Jump to content

Talk:Younger Dryas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Spaghetti code source

[edit]

I appreciate that an article needs references, and they should be there. But when I tried to edit this article, I found the source very difficult to read because of the massive inline reference tags making it hard to find the actual article text. I started converting this article's reference tags to an indented format for improved source legibility, but there's been a revert dispute. Why must an editor strain their eyes combing wiki source for bits of article text between bloated reference tags? I've spent decades editing without a visual editor, and I'm not going to start using it now just to avoid spaghetti markup and write-only markup. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a separate line for each field of a reference was common fifteen years ago, but it is very rarely used now, as most of editors find it easier to have the ref as continuous text. You are trying to impose a format which you prefer against the preference and convenience of the great majority. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a problem, but your formatting arguably does not make it more easy to edit.
The solution is having a reference section at the bottom, and making use of shortened footnote templates {Template:Sfn}, so that there are no lengthy in-line references. Hypnôs (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then let's do that. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a start for the first three references. Hypnôs (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hypnôs I understand this method may be useful to some editor's using only source editing. However, as shown here and in the YDIH article it has the following issues:
  • The References section becomes a list of names that point to a footnote for the reference - a reader has to click twice to do this.
  • Ordering of references to a first citation must be done manually.
  • An editor must remember the snf name to use this, whereas in visual editing the citation can be selected. Moving the first instance of a citation to its first usage may be required using source editing mode, which for someone familiar with source mode should not have an issue.
  • I also suggest that editors look at Wikipedia Manual of Style before implementing such a change.
Thank you. Dmcdysan (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmcdysan You are right, there are certainly drawbacks to this citation style, and I prefer the visual editor myself.
But an article being basically uneditable using the source editor is not the ideal solution either. How do you propose to solve or mitigate this problem? Hypnôs (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hypnôs, I suggest that you and/or @Gilgamesh state the problem and ask your question to Wikipedia:Teahouse who may be able to give pointers or know of specific Manual of Style guidlelines that may be applicable. IMHO, putting each parameter of the Cite template on a line by itself helps readability.
Wikipedia:Templates appears to be applicable "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus;" so changing this article (or YDIH) to this method is discouraged. You might consider editing a shorter article with few citations (or even more) as an example of what you have done and the problems to be solved.
Another issue I thought of may be whether a citation cleanup bot works with this style.
Modification of an existing template and/or creation of a new template may be required based upon requirements articulated by editors preferring source editing. I too primarily use the visual editor and this is not an issue for me. Dmcdysan (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmcdysan Changing citation styles is not discouraged, it merely requires consensus, which was reached in November without any disagreement. Consensus is not a barrier to discourage improvement.
There are plenty of lengthy articles that exclusively use shortened footnote templates. This is not a novel issue that needs experimentation.
The avoid clutter section explicitly recommends using short citations in cases where inline citation bloat and clutter the text.
Can you point me to the section of the Manual of Style that recommends what you suggested, putting each parameter of an inline citation on a separate line? Hypnôs (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hypnôs, I was remarking that putting each parameter on a separate line is what is done in this article, and that I am fine (OK) with that. I inserted and then deleted a test of multiple instances and the ordering appears automatic, so ignore that comment - I thought this was the case in YDIH. This makes the article longer by having two lists but may be the best compromise for source editors as described in Help:Shortened footnotes. It is almost the style used by many articles of [authorname YYYYa]. I believe I understand this style and can use it. Thinking about it a little more a citation bot should find the citations. I like that all of the citations are grouped together at the end and that only the sfn template need be entered in the designated spot. I think the Re-Use for citation in visual mode won't work and an editor would need to locate, copy and paste the sfn. I'll have to look more at what you did with this method on YDIH, for example including a specific quotation for a reference. So, go ahead with this article. You may want to wait to do this on YDIH since some references may be going away. Dmcdysan (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hypnôs, Looking through the above, I see that @Dudley Miles did not agree with the reversion by @Gilgamesh~enwiki and because that editor did not respond in November 2023 is that considered consensus. I looked through the one archive for this article and could not find where consensus was reached. Can you please identify where this occurred. I know that I am coming in late to the discussion, but having worked through the examples in Help:Shortened footnotes, this would require much more work compared with an editor using the visual editing mode. I think that making this change is a bad idea for this article until further discussion occurs. The edits that Gilgamesh has made to split the citations entered by the "Cite" button in the visual editor may be sufficient. I would support development of a bot to do this across all articles so that it does not have to be done manually. Dmcdysan (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YDIH article contradicts YD article statement of Mainstream Cause

[edit]

A significant issue exists between the Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis article and that of this article regarding the mainstream explanation for the onset of the Younger Dryas as detailed below. This post ends with a proposed set of actions to resolve this issue, and proposes making this article the source of the (current) mainstream explanation(s) and that discussions occur on this talk page.

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the Summary of the YDIH 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.[1][2][3][4]"

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[2] 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,[5] 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.

