Talk:Wow! signal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Suggestion to include an important information

Hello,

I would like to suggest to include the following: "In November 2020, a potential Solar twin named 2MASS 19281982-2640123 was identified inside the region, together with another 14 potential Solar analogs with temperatures between 5,730 and 5,830 K." from here https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.06090

After this sentence: "No nearby sun-like stars were within the antenna coordinates, although in any direction the antenna pattern would encompass about six distant stars."

Cheers. ExoEditor (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be an unpublished preprint. Such are not considered to be reliable sources, per WP:SPS. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this appears to be WP:OR, as I cannot see that it has been published in any reputable journals. David J Johnson (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree; it needs citation from a reliable secondary source. ExoEditor (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Include it when you find a reliable source. Jswhitten (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I included two reliable secondary sources, one of them from Astronomy.com Regards. ExoEditor (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

All you have done is quoted the magazine entry on Wikipedia, not the matter you are attempting to place. I repeat what other editors, including myself, have told you - this content of yours has not been peer reviewed and has not been agreed with other contributors. Other experienced editors contributions to this page should not be deleted. If you continue to edit war, you may face a block. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Neither is a reliable source; they are both blog postings reporting the same amateur unpublished unreviewed paper. Please wait until there is a reliable source before adding this. Jswhitten (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, everything in those couple of lines appears in the secondary sources. From my understandting, not everything that is in wikipedia must be published in a journal and peer-reviewed. I already added several reliable secondary sources, which cover the paper in detail. I agreed with what other editors said: adding a reliable secondary source was necessary; and that's what I did. Also I believe that blanking a sub-section isn't deleting it, but it's kept in the records. Cheers. ExoEditor (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Conversations shouldn't exist only in the history, but be accessible either on the talk page or in the archives. Regarding peer review being preferred on scientific topics, see WP:SOURCETYPES and the first subsection below it. At least Discover magazine carries more weight than a preprint, as media sources like that do get used sometimes, but still. We don't want to put WP:Undue weight on it coming from any particular star or anything like that when the article has not been peer-reviewed. It may be in the future, or perhaps a peer-reviewed scholarly article or work will cite the preprint and make a similar point. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I'm afraid I disagree. Not everything that is in Wikipedia must be peer-reviewed in my opinion, as long as there are several reliable secondary sources, as it is the case. Moreover, I also disagree that undue weight is given to any star: I was very careful with every word used such as "potential", and mentioning the other 14 stars as well. If you think a re-wording is needed, please go head and re-write it as you wish. Also, there are several sources just in this WOW Signal page that aren't linked to any paper at all, including youtube videos. ExoEditor (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ExoEditor, the only reliable secondary source you quoted is Discover; the other one [1] appears to be little more than a self-published blog (they refer to Antonio Paris as "a group of scientists"; they didn't even read this Wikipedia article properly, before quoting from it). I wouldn't be in any rush to add Caballero's hypothesis to the article before his paper gets peer-reviewed, or at least talked about as widely as Paris's one was. --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Deeday. I'm afraid I don't know who Antonio Paris is, I couldn't find him in any of the sources either. ExoEditor (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Your comment above just proves why editors are stating that the Caballero's content you are attempting to place is non-notable. Please accept the consensus that this text is not acceptable at the present time. Thank you and regards,David J Johnson (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

David, again, I disagree. Honestly I don't see the relation between that specific astronomer (who wasn't mentioned in the article we are discussing here) and the notability or not of a magazine. I believe that if a content is covered in detail by secondary reliable sources as the one described above, it can be included in Wikipedia. If I find more sources, I will include them. Regards. ExoEditor (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not just wait until peer review? Media sources are often poor. I enjoy them myself but an encyclopedia should do better, as was outlined in our policy above. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there's a possible conflict of interest going on here. This user also promoted other works by Alberto Caballero, such as The Habitable Exoplanet Hunting Project, which they've disclosed a COI on the talk page. Also, their original username (Albertheditor) looks reminiscent of "Alberto". 2804:D57:2E84:D000:1016:8A05:318F:9285 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. My surname is a different one: https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.07373 In any case I prefer not to disclose my full identity in Wikipedia.

