Talk:Tunguska event

message: Why is this article using a dated 1983 reference and claiming 10–15 megatons as most probable when newer references suggest closer to "about four megatons"? Even Asher2005 (page 2) suggests only "~10 megatons".  I think the article should be changed to read "5–10 megatons as most probable". -- Kheider (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we don't accept the New York Times as a good source of scientific facts. The four megaton claim, to my knowledge, comes from a single primary research paper. The 10-15 megaton claim comes from many, including secondary papers. If the scientific consensus has actually shifted, and that can be demonstrated, then it will be changed in the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hope Donald K. Yeomans and Mark Boslough would be good enough to lower the best-fit used by Wikipedia. The days of thinking Tunguska was caused by a 75-meter object exploding with no downward movement appear to be coming to an end. The Tunguska impactor was probably only  in diameter ==> "But the generally agreed upon theory is that on the morning of June 30, 1908, a large space rock, about 120 feet across, entered the atmosphere of Siberia and then detonated in the sky." Can you name a peer-reviewed paper in the last 10 years claiming Tunguska was caused by a 15 Mt air burst similar to Castle Bravo? -- Kheider (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm looking for and haven't seen is a peer-reviewed secondary source that gives the ~4 megaton figure as the new consensus. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then can we change it to read "~10 megatons as most probable" and compare it to Ivy Mike? We could use Asher2005 as a reference. Right now, the article does not even mention 3 Mt as the lower bound. -- Kheider (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megatons 

message: Is "epicentre" the accepted term for the location directly underneath a mid-air explosion? By Greek derivation, the word would mean "upon the center," and that is in fact what it means when applied to earthquakes. Here it seems odd. Ishboyfay (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Epicentre" 

message: Currently the only statement on casualties is "Mostly material damages". What does that mean? What kind of non-material damages were reported? Any deaths? Injuries? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's pretty vague. This is described further in the eyewitness accounts: No human deaths or injuries, but there was minor property damage (destroyed crops, shattered windows, and at least one collapsed dwelling). Someguy1221 (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

text: If you have a source for that, it would be great to add to the article, as it's surprising given the intensity of the blast (although perhaps not given the location). == Dan Griscom (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are contemporary newspapers, already listed in the article. Off the top of my head, I don't recall that any of the sources in the article explicitly state that "no one was injured", "no one was killed". Someguy1221 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mostly material damages"? 

message: Removing documented content, without giving arguments on arguments in the talk page, is edit warring. Please stop.--ManosHacker (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be edit warring by you, if you are the only editor that thinks it is of sufficient notability. -- Kheider (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So you propose I make a case and bring it to village pump for discussion as you do not have arguments to my points. I'll give it a try.--ManosHacker (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not even see the word "Tunguska" mentioned in the Nikola Tesla article. -- Kheider (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you do not, it is unlikely that he did it. The thing is if we keep speculations that have notability (even crap) or not. I would keep this antimatter crap just to make my students develop critic thinking.--ManosHacker (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring provoking 

message: * Tesla section remains inside the article, accepted by everyone as notable, until
* DonPMitchell talks about scientific errors (incomplete and incapable Tesla device), that seem to be his own speculations, and removes Tesla section.
* Davefoc argues for sufficient notability of the Tesla speculation despite the truth of the event.
* ManosHacker adds higher notability with New Scientist article and rewrites the section (that finally concludes in non-pov form).
* KheiderIt has the opinion that the Tesla section is still not sufficiently notable (as a scientific explanation, I presume).
* Someguy1221 argues that the Tunguska event article is a scientific one (local consensus) and there is no space for stupid ideas.
* Someguy1221 judges Tesla and Flying Saucer as stupid ideas and also judges New Scientist as an unaccepted publisher.
* ManosHacker objects that the article is about an event, not a scientific paper on the event (global consensus), and speculations that have been notable in history should be kept.
* ManosHacker also says that he himself believes Tesla did not do it but no one of us is in a position to judge if Tesla was capable of doing it or not.
* ManosHacker reveals the obvious error of antimatter theory as far more crap than Tesla, as antimatter travelling inside our solar system would light up against the solar wind for weeks, be hyper-observable for days closing to the Sun, and the same should be for any antimater object travelling through our solar system, not only the Tunguska one that "hit" the Earth. DonPMitchell has argued that scientific errors, that he judges as such, should be the cause for immediate rejection. But ManosHacker supports that antimatter should also remain inside the article as notable history debate about it.
Every  and  includes a point of argument.--ManosHacker (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments / History 

