![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there any information concerning Inuit reaction to the removal of the Cape York Meteorite? Also, what was the reason for removing them in the first place? -- Eraticus 03:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
How did the Inuit obtain the iron and work it into tools? Are there coal deposits nearby that could be used to make a forge? PhilUK 21:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
How come the fragments of this space rock did not shatter into much smaller pieces on impact? This sort of strike normally doesn't leave such big splinters - compare the Sikhote-Alin meteorite ( Octahedrite, coarsest) which may have been slightly bigger than the Cape York one, and where the fracturing was far more complete. Is it because near-solid iron, as opposed to rock, would be less susceptible to blowing into a myriad of fragments? 83.254.151.33 ( talk) 05:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The 1897 dates for Peary's discovery of three fragments strikes me as terribly chauvinistic. Surely Inuit knew of these fragments long before that? Can anyone justify using 1897? Cstaffa ( talk) 14:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
If Inuit had been using this meteorite as a source of iron for centuries, the found date was obviously far earlier than 1894.
FFS, I'm an old white male and even I find it absurd that a thing known about for hundreds of years doesn't count as found until an old white guy decides to go and find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1443:80B9:5F3:AFD0:80EC:8B8B ( talk) 00:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
See also Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Are there already theories which connect these specimens to the Hiawatha Glacier impact crater? prokaryotes ( talk) 12:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@ FunkMonk: - you seem keen to re-add the text "The meteorite collided with Earth nearly 10,000 years ago. " But this remains unsourced. It might be true, it might be sourceable, but it's not sourced in this article today, and that's the problem.
Can it be sourced? Well, quick looking shows at least two contrasting sources for this, one (AMNH) saying "some ten thousand years ago", another [1] saying "over 12,000 to 3 million". Now I distrust the first - museum websites and even on-site labelling placards are regularly inaccurate and the problem is getting worse as budgets are squeezed. These publications are not the peer-reviewed publications that we might assume for the organisation's imprimatur (I was in a well known museum last week and came out with two howlers on their labelling which I've just been emailing them photos of.)
Also, that 10,000 figure contradicts the text added here, which says nearly (i.e. definitely less than) 10,000.
I'm not an expert on meteorite dating, but I doubt that dating their fall is a terribly exact science. So if we start making claims (as here) that it's not only "10,000 years", but that we can know this precisely enough to give it as a single definitive number, then we need damn good sourcing to support that. What's the method for dating it? Examination of sediments overlaying an impact crater? Anthropological? What are the error margins for this? Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
The infobox date should be removed, anyway. Putting a date in an infobox clearly implies that the date is "safe", that is: supported by firm scientific consensus. There is *no* consensus at all on the fall date of this meteorite. 188.150.74.24 ( talk) 14:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the Cape York meteorite a major plot point in JoJo's Bizarre Adventure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.127.112 ( talk) 01:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there any information concerning Inuit reaction to the removal of the Cape York Meteorite? Also, what was the reason for removing them in the first place? -- Eraticus 03:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
How did the Inuit obtain the iron and work it into tools? Are there coal deposits nearby that could be used to make a forge? PhilUK 21:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
How come the fragments of this space rock did not shatter into much smaller pieces on impact? This sort of strike normally doesn't leave such big splinters - compare the Sikhote-Alin meteorite ( Octahedrite, coarsest) which may have been slightly bigger than the Cape York one, and where the fracturing was far more complete. Is it because near-solid iron, as opposed to rock, would be less susceptible to blowing into a myriad of fragments? 83.254.151.33 ( talk) 05:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The 1897 dates for Peary's discovery of three fragments strikes me as terribly chauvinistic. Surely Inuit knew of these fragments long before that? Can anyone justify using 1897? Cstaffa ( talk) 14:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
If Inuit had been using this meteorite as a source of iron for centuries, the found date was obviously far earlier than 1894.
FFS, I'm an old white male and even I find it absurd that a thing known about for hundreds of years doesn't count as found until an old white guy decides to go and find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1443:80B9:5F3:AFD0:80EC:8B8B ( talk) 00:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
See also Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Are there already theories which connect these specimens to the Hiawatha Glacier impact crater? prokaryotes ( talk) 12:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@ FunkMonk: - you seem keen to re-add the text "The meteorite collided with Earth nearly 10,000 years ago. " But this remains unsourced. It might be true, it might be sourceable, but it's not sourced in this article today, and that's the problem.
Can it be sourced? Well, quick looking shows at least two contrasting sources for this, one (AMNH) saying "some ten thousand years ago", another [1] saying "over 12,000 to 3 million". Now I distrust the first - museum websites and even on-site labelling placards are regularly inaccurate and the problem is getting worse as budgets are squeezed. These publications are not the peer-reviewed publications that we might assume for the organisation's imprimatur (I was in a well known museum last week and came out with two howlers on their labelling which I've just been emailing them photos of.)
Also, that 10,000 figure contradicts the text added here, which says nearly (i.e. definitely less than) 10,000.
I'm not an expert on meteorite dating, but I doubt that dating their fall is a terribly exact science. So if we start making claims (as here) that it's not only "10,000 years", but that we can know this precisely enough to give it as a single definitive number, then we need damn good sourcing to support that. What's the method for dating it? Examination of sediments overlaying an impact crater? Anthropological? What are the error margins for this? Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
The infobox date should be removed, anyway. Putting a date in an infobox clearly implies that the date is "safe", that is: supported by firm scientific consensus. There is *no* consensus at all on the fall date of this meteorite. 188.150.74.24 ( talk) 14:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the Cape York meteorite a major plot point in JoJo's Bizarre Adventure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.127.112 ( talk) 01:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)