Talk:Mahuika crater

message: Although it is likely a mute point, The source of the copyrighted material removed by User Huon in Revision as of 16:15, 28 September 2014 is an fringe, unreliable, and self-published web page, 22 The Destruction of Zhou Man and Hong Bao’s fleets in the Southern Ocean by a Tsunami triggered by a comet, by Gavin Menzies.
Although this is a minor point, it is well worth noting the source of and text that is violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies so people can easily judge for themselves. Paul H. (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Web Page of Copyrighted Text 

message: I tried to make the article more neutral by adding a footnote to "hypothesized" in the first sentence, reading That an impact created the crater and that it caused a tsunami are issues currently under debate. and citing Goff, but the text was removed by editor Primefac with the edit summary stating it as a hypothesis indicates there is no consensus (and no need for a ref tag there. My own view is that "hypothesized" only indicates a theory, and not that the theory has been challenged, so that the footnote imparted additional information that would allow the article to be appropriately skeptically read.  I carefully did not put in any argumentation.  What do you all think? --Bejnar (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the footnote/note because a claim like that should be a full sentence/section with references of its own. I've just now redone the lede and sections so that it shows there is debate, though obviously it still requires expansion. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  More neutral 

message: Obviously the proposed date of Febr. 13, 1491 (alluded to in the article and in the 2010 paper currently listed under footnote 4) has to be taken from some observation of a sky event found in Asian (Chinese?) sources - it is much too precise to relate to geological traces at the crater itself and it can hardly be related to Maori traditions either; AFAIK pre-European Maori chronology doesn't offer quite that level of precision in dating non-recurrent events. So it's from some observation of a fireball, a guest star or the like in an Asian chronicle. Could someone find out what observed event it is that the supporters of the impact theory are linking to the crater? This is clearly relevant to an article about this crater/possible astrobleme. Strausszek (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed date of AD 1491? 

message: You said:-
"I'm not really sure what the point is, since the related article doesn't mention the crater, just that *this* comet might have been misidentified)"
The paper that included the retraction was published in 2002.
How could it possibly mention a crater which was first proposed in 2003.
As I already pointed out the comet was not misidentified, "the records of this comet were misunderstood".
The point is, the 1491 impact date was suggested because of the published orbit of Comet 1491 II.
You said:-
"Neither article says anything about the 1491 comet "not receding from Earth"; the closest is that it *might* be the progenitor of the Quadrantids"
I did not say "not receding from Earth".
The referenced 2010 Goff paper says that the comet "was not observed by anyone near its computed closest approach date".
You cannot see a comet when it is approaching Earth from the direction of the Sun, so the above comment applies when it enters the night sky, moving away from Earth.
The comet possibly associated with the Quadrantids is Comet 1491 I, a completely different comet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.198.47 (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, you most definitely did, because the added text said . Second off, the fact that it might have been created in 1941 is refuted in the previous paragraph by Ref #4, making the paragraph unnecessary and somewhat confusing. Primefac (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: 1491 question