This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arecibo message article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 16, 2019. |
The new entry on "Arecibo answer" is based on crop circles, and sub-optimal references. I propose to delete it, or move it to some article dealing with crop circle hoaxes. Rowan Forest ( talk) 00:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Now that two different people have inserted their opinion of "hoax" into the title of the Arecibo crop circle, it's time to get this on record.
Wikipedia is an encylopedia, and reputable encylopedias only insert "hoax" into the title of an event if there is absolute, provable certainty of it being a hoax. Such a bar of extreme certainty has not been met. As such, the editors who are consistently adding "hoax" to the title of this subection are inserting their own opinion over a more neutral and balanced representation of a title that only represents what is actually known: that a crop circle came into existence.
As a scientist myself, I do not have definitive proof on whether 1) extraterrestrials responded to the Arecibo message or 2) some humans managed to create two large and incredibly detailed and incredibly precise crop patterns in a single night without being caught or ever admitting to it, where the pattern indicates knowledge of stable single-stranded RNA patterns that humans don't contain, binary arithmetic, the fact that silicon has carbon-like properties, or that the perpetrators were likely involved in the crop circle created at the same spot a year before (which was a stunning display of fractal and geometric precision never demonstrated by humans at such a scale, let alone in 2001). Both possibilities are statements of extraordinary claims and neither side has the extraordinary evidence to back up their side. It is extremely presumptuous, arigorous, and does a scientific disservice to humanity to take a stance of labeling this situation as solved and completely understood when it is not.
Just ask yourself: What if you're wrong about this "hoax" label you're so fond of throwing around? What if extraterrestrials actually made this? Are you prepared for your opinionated editorship to be recorded for the public to see for all time? How many Galileos and Copernicuses must we persecute before we allow both sides of a phenomenon to be investigated without bias or censorship? To believe in the possibility of aliens being near/among us is the heresy of our time. It may end up being false (though UFOs are now suddenly not a "hoax" after all), but it may not, and a true scientist/editor must keep an open mind to multiple hypothesis that fit the data.
Please reconsider your stance on this issue and the historic repercussions that could result. 108.20.198.252 ( talk) 20:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I’m a bit confused by your statement that it’s an “extraordinary claim” to say that the crop circles were created by humans. It’s an ordinary, plausible claim. The extraordinary claim is the prospect that aliens came down in a spaceship, mowed some grass in a field, and left, all undetected. There’s no extraordinary evidence (or any evidence whatsoever) that the latter is the case. For that reason, it’s automatically assumed to be the former.
It’s the same reason we don’t say Apollo 11 probably landed on the Moon. There’s a plethora of evidence that proves that the Apollo 11 LM landed in the Sea of Tranquility on the Moon, while contrarily, detractors have no evidence (besides misconceptions) against it. Wikipedia doesn’t entertain fringe theories when there’s no evidence supporting them.
The second half of your response veers into bizarre conspiracy theories. If you want to believe that Wikipedia editors are covering up the existence of aliens, feel free, but this is no longer a rational debate. Opportunity Rover ( talk) 05:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
This is pointless to include. Even the plain text version as 0s and 1s lets someone copy/paste it if they want to do something with the raw data, but the audio version does nothing to aid understanding; it's just one particular sonification of a binary string, with no particular indication that it's even representative of how the message was modulated in the first place. I strongly suggest removal. Any objections? 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 18:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the audio file from the top (File:The_Arecibo_Message.wav) per the above comment and lack of objections. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 20:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I think this needs a reference or elaboration. Quantifying degree of organization is a delicate matter. I can add some discussion on this point, but just checking whether the original author of this line had something in mind that I haven't heard of? Probably not, I've researched this topic quite a bit, but it would be interesting if they did. Bollus101 ( talk) 10:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The word ‘Hoax’ should be removed in the subheading. There is no evidence to suggest it is a hoax, and indeed, the research carried out by experienced biophysical and aerospace scientists have established it is exceedingly complex and was completed in a matter of hours. It would be inappropriate to call it a hoax without the proper citation and conclusion which does not exist. 2.25.78.74 ( talk) 19:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. The article was just protected again, and this time for three months, because of attempts to make this change.