Apart from the Astronomy.com source, I did another search and found a different Phys.org new item also covering this. Regards. ExoEditor (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Phys.org falls under WP:SPS, and its also likely a churnalism website (feel free to correct me), so it might not be a good idea to use it in this article. Also, as stated several times in this talk page, Alberto's papers, including the "Wow! Signal" paper and the GJ 3470 paper, are not peer-reviewered at all. As a yet another nail in the coffin, the "Wow! Signal" paper only has a single author (Alberto Caballero himself), and even though this isnt a immediate rule-out for reliability, it does bring a possibility of bias/overexcitement, so be careful with that paper. GurrenLagannTSS (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment GurrenLagann. As fas as I'm concerned, Phys.org is also a reliable secondary source, and one of the most well known news portals in physics and astronomy.

I'm not aware of any page about that GJ 3470 paper, sorry. ExoEditor (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ExoEditor, why did you recently remove [2] the reference to Alberto Caballero from The Habitable Exoplanet Hunting Project article, which was there there since you created that article a year ago? Caballero seems like a relevant figure within the context of that article, certainly worth a mention, unless you were trying to hide something, such as some conflict of interest?
By the way, please stop tampering with past contributions to discussions as you did here; it's like rewriting history and is against Talk page guidelines; add further comments at the bottom instead. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Deeday-UK, I removed his name exactly because of the reason described above by another editor: to avoid confusion because my first name is the same.

With respect to the second part of your comment, I just wanted to slightly change a previous comment I made (I sometimes do this because English isn't my first language), but thank you for informing me about the guidelines. ExoEditor (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I honestly thought we had reached consensus because Jswhitten said "Include it when you find a reliable source" , and Deeday-UK said "or at least talked about as widely as Paris's one was". The new has apparently been widely covered by most of the major news portals about astronomy, space, and physics. I did another search and found some of the following:

https://astronomy.com/news/2020/11/sun-like-star-identified-as-the-potential-source-of-the-wow-signal?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+astronomy%2ForOJ+%28Astronomy.com+News+-+Presented+by+Astronomy+Magazine%29

https://phys.org/news/2020-11-amateur-astronomer-alberto-caballero-source.html

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/origin-of-wow-signal-found/

https://interestingengineering.com/amateur-astronomer-finds-possible-source-of-wow-signal-after-43-years

(very important Spanish newspaper) https://www.abc.es/ciencia/abci-situan-origen-enigmatica-senal-radio-estrella-como-202011280130_noticia.html

https://hackaday.com/2020/11/25/the-wow-signal-and-the-search-for-extraterrestrial-intelligence/

(Daily Mail appears to be most read paper in the UK but considered not reliable in Wikipedia) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8985997/Amateur-astronomer-traces-possible-source-notorious-WOW-signal.html

Some other editors (Crossroads and Johnson) said that it must be peer-reviewed by a journal in order to appear in Wikipedia. I respect this opinion, but my humble opinion is that not everything that is in Wikipedia must be peer-reviewed by a journal. And for example just the sentence previous to the one I wanted to include: "No nearby sun-like stars were within the antenna coordinates, although in any direction the antenna pattern would encompass about six distant stars" , actually has a source which is not peer-reviewed by a journal: http://www.setileague.org/articles/calibwow.htm (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). I believe I have made little but important contributions to this article, for example by changing: "Arecibo Observatory beamed a digital stream toward the area of the signal's origin" to how it is now "Arecibo Observatory beamed a digital stream towards Hipparcos 34511, 33277, and 43587. I think this is crucial because it means we have never replied to the WOW! Signal (none of those 3 stars are inside the WOW! Signal region). I would appreciate if we all reach consensus and I'm allowed to continue contributing to this article, at least with a couple of lines for now (which of course any of you can re-write as you wish). Cheers. ExoEditor (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I also said that I wouldn't be in any rush to add that information to the article, and you shouldn't be either, considering that you just collected another block. If I were you, I would drop it for now. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely right Deeday-UK, ExoEditor does not seem to understand the consensus of opinion is against their "contributions" and it is really time they accepted experienced editors views and should drop their efforts now. David J Johnson (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Given the situation and apparent contradictions, I will take this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, so I would appreciate if we could continue discussing this there, accoding to Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers. ExoEditor (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

