User talk:Aluxosm

Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

I saw that you disabled my addition to the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article regarding Mark Boslough's forthcoming article in Skeptical Inquirer. My addition was based on a pre-print of this article. I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy is on this type of thing. Will you restore the text once the article has been published? The text that I added did include mentions of air burst claims and links to related articles. Hoopes (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hoopes: As I mentioned in the edit summary, the information is not verifiable yet. Wikipedia does have specific guidance related to scholarly preprints, I realise that this is a news article but I don't see any reason why the advice would be any different; the article has not been published so has potentially not gone through the full review process yet, it's not just an access issue.

As to whether I would restore it when the article has been published: I would only personally do so if it had been worked on. Again, as I mentioned, I couldn't see where you had written anything specifically about air bursts. To me, the paragraph mostly came off as promo for Mark Boslough. I have nothing against a section that highlights specific problems with the proponents' air burst models, or one that has any mention of Boslogh's critique, I just think that at the moment it's more deserving of the title: Mark Boslough takes issue with anyone who researches the impact hypothesis. Aluxosm (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It's clear that you haven't read the pre-publication version of the article for Skeptical Inquirer, which I have. It has, in fact, gone through the full review process, since it is now in the galley proof stage. When you say that you couldn't see where there is anything that had been written specifically about air bursts, you seem not to have seen the second sentence of the article's introductory paragraph, which specifically mentions meteor air bursts. That information has been there for quite a while now. Air bursts are also mentioned in the section of the article titled "The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis" in the paragraph that begins, "In 2019..." I don't understand why you think that the paragraph "mostly came off" as promo for a particular author. It is not at all unusual to mention the name of an author when citing a specific article. Your recommended subtitle suggests that you have a bias against this particular author. Your glib recommended subtitle is not accurate, since Boslough does not take issue with anyone who researches the impact hypothesis. Given your substantial bias and the way it violates neutral point of view, I recommend that you voluntarily cease editing this article. Hoopes (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hoopes: Please re-read the paragraph you wrote, my edit summary when I removed it, and my comment above.

• It's clear that you haven't read the pre-publication version of the article for Skeptical Inquirer... — You are correct, that is the main reason why I disabled the text; the article has not been published yet.
• When you say that you couldn't see where there is anything that had been written specifically about air bursts... — I did see that sentence, and I still don't see anything specific in the paragraph. The only thing you mention is that Boslough has "has undertaken a sustained critique". I think it would be great to have a section dedicated to discussing the problems with the proponents' air burst models, one that highlights specific arguments from Boslough and others.
• Air bursts are also mentioned in the section of the article titled "The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis"... — Yup, they're mentioned throughout the article because it's a core component of the hypothesis. Again, I have nothing against a section that refutes these claims.
• I don't understand why you think that the paragraph "mostly came off" as promo for a particular author — Because without describing what Boslough's problems with the air-burst model are, it ends up being about Boslough himself.
• It is not at all unusual to mention the name of an author when citing a specific article. ... — You are correct. Again, I have nothing against a section that features Boslough's critique, I just think it should focus on the issue, and not Boslough himself.
• Your recommended subtitle suggests that you have a bias against this particular author. — It shows that I have a problem with the text as it stands. I do not have a problem with Boslough.
• Your glib recommended subtitle is not accurate — Obviously not, that is the point I was trying to make. In it's current state, the paragraph does not accurately describe any issues with the air-burst model.

• Given your substantial bias and the way it violates neutral point of view — I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to remove bias here; a significant proportion of this article was written by people who pushed the idea that this debate has been settled. I've added arguments from both sides. I don't disagree with having this section, I just think it needs some work.
• I recommend that you voluntarily cease editing this article. — Please take a look at the page history, most of my work here has been in improving the references and correcting subtle misinformation. I do not believe that my problem with your text warrants this reaction.

