Talk:2007 Carancas impact event

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good article2007 Carancas impact event has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 10, 2007Good article nomineeListed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 21, 2007.

Redirects

I've redirected Peru meteor and Peru meteor illness to this article as likely search terms that people may look for, in regards to this major event. • Lawrence Cohen 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Shouldn't this be moved to "2007 Peruvian meteorite illness," since it's a meteorite and not a meteor? Kuralyov 21:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I just fixed it. • Lawrence Cohen 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glowing object

This isn't the first time I've seen reference in news sources to statements that almost seem to be saying that the object still has some sort of detectable "glow". If it's a meteorite, that is... unlikely. Meteorites wouldn't be glowing for nearly 96 hours. Can anyone find any news references around this? It seems a fairly substantial little point, as it keeps coming up, but if its not significant in the end, I don't want to have to leave the article sounding like Fox Mulder's laundry is down that hole. • Lawrence Cohen 01:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced article doesn't actually say that the object is still glowing, just that it was glowing when it was falling.
"The health authority has officially requested that people stay away from the glowing object that fell from the sky. He made this request due to the fact that many curious people have come from all over to observe the crater."--User:Zelandonia 03:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright. I had misread that. • Lawrence Cohen 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of a "glowing meteor rock" has been removed from the "Crash event and illness" section. As far as I have been able to determine, there has only been a single report of a "glowing rock" in one news source (Living in Peru), and this is most likely a translation error. We need to remember that people in Carancas speak Spanish and that statements attributed to villagers in English language publications have been translated. The Spanish words for "shiny rock" (roca brillante) are identical to those for "shining rock" (roca brillante) and very similar to those for "glowing rock" (roca qui brilla intensamente). The lab analysis of rock fragments collected at the site found that they contain iron-nickel metal, which would look shiny at freshly fractured surfaces. It seems very likely that the locals said that they picked up "shiny rocks", not "glowing rocks." Piperh 14:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

The Pravda news is been given undue weight. As long as their statements are not picked up or debated by other sources, it should be removed. Consequently, I moved the part to the talk page so that it can be easily readded later on. Sijo Ripa 14:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

""On September 20, Russian tabloid "Pravda" stated that the meteorite was in fact the secret United States spy satellite known as the KH-13, which crashed in Peru. According to Russia, it was targetting Iran, was "destroyed in it's orbit", and that the illnesses were caused by the KH-13's radioactive Pu-238 power generator surving the re-entry and crash. Additionally, Russians have said that Americans themselves brought down the satellite from the United States Air Forces' 30th Space Wing located at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.Pravda, American spy satellite downed in Peru as US nuclear attack on Iran thwarted, September 20, 2007.""

Does this on the NY Times count as a reliable source? • Lawrence Cohen 15:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but I think so. :) Would have been more satisfied with an independent conclusion, rather than a reference to Pravda though. Sijo Ripa 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll wait a while before re-adding, just to see what pops up in the news on it during the day. It's such an insane/plausible/magical theory that you never know... • Lawrence Cohen 15:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if proven false, I think it should be mentioned in the article. I suppose the event might become somewhat famous among conspiracy groups, and the Pravda statement in itself might become worthy of encyclopedic interest. Of course, specify that the contents of the Pravda article are debatable/unverified/whatever. 151.41.234.48 10:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that it is debatable requires a source. Otherwise it would be violate V, NPOV and NOR. I don't think we'll find sources that debate this. Undue weight however could still apply. Sijo Ripa 10:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

I followed the link to The Colour Out of Space but don't feel it is relevant or appropriate to this article, but leaving it there for now and see what the rest of you think. Looks like someone is pushing a book. EdX20 23:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old story, from 1927, and a classic, so I'd left it in after they added it--a curious little bit where old sci-fi fiction from the 1920s basically came true here, with a "toxic" meteor, or close enough. • Lawrence Cohen 23:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lovecraft story is indeed about an object that falls to earth and causes a mysterious illness. However, the resemblance ends there. In the Lovecraft story, the illness is of an apparently supernatural form, as animals mysteriously sicken and the color leaches out of plants; the object is suggested to be an alien organism which later departs, although leaving behind a ghastly landscape. It presents Lovecraft's theme that an alien organism is likely to be truly alien -- unrecognizable and therefore surreal and creepy -- in nature, rather than being the typical "little green men" of pulp fiction. But it has little to do with real meteorites (or spy satellites) and the real consequences thereof. --FOo 05:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