message: *Move Tesla under a properly titled section.   ManosHacker 08:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals 

message: The positions of the hyphens in the citations to the various books cited in the main article are rather variable. I observe that the institutional subscription database WorldCat solves this problem by using none at all. C.s.auaeginal (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: ISBN Format

message: The explosion's effect on the trees near the epicentre of the explosion was replicated during atmospheric nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s, and was similar to the effects of the conventional Operation Blowdown. These effects are caused by the blast wave produced by large explosions.
Operation Blowdown is the closest analog of a test I could think of, no nuclear testing was conducted in an effort to directly replicate the effects observed at Tunguska, that I know of. Moreover, no US nuclear testing was, serendipitously, conducted over thick forest, to my limited knowledge. Naturally I would like to be corrected on this, if I am in error. Operation upshot knothole, and also perhaps Operation Teapot, and the few airbursts at the pacific proving grounds(island tests) such as shot Able in - Operation Crossroads were not directly over a forest, sure some trees were scattered around further afield, but none were directly over a forest of trees, that I know of.
I would appreciate, if there are any replies, that you ping me on my talk page to let me know.
Much Obliged,
Boundarylayer (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tunguska_event#Blast_patterns]] - put in the citation needed tags and added [[operation Blowdown]]

message: I'd like a map showing the "butterfly" shape. --Error (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was curious about the same thing. 8) -- Beland (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! The paper which is supplied to support this "spread eagle butterfly" shape is Boyarkina, A. P., Demin, D. V., Zotkin, I. T., Fast, W. G. Estimation of the blast wave of the Tunguska meteorite from the forest destruction. – Meteoritika, Vol. 24, 1964, pp. 112–128 (in Russian). Perhaps someone with a subscription to that journal-Meteoritika- could do us a favor and make a copy/facsimile?  Of note is that this pattern was also present following the Chelyabinsk meteor airburst, a map of building glass damage caused by the object in Chelyabinsk Oblast with villages and towns in the area marked is available Here, and is similarly "spread eagle butterfly"-shaped. http://cams.seti.org/index-chelyabinsk.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.79 (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: I reverted your re-addition because the content isn't historical. It's true that the first lines claim that the arguments about to be presented are "historical" and 'from the early 20th century when less was known' but the actual claims under that heading are post-1980. That makes it WP:FRINGE and not of historical interest. The IP was right to remove it, and the burden of proof for inclusion rests on anyone wishing to restore it. Geogene (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: By "Historical relevance" I'm not talking about theories that were once the most popular explanation, or ones that are very old. I'm using "historic" in a very literal sense: theories that have been presented in the past, specifically ones that were notable or significant. There are really two varieties contained within that section: Serious scientific hypotheses that got published in mainstream journals, some of which were later debunked by later publications in those same journals; and pseudoscientific hypotheses that were never taken seriously, but gained substantial notability anyway. What is spelled out clearly is that these theories are all either debunked or never gained scientific attention. Well except for the two really loony theories at the end. I believe the material warrants inclusion in its own section. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough that it's not all pseudoscience, but I also have some concerns about WP:WEIGHT. My concern is that it isn't that hard to get a paper past a peer review committee, this is accomplished thousands of times a year. That a journal publishes something means that the methodologies were considered sound enough that the paper is good enough for other scientists to judge and argue about themselves. That's useful to a subculture of trained skeptics, but journal publication is a lower threshold than what's needed for an encyclopedia to pass a viewpoint along for mass consumption by a general audience. Geogene (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Historical" speculation

