Talk:Arecibo message

Editors continually inserting "hoax" in the title of the Arecibo crop circle subsection

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)

See WP:REDFLAG, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:FRINGE. Neutrality here is clearly identifying a hoax as such: reliable sources ubiquitously consider crop circles anthropogenic. "Provable" is not our standard. VQuakr (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The BBC's article on this topic in 2021 favors my proposal of balanced, neutral reporting that reports both sides fairly without using biasing labels in the title. ([1]https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20210822-englands-crop-circle-controversy) As I pointed out in my edit that mentioned SETI considering it a hoax in a web article that SETI took down, BBC makes it clear that many consider the circles to be a massive hoax conspiracy but also explains that many close to the issue consider most circles to not be hoaxes. This is the kind of standard we should be following here on Wikipedia where readers get a balanced understanding of phenomena, not an editor's single-sided opinion on the matter.

Do I need to include this BBC source and add a sentence and/or phrase at the beginning of the subsection that crop circles are controversial? Unless there is a reliable source detailing who is able to produce hundreds of such intricate patterns quickly in the dark without being caught and how they could possibly manage it, I am not comfortable swaying the opinions of millions of readers with a biased title. 108.20.198.252 (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It's difficult to overstate how obviously this isn't going to happen. Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote muck about crop circles. No, the BBC article is a travel newsblog intended to promote tourist interest in a region and doesn't meet the extremely high standard outlined at WP:REDFLAG. VQuakr (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not promoting either direction on this topic. YOU are. I am calling for a balanced and neutral position, which you and David have a serious problem with. I agree this will not be resolved, as I continue to think it is highly inappropriate to insert the biased label of "hoax" in the subtitle, and both of you started an edit war over constantly re-inserting "hoax" every chance you get, which is considered vandalism in the journals I work with. However, since you and David are the overlords of this particular patch of Wikipedia where what you say goes and not anyone else, enjoy your dominion over being the thought police here. I fervently hope this public record survives long enough for your decisions and actions to be taken to task and that one day you will feel some degree of remorse over what transpired here. I am unhappy about this situation, but I will be willing to make an honest attempt at understanding and forgiving you when that day comes. This will be my last statement on the matter, and I will not make further edits. Go well, and keep a more open mind in the future. You will need it. 108.20.198.252 (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

With all respect, if you look at the Talk page comments and page history; you will see that the "hoax" line has been discussed comprehensively previously and agreed. No-one but yourself is causing an "edit war". As you will notice, I have personal working experience of his hoax, although this could be quoted as WP:OR. Nevertheless, all the reasons for labelling the "reply" a hoax are detailed on the page history, Talk page by persons who have been deeply involved, or studied the subject, and there is absolutely no reason you go over them again. Nor is there any reason for you to insult editors, who appear to have far more experience of the subject than yourself. Case closed. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with thr op. You should NOT be inserting Hoax into this. Rhis message has in fact been proven to NOT be a hoax.

Infact i belive wikipedia (or atleast some of it editors) are guilty of purposely putting false claims to true events.

Please remove the word hoax from this. 118.92.107.252 (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. It's a hoax. Please read all the detailed comments. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

the case is only closed in your mind mate 77.44.14.68 (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The evidence of it being a hoax should not be hidden in a talk page, it should be in the section where the claim is made. Otherwise the assertion shouldn't be in the title. Just like the assertion of it being an alien response shouldn't exist if there is no evidence for it. Wikipedia can describe a crop circle without making either claim. 64.250.205.81 (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Crop circles have been shown to be manmade pranks time and time again. People have demonstrated how they’ve made them. Since there’s no extraordinary evidence otherwise, it should be assumed that this is a hoax like all the other crop circles. Occam’s razor clearly applies. Opportunity Rover (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

When considering the extraordinary evidence of the details of many crop circles, Occam's razor dictates that many (but not all) crop formations are created by something other than humans. To say all formations are created by humans is a very extraordinary claim, and that requires extraordinary evidence which has never been adequately provided. (Two old men creating a few shoddy formations in the 1990s is far from adequate) The contents and manner of the Arecibo crop formation's appearance gives the definite possibility that it was formed by extraterrestrials. The fact that you're trying so hard to remove it by improperly invoking Occam's razor suggests that you're trying to suppress this likelihood from gaining public attention. In fact, after reading all of the back and forths over the years on this article, I think the few editors who have tried so hard to remove this potential extraterrestrial reply to the Arecibo message are suspect of serving something other than the public interest. Why is a small group of edtiors so vested in tirelessly fighting the majority by getting this info removed or slandering it as a hoax? Something is wrong here. 108.20.177.124 (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2024 (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)

The referenced SETI article itself only says it is "Highly Improbable" the crop formation has an otherworldly explanation. To call it a hoax so definitively in the subtitle is misrepresenting the source.