Any ideas on moving the article to 2007 Peruvian meteorite impact? I think more info on impact will be avaliable in the future. --Brand спойт 21:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good idea, but maybe later? It feels like nearly half the media is still on the associated illness. • Lawrence Cohen 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote for soon, how about now? The illness is poorly documented. The impact, if it is a meteorite or even some space debris, is a rare event. There are other documented meteors recovered soon after arrivel (Allende), but I don't know of any with a documented crater.Pustelnik 23:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would 2007 Peruvian meteorite impact or 2007 Peruvian meteorite event be better? • Lawrence Cohen 23:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Category:Impact events, it seems most similar articles are "events" rather than "impacts". --Victor12 23:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done to 2007 Peruvian meteorite event, I got all the redirects too. • Lawrence Cohen 23:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Good job with this article btw. --Victor12 23:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) • Lawrence Cohen 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Could we get a more specific location there? Brutannica 21:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything more precise yet that we could base it on. • Lawrence Cohen 21:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently: 16°33.933′S 69°2.500′W / 16.565550°S 69.041667°W / -16.565550; -69.041667[1]. • Lawrence Cohen 22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "The Color out of Space" from 'See Also' footing of article.

Someone tagged a popular H.P. Lovecraft story "The Color out of Space," to this article in its 'See Also' footer. I removed it due to viral advertising of non-related Wiki articles being somewhat an abusive use of the 'See Also' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bog4rt (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zombies?

This is similar to the Resident Evil 4 story. First something extra-terrestrial crashes in some hespanic town, next the villagers are zombies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.221.81 (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the meteorite impact was arranged as a movie promotion. Did you know a meteor shower was visible in Los Angeles the night Stardust premiered? • Lawrence Cohen 06:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss something here? "...next the villagers are zombies", in other words, "animated human bodies devoid of souls"?! Oh, actually, going by Wikipedia's definition of Soul, they might be... has somebody asked them if they have any "self-aware essence"? Bistromathic 12:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I wasn't exactly thinking of Resident Evil, but when I read the article headline, I chuckled to myself and thought, "The next thing you know, there will be a Zombie epidemic."
-- Mik 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unusually, I am more optimistic. I expect that when they recover, the residents will start to exhibit unusual super-powers. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the villagers will have super powers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.193.205 (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falsetto? Ears?

Amongst suspected symptoms, however, are the impromptu growth of multiple eyes and/or ears in various places across the body, the inability to pass urine and the uncanny ability to sing in falsetto. Scientists, however, deny that these phenomena have anything to with either the meteorite or recent spates of cross-species breeding which have become commonplace in the area. This can't be true... can it? 199.126.186.147 02:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke that someone snuck in. It was already removed. Besides, everyone knows that Triffids arrived with the meteorite. • Lawrence Cohen 02:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the movie, in the book they came from Russia :-p Victory Is Mine 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

The redirect page 2007 Peruvian meteorite illness has been categorized under Category:Ailments of unknown etiology. Is it ok to categorize redirects? Or should that category go to the article itself, that is to 2007 Peruvian meteorite event? --Victor12 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure, I saw that before. Anyone know? • Lawrence Cohen 17:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the relevant guideline: Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Does it apply here? --Victor12 17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Chondrite meteorite?

I am worried because I am not seeing the pieces, the microscopic pictures, a press conference with chromatographic charts, etc. Where is the evidence to back the claims? This an extraordinary event (I don't know of a crater that big in modern times) and I think we must be careful about the speculations, even those speculations coming from the so-called reputable scientists at the site. Aldo L 00:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lab analysis at a university in La Paz, Bolivia appears to confirm elemental composition and proportions that indicate an extraterrestrial origin; a paragraph has been added about this. The largest Sikhote Alin crater was about as big (28 meters). This one may be somewhat bigger than it ordinarily would have been because of the high altitude at which it happened. Less aerobraking, more kinetic energy. Piperh 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

calor

"Most meteorites are actually cold when they land on Earth, since their outer layers burn up and break away from the objects before impacting."
-- Ah, hmm, perhaps. But what would this have to do with the impact's heat?
--Jerome Potts 05:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the outer layers that are heated by air resistance.81.174.226.229 14:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation

