of Giza is not linking to sections from its introduction; it's linking to subsections from an image caption. I think that's actually a good use of same-page anchor links. Linking from infoboxes is also often useful to avoid duplication or to direct readers to a longer explanation of a complicated situation. Even there, it's better to link the existing words and try to avoid adding words just for the sake of making a link. Sometimes linking from the prose of one section to another section is done, but I find that's usually a sign that the organization of the article could be improved.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section contains the most direct advice specifically concerning article introductions that I could find in a quick search: "gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows". "The lead should stand on its own", that page says, partly because Wikipedia articles are recycled in other distribution channels, and often truncated. If the intro to this article were to show up without the body as a Google search result, for example, or in a print version of Wikipedia, or as a transclusion in another Wikipedia article, it would be undesirable for the text to refer to later sections (whether with plain text or with a hyperlink) that weren't included. -- Beland (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beland, thank you for the thoughtful response. If it's in the TOC, no need to mention it in text - got it. Changing section titles breaks other links to that anchor so in general I think that is not a good idea - I already fixed one on this site that I believe was several years old. Looking at a few instances I recall, the same-page anchor links are in the body, and in a complex article that may be warranted. There is another such link in the Giza article. The MOS lead section reference is very helpful - I had not seen that before - I will read it carefully. I believe the lead section in the YDIH article could be improved to better meet these guidelines. Adding some of your suggestions to existing Wikipedia guidelines could be helpful to other editors and I leave it to your judgment as to how best do that. I believe that I understand your comments and will take them into consideration in any future editing that I may do.

Regarding, a truncated result the print version would have the same issue for every type of link. Regarding recycling distribution channels, I believe in rendering the HTML Wikipedia resolves all links to external links (read that somewhere) and know that same-page links get expanded to a full internal link. A truncated portion of an article with a link would then take a user back to the Wikipedia site and not the recycling site, unless that site alters this (I have seen this in a few cases). To address this, an editor could make every link in a lead section external if that is a concern.

Due to personal matters, I will only be intermittently active for a few months, but I will remember this if/when I start editing again. Dmcdysan (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Section titles do need to change from time to time, and we shouldn't be afraid that they are so fragile that we leave bad titles in place. Broken section links can be automatically detected, and will eventually be fixed. If you want to fix them right away, you can check through the "what links here" page [38] or even quicker, search for such links directly: [39]. From those search results, I see that no other articles link to this section.

For print distribution, hyperlinks would presumably be stripped out entirely because paper does not do anything when you poke at it, and there's no guarantee that the article referred to is important enough to be included in the print distribution. Which is why the text of the intro prose is supposed to stand on its own.

Internal links always need to use the internal link wiki syntax because if the entire project is copied, those links need to resolve to website of the copy of Wikipedia, not the official English Wikipedia. Links that use external link wiki syntax stay the same on web sites that just copy Wikipedia in full. (Sometimes there is a link back to the source Wikipedia article for copyright legal reasons, but that's added by the copying site outside the article text.)

We can actually see content recycling of this article in action on Duck Duck Go: [40]. All the links get stripped out and only plain text remains. So when the older version of this article was live, the phrase "as detailed in the sections on Evidence and Hypothetical impact markers;" appeared on that Duck Duck Go page (if you click the down arrow to expand the Wikipedia excerpt). Which is confusing for Duck Duck Go users, because there are no such sections on that page. -- Beland (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

YDIT page outdated

This page seems to align with the issues pointed out in the linked paper.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10450282/ Contenteditalexa (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)