The word Hoax should be removed from the subtitle, and the text of the section should be changed to better match the source.

And please do not reference prior talk pages or different topic, stick to just the discussion at hand.

Actually, this discussion isn't worth continuing, please disregard the above comment. I'll leave it as-is for archival reasons 67.149.172.22 (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

True, but the article then says “There is no evidence to suggest an other-than-earthly origin for these graphics”, and proceeds to list off the reasons why it couldn’t possibly be aliens.

Is there room for doubt? Sure, but there’s also room for doubt that the Andromeda galaxy isn’t a holographic projection by aliens, or that Elvis Presley didn’t fake his death and steal Joe Biden’s identity. This has to be about reasonable doubt. The SETI statement shows that there’s no evidence whatsoever that the crop circle was created by aliens, so I don’t think it’s misrepresenting the source at all. The burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies. Opportunity Rover (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 for "it was a hoax" in some form. I'm not sure it needs to be in this article at all. Other than one persistent IP editor, it's unclear anyone agrees that we should give the claim that "Aliens sent a reply to the Arecibo message" any credence whatsoever. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Re covering it at all, I think the sources currently in the article establish sufficient weight for some mention. VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources in the article do not support the determination it was a hoax at all. There are three listed:

1: A news article that proclaims it a "hoax" with no evidence given other than "of course it is"

2: A news article from a minor website that references the below SETI article.

3: A SETI article that only says it is "highly probable" the circle is a fabrication.

This is not sufficient to proclaim it is a hoax in the title. Stick to the facts and leave any speculation to the cause where it belongs. The sources do not support having "Hoax" in the subtitle, to leave it there is just you putting your personal opinion into the matter. 67.149.172.22 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Can't we just call it something neutral like "Chilbolton crop circle"? I wouldn't be opposed to it. The content of the section makes it clear SETI doesn't take it seriously. - Ïvana (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Make a new thread if you want to propose a different change. The topic is "Editors continually inserting "hoax" in the title of the Arecibo crop circle subsection".

Leaving it there is the editor's own commentary that is not supported by the sources referenced. Multiple editors squatting on the article and taking turns reverting changes while dogpiling on good-faith attempts to improve the article is against the spirit and the rules of wikipedia.

Add reputable sources that prove it is a hoax or remove that section from the subtitle. I haven't heard any good reasons for leaving it in yet that isn't people's personal opinions 67.149.172.22 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

We're not going to accept your goalpost-shifting on standard of proof, and you don't control what gets discussed in this section. @Ïvana: calling it a hoax in the section header is neutral, since reliable sources ubiquitously identify crop circles as anthropogenic. VQuakr (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

No, they don't. I refer you to my comment above, where I point out that there is a single low quality source that claims it is a hoax. I don't and wikipedia doesn't care about your personal opinion on the subject. Calling it a hoax is a claim that requires proof or strong sources claiming it as such. 67.149.172.22 (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I'm perfectly fine with the title staying as it is and I agree with you, I just wanted to find a middle ground cause I'm tired of IPs edit warring. I was going to ask for page protection but just saw that you already did. Hopefully that fixes the issue for a bit. - Ïvana (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't touched the article since I received the warning, therefore locking the article is unnecessary. It's clear that you all are dedicated in keeping your opinions in the article as opposed to relaying the facts as presented by the source. It's incredibly disappointing. 67.149.172.22 (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You say yourself above: we have A news article that proclaims it a "hoax". The information is adequately sourced, and falsely claiming that we're enforcing personal opinions isn't going to convince anyone of anything. WP:THEINDEPENDENT is fine as a source for something so obvious. VQuakr (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The article has been protected yet again because of this issue, for six months this time. Meters (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I support the use of "hoax", for which we have a reliable source and many editors' support. It's a bit odd that almost all of the support for removing it is from WP:SPAs. Meters (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