The impression I get is that no-one knows what actually happened and people are just putting together the best theory they can come up with based on fragmentary, unverified "evidence" and opinions from people who may or may not be qualified to give opinions and may well be operating with exactly the same lack of actual information. Toby Douglass 06:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse... Aldo L 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

Do we really need to read about the coordinates three times? —Viriditas | Talk 08:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto--they should be removed from the body text. -Eric (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea

From bad astronomy blog 87.194.198.122 18:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a reliable source. I'd already removed it once unfortunately. • Lawrence Cohen 02:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it may meet WP:RS as the author of the blog is Phil Plait.[2] "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I am confident that in this context, the "Scud missile" theory as stated by Plait is reliable enough to mention in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 09:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time of the event

When was the crater formed? Some news reports say on the evening of September 15, 2007, but many others say on noon? For example: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-meteor21sep21,0,1567474.story?coll=la-tot-world&track=ntothtmls (83.144.232.2 03:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'd seen so many slightly conflicting time reports that I didn't delve into that, and was going to make another pass at the sources once more built up. • Lawrence Cohen 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was this predicted?

?--Mostargue 08:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. Toby Douglass 11:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen no mention of it, either. Keep in mind that (last time I saw mention of it) that groups such as the NEO tracking can only monitor a fraction of the sky at any given time for incoming objects--something like 5%-10%. We're as always lucky this thing was the size of a tiny car, and not the size of a city. • Lawrence Cohen 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was predicted by Brian Eno in his song "Backwater" [3] Totnesmartin 17:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First news articles

references quotes 18 Sep 07 for first news reports. Peru news reports were on 17 Sep 07. English language website reported event 17 Sep 07 http://www.livinginperu.com/news/4719 Krbonezero 01:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The media didn't start covering until the 18th, but the meteorite was on the 15th. "Authorities said that the crater was made Saturday by a falling meteorite."[4]. • Lawrence Cohen 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The livinginperu website page I supplied was dated 17 Sep 07 and they indicated their source as Peru's Andina News Agency which I assume is a Spanish language news service. It is up to you. It appears it was coverd by local Peruvian media 17 Sep 07 but I do not believe English language news services had it until 18 Sep 07. Your choice I will not change it.Krbonezero 00:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location, location, location!

"crashed near the village of Carancas in the Desaguadero District of Chucuito Province in the Puno Region, Peru, near the Bolivian border and Lake Titicaca " is the most possibly ridiculously over-described location I've ever heard! If I said, "I grew up in Fresh Meadows, in the town of Flushing, in the Borough of Queens, in the City of New York, in the County of New York, in the State of New York, on Long Island in the USA someone would say, "Why didn't you just say you grew up in New York City?". How about "crashed near the village of Carancas in the Puno region near Lake Titicaca"? (After all the lake is the border, and visa versa). I didn't bother to read the rest of the article for fear it would all be so over-described that it'd take me a few hours to read... and I just don't have that sort of time! (So I wisely used my time to make this important comment!) 68.122.224.106 13:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened it up. • Lawrence Cohen 15:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wise use of time indeed. :-) --Victor12 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location and Map

I checked location given here in comments and on map in article. Comments location puts crater in terrain with ridges which does not match photos. Article map coordinates puts crater in the right kind of terrain but not far enough from Lake Titicaca. Living in Peru article for 21 Sep 07 listed in references states "six miles' from lake. Even with Km/miles possible error map location does not mach article. Living in Peru article could be wrong but I see no reference on this article map coordinates. Any help here. Any spanish readers able to find info in Peru government news service reports. Location comment could end "...near Lake Titicaca, coordinates ..., elevation ... m., ...ft." I realize number of time coordinates were in article were reduced but once in article and once on map I believe would be acceptable. Krbonezero 15:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was the source for the coordinates. I haven't seen another yet, but I'm sure they're going to start popping up on the internet soon given the massive attention this has received. • Lawrence Cohen 15:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missed link

