Talk:Shiva crater

Map

A map would be useful. -- Beardo 00:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Of the seabed? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be located relative to India; further, the text makes it sound like the crater is fragmented and requires piecing together. I think a map showing spreading ridges and transform zones would be very interesting! Verisimilus T 23:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a picture giving elevation; I'm also going to try and get permission to use a map which shows how the feature has fragmented and drifted over the millenia. David Fuchs ^(talk) 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by the claim that the rise in the center of the crater is "higher than Mt. Everest." I see that this claim is in the cited source, but I don't understand what the claim actually is. Obviously an underwater feature is by definition not as high as Everest--or even as high as Mumbai. Do we mean that it rises as far above the floor of the crater as Everest rises above sea level? That it rises as far above the crater floor as Everest rises above the valley floors nearest to it? Or something else? My atlas seems to say that the ocean depths in the Arabian Sea west of Mumbai are in the 3500-to-4000-meter range. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was the way I understood it from the Chatterjee paper: 'it rises as far above the floor of the crater as Everest rises above sea level'. Referring to the #4 Reference webpage, it has been updated and re-editted by the owner (12/06/10)!! Sorry. Also, I looked very hard on the net and could not find a map or even medium-resolution images, I will try again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheStarmon (talk • contribs) 06:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight

This article gives undue weight to those who like to claim it is an impact crater and not something else. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

any evidence of people claiming it is "something else"? --dab (𒁳) 12:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Iridium

It is a common misconception that asteroids, meteorites, and impact-related strata contain "high" levels of iridium. Iron meteorites typically contain only about 1 ppm iridium and never more than 100 ppm (0.01%). This is not a high level in absolute terms; it is only a high level relative to the extremely low occurrence in the Earth's crustal rocks, which average about 0.001 ppm iridium. I've tweaked the wording of the mention of iridium found in the Deccan Traps to reflect this fact. Piperh (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming news

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091016-asteroid-impact-india-dinosaurs.html

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2009AM/finalprogram/abstract_160197.htm

84.188.163.177 (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead needs to be modified to reflect the current notion that the impacts may have been 300, 000 years apart, not the result of one multiple impact event. 71.125.151.8 (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Map Link

I added Google Map external link--correct me if this violates the Lex Wiki, which I did read. --Geojr1955 (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Impacts

So it looks like more than one impact caused the extinction of dinosaurs? Maybe the meteorite was bigger and split or it had "siblings"? Is there an article on wikipedia about?--Dejudicibus (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please convert the note in Para. 1 to a citation style.

Paragraph 1, last sentence: I don't know how to do the kind of note that appears like a citation and is not in-line. If this should continue to be a note, please convert it for me and thanks in advance. Gnostic804 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done I think. There's more than one way to do it. Is this what you had in mind? --DB1729 (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is, and I thank you very much, DB1729!--Gnostic804 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad I could help. --DB1729 (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent addition, and notability of the subject

This addition [1] by Null Gravitas Exception is POV towards the crater being real. The source, a news article from 2004, presents the idea as being rejected by other scientists as "a figment of the imagination". Interestingly, it also says that there weren't many peer reviewed papers about Shiva, which implies a lack of notability. Geogene (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Terminology

The lead and the first para under Arguments use "K-Pg" to refer to the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event. Under "Shiva and mass extinctions", though, Chatterjee is quoted referring to "the K-T extinction". It would help readers to know that K-Pg and K-T are interchangeable, because they refer to the same thing. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Source from 2014

This journal article[2] (not by Chatterjee) seems to have garnered a fair amount of attention (13 linked citations on GScholar). Most of the articles citing it seem to take it as a relatively serious possibility. The article seems to be a literature review of sorts, and the author seems to have established stratigraphic evidence of two impacts occring at the K-T boundary, and evidence that Shiva was 40k years after Chicxulub (based on manetostratigraphy and physical spherule ejecta and meteorite fragments found in cores in the south pacific and elsewhere). It seems actually that this article is incorrect when it claims that the idea is dismissed by most scientists, because those citing this article seem to have the opposite view. It's possible that this review article didn't get much attention because it was published a few months after the author's death.

I'm going to request a Wikipedia library account to dig more into this and other citations discussing the Shiva impact. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 00:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I would advise you to read Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reporting_on_the_levels_of_acceptance. The vast of majority scientific literature doesn't mention Shiva at all when discussing the end-Cretaceous extinction. The fact that a handful of scholars have supported the idea shouldn't outweigh the fact that mainstream science has largely ignored the idea. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)