100% the use of hoax. Even by the already dubious standards of crop circles in general, this one is an obvious hoax and reliable sources name it as such. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe I may have misinterpreted your suggestion @Ïvana, were you proposing a change from "Arecibo Answer crop circle hoax" to "Chilbolton crop circle"? 67.149.172.22 (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with Chilbolton crop circle as an alternative choice for the heading. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a good change. "Arecibo answer crop circle" is clunky in how it is worded and is redundant with the title of the article. Crop Circle covers the particulars of crop circles and their reputation as a fabrication is widespread enough to not need repeating outside the main Crop Circle article. I think that title would prevent any further problems with the heading. Also: Alliteration. 67.149.172.22 (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for my unbearable nitpicking, but "Chibolton Crop Circle" does not actually contain any alliteration. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr and Kovcszaln6: could you please notify the talk page (and the editors) when you start WP:DRN? Walsh90210 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Neither of us did so? VQuakr (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I replied in the noticeboard but for documentation purposes I'll repeat it here: I'm fine with the usage of hoax, I agree with the arguments provided by the other editors. If for some reason the resolution of the dispute already in progress is that we need to change the section title then we can use something like "Chilbolton crop circle", but hoax remains the first option (and the one we already have consensus to use, even if a bunch of WP:SPAs disagree). I don't have more to add on this subject. - Ïvana (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree with Ivana's coments above. "Hoax" remains the initial choice, in spite of the attempted hijack of the page by WP:SPA's. David J Johnson (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, dispute has been resolved and "hoax" will remain. Once it is archived and it has a fixed link it should probably be referenced here somewhere (even if it is just as an invisible comment in the section) cause I assume this request will be made again. - Ïvana (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

One option would be to use Template:FAQ. VQuakr (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 246#Arecibo message Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2024

In the article "Arecibo Message" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message) the source citation for the list of authors of the Arecibo message is listed as a 1999 Cornell University press release. That press release is a secondary source that erroneously omits one of the authors (Richard Isaacman). The original, correct source is a 1975 paper in the journal Icarus, which can be found here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0019103575901165?via%3Dihub

The Icarus article is the original one, published a year after the actual Arecibo transmission, and contains the correct author list.

The Arecibo Message page is protected and so I am unable to update it to incorporate a correct citation. Geosyncnew (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your supposed source does not mention Richard Isaacman, or any individuals by name. It simply lists the authors as "The Staff at the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center" Meters (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The original article in the citation is behind a paywall: the link in my requested reference is a reference to it. But the actual source citation of the original article is the journal Icarus 1975, vol. 26 pp. 462–466, in which Isaacman and the other authors are credited. It is in fact this article that was the source of the erroneous 1999 press release. So I would like to modify my request and use the Icarus citation instead of the press release currently referenced. Geosyncnew (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Where's the link to the paywalled version? Perhaps the Wikipedia Library can give me access. Does it actually list Isaacman as an author? All of the versions of this paper that I have been able to find simply list the authors as "The Staff at the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center" Meters (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct, the author line of the article says only "The Staff at the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center". However the *text* of the article lists the primary authors of the message: Drake, Sagan, Walker, Isaacman, May. (Unfortunately it also omits a contributor: Kristine Graham from UCSD.) The actual wording in the article -- which was excerpted and sent to me by someone else -- is "The content of the message was constructed primarily by Frank Drake, Richard Isaacman, Linda May, and James C. G. Walker. Valuable suggestions for improvements were given by a number of people, but particularly by Carl Sagan." I have askied him to send me a PDF of the full article if he has one.

Here's the paywall link for the article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/getaccess/pii/0019103575901165/purchase It can be purchased for download for $27.95. Geosyncnew (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Good news! I now have a PDF file of the original Icarus article. How can I get it to you for validation of the reference? Geosyncnew (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2024

Citation #2 is a secondary source (a press release) that is derived fully but not altogether correctly from the primary refereed source that is citation #1 (The Staff at the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center [December 1975]. "The Arecibo message of November, 1974". Icarus. 26 (4): 462–466. Bibcode:1975Icar...26..462.) All of the citations in the article that use citation #2 should be corrected to cite citation #1 instead. Citation #2 should be removed. Geosyncnew (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Power transmitted

What was the transmitted power of the message? It it stated 450 kW, however none of the sources support that. Metropolismilk (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It might not be correct. The 1975 Icarus article (citation #1) states that "Utilizing maximum transmitter power, the effective radiated power in the beam is approximately...", followed by the (enormous) 2 terawatt effective radiated power. The maximum power of the transmitter was 1 MW (many sources to confirm that) so it seems likely that that, and not 450 kW, is the actual number. Geosyncnew (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)