Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coherent catastrophism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:FRINGE of WP:FRINGE. This is an off-shoot of Velikovskian ideas that was described as a rehabilitation by certain critics (C. Leroy Ellenberger among them). However, there isn't any acknowledgment in reliable sources that this idea as a research line actually exists. It's simply a collection of people who were somewhat sympathetic to certain Velikovskian claims who later moved towards more prosaic proposals. As such, this article is basically serving as a WP:POV Fork of Immanuel Velikovsky and/or geochronology, seems to be a soapbox for the beliefs that it represents a "coherent" line of study, and is also painfully WP:NEO, WP:SYNTH, and non-notable. jps (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:This is absolutely not an off-shoot of Velikovskian ideas. It has nothing to do with Velikovsky. To suggest it is, is seriously misleading and ignorant of the scientific literature. Honestly! if you use a scientific search engine, such as Web of Knowledge (the standard one that most scientists use) you will find it difficult to find any criticism at all of coherent catastrophism in the last 20 years. Go ahead, try. It is accepted in the astronomical cannon. Ellenberger, whoever he is, has not been mentioned in a generation.

What IS debated, and this is really the only debate, is whether the latest period of coherent catastrophism caused by the Taurid meteor shower has had any obvious effect on Earth's history, and especially the development of human culture over the last 20 thousand years or so. Of course, this is matter of debate, and this is where the action is. The principle of coherent catastrophism itself is physically sound. That is, when a giant comet enters the inner solar system such that its orbit, or the orbits of its debris, intersects earth's orbit at regular intervals, Earth is exposed to enhanced risk during this period. Common sense - no scientist would argue with this.

The fact the WIki editors are STILL peddling these old-fashioned ideas about Velikovsky just shows how out of touch with modern developments they are. One particular editor, Doug, clearly has a personal bias on this issue. Doug, go and read the scientific literature, and get yourself up to date. As things stand, Wiki is looking tired and dusty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MystifiedCitizen (talk • contribs) 06:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Perhaps this will help you. First look here at Centaur (minor planet) . Next look here at comets, especially the Jupiter family of short period comets. Next look here at orbital decay. Now look at meteor showers. Then look at the Taurids, and the beta Taurids, and comet Encke, and finally the Tunguska event. You see, Wikipedia already has the underlying information that leads to the conclusion that 'coherent catastrophism' is a real phenomenon. And Velikovsky wasn't mentioned once - just up-to-date astronomy. The only debate is whether the Taurids have caused Earth any problems. I think a Wiki page that collects all this information together would be helpful for the general public. Not fringe.

What you seem to have missed is that the coining of the neologism seems to have been done in the context of the aftermath of the mess Velikovsky wrought on public discourse surrounding science. "Catastrophism" as an idea contrasted with uniformitarianism in the nineteenth century before Charles Lyell forced the issue as to why uniformitarianism made sense. Then, in 1980, the Alvarez hypothesis was posited and developed to such an extent to provoke new interest in cataclysms, but no one is claiming that this is "coherent catastrophism". Rather, the term is associated entirely with neo-Velikoskians for better or worse (and if you doubt that Clube and Napier were so involved with Velikovskian fantasies, just do a little digging into their publication record). Now, it's obvious that trying to combine the K-T boundary event with the subject of this article would be outright original research ~~since, as far as I know, I'm the first person to point out the contradiction here in this discussion~~David Morrison actually makes this point here. But it just underscores the point that "coherent catastrophism" as an idea is simply a fringe offshoot of a fringe proposal. When similar ideas are arrived at from different lines of research, they aren't called "coherent catastrophism". That is the way the world is, and Wikipedia cannot fix the situation. We're way out in the weeds here and so should not be pushing the envelope. If "coherent catastrophism" is to become a thing, we need some third-party reliable sources that can explain how it as an idea is a thing. jps (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was on the fence. This is clearly a "niche" theory, but possibly not actually fringe. There is some published research, by more than one author, and some references to that research, but it is pretty much a phrase that was used a bit in the 1980s and things have now moved on. However MystifiedCitizen has convinced me that it is too fringe for Wikipedia. Rants, paranoid accusations, and synthesis are never signs of a good article. Lithopsian (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::Not fringe. Mainstream astronomy. Not paranoia, or synthesis, or the work of a single author. I am simply exasperated that senior editors here can be so far out of date. This concerns me as a scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MystifiedCitizen (talk • contribs) 12:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Weak keep. At the moment, I do not see any compelling reason for deletion. Admittedly, I am not very "in the know" about what critical appraisals have been raised against the subject of the article. But I think the solution is to include critical commentary in the article, rather than refactor it into Velikovsky. There are apparently important differences with Velikovsky's brand of woo. For one thing, the "more prosaic" claims of coherent catastrophism seem to be based (to my uninitiated reading) on actual physics and astronomy, rather than wishful thinking. That is, admittedly, not a good reason for believing the theory, but it does seem like redirecting it to a thoroughly discredited theory is not very neutral. I feel like readers deserve to be told why this theory is not astronomically plausible, assuming this can be done within the usual WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE standards. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but what is your source demonstrating what the "theory" in question is? As far as I can tell, this is just a collection of "ideas that are more plausible than much of the Velikovskian nonsense" (which is what makes it "coherent"). That isn't a "theory" as much as it "glints spotted in the muck while panning for gold". How does one write an article on a claimed research program which nobody has summarized as a research program? What sources can we possibly base this article on that aren't naked WP:SYNTH? jps (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You already referred to an independent source that lumps the subject in with Velikovsky. Are there other such critical fringe sources? Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I wouldn't say it is a "independent source" so much as it is an "critical opinion" offered by someone. Much the same way as if someone who criticized Flat Earthers called Lord Steven Christ a "concave Earther". Note that we don't have a concave Earth article on Wikipdia. jps (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. If there really aren't any independent sources, then the appropriate action is deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, this seems pretty convincing to me. Changed to weak delete. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Doesn't seem to be fringe. I just ran a check on this Google Scholar, 96 hits. RS Articles seem to be using the term in a serious manner. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

96 hits, but every last one to Clube, Napier, and Duncan Steele. Not a legitimate research program. jps (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Argument for Keep so it could be appropriately unpacked and countered within the article. This is a good few critical paragraphs that puts across this throughline of sensationalism, The Cosmic Serpent and The Cosmic Winter, talking about angels and the English Civil War, and the parallels to Dr. V. It's less like a scientific theory and more like a series of mental images. Are they setting out to show it happened historically? Do they want a prevention program? I don't see the relationship to proof -- having any or getting any -- and in the end it just doesn't smell right. --Lockley (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the website which seals the deal that this is fringe of fringe being followed by C. Leroy Ellenberger: [1]. Writing a WP:NPOV piece on such an obscure offshoot is simply not possible. Fails WP:NFRINGE! jps (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.