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:

  • 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
  • Make this article the source of the (current) mainstream explanation(s) (could be more than one, e.g., meltwater and vulcanism) with discussions occurring on this talk page regarding reliable sources in support of (or against) specific explanation(s). (Note that the YDIH article states that YDIH IS NOT considered mainstream.)

Comments? Dmcdysan (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dalton R (16 May 2007). "Blast in the past?". Nature. 447 (7142): 256–257. Bibcode:2007Natur.447..256D. doi:10.1038/447256a. PMID 17507957. S2CID 11927411.
  2. ^ a b Broecker WS (2006). "Was the Younger Dryas Triggered by a Flood?". Science. 312 (5777): 1146–1148. doi:10.1126/science.1123253. PMID 16728622. S2CID 39544213.
  3. ^ Sun et al. (2020), p. 1: "The prevailing hypothesis is that the cooling and stratification of the North Atlantic Ocean were a consequence of massive ice sheet discharge of meltwater and icebergs and resulted in reduction or cessation of the North Atlantic Conveyor."
  4. ^ Jones, N (2 September 2013). "Evidence found for planet-cooling asteroid". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2013.13661. S2CID 131715496.
  5. ^ Abdul, N. A.; Mortlock, R. A.; Wright, J. D.; Fairbanks, R. G. (February 2016). "Younger Dryas sea level and meltwater pulse 1B recorded in Barbados reef crest coral Acropora palmata". Paleoceanography. 31 (2): 330–344. Bibcode:2016PalOc..31..330A. doi:10.1002/2015PA002847. ISSN 0883-8305.

Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

[edit]

The current version of the section concerning the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis treats it as fringe and rejection of it as fact. The heading "Extraterrestrial impact controversy" instead of the natural "Younger Dryas impact hypothesis" implies that it is unscientific. The text makes comments such as "Mainstream science considers these claims to be implausible", and includes an irrelevant statement about digitally manipulated images in a Bronze Age paper in order to give an impression that the hypothesis is based on fraud. YDIH is a minority view, but it is advocated by mainstream scientists in articles in leading journals, and it is misleading to give the impression that it is advocated by an unscientific fringe. I amended to make clear that it is a minority view while deleting the tendentious language, and Ixocactus has reverted and restored the grossly misleading comment on misconduct in the Bronze Age paper at [1]. My edit uses encyclopedic language, not weasel words as Ixocatus claims. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That some supporters of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis have resorted to self-publishing a "journal," Airbursts and Cratering Impacts to publish papers, e.g. the The Hopewell Cosmic Airburst Event: A review of the empirical evidence, that failed peer review, certainly has the feel of fringe science. In case of the Hopwell paper, a formally published paper about this topic was even retracted. Also, comparing Holliday et al. (2023)'s summary paper to the Young Earth Creationist Gish Gallup further feels likes the behavior fringe believers instead mainstream investigators. Also individual supporters have appeared on prominent pseudosceintific web sites, support prominent pseudoscientists, and manage gossipy, fringy, and self-congratulatory web sites. They have to accept some of the blame themselves for being viewed as unscientific fringe. Paul H. (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YDIH attracts support in fringe sources for reasons which I do not understand and am not interested in understanding. That is not a reason for treating mainstream scientists who publish in reputable journals as unscientific and including an irrelevant reference to digital manipulation in a paper on a Bronze Age site. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hemiauchenia has deleted a sourced addition to the YBIH section on grounds an author has fringe views on another topic (true) and implies this disqualifies a joint authors' peer reviewed contribution on this topic (a topic which is full of fringe problems).
Justification for the removal of the source was the low bar of peer review process without evidence. I am aware that the rebuttal of the hypothesis was published in the same journal in 2020 and this source is extensively used in the article. As far as I can see in the earth sciences, Earth-Science Reviews still has fairly impressive metrics. Does not, like the journal concerned, the wikipedia community has a duty to preserve a neutral point of view in areas of controversy.? ChaseKiwi (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 3 authors of this study are diehard YDIH supporters. This is not really a neutral "review" but effectively primary literature. I would like to see what the response to this publication is in the academic literature. If people think its commentary is convincing then I think it can be included, but judging the responses will take many months because it will take time for new citing literature to come out. At the end of the day, this is sort of like Race and Intelligence. You're always going to have a minority of researchers who will support the YDIH and can't be convinced otherwise, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the YDIH is an equal co-contender with other YD explanations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point and why I made the contribution was that its the community responsibility to ensure NPOV when there are only sources with POV. As the subsection now reads it seemed to me POV as the concluding lines suggest there is no continuing controversy. I suggest that there is no rush, except to ensure the section wording ends in a way that conveys that the controversy is not settled. ChaseKiwi (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The views of proponents and opponents are adequately represented, which makes it WP:NPOV.
Hypotheses are always controversial, and there's no need to state that a hypothesis continues to be a hypothesis. Hypnôs (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Younger_Dryas&oldid=1258347054"