Contents

Talk:Lake Cheko

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lakes Low‑importance Lake Cheko is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: Physical geography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force.

It is requested that a photographbeincluded in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Russia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Gasperini's 2009 paper theorizing the possible origin of L. Cheko in the T.E. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2009.00906.x/pdf), coming from a respected peer-reviewed journal, is disputed by a Russian News organ, in 2017, Sputnik International, which draws its conclusion from a 2008 reply to Gasperini's team's 2007 probe into the matter, yet before the Gasperini team's main paper of 2009. Additionally, the language of the refutation the Russian publication makes, aside from being reversed in its date, is far from the type of writing that characterizes scientific work. I do not assert this to lionize Gasperini or his work, but merely feel it necessary to point out that this Wikipedia entry, as well as the one on the Tunguska Event itself (in the last paragraph of its "Lake Cheko" section), try to dismiss the findings of Gasperini's science on the word of a mere popular publication, leaving the reader of the Lake Cheko info to believe that Gasperini has been "disproved" by "Russian Scientists," when no such refutation has been made. (Speculation: this may or may not be a problem coming from political/cultural bias, although it may also just be the work of a lazy or judgmental writer.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtelkin (talk • contribs) 06:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can give the "citation needed", because the statement "Lake Cheko was a known landmark on the Strelka-Vanavara trail before the Tunguska event.[citation needed]" is wrong. The origin of this legend is due to the confusion between "river" and "lake" Cheko.

The older version is correct: "However, the fact that eyewitnesses of the Tunguska event refer to river^[1] Cheko but never name such a remarkable landmark as the lake Cheko favors the hypothesis that the lake did not exist before the 1908 Event^[2]."

No other citation of the "river" or the "lake" Cheko exists apart the four citations translated in http://www-th.bo.infn.it/tunguska/APS-testimonies.htm . I am sure of that because I have read not only Vasilyev's Testimonies, but also all the original testimonies now stored in the Archives of the Meteorite Committee of the Russian Academy of Sciences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pclong2 (talk • contribs)

I keep trying to make the article state the actual measurement of 7.0 km, but there are other ideas floating around out there. Variations I've seen (paraphrased), and my responses, are as follows:

• "Google Earth measurement is 10 km, and the 7 must refer to miles." I have used Google Earth on three separate occasions, and each time measured from the center of the lake to the center of the treeless area and came up with 7,045 meters. I don't know how anyone can use the same software and come up with a different measurement. Any ideas?
• "The [Scientific American article] says about 8 km. Why not go with that?" 7.0 km is the actual measurement. 7 is "about" 8, so the Scientific American article isn't wrong, it's just less accurate.
• "An article in 1966 (Krinov) gives coordinates, which provide a distance of 7 km." This article agrees with the actual measurement using a known, verifiable tool (Google Earth). This article is not cited anywhere, but it's irrelevant.
• "An article in 2003 (Kundt) gives coordinates, which provide a distance of 9 km." This article is not cited anywhere, so the assertion is unverifiable.

--Cbdorsett (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After inspecting both photos they don't appear to be of the same lake. The top link geotimes.org site with photo seems to be more accurate as it matches descriptions and other photos I've seen. The bottom link nice photo, livescience.com looks nothing like the shape of the lake or the surrounding steep terrain descending into the lake that you see in the first link, even though the second link does purport to be a photo of Lake Cheko. Interesting, though, is that they are both credited to the University of Bologna. 159.49.254.2 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The geotimes.org image isn't actually a photograph at all. According to the University of Bologna page http://www-th.bo.infn.it/tunguska/terranova.html, it's a "3-D reconstruction (viewpoint from S) of the morphology of the Lake Cheko based on real topographic /bathymetric data. The water level has been placed 40 m below the actual level to enhance underwater morphological features." I'm going to change the link text at the bottom to reflect this. ChristopherGregory (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]