message: While reading about the event in India, I came across this article from the New York Times that mentions the Tunguska event, and claims: "...leveled hundreds of square miles of forest and killed two men and hundreds of reindeer". This appears to be the first time that a reliable source has reported deaths from this event. It does not specifically cite a source for the 2 deaths, but it mentions International Comet Quarterly, which is described by Reuters as a scientific journal. The journal does indeed list the following on its website: "apparent airblast (no recovered meteorites) of an object entering Earth's atmosphere; leveled hundreds of square miles of forest, killing two men and hundreds of reindeer". It lists a number of references which I do not have access to. Should the article be updated to reflect this information, or is someone able to verify this information through the list of references? Michael5046 (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are links to two of the referenced papers Sekanina 1983, Lyne et al. 1995, although I didn't find any mention of deaths. This book does repeat the claim about two deaths, but I'm not sure how reliable this is. Mikenorton (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 reported deaths 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Tunguska 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/possible-meteor-shower-reported-eastern-russia-052833588.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This popped up on my newsfeed today and I thought some of the information might be relevant to this page - let me know what you guys think:
*Russian researchers later said that it was a comet, not a meteor that caused the damage. Comets are largely made up of ice – not rock, like meteorites – so the absence of alien rock fragments would make more sense this way. The ice would have started to evaporate as it entered Earth's atmosphere, and continue to do so as it hit the ground.
Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New Article from BBC

message: Is there any suggestion of why the head of the USSR Meteorological section would burn the negatives of all these thousands of old survey photos? I hate when people include facts like this, but don't give any context or relevance. What are we supposed to make of this? Was he reasonably getting rid of worthless old documents to save space? Was he part of some nefarious plot to cover something up? Just being an asshole? A complete idiot? Is this supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing? Details, please. AnnaGoFast (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burned negatives of aerial survey? 

message: Surely there is at least some conjecture as to why there was multiple explosions that were heard that day; they seem well attested, even if they disagree in the exact number of booms. Why would a single bolide exploding cause multiple explosions (or multiple shock waves, for that matter)? I don't know enough about sound propagation or seismic activity to really speculate, but could the body have broken up int multiple pieces which proceeded to explode? Echoing shock/sound waves? In any event, I find it odd that it doesn't address this at all. I hate when an article leaves me with questions (and this one is bound to leave you with enough as it is). Also, the description of the bright body being visible for "ten minutes" seems odd; doesn't it take less time than that for an object traveling at hypersonic speeds to travel from one end of the horizon to the other? The shooting stars I've seen were all traveling so fast that they could have crossed the entire sky in a very short time if they hadn't burned out so rapidly. AnnaGoFast (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple booms? 

message: I wanted to explain in more detail why I removed the volcanism hypothesis in this edit. What we have there is something that superficially appears to be a well sourced addition, but it is not. Only a single source contains the hypothesis, apparently the original publication of it. The other six sources are general sources on Tunguska and volcanoes, which never connect the two together. So those are irrelevant. To , the goal here is not to prove that this hypothesis is plausible, but to prove that it is significant - that other scientists have taken note of the theory and written about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interplanetary volcanism hypothesis 

message: A statement about the so-called geophysical hypothesis should be made that this is an exteme-view held apparently only by the authors of the paper - the evidence for an asteroidal explosion is damn well overwhelming in the scientific community. 104.169.26.177 (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringy . . .  

message: The report that 2 people and many reindeer died in Tunguska has recently been returned to the article, with sourcing to a news report, a student report, someone's blog, and one good looking secondary source. However, that secondary source's own source for the death's is an article in the June 1994 issue of Sky & Telescope, a pop sci magazine, and cites no sources. Really none of these four are usable in this context. There are two books that allegedly contain references to the deaths: Lewis, J.S.  Rain of Iron and Ice: The Very Real Threat of Asteroid and Comet Bombardment.  Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1996.; and Norton, O.R.  Rocks from Space.  Missoula Montana: Mountain Press Publishing Company, 1998. Maybe someone can find these in a library? I think it would be insightful to the article if we had more information on the alleged deaths, or just purge the mention again if no good sources are found. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tunguska deaths, questionable sourcing 