There seems to be a missed link in reference 24, the one leading to the bolivian chemical analysis report. I was unable to find it. Aldo L 14:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one?
Mario Blanco Cazas, "Informe Laboratorio de Rayos X — FRX-DRX" (in Spanish), Universidad Mayor de San Andres, Facultad de Ciencias Geologicas, Instituto de Investigaciones Geologicas y del Medio Ambiente, La Paz, Bolivia, 20 September 2007.
Or do you mean another? • Lawrence Cohen 14:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that one. Apparently, I am not seeing the same thing you are seeing. Could you confirm, please? Aldo L 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian institute lab report

Lab report with details including much better lat/long and elevation data at http://www.ingemmet.gob.pe/paginas/pl01_quienes_somos.aspx?opcion=320 Other details on chemical analysis and future progress of investigationKrbonezero 17:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I had failed to note that the above reference was already used for the map inset grid coordinates. Sorry about that. However, I have still compared numerous photos, coordinate sources, and news media comments and Google Earth. We can still look for better coordinates. Even the Ingemmet report has its own map with circled location different from the report coordinates. It is not too far off but the coordiates of the report still appear to be 1 to 4 kilometers off. There still needs to be some better coordinates. In addition this should slightly increase the impact elevation as it should end up at a little higher elevation.Krbonezero 13:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have received direct e-mail information from Lionel E. Jackson, PhD, Geological Survey of Canada, Dr. Jackson was quoted by, provided pictures to, and supplied a Google Earth diagram to New Scientist online. Dr. Jackson was in Bolivia just across the border from the Peru at the time of impact. He visited the site the day after with Bolivian colleagues. His e-mail is quoted as follows:

"The position was determined by a single frequency hand held (Garmin?). The position was read in UTM coordinates by my Bolivian colleagues from SERGEOTECMIN in La Paz Zone 19 N 8157557, s 495292. I converted the position to geographic using one of the web conversion utilities. WGS 84 The GPS elevation was 3828 m asl."

I crosssed checked the conversion and compared it to the ingemet report published coordinates. For practical puposes they are identical. The ingamet map location of impact appears to be off target as well as some quotes on position by Ishitsuka. The Google Earth diagram supplied by Dr. Jackson is consistent with his coordinates. The Wikipedia article map inset coordinates match these values.Krbonezero 18:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I also noted that the circled area in the report map was about 2.3 km SW of the stated coordinates, and will disregard the map diagram based on what you say. I added geocoding to the coordinates again (so for example Google Earth will pick this article up on its next scan) and added the reference. --GregU 02:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the UTM coordinates above are 1 second further west than the INGEMMET coordinates (at 69:02:39 W), but as you say, they're identical for practical purposes, so best to stick with the 69:02:38 in the referenced report. --GregU 02:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The report advanced water analysis within a few more days. I am wondering if it is ready. 01:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Aldo L

Number of ill people exagerated

INGEMMET's official report states that apparenty the number of ill people were around 30, not hundreds. Aldo L 03:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorites don't give off odors?

I confess the following information is new to me: David Darling's on-line Encyclopedia of Science states that when the Murchison meteorite impacted in Australia in 1969 "eyewitnesses arriving at the scene reported smelling something like methanol or pyridine, an early indication that the object might contain organic material". Also, from the Cold Bokkeveld meteorite that fell in South Africa in 1838 "Friedrich Wöhler extracted an oil ' with a strong bituminous odor.' " Aldo L 03:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review

I nominated this article, I think it can do it (with some help). • Lawrence Cohen 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Additional references"

I've merged the "Additional references" section into "External links" as it makes no sense to have a second references section for items not used as inline citations IMHO. Now "External links" looks somewhat bloated, so i think it needs some cropping. I'd like some opinions on which links are relevant and which ones are not. --Victor12 17:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional research in Spanish

The Universidad Mayor de San Andres, Planitario Max Schreier has just published a series of documents on line but in Spanish at http://fcpn.umsa.bo/fcpn/app?service=external/Planetarium_AreaView&sp=241 Diagrams and images in jpeg documents and PowerPoint presentations. Those fluent in Spanish may be able to gleen some further information for the article. Krbonezero 01:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 05:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... there is the X-ray analysis. Now I found it. Aldo L 22:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