Aluxosm (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful clarifications. When the article is published, I will try to include more details about the specific critique of the air-burst model. I do not want to put the focus on Boslough at all, but on his specific, published critiques as part of the scholarly debate about this topic. I agree with you that the debate has not been settled. Boslough's forthcoming article helps make that clear. Hoopes (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks also for your attention to the Tall el-Hammam page. You're correct, it needs more discussion of the claims for an air burst. I disagree with the assertion that the section I added is promo for Mark Boslough. However, I agree that it should not be added until his forthcoming article in Skeptical Inquirer is in print. There has been substantial discussion of the problems with reporting on this site in social media on various blogs. However, much of that is summarized in the cited article. I have a strong preference for citations of published articles rather than blogs and websites, which is why this particular publication merits discussion. Hoopes (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your extensive and careful attention to this article. Please note my own substantial edits back in June 7-8, 2019 and a few times afterwards. I have not given it as much attention as you have, but share your feelings that this particular article should accurately reflect the state of both the data and the ongoing debates. Hoopes (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on Tall el-Hammam. I think that the footnote (a) you added was not relevant to the Tall el-Hammam article, as the Tall el-Hammam article focuses on events in that specific region. Do you mind if I delete the footnote? rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: I think that it'd be worth rewording the preceding sentence if you do. It is perhaps slightly less relevant on that article, but it's important to note that Boslough doesn't think all of these ideas are nonsense.

• [Boslough has] undertaken a sustained critique in social media and in print of the hypothesis that an impact event or air burst was responsible for either a mass extinction of Late Pleistocene fauna in North America, abrupt climate change at the end onset of the Younger Dryas, or the destruction of human settlements at Tall el-Hammam. — Without the note, it sounds as though he disagrees with the idea that any airbursts occurred around that time. Even though Schultz et al. didn't associate the Atacama airburst with the Younger Dryas boundary, the fact that such a large event occurred at that point in history is significant. The paper states: "the dates for the Pica glasses coincide with the disappearance of Quaternary megafauna in South America, an extinction that was more severe than that on any other continent (Barnosky and Lindsey, 2010). While a direct causal link is not claimed, the timing is intriguing."
• He has been especially critical of a group of investigators called the Comet Research Group (CRG) that includes several individuals who have also published papers supporting the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis — Without the note, it sounds as though he takes issue with anyone associated with the CRG. Schultz, being a co-author of the original paper, would be included in this statement if it weren't for the clarification.

Hope that makes sense, sorry for not just coming up with a better way of rewording that sentence! Aluxosm (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to focus solely on the tall el-Hammam airburst claim, as that is a clear case of poor science and misinterpretation/alteration of evidence. How about the following changes with elimination of the footnote?

Physicist Mark Boslough, a specialist in planetary impact hazards and asteroid impact avoidance, has undertaken a sustained critique in social media and in print of the hypothesis that an impact event or air burst was responsible for either a mass extinction of Late Pleistocene fauna in North America, abrupt climate change at the onset of the Younger Dryas, or the destruction of human settlements at Tall el-Hammam. He has been especially critical of a group of investigators called the Comet Research Group (CRG) that includes several individuals who have also published papers supporting the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. His critique calls attention to a perspective of biblical inerrancy that has been used in claims that an air burst destroyed the Biblical town of Sodom.<Reference goes here "Sodom Meteor Strike Claims Should Be Taken with a Pillar of Salt"> rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll make the edits. You can alter if you think I've misstated something. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: It's probably not a bad way to go if you're dead set on removing the footnote. The only thing that gives me pause is the loss of context; how about adding a link to the YDIH article in the See also section? Thanks for your help, Merry New Year! Aluxosm (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I like that idea. Will do. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Follow up: A couple of months later, in March 2022, James Lawrence Powell resigned from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in protest against the publication of the article in Skeptical Inquirer by CSI fellow Mark Boslough regarding the Bunch et al. Tall el-Hammam airburst paper. He stated that the article "violates nearly every tenet of proper skepticism as defined by CSICOP and CSI." Pinging Hoopes and Rsjaffe.

