This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Nuff said.
Star jelly received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
It's unclear that there actually is a single substance which does dissolve rapidly, so I removed the latter phrase. I would expect another important reason why little scientific investigation has been done is that reputable scientists find claims about Star Jelly to be implausible and not worth looking into. -- Beland 05:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I can live with that. Not a problem. :) Rick K 20:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
'Reputable scientists' used to find the claims about "stones falling from the sky" (> meteorites) to be implausible and not worth looking into, till in the 19th century it finally was no longer possible to deny. If somebody doesn't believe me that "scientists" (of their day) once felt that way about meteorites, I can give you the references. Alexander 007 07:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and those "stones falling from the sky" were found to be natural phenomena. Which "those damn scienteeests!" provided evidence for themselves. If this is occurring, as it still hasn't even been established if it's completely factual or even the incidents related at all, then it will be either natural, a hoax or "naturally" (animal vomit or excretions) placed there. 124.148.235.41 ( talk) 07:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane
This rare find washes up on the beach in Wales sometimes and comes from the belly of sperm whales. - "It is described as a foul-smelling, gelatinous substance". The only problem is that it doesn't disappear after a few days, unless somebody who knows how valuable it is happens to stumble across it.
Sanity: This one would get delusional. The red rain refd to in Scientific analysis has no obvious connection to Star jelly, unless doing characteristic insane jumps-to-conclusions. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
-I came in here using
special:random, and I can see right now it needs some work on opposing theories (and grammar), so I'm going to rearrange it to make it more skeptically. I'm just writing to let you know if you don't like it, you can just revert it.
7h3 3L173 ( talk) 20:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The pop culture section seems to contain this and that unrelated to the topic, just any phrase that happens to have anything like "jelly" or "star" in it. I propose the section is simply deleted. Four of the refs are dead links, the http://www.bartleby.com/216/0205.html link provides a ref to a allegedly poetic text that provides similes, happenstance one with "star" and afterwards one with "jelly". Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
ALGAE-L Archives gives some explanations that I don't exactly know if they're properly citable, but it contains some non-UFO, non-astronomical explanations that doesn't sound too far fetched, in my estimation. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I obviously don't have access to a 1502 edition of John of Gaddesden's Rosa Anglica, but a 1912 translation is available through the California Digital Library:
http://archive.org/details/johnofgaddesdenr00choliala
I searched for any mention of stars and jelly etc. and no appropriate reference came up. I therefore believe citations on this page are inaccurate. (Currently citation 7)
Unless someone else can verify the citation, let's remove it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.252.13 ( talk) 12:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Star jelly. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Star jelly. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The Examples section is cited to some long dead web page called “Subversiveelement” which chides unbelievers. Needs cleaning. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 11:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Nuff said.
Star jelly received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
It's unclear that there actually is a single substance which does dissolve rapidly, so I removed the latter phrase. I would expect another important reason why little scientific investigation has been done is that reputable scientists find claims about Star Jelly to be implausible and not worth looking into. -- Beland 05:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I can live with that. Not a problem. :) Rick K 20:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
'Reputable scientists' used to find the claims about "stones falling from the sky" (> meteorites) to be implausible and not worth looking into, till in the 19th century it finally was no longer possible to deny. If somebody doesn't believe me that "scientists" (of their day) once felt that way about meteorites, I can give you the references. Alexander 007 07:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and those "stones falling from the sky" were found to be natural phenomena. Which "those damn scienteeests!" provided evidence for themselves. If this is occurring, as it still hasn't even been established if it's completely factual or even the incidents related at all, then it will be either natural, a hoax or "naturally" (animal vomit or excretions) placed there. 124.148.235.41 ( talk) 07:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane
This rare find washes up on the beach in Wales sometimes and comes from the belly of sperm whales. - "It is described as a foul-smelling, gelatinous substance". The only problem is that it doesn't disappear after a few days, unless somebody who knows how valuable it is happens to stumble across it.
Sanity: This one would get delusional. The red rain refd to in Scientific analysis has no obvious connection to Star jelly, unless doing characteristic insane jumps-to-conclusions. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
-I came in here using
special:random, and I can see right now it needs some work on opposing theories (and grammar), so I'm going to rearrange it to make it more skeptically. I'm just writing to let you know if you don't like it, you can just revert it.
7h3 3L173 ( talk) 20:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The pop culture section seems to contain this and that unrelated to the topic, just any phrase that happens to have anything like "jelly" or "star" in it. I propose the section is simply deleted. Four of the refs are dead links, the http://www.bartleby.com/216/0205.html link provides a ref to a allegedly poetic text that provides similes, happenstance one with "star" and afterwards one with "jelly". Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
ALGAE-L Archives gives some explanations that I don't exactly know if they're properly citable, but it contains some non-UFO, non-astronomical explanations that doesn't sound too far fetched, in my estimation. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I obviously don't have access to a 1502 edition of John of Gaddesden's Rosa Anglica, but a 1912 translation is available through the California Digital Library:
http://archive.org/details/johnofgaddesdenr00choliala
I searched for any mention of stars and jelly etc. and no appropriate reference came up. I therefore believe citations on this page are inaccurate. (Currently citation 7)
Unless someone else can verify the citation, let's remove it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.252.13 ( talk) 12:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Star jelly. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Star jelly. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The Examples section is cited to some long dead web page called “Subversiveelement” which chides unbelievers. Needs cleaning. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 11:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)