message: I got an email from an anonymous user that content I reverted yesterday  is not ordinary vandalism but rather represents the WP:Fringe beliefs of a new religious movement based on UFOs. I hadn't heard of them but appreciate the info and am posting it here for general awareness in case this is the tip of an iceberg. Geogene (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree it is considered WP:Fringe it definitely was not vandalism. I also disagree with the interpretation of the source of the Law of One material. It was a book created from recordings of 100+ psychic channeling sessions with a being called 'Ra'. It has nothing to do with UFOs and is not a "new religious movement". So, if you allow for WP:Fringe material I would argue it deserves a place on the page. Maybe not it's own heading, but it did not seem to go with any other heading on the page. Cheers...--Truthseeker2017 (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely Fringe, sounds like this might be in same ballpark as Edgar Cayce. And so the Law of One by McCarty and Rueckert is basically a transcript of these recordings? Are there independent sources that discuss this aside from that? Geogene (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of any other independent sources which validate this particular story. The closest I can get is another source validating who Ra is/was. Does that mean it is not worthy of including? Sorry, I'm obviously new to creating content for an article. Cheers... --Truthseeker2017 (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, not worthy. This policy makes it clear, without some kind of attention from mainstream sources, it can't be included. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Someguy1221. I've also found that there was formerly a Wikipedia article at The Law of One (Ra material) which was deleted two years ago for a lack of reliable, independent sourcing. The deletion debate was preserved here. As a general rule, if something isn't notable enough to have a standalone article, it usually doesn't get mentioned in related articles. Geogene (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Law of One (Ra material)

message: It looks like I may have inadvertently started an edit war. The previous statement at the bottom of the Lake Cheko section was written poorly and in overly definitive language. This is the same viewpoint expressed in the Sputnik article cited with this claim. In an attempt to keep the scientific nature of this article as high level as possible, I rewrote this statement to tone down its decisive nature. It's important that research that has not been categorically disproven by the 2007 team be fairly represented. To that end, I added a reference to the Russian Geographical Society's top-sheet report on their research and claim that Lake Cheko is older. It is also important to note that Italian research has been peer reviewed while the Russian report has not. AYK771 (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it, the article shouldn't cover the Lake Cheko hypothesis in the first place because it was never scientific consensus, it's just somebody's research paper. Passing peer review isn't a high standard, it just means that a paper's methodology doesn't have any obvious problems. The vast majority of novel ideas that are published this way never amount to anything, and Wikipedia encourages use of textbooks as sources over journal papers as much as possible. That said, existing sourcing shows that this idea was probably dead on arrival . There is just no way it's just as likely to be a crater than as not. It's not a crater until it's proven that it is. Geogene (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lake Cheko 

message: Could we find or create a diagram that gives some idea of the size of the explosion.  It seems to be about the only fact that you all agree on- so how big is that flattened area compared to London or something?
IceDragon64 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram for size of explosion? 

message: Hey gents.
I reviewed the article and the talk.  I am a scholar of this subject, which certainly does not mean I am an expert.  There are no experts for this one.  I have a constructive suggestion. Yes, the mission of Wiki is to proliferate mainstream dogma. I use Wiki all the time to gain intellectual perspective on all sorts of interesting things.  Wiki is spot on much of the time, but I feel strongly that there is something remiss in the presentation of this particular topic.
Spinoza was sage to contemplate the action of passion on reason. To see the big picture one must endeavor to decouple them.
Alas the removal of passion is debilitating to curiosity and consequently the death of imagination.
Remember what Einstein had to say about imagination.
This subject is certainly not as cut and dry as the literary rendering in Wiki does imply.  I propose a respectful compromise to benefit the broad Wiki readership and to put the wonder back into this marvelous vintage event.
Call the addition to the main article whatever seems reasonable: historic perspective, miscellaneous details, unexplained data, whatever.
 