References

Aluxosm (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's essential to note that Powell's opinion is clearly his own and not that of the other members of CSICOP or the editors of Skeptical Inquirer. Powell, to my knowledge, did not go into detail or offer any explanation of exactly how Boslough's article "violates nearly every tenet of proper skepticism as defined by CSICOP and CSI". His argument therefore remains unmade. As Carl Sagan liked to note, claims that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I think Powell's complaints can be ignored. One could just as easily argue that his "take my ball and go home" opinion is hopelessly biased on religious grounds, doing as he does and offering no evidence. This is a pointless way to debate. As in Wikipedia, statements should be based on evidence. Hoopes (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoopes: Not sure that I follow...

• I think it's essential to note that Powell's opinion is clearly his own and not that of the other members of CSICOP or the editors of Skeptical Inquirer. — Clear as mud. Other than the fact the the article was published, do you have anything to suggest that this is actually the case?
• Powell, to my knowledge, did not go into detail or offer any explanation of exactly... Did you read past the bit that I quoted? From his resignation (emphasis mine):

Sagan said that "Ad hominem arguments are irrelevant," yet half of Boslough's article is an ad hominem attack on a single author of the Tall el-Hammam article. Another ~20% casts aspersions on the volunteer and religious organizations that supported the research. Hyman recommends that skeptics use the principle of charity, yet Boslough falsely accuses one of the BEA authors of having a criminal record and strongly implies that as a group they may have committed scientific misconduct. He uses loaded language e.g., "photoshopping, fearmongering, masquerading, tampering, mishandling, giggle factor." Worst of all, Boslough never evaluates the evidence for cosmic impact presented in the Tall el-Hammam article. Thus from the point of view of advancing both science and skepticism, Boslough’s article is irrelevant.

• claims that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence — The evidence is Boslough's article; it's clear that he didn't make any attempt to argue the case and mostly just resorted to disparaging the authors and their affiliations.
• I think Powell's complaints can be ignored. — I don't think Boslough's complaints should be ignored. That's the difference. Boslough does make some good points and there is cause for skepticism. The problem is that instead of looking past that point to see if there may be more to any of the claims, he dismisses the lot straight out of the gate. He had already made his mind up before he'd read the paper.[1] Do you really not see any problems with that? In Powell's words, "If Skeptical Inquirer is to publish articles by members of CSI, should they not exemplify the best of scientific skepticism?"
• One could just as easily argue that his "take my ball and go home" opinion is hopelessly biased on religious grounds, doing as he does and offering no evidence. — He's literally writing a paper on this whole thing (Sodom and Skepticism) so we'll know more about his thinking when it's published, but again, Powell made his thoughts clear and the evidence is Boslough's article.
• As in Wikipedia, statements should be based on evidence. — Totally agree. I wish everyone could just focus on the evidence and drop the ad homs and such (goes for both sides of this debate).

Note: An erratum was published but the Tall el-Hammam airburst paper has not been retracted

Relevant: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source

Relevant: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 364#Columns at Skeptical Inquirer

I'm not saying that we should avoid referencing this article, just that we should be careful when using it for anything more than highlighting Boslough's disdain for the Comet Research Group. Aluxosm (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I read the article about Powell when it appeared. Is there any evidence at all that any other member of CSICOP or CSI agrees with him about the skepticism issue? The fact that Boslough's article was published in Skeptical Inquirer (the official publication of CSICOP) makes it clear that it has the organization's editorial endorsement. That is, the fact that Boslough's article was published is sufficient. I have also followed some of the discussion Powell's article on social media that has been made by Boslough and others. Although Powell claims that Boslough was engaging in ad hominem attacks, those claims are untenable. The qualifications of the authors and the religious organizations that supported the Tall el-Hammam research are directly germane to the evaluation of the published claims about it. Powell's claim that Boslough makes false accusations must be evaluated on the basis of facts. Are they in fact false? Whether Boslough's language is "loaded" or not is a matter of opinion. Each of those words and phrases--"photoshopping, fearmongering, masquerading, tampering, mishandling, giggle factor"--means something specific and it is my own opinion that Boslough's use of each of these was justified (there actually was photoshopping, fearmongering, etc.) Boslough actually does evaluate the evidence for cosmic impact. As a specialist in air burst phenomenon, his evaluation--whether detailed and systematic or not--is an evaluation nonetheless. I disagree that it is a problem that Boslough "didn't make any attempt to argue the case". Powell writes, "Worst of all, Boslough never evaluates the evidence for cosmic impact presented in the Tall el-Hammam article." However, the burden of proof is on the individuals making the air burst claim, not on Boslough. There is no onus upon Boslough to disprove their claims. His main point is to show that they have not met the burden of proof. He is claiming that the evidence for an air burst is either insufficient or suspect--and quite possibly intentionally manipulated, erroneous, and misleading--and he is using facts about the claimants to make it clear that there are reasons to doubt their credibility and even their honesty. Hoopes (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoopes: I think we're actually kind of on the same page with some of this. However,

