Talk:Henbury Meteorites Conservation Reserve

Untitled

To Wikipedia gate keepers. Please stop your disruptive editing. I realize you think you are doing the right thing, however what you are doing is in effect mindless vandalism.

Here are the reasons why. Reference 2 Kohman T. P. and Goel P.S. (1963). Terrestrial ages of meteorites from . In: Radioactive Dating, pp. 395–311. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. You will find this on Google Books called:- Radioactive Dating: Proceedings of the Symposium on Radioactive Dating Held by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Co-operation with the Joint Commission on Applied Radioactivity (ICSU) in Athens, 19-23 November 1962 Unfortunately Google Books does not allow full access to this paper. However if you go to Google Books and search with the phrase:- "For crater-associated irons, the resulting ages in years are: Henbury s 4700" If you click on the hit you can then see that it actually says:- "For crater-associated irons, the resulting ages in years are: Henbury ≤ 4700"

So the cosmogenic 14C terrestrial age for Henbury given by this reference is ≤ 4700 years, not the 4.2±1.9 thousand years stated on the Henbury page. This is error number 1.

Reference 3 "Henbury". Earth Impact Database. University of New Brunswick.

I emailed the Earth Impact Database people about the above cosmogenic 14C terrestrial age of ≤ 4700 years for Henbury. The response from the Data Manager, Earth Impact Database, Planetary and Space Science Centre, University of New Brunswick, was:- "There is a later publication that seems to be accepted by the scientific community, Storzer and Wagner (1977), for the Henbury age of 4200 +/- 1900 years. We keep up with publications and assess their dating methods, etc. before changing the date."

If you click on the Reference 3 Henbury link to the Earth Impact Database you will find this paper listed in the references:- Storzer, D. and Wagner, G.A., Fission-track dating of meteorite impacts. Meteoritics, v. 12, pp. 368-369. 1977. You can see this paper here:- http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1977Metic..12..368S

It clearly gives the Fission Track Age for Henbury as (4.2 ± 1.9) X 10³a. This is where the 4.2±1.9 thousand years on the Wikipedia Henbury page comes from. It is a Fission Track Age not a cosmogenic 14C terrestrial age as stated. This is error number 2.

How to correct these two errors. In my option the two ages given by independent methods support each other and should both be given as each estimate places bounds on the other. You could however make a case that this is rather technical and might confuse some Wikipedia readers and opt for using only the Fission Track Age. It seems only Wikipedia gate keepers can decide how to correct these errors.

Steve from DownUnder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.244.134 (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Steve is a colleague of mine conducing academic research on the history of impact craters in Australia. It is also worth noting that the Earth Impact Database contains errors that can go some time without being corrected, so it cannot be seen as an absolute authority on the topic. For example the age of Boxhole crater was cited, for a few years on the EID website, as being 54,000 years old, instead of the 5,400 year old date reported in the literature. This error was actually used (and cited from EID) in research analysing the statistical distribution of impact structures. It would also be worth noting that the commonly used citation for the Kohman and Goel paper is incorrect. How does a paper go from pp. 395-311? Dhamacher (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Added new material about the cultural significant based on a paper I recently published. Dhamacher (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henbury Meteorites Conservation Reserve. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060917200217/http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/parks/management/pdf/henbury_pom.pdf to http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/parks/management/pdf/henbury_pom.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)