CoastToCoastAM? Peddlers of fringe nonsense. The astronomy.com URL is a repost of the Physics arXiv Blog, which is a crowdsourced blog that doesn't even have bylines. These are a far cry from the reliable sources that should be here. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

MyrOllie, CoastToCoastAm is not included here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#arXiv The astronomy.com article is not a repost, but a different piece of text. Feel free to participate in the Dispute resolution noticeboard. The discussion continues there. Cheers. ExoEditor (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

ExoEditor, Perennial sources is for sources that are frequently debated. The likes of CoastToCoastAm (who recently aired an episode suggesting that canines have ESP) is so obviously unreliable there is no reason to debate. The astronomy.com source is clearly labeled as syndicated from Physics arXiv Blog. - MrOllie (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Everything should be debated IMO (any by many more people than the editors present here). Perennial sources also include self-published sources. If you believe CoastToCoastAM is one, I encourage you to include it there. If you think the Astronomy.com was copied from the arXiv blog, feel free to present your argument with proof in the Dispute resolution noticeboard, where this debate is continuing. Cheers. ExoEditor (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

ExoEditor, No, that would be a misuse of the Perennial sources list, since this has not been perennially discussed, as I just now stated. I'm not inclined to participate at the DR noticeboard. It's not really a useful venue in one against many situations like this one. When that inevitably fails I'm sure you'll try to start an RFC, we'll see how that goes. MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to point out something else. Based on ExoEditor's editing history, a COI on his page, his former username (AlberttheEditor), and his involvement in pages with research by Alberto Caballero (like GJ 3470), it's more than likely that ExoEditor is Alberto Caballero. Therefore, he himself cannot add any citations of the new source/news articles covering the paper regardless of the amount of secondary sources because that would be a violation of WP:OR. Therefore, the other editors must come to a consensus over whether the source should be added, and the current consensus is that this source is not reliable and should not be included in the page. I see no reason why we are still debating this. Ardenau4 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, you are free to include any request you want in the TalkPage of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#arXiv That's what I meant.

Careful Ardenau4, such unfounded accusations are serious and can get you banned from Wikipedia. The COI in my page was put by me, as I formed part of the Habitable Exoplanet Hunting Project together with another 30 observatories (https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.07373). Alberto is the most common name in Spain, I have no idea what you are talking about. Your attempt to accuse me because I opposed one of your edit requests in another Wikipedia article can have serious consequences for you. I strongly recommend you to stop accusing me of impersonation. You have been warned.

I won't read or comment anymore here, because the debate is taking place in the Dispute resolution noticeboard. ExoEditor (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Still the strongest candidate?

Re “it remains the strongest candidate for an alien radio transmission ever detected” in this article. Is it still the strongest candidate, given the news at the following link? What mechanism will remove this claim promptly when it becomes false? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/alien-hunters-discover-mysterious-signal-from-proxima-centauri/ Mainframe1962 (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Given the content of the article, it sounds like BLC1 is weird (single-wave source etc) but because of that oddity it's unlikely to be a real candidate. As far as the second question goes, I suspect when an article like the above states "this is a very likely candidate" and/or directly compares itself to the Wow! signal. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The article does compare them: Nonetheless, it remains one of the most intriguing signals found by Breakthrough Listen—or indeed any SETI program—to date, one that Sheikh compares to the so-called “Wow! signal” detected in 1977, which some believed to be of extraterrestrial origin. “I think it’s on par with the Wow! signal,” she says. Schazjmd (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

