Talk:Tektite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diamond Tektite is part of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Gemstones, Jewelry, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

Inline citations needed, not just at end of article.SauliH 16:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is supported by WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, gemstones subpage.
WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry To-do:
Earth sciences Portal
Tektite 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

WHAT ARE THE GEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF TEKTITES? WHAT ARE THE GEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF TEKTITES?

from article: Based on still more circumstantial evidence, such as the fact that Apollos 12 and 14 astronauts found several lunar highland and subcrustal rocks with tektite-like chemistry, the space-science community may need to rethink what mechanisms caused these ancient stones to fall to Earth.

Discussion: Some scientists have proposed that tektites are material from deep inside the Moon. Others claim geochemical evidence from the Moon and from tektites themselves clearly shows that this is unlikely. Furthermore, they claim, the clear association of tektites with at least three "young" craters on Earth provides strong evidence that tektites are a product of terrestrial impact. Looking at the problem from another viewpoint, Hal Povenmire said, "If impact events produce tektites, why are tektites not found associated with nearly all of the 250 known impact craters on Earth? We have massive amounts of tektite glass spread over more than 20 percent of the Earth's surface from the Australasian tektite event and yet we cannot find the crater. When Apollo sample 14425 was analyzed under the electron microprobe, it was essentially identical to some Australasian tektites. This led John A. O'Keefe to state, 'If this specimen had been found on the Antarctic ice shelf instead of Fra Mauro on the Moon, it would be declared a tektite.'" [1]

The reference given in the Weblink does not support the different statements given here. I think the scientific claims here should be confirmed by references to reviewed papers or at least to abstracts from a scientific conference. -- Epo 06:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article should be cleaned up to better separate the two sides of the argument, instead of wavering back and forth with "however" statements. --Ruyn 08:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This article is simply AWFUL as it is. It wavers back and forth between arguments that "conclusively" show tektites are terrestrial and arguments that then try to cast doubt on the conclusions. The paragraph on the Australoasian field and Antarctica is particularly bad. --Kiiron 06:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Antartica impact

Tektites recently found in antartica, could this be the cause of the Australian field? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4816794.stm Khukri 17:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated theory

why is so much room given for an outdated theory? serious scientists who believe that the moon is the origin of tektites are extinct like dinosaurs.

[edit] Proposed major rewrite Jan07

As stated by several people above, the present tektite article is in bad shape. I'm intending to soon attempt a major makeover which will mean culling out a lot of unsupported stuff and the yo-yo opinions. I'll also make sure everything is properly supported by good references and clearly states present consensus, with appropriate mention of historical theories and any present disparate views. If anyone is watching this page and particularly in love with any of the old stuff as it is, then please let me know so we can discuss. PeterWH 13:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zelda

What, no reference to those tektites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This Tektite? --201.14.82.57 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There should be a link (no, not a Link) to that article at the top of this article. Something like "If you were looking for the Zelda enemy, see here". Zurqoxn 22:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Australian tektites from Lake Bosumtwi impact

An unsourced statement about the Ivory Coast tektite strewnfield from the Lake Bosumtwi impact, claiming that "tektites from this event have been found as far east as Australia," has been removed. A 1969 hypothesis by Chapman and Scheiber that the Ivory Coast strewnfield and the Australian strewnfield may have originated from the same impact event has since been discredited by more accurate dating techniques, e.g. Koeberl et al, "Geochemistry and age of Ivory Coast tektites and microtektites", Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Volume 61, Issue 8, April 1997, pp 1745-1742. The estimated age of the Ivory Coast impact event is 1.07 Ma, whereas Australasian tektites are about 700,000 years old. The modest size of the Lake Bosumtwi crater (~10.5 km) would also argue rather strongly against dispersion of tektites as far away as Australia. Piperh 11:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed to see that this spurious statement has been there so long. Thanks for removing it. Zamphuor 14:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)