Talk:Chicxulub crater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chicxulub crater is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 8, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 30, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 3, 2007 Peer review Reviewed October 14, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 4, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	Earth sciences Portal Chicxulub crater is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

	Mexico Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Maps 2 Video 3 this is not fact. 4 no scientific theory is fact 5 Pronunciation 6 Meteor or asteroid? 7 Broken/Non existent links 8 Timing 9 GA review 10 Image caption 11 Name meaning 12 "Discovery" section is great 13 Fact not Theory 14 Osmium Research Challenging Impactor Size Estimate

[edit] Maps

I feel a context map is needed, to show the area in relation to the rest of the world.

[edit] Video

I used to have a video clip showing the animation of the Chicxulub impact, but I can't find it on the internet anymore. If I find it I'll add the link.--Ixfd64 05:03, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Removed broken link [[* Images from geological surveys]] RWFanMS 09:44, 2005 March 07 (EST)

[edit] this is not fact.

"The impact caused giant tsunamis in all directions, which hit the Caribbean island of Cuba especially hard" seems to imply that this subject is fact, and in fact there is evidence of giant tsunamis and the subsequent devestation in the Caribbean, despite the event happening 65 million years ago. Perhaps we can amend the article to reflect that the events following the impact are not known for sure, but it is [theorised] that the following happened.Nambio 20:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If I remember correctly, Cuba may not have existed at the time of the Yucatan impact and was possibly created as a result of the impact.

Certainly not a result of the impact. Cuba and other Antilles islands are a part of submerged mountain chain. Besides it is nowhere near the impact structure, which is pretty much invisible on the ground.--JyriL ^talk 09:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we change the title "Part of Multiple Impact?" to something like "Multiple Impact Theory" to better reflect quality standards? It's a minor edit as best. SSJPabs 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm dubious about Cuba being around then too, at least in the form implied here, so I've deleted that part of the sentence. I'd be happy to see it come back if it's sourced. -- Avenue (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] no scientific theory is fact

The statement in the article that "the theory is not universally accepted" is unnecessary. All scientific theories are just that -- theories, models. They are open to, and welcome, skepticism ... so long as that skepticism is based in observations. Science attempts to explain things using the best observations and reasoning based on those observations. Theories *approach* facts, but never become facts ... any observation may eventually cause reconsideration and modification of the model.

This is a very basic part of understanding science and the meaning of the word theory. Scientific theories, unlike all others, are *based* in the known facts. We can't *observe* the event, so we can never be *certain* what happened. This is the -good- part about science.

The paper cited with the statement is very interesting. But the last line in section "Part of a multiple impact" indicates differences of opinion. A perfect example of skepticism based in observation, and a sign that the discussion will be around longer than we will.Twang 8 April 2006

[edit] Pronunciation

Hey, could someone post up the pronunciation of 'Chicxulub' in IPA for me please? ZephyrAnycon 02:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just came here to write precisely the same request. I'm assuming it's like Chikh-ZOO-lub, but hard to tell. — Donama 14:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

To whomever added the IPA pronunc.: there's a discrepancy between the final vowel in this rendering and that given on the Chicxulub, Yucatán page. Are both acceptable variants? I know the name of my town can be pronounced a number of different ways. ZephyrAnycon 06:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey all--as one who does not speak IPA, could a EZ-Reader version be posted, like the Chikh-ZOO-lub above? THANKS! jengod 05:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Good requests. Since, statistically speaking, nobody uses IPA, and nobody understands it. Tempshill (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My brother-in-law was a Ph.D. student of Alan Hildebrand's, and he always pronounced it Chick-Shoo-Loob, with the emphasis on 'Chick' and with the 'oo' in 'Shoo' being quite short in duration. (Sorry, I don't know any fancy phonetic alphabets. Ling 201 was a long time ago...) Perhaps one of the following films would hold an answer:

Chicxulub (American drama): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0799980/

Crater of Death (British documentary): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433542/

Chicxulub la huella de un gigante (Mexican documentary): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390970/

JanRu (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meteor or asteroid?

The lead says what hit earth 65 million yrs ago was an meteor... but is that the case? Wouldn't it be called an asteroid? Mikker ^(...) 21:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Metors burn up in the atmosphere. Meteorides hit the surface. FoolFromHell 00:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC) FoolFromHell

Nomenclature is a mess, but here we go. Meteors fly around and are up to 50 meters (or so) in size. Asteroids and comets are larger. If you see a "falling star" that is a meteor inside the atmosphere: a meteoroid. (Regardless, I think, of whether they burn up completely or not.) However, the OP is (understandably) incorrect in stating that the article mentions a meteor. It speaks of "meteorites", a word with different meanings, one of which is "an object" on the surface of a planet "that has come from elsewhere in space," regardless of the size. If I understand correctly, the Chicxulub meteorite never was a meteor. It must have been an asteroid or a comet. I have no idea which one. (There is no such thing as a metoride, as mentioned by FoolFromHell.) 129.27.236.74 19:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken/Non existent links

I have removed several links in the second section which didn't exist whatsoever. Just had an after thought that the links may have been sitting in waiting to be created, hope not - looks a lot tidier now though. (SJ Wright 14:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

People either create such dead links because they intend to create the article themselves, or more likely to encourage others to do so (or occasionally a previous article has been deleted or changed name). In the case of the Chicxulub article those dead links have mostly been there for several years (just check the page history), and in most cases they were to people who probably don't warrant a article, so I think you did the right thing by removing them. -Zamphuor 15:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/12/01/asteroid.dinosaurs.reut/index.html is also broken. Should we remove it? --Ggeller 16:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timing