• Is there any evidence at all that any other member of CSICOP or CSI agrees — I have no doubt that most did, especially the editors. But that's not what I was countering; you initially seemed to suggest that they all did: "Powell's opinion is clearly his own and not that of the other members of CSICOP or the editors of Skeptical Inquirer". There is simply no way to know that for sure.
• Although Powell claims that Boslough was engaging in ad hominem attacks, those claims are untenable. — Valid or not, Boslough surely was, no?
• He is claiming that the evidence for an air burst is either insufficient or suspect--and quite possibly intentionally manipulated, erroneous, and misleading--and he is using facts about the claimants to make it clear that there are reasons to doubt their credibility and even their honesty. — Is that not literally the definition of an ad hominem argument? From the article on them: "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong." West says that he found nanodiamonds, Boslough asserts that West was fined for practising geophysics without a license, and hence Boslough concludes that West could not have found nanodiamonds.

• Powell's claim that Boslough makes false accusations must be evaluated on the basis of facts. Are they in fact false? — Yes, they are false. From across the pond this does seem a little odd, but, "Expungement in California does not destroy or seal a criminal record, it changes it by replacing the finding of guilt with a finding of not guilty and changing the disposition of the case from convicted to dismissed. You can then, truthfully say, you were not convicted of the offense".[2][3]
• Whether Boslough's language is "loaded" or not is a matter of opinion. — For sure. Seemingly Powell simply thought that it was unnecessary and unbecoming of a CSI fellow. Fair enough.
• Boslough actually does evaluate the evidence for cosmic impact. — Not in this article. That's the crux of my point, this piece adds nothing to that aspect of the debate. Ironically, the only thing he really talked about in relation to them is when he recommended a paper by Schultz et al. that provided evidence for "nearly simultaneous (seconds to minutes) intense airbursts close to Earth's surface near the end of the Pleistocene." Schultz was a co-author of the paper that originally proposed the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis.
• As a specialist in air burst phenomenon, his evaluation--whether detailed and systematic or not--is an evaluation nonetheless. — The problem is the "or not" part of that. His evaluation of the CRG may have merit, as does his previous work, but the lack of any actual discussion about air bursts here means that this article should probably not be used to back up claims regarding them.
• There is no onus upon Boslough to disprove their claims. — I disagree (as does JLP it seems). It looks like Boslough agrees with you though: he didn't need to disprove their claims, so he didn't.
• His main point is to show that they have not met the burden of proof. — That's just not what he did though, he didn't get that far. His main point was to get people to ignore their proof by suggesting that none of it should be trusted; instead of directly debating the clams, he dismissed the lot and focused on sowing doubt, mainly relating to a single author of the paper. Bad No science, bad skepticism.

Had this been the intro to his argument I could almost get behind it. The problem was that this was his whole argument. Aluxosm (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC); edited Aluxosm (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

If you're not aware already, Powell published a new article in "Research Ethics" detailing the problematic nature of Boslough's article in detail. It's highly relevant to this thread. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17470161221131491 Incendiex90 (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

YDIH Wikidata queries

Aloha @Aluxosm, your Wikidata queries listed in an invisible comment was deleted as shown in this diff.