1) Kulik found that within 'Merrill's Circus' there were 'islands of survival' in the midst of total devastation.  As Krivov pointed out topographic features can account for some protection, and acoustic interference might play a role, but there were areas that weren't even scorched alongside areas that were blasted toast.  How do you account for that?
2) An isotopic anomaly involving a depletion of deuterium and an enhancement of heavy carbon was detected and reported.  Also detected and reported was an enhancement of lanthanides and iridium.  Whether those anomalous constituents were incoming, upcoming or otherwise has not been unambiguously resolved.
3) Lansdalite--diamond like microparticles--and fragments of shocked trappean rock were reported.
3) When the axis symmetric deviation in the treefall was analyzed a 'ballistic wave corridor' was clearly evident, which indicated there was something incoming out of the southeast.  In historical perspective that is the proposed Krinov trajectory.  However, the right wing of Fast's butterfly which represents the large scale damage to the tiaga in general, and the tree laydown on Ridge Chuvar to the east of the epicenter in particular, indicate there was incoming out of the southwest.  That is the proposed Kulik-Astapovich trajectory.  Based on the damage it is not reasonable to deny there was dual incoming--also keep in mind there were dual hemispheres in the sky observed above Kulikovskii.
4)Vasilev pointed out there were various heralds which started days prior to the event. A major solar flare was occurring at exactly that time during a rare inner system alignment.  The plasma waves from the solar storm were interacting the magnetosphere.  It would be shamefully remiss to overlook that.
5) The Cauldron was awash afterwards from extensive upwelling of water.  The Vanavara road was closed and the area was rendered impassable for some time.  As Luchetkan mentioned to Krinov, what was once firm ground where Reindeer could pass had become an impassable bog, which is how it is today--the landscape was permanently altered.
6) There were genomic modifications of the flora reported.
7) The Nizhnaya observers reported that they witnessed the event later in the day, not in the early morning. 
By all means one would expect mainstream knowledge to be found in Wiki, so I would point out that among the scholars of this event 'this is mainstream knowledge' which must not be carelessly or craftily omitted.  Please in the interest of posterity and diversity include these important facts.
Wiki has been an invaluable research tool for me.  Maybe in this small way I can help to keep it real.
best,
hbarover2  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.106.97 (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  a proper Kulikovskii indoctrination/habarover2, 10:40 DST, Cinco de Mayo 

message: What exactly is meant by "air waves" that were detected over Europe[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunguska_event&diff=855484458&oldid=854868762? the previous version said "fluctuations in atmospheric pressure", but without access to the source I don't want to change anything. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air waves? 

message: Under the "Investigations" section, there's a claim about Evenki guides fearing "Valleymen", and some other "speculative history". If you search Google for "Valleymen" you'll find references to absurd things like human-alien hybrid monsters in Siberia. To put this in further perspective, if you search for this specific text from the section, "In 1921, the Russian mineralogist Leonid Kulik, visiting the Podkamennaya Tunguska River basin as part of a survey for the Soviet Academy of Sciences", you'll find that text recycled (often verbatim) on many other webpages that also discuss things like science fiction monsters, or UFO's and extraterrestrials, often referring to Tunguska as the "Roswell of Russia", etc., etc.  OK... so enough baloney.
I did some research of my own to see what facts I could dig up. The best info comes from an American Physical Society webpage, which also appears to be the source that the original writer adapted their text from (before someone else injected the Valleymen silliness). The few other reputable sources I found don't directly corroborate the info presented on the APS webpage, but across those accounts there is a general consistency in the story of Leonid Kulik's visits to the region in 1921 and 1927.
So, I rewrote the first two paragraphs of the section, sticking to the facts I could find, and I cited that APS webpage twice. I hope it's alright, but I'm going to go ahead and insert my text in the right spot and hopefully you'll all agree it's an improvement. I will let you folks in here decide whether or not it's time to take down the template messages about Original Research and the need for citations.
Happy Holidays.  Dlampton (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research about "Valleymen" and other alternative history 

message: Removing the reference to new eye witness reports in 2020. 
The referenced paper is unverified and based on hearsay and primarily contains conjecture. Characterizing the data within as eye witness reports is inappropriate. At best it is a third-hand witness report.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excranz (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Eyewitness report found in 2020 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: @Georgelazenby: it is not within the remit of this article topic to be discussing meteoroids or airbursts in general scientific terms, because the scholarly consensus about Tunguska is that nobody is sure what happened there. If your sources mention Tunguska specifically, then they may be used; if they are general commentary on astronomical phenomena then they wouldn't be usable here because you can't draw your own conclusions on the research. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me.  Georgelazenby (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meteoroid/airburst info removed