  • The "Crash event" section needs to restate the information about the crash itself that is mentioned in the intro. The intro is supposed to be a summary of the main article, not it's own section with information not contained elsewhere in the article.
  • Instead of using mid-sentence citations, combine them all at the end of the sentence.
  • After describing the crash and local's responses to it, the analysis of the meteor's content might should be in a separate section titled "Composition analysis" or something like that.
  • Since more study of the event is pending, a "currentevent" tag probably needs to be added to the top of the article. This would probably make it ineligible for Featured status, but not GA.
  • All of the references should be listed in the references section, and the "citeweb" references footnote format should be used (check one of my FA to find examples).
  • A very good looking article that is well on its way. Cla68 00:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nomination

I have placed this article on hold for Good Article status. There are some things that need to be addressed before it can be promoted. It should take to long to do hopefully. I've listed it as per the Good Artice criteria.

1. It is well written.

Pretty good, a few things though.
  • Lead needs to be expanded a bit as per WP:LEAD
  • Be consistent with measurements. Why it metres shortened to m sometimes and others not? I think the first instance of a unit of measure should be wiki-linked also.
  • Can "olivine" and "feldspar" be wiki-linked?
  • Only have inline citations after punctuation. Either after comma or fullstop generally.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  • Your references need to be formatted a little. They are all a consistent format so I have no problem except that the dates should be wiki-linked, for example 16 September rather then 16 September.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

Good here

4. It is neutral;

No problems

5. It is stable;

Not getting heavily edited any longer so should be fine.

6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.

No problems here.

Anyway thats it. Let me know when the edits are done. They are all very minor except for the lead, so shouldn't take to long. If you have any questions feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks. - Shudde talk 08:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll expand the lead back out today (it had been longer previously, but I'd trimmed it somewhat since it had content that wasn't in the body). The wikilinks are done. I did have two questions...
  • Measurements: For the units of measurements, in some cases people had used templates like {{convert|4.5|meter|feet|0|abbr=on}} which makes the output of 4.5 m (15 ft), hence the discrepency. Is it better to just do all that by hand for the math, for a GA/FA later? Or just convert the non-templated units to match the templated ones? Just curious what the 'typical' way about it is.
  • References: For the references, should each instances of, say, September 21, 2007 be linked, or just the first?
  • Citations: For the inline citations, I moved the last few stragglers to be all at the end of the full stop on each sentence, rather than an occasional mix. There isn't anything controversial or likely to be fought over ever in this article, so I probably didn't need to micro-source like that in the first place.
  • Article lead: Expanded, tweaked. How does it look? • Lawrence Cohen 15:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! • Lawrence Cohen 13:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! The lead looks good, and thanks for fixing those references. As for the measurements, I don't think it matters too much how it's done as long as it's consistent. I'm going to promote the article, and will let you deal with the units of measure in your own time. Congratulations to all those that contributed to this article. It looks great! - Shudde talk 22:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid, thank you! Congratulations, guys! • Lawrence Cohen 22:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this page

I think this page should be moved. The title "2007 Peruvian meteorite event" reflects what was in the news in the months after the event occurred. However, the meteorite and crater have now been named: both are called Carancas (the meteorite has been officially named by the Meteoritical Society, and all the initial papers on the crater call it by this name as well). Unless there is serious objection, I suggest moving the page to "Carancas Impact Event". JeffG (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object, but I'll admit to not having time to follow recent news on this after initially building up this article. What source was about the naming of the event/meteor? Lawrence § t/e 15:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The official description and name of the meteorite are here. The first publications on the crater are Harris et al (2008), Kenkmann et al (2008), Schultz et al. (2008), Miura (2008), del Prado et al. (2008). JeffG (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenic or troilite posioning?

The bottom section of this article points to arsenic as the sickening compound, but a sentence in the middle says "the illness reported was likely caused by the vaporization of troilite." I could find no reliable source to confirm this statement, or even to confirm that troilite poisoning is a thing. Which compound really sickened, arsenic or troilite? Mamyles (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2007 Carancas impact event. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2007 Carancas impact event. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 Carancas impact event. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2007 Carancas impact event. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why exactly does the link "Brown Scientist Answers How Peruvian Meteorite Made It to Earth" link to some kind of prostitution page? 109.57.201.33 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2007_Carancas_impact_event"