A new news article says that the asteroid that hit here 65 million years ago was a fragment from a larger asteroid collision that occured 160 million years ago. But that's a time difference of 95 million years. Why would a fragment from two asteroid colliding 160 million years ago suddenly hit earth 95 million years later? Kevin 14:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the collision was far, far away. It must have taken a long span of time to reach earth. That is just my thoughts on the subject. Also, the time frame is an estimation and could vary widely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.95.1 (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (enough images: lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A very good article. At the moment, the only thing that is stopping me passing this is a lack of references in the Multiple impact theory section. I saw it uses {{for}}, so maybe you could steal some references from there, but at the moment it needs references. Hence, I have put this GA on hold until this can be fixed (within the next seven days). When it is, please drop me a note on my talk page and I'll rereview. Cheers, Daniel 05:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Much better now. I've added this to our list of GA's. Well done, David :) Daniel 11:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image caption

If it's one of the Alvarezes holding the clay in the image, the image should state which Alverez, not just "Alvarez" as if there is only one. --Amaltheus (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's Walter. I added it into the caption. David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name meaning

Can we get a better source for the "tail of the devil" translation? If the name is pre-Columbian, and I think it is, then "devil" (which in the article links to Satan) would have to be a mistranslation. --Ptcamn (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Daniel Garrison Brinton[1]:

Pech always uses as the name of his town Chac Xulub Chen, which means “the well of the great horns,” probably because some huge antlers were found there, or were set up to mark the spot. The modern name Chic Xulub was probably applied to it as a parody, or a play on words. It means to cuckold one, to put horns on him.

--Ptcamn (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Penfield, it's 'tail of the devil'; I'll have to go check some more sources, but Brinton's answer seems even more unlikely and is probably just a folk story for the name if anything. David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more:[2] [3] [4] [5] I think it's safe to say that Hildebrand's own college would not have screwed up on the translation. David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Brinton is far from infallible, but he was at least familiar with Mayan, and he quotes as a source a 16th century Mayan-Spanish dictionary that gives the definition "poner los cuernos; hacer cabron á uno". None of the sources you linked seem likely to actually have been written by people who know Mayan and thus know what the name means for themselves, but instead are repeating what other sources say, and so aren't actually independent verification. Does Penfield speak Yucatec? It could well be that "tail of the devil" is the folk story here. --Ptcamn (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I've never heard it any other way, and so I trust Penfield and Hildebrand over Brinton. I'll get them on the phone if that's what it takes. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just found that Impact!: The Threat of Comets and Asteroids, which the article already cites, says this on the topic:

Does Chicxulub actually mean "tail of the devil"? Hildebrand says that he has been unable to find anyone who can confirm this claim. He has asked Maya experts who do not recognize the word at all. "Sign of the horns" was inferred by one, but that may not be correct either. He asked local Mayans and was amused by the best suggestion he heard: "The ticks are really bad here."

So there you go. --Ptcamn (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Annals of the Cakchiquels by Daniel Garrison Brinton mentions that a lot of place names in Guatemala for Mayan locales are rendered in Aztec because of the wars and alliances between different tribes and the Spaniards. Figures in the Maya Codices by Alfred M. Tozzer and Glover M. Allen contains more information about snakes and so on. BTW this topic has been gone over before, see thread for more on the real meaning. I suspect it is something more like that indicated in the previous link because of hints on native discussion pages that the meaning is a little risque. Hypatea (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted you back. Regardless of what you think the name is, the point is it was named both for the crater and the perceived translation. What the actual translation is in this case, is immaterial. David Fuchs ^(talk) 17:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The translation may have influenced the choice of name, but it doesn't make sense to say it was "named after" it. It's also misleading to refer to it as "the possible literal interpretation". "Mickey Mouse" is an equally "possible" interpretation, if all that is required for an interpretation to be regarded as "possible" is for someone who does not even know the language to make an unsubstantiated claim. --Ptcamn (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ptcamn - the phrasing is clusmy and not really informative. You don't name something after a translation. A more sensible wording would be something like "Penfield states that the meaning of the Yucatec placename Chicxulub "tail of the devil" also influenced the choice of the name". I am also sceptical towards the translation of chicxulub as "tail of the devil" and I intend to check up on it.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Listen to the flippin' interview yourself then. That's how Penfield states it, clumsy though it may be. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Discovery" section is great

Just wanted to say: The "Discovery" section is unusually great. It's not standard that a chronological sequence is presented this well in a Wikipedia science article. Tempshill (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's nicely written, but I'm concerned that it's oversimplified. In particular, it omits any mention of the discovery of the crater a decade earlier by Robert Baltosser (which was suppressed to keep proprietary information secret). See pages 18-20 of the Verschuur book for details (Google Books link). -- Avenue (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I based the section mainly on what I learned through an old PBS program and then went from there; I didn't hear anything about this chap before. Thanks for the link, I'll try to incorporate it into the section when I get a chance. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of Verschuur's book and could easily incorporate Baltosser's contribution if you like. Zamphuor (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Baltosser related to the gravity maps, I added in a line saying that he had 'seen them in the 60's, but due to corporate policy blah blah blah'. David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fact not Theory

My insertion of "theory" after the KT-boundary link was reverted. This was the right thing to do: the KT-boundary is a fact of the sedimentary record which I confused with the meteor based theory (by equivocation on T in Theory vs. T in Tertiary (or whatever the era name is)). 74.78.162.229 (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Osmium Research Challenging Impactor Size Estimate

This article published today in Science, and discussed in this press release, seems to challenge the impactor size estimates in the "Impact Specifics" section and in the introduction. In particular "they were able to use their model to estimate the sizes of the K-T impact to be 4 to 6 kilometers in diameter", much smaller than what is mentioned here. Shouldn't this new perspective be mentioned, and shouldn't the language be more equivocal on the size estimates, since the size is still a matter of debate and research? Rep07 (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)