Talk:Azuara impact structure

Discussion

Decubridor: site generatet at 23. of March 2008

Decubridor: start discussion at 30. of May 2009

!!!! Changes in the article should be discussed here before - otherwise the changes will be reset !!!!

The revision and newly edited text is a clear maneuver and presumably initiated by Spanish geologists who continue to deny the impact origin for the Azuara and Rubielos de la Cérida impacts in their country. Greatly ironically, on the Wikipedia page they have placed their changes

"suggested shock effects .... suggested impact ejecta .... suggested impact breccias and breccia dikes ..."

exactly side by side with the histogram of PDF orientation in samples from Azuara impact ejecta and Azuara polymictic impact breccias. The outcome of this PDF analysis, performed by Dr. Therriault who belongs to the most experienced experts on PDF shock analysis, unambiguously proves shock in Azuara rocks as is generally accepted by all parts of the impact community. Thus, breccias containing strong shock effects are not "suggested" impact breccias but are established impact breccias, and diamictic deposits like the Pelarda Formation containing strong shock effects are not "suggested" impact ejecta but are true impact ejecta. These linguistic reinterpretations and reinterpretations of established scientific knowledge not to say cheap propaganda in the revised text do not correspond to what Wikipedia readers want to get of objective information.

More of this kind of linguistic reinterpretation concerns the text on the Langenhorst & Deutsch analysis. In the revised version we read:

"Nevertheless, the strongest opposition against the impact origin for Azuara has been supported by laboratory studies."

The attentive reader will clearly recognize the obvious disaccord. The sound Azuara PDF shock analysis performed by Dr. Therriault and discussed above contradicts the lab studies of Langenhorst and Deutsch. This is easily explained. The Langenhorst and Deutsch analysis did not support the opposition and does not keep doing it because they described and published analyses of a rock not at all originating from the Azuara structure. The full story on how science has been manipulated can in very detail be read here

http://www.impact-structures.com/spain/shock-metamorphism.html

and hopefully Wikipedia does not support these attitudes. Thus the term of the "misleading paper" has correctly been written in the previous text.

Summarizing, the revised text seems to express personal sensitivities and in parts strongly contradicts even statements otherwise presented on this page (e.g., the PDF histogram of shocked quartz in the Azuara structure). Therefore, I suggest to widely undo the revisions of February 13, 2009. Moreover, I furnish an additional link to a newly established Impact Data Base listing Azuara and Rubielos de la Cérida as confirmed impact structures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decubridor (talk • contribs) 07:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion new

The new revision and the newly edited text continue to change the intention of the contributed article without any discussion and, therefore, are reset. The added category "Possible impact craters", now moved to "Possible impact craters on Earth", is listing Azuara as a possible impact completely incompatible with the clear impact evidence as documented on this Wikipedia page. The intention of adding the category is obvious, underlining the objective to discredit the impact character of Azuara - as was the aim of the earlier intervention without discussion. Therefore, I suggest to link here to the more appropriate and less confusing "Impact craters" page

The deletion of "Analysis made by Ann Therriault" without discussion in the criticized version also demonstrates the intention to remove facts that substantiate the impact nature of Azuara. Note that Ann Therriault is one of the most reputable scientists for analyzing PDFs in shocked rocks. To hamper further deletion the sentence has now been fixed to the image showing the PDF histogram.

The link to Jarmo Moilanen's data base has now been replaced to a functioning one. Further changes are two additional external links to impact related pages on typical impact features.

And I repeat: !!!! Changes in the article should be discussed here before - otherwise the changes will be reset !!!!

Decubridor 22:06, 28 November 2009

1013

The

{\begin{Bmatrix}{\bar {1013}}\end{Bmatrix}}

and

{\begin{Bmatrix}{\bar {1012}}\end{Bmatrix}}

occurrences

What does this mean? It looks like it might be intended to render as 10/13 and 10/12 but I dunno William M. Connolley (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The

{\begin{Bmatrix}{\bar {1013}}\end{Bmatrix}}

and

{\begin{Bmatrix}{\bar {1012}}\end{Bmatrix}}

occurrences suffer from a little problem in typing correctly. In fact, the small dash between 0 and 1 should correctly be placed exactly on top of the 1, and the full sequence of digits is spelled 1 0 (minus 1) 3 and 1 0 (minus 1) 2, respectively. Mineralogists are familiar with this writing of crystallographic orientation and would not be confused by the slight displacement of the dash. Decubridor (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a year later... Fixed with template overline to render in ordinary size text as {1013} and {1012}. The symbolism refers to crystallographic planes in the quartz.

I've also fixed an obvious ref error from 2009 - hopefully to what was intended; and removed a bit of editor comment re: "misleading"... Vsmith (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Azuara impact structure. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]