I was able to recover it by viewing the diff in source mode as follows

<!--
A full list of scholarly articles whose main subject is the YDIH can be generated from Wikidata with this query: https://w.wiki/3wrS
The Scholia profile (which also utilises Wikidata) is really useful here as well: https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q1092095
-->

In the topic you created in Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#Wikipedia articles for YDIH related people I indicated that this was useful and had a few questions. Due to the physical condition of the diff creator, I did not want to undo or respond directly.

Your work with this tool is also being discussed in Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#Sweatman as Reliable source in relation to Archive 4.

I see that pasting the URL results in a report like that you posted.

Do you have a list of the queries you created that you can post here in case more invisible comments are deleted?

Mahalo!

Dmcdysan (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Heya Dmcdysan! Apologies for the late reply, busyness and my my frustration with some of the editors of that article encouraged a bit of a departure from Wikipedia. I carried on with this subject over on Wikidata for a while (waay fewer things to argue about when you're focusing on the data) but even then ended up spending too much time trying to talk someone down from their own crusade against any information related to the YDIH 🤦‍♂️. That being said, I'm still very interested in this subject and want to see where it goes (assuming it doesn't just get buried in infighting haha).

Aaanyway, If you haven't already found it, I think you would be very interested in this page over on Wikidata: WikiProject Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. If you have any ideas for new queries feel free to suggest them on the talk page! There's a huge amount of information on Wikidata but there's still a lot of work to be done; I've already made a start again thanks to your enthusiasm.

I'll try to reply to some of your comments on the YDIH article's talk page before long but it still takes a while to find the chill required to interact over there 😅. Cheers, Aluxosm (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Aluxosm, thank you for the response. The Wikidata page is exactly what I was looking for! Was this ever posted the Talk:YDIH? If so, what was the reaction? As I understand Wikipedia policies your work would be original research and not be a reliable source Wikipedia:No original research. Can you confirm or correct my understanding?

A little background on me. Although Wikipedia shows me as having created the User:Dmcdysan in 2017, I was not active until Summer 2022 in a subject with little controversy unrelated to this subject area. I read some articles and had seen some shows (I think reliable, e.g., Discovery channel) over the years and recently read several more articles and wondered what Wikipedia had to say about it, and found the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article, saw the banners at the top of the page and had the impression that the article focused on the opponent references and in several cases never did clearly define the proponent position, specifically the CRG which is the first main section in the article. I naively made some changes, specifically defining what exactly the Comet Research Group (CRG) was that elicited responses primarily from one editor. First, I pointed to Wikidata and was informed that according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is not a reliable source and I understand that now. Adding more text trying to define that a link to the CRG website my change was reverted with a brief note that it was promotion of a fringe group Wikipedia:PROFRINGE. I then added in alternate links to define CRG and found that references to Graham Hancock is a confirmed pseudoscientist and found how he was blacklisted on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I now understand and agree with this. Apparently there is a history with the individual Allen West associated with the CRG, which is where I found your user ID. I then added a reference and summary for Martin Sweatman and it was reverted with the reason that this author was not a reliable source. I mistakenly did not add quotes and my posted was deleted by a bot. I created a new topic in Sweatman as Reliable source and mentioned Archive 4. I had misinterpreted Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and had to make several apologies. I now understand that policy. I mentioned your user ID there. Limited discussion and some responses, in particular the health status of a particular editor, who had created the topic Allen West and the CRG. There is some discussion there. I mentioned you but had misspelled your UserID, but corrected that. I am genuinely interested in trying to improve the YDIH article as requested in the banner pages and proposed specific changes to add a map and articulated some potential changes to make the summary paragraph have a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I have decided to not post again the Talk pages regarding policy unless other editors engage. I have been spending my time reading the first three references. There is some good text in the Evidence section that I found useul.

Sorry about the long post. My missteps as a relative Newbie may have caused other editors to not consider my posts worthy of a response. Any advice on how best to proceed or links to relevant Wikipedia policy would be appreciated. Dmcdysan (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)