Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

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

POV Dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wiki Article Removal Request

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

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

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

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

Continued Removal of Primary References

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

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

No problem. Ban my ass. I'm finished with Wikipedia editors editing from ignorance. Thanks.

CosmicLifeform (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Palaeolithic extinctions and the Taurid Complex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skeptical Raptor is the New Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis Editor

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

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

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