Meters (
talk) 21:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arecibo message article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 16, 2019. |
The new entry on "Arecibo answer" is based on crop circles, and sub-optimal references. I propose to delete it, or move it to some article dealing with crop circle hoaxes. Rowan Forest ( talk) 00:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Now that two different people have inserted their opinion of "hoax" into the title of the Arecibo crop circle, it's time to get this on record.
Wikipedia is an encylopedia, and reputable encylopedias only insert "hoax" into the title of an event if there is absolute, provable certainty of it being a hoax. Such a bar of extreme certainty has not been met. As such, the editors who are consistently adding "hoax" to the title of this subection are inserting their own opinion over a more neutral and balanced representation of a title that only represents what is actually known: that a crop circle came into existence.
As a scientist myself, I do not have definitive proof on whether 1) extraterrestrials responded to the Arecibo message or 2) some humans managed to create two large and incredibly detailed and incredibly precise crop patterns in a single night without being caught or ever admitting to it, where the pattern indicates knowledge of stable single-stranded RNA patterns that humans don't contain, binary arithmetic, the fact that silicon has carbon-like properties, or that the perpetrators were likely involved in the crop circle created at the same spot a year before (which was a stunning display of fractal and geometric precision never demonstrated by humans at such a scale, let alone in 2001). Both possibilities are statements of extraordinary claims and neither side has the extraordinary evidence to back up their side. It is extremely presumptuous, arigorous, and does a scientific disservice to humanity to take a stance of labeling this situation as solved and completely understood when it is not.
Just ask yourself: What if you're wrong about this "hoax" label you're so fond of throwing around? What if extraterrestrials actually made this? Are you prepared for your opinionated editorship to be recorded for the public to see for all time? How many Galileos and Copernicuses must we persecute before we allow both sides of a phenomenon to be investigated without bias or censorship? To believe in the possibility of aliens being near/among us is the heresy of our time. It may end up being false (though UFOs are now suddenly not a "hoax" after all), but it may not, and a true scientist/editor must keep an open mind to multiple hypothesis that fit the data.
Please reconsider your stance on this issue and the historic repercussions that could result. 108.20.198.252 ( talk) 20:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I’m a bit confused by your statement that it’s an “extraordinary claim” to say that the crop circles were created by humans. It’s an ordinary, plausible claim. The extraordinary claim is the prospect that aliens came down in a spaceship, mowed some grass in a field, and left, all undetected. There’s no extraordinary evidence (or any evidence whatsoever) that the latter is the case. For that reason, it’s automatically assumed to be the former.
It’s the same reason we don’t say Apollo 11 probably landed on the Moon. There’s a plethora of evidence that proves that the Apollo 11 LM landed in the Sea of Tranquility on the Moon, while contrarily, detractors have no evidence (besides misconceptions) against it. Wikipedia doesn’t entertain fringe theories when there’s no evidence supporting them.
The second half of your response veers into bizarre conspiracy theories. If you want to believe that Wikipedia editors are covering up the existence of aliens, feel free, but this is no longer a rational debate. Opportunity Rover ( talk) 05:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
This is pointless to include. Even the plain text version as 0s and 1s lets someone copy/paste it if they want to do something with the raw data, but the audio version does nothing to aid understanding; it's just one particular sonification of a binary string, with no particular indication that it's even representative of how the message was modulated in the first place. I strongly suggest removal. Any objections? 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 18:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the audio file from the top (File:The_Arecibo_Message.wav) per the above comment and lack of objections. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 20:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I think this needs a reference or elaboration. Quantifying degree of organization is a delicate matter. I can add some discussion on this point, but just checking whether the original author of this line had something in mind that I haven't heard of? Probably not, I've researched this topic quite a bit, but it would be interesting if they did. Bollus101 ( talk) 10:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The word ‘Hoax’ should be removed in the subheading. There is no evidence to suggest it is a hoax, and indeed, the research carried out by experienced biophysical and aerospace scientists have established it is exceedingly complex and was completed in a matter of hours. It would be inappropriate to call it a hoax without the proper citation and conclusion which does not exist. 2.25.78.74 ( talk) 19:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. The article was just protected again, and this time for three months, because of attempts to make this change.
Meters (
talk) 21:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)