We could wait and see if Breakthrough Listen ends up ruling it out as human-made interference before they publish their paper, since they are still working on that apparently; another possibility is to adjust the claim by adding "as of 2016". Crossroads ^-talk- 19:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree totally with Crossroads comments above. David J Johnson (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Elvis

Has the possibility that this signal was a call to Elvis to come "home" ever investigated? Seems coincidental that the most viable candidate for extraterrestrial communication happened the day BEFORE Elvis died? Were they calling him home? Inviting him to come to their planet? Just curious if anyone else made this connection? Donaldd23 (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? Primefac (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

correlation is not equal to causation... Kadermonkey (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

6th May 2022 origin study

Someone smarter than me might consider adding a summary of this! https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/an-approximation-to-determine-the-source-of-the-wow-signal/4C58B6292C73FE8BF04A06C67BAA5B1A 2.96.227.99 (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a primary source authored by a YouTube/Coast-to-Coast AM type. You never know, but maybe not. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)\

Indeed, we generally find self-published sources to not be overly reliable, barring the author being a recognised expert in the field. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

An article published in the International Journal of Astrobiology, a peer-reviewed publication, is a "self-published source"? The author is not "a recognised expert in the field"? Have you any proof of your contention? Amateur astronomers don't count? Even if published in a scientific journal? The author is "a YouTube/Coast-to-Coast AM type"? Does YouTubery mean the author's research should be disavowed? I think there is enough coverage of this in reputable and oft-used sources for a mere one- or two-sentence mention in Wikipedia! TuckerResearch (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it is ok to use article "An approximation to determine the source of the WOW! Signal" with more cautious wording (done on page for review). Article itself is of a quality acceptable for some peer-reviewed journals, although far-fetched statements with unreliable refs were initially made based on its text. I also principally oppose any attempt to limit wikipedia to the opinions of "a recognised expert in the field" - it is extremely harmful practice violating core scientific principles.Trurle (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is a recent article from Live Science:

• Mann, Adam (2022-05-19). "Famous 'alien' Wow! signal may have come from distant, sunlike star". Live Science. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

Should it be added now? TuckerResearch (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It looks like a pop-science contribution. Wait until it is confirmed by a refereed journal. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC).

The international journal of astrobiology is a peer-reviewed journal — ExoQuest 02:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Live Science isn't a reputable source for Wikipedia? Well, how about the journal article published in the International Journal of Astrobiology, a peer-reviewed publication:

• Caballero, Alberto (2022-05-06). "An Approximation to Determine the Source of the WOW! Signal". International Journal of Astrobiology: 1–8. doi:10.1017/S1473550422000015. Retrieved 2022-05-24.

Is that not acceptable? TuckerResearch (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

it's already mentioned there: Wow!_signal#Celestial_location. Artem.G (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

So it is. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Here a couple sources more a found in a quick search, both reliable as per WP:RS/P: https://www.independent.co.uk/space/wow-signal-extraterrestrial-alien-life-planet-b2086879.html and https://www.space.com/wow-signal-origin-star ExoQuest 02:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on the time

The article notes "the Big Ear could observe any given point for just 72 seconds". Is that 36 seconds per horn? Or is there some overlap? Looking at some images online it appears the two feedhorn arrays are well separated using vertical fencing on the sides of the horns, but the horns are so thin horizontally that they will have to have a wide acceptance angle. I cannot find any details that really clarifies how it worked. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I also do not fully understand the organization/orientation/spatial acuity of the antennae vis-a-vis Earth's rotational axis, so what follows is a bit (make that a large bit) of hand waving, but if the horns are so thin horizontally that they will have to have a wide acceptance angle, then shouldn't the signal have been detected by both horns, rather than just one? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That is precisely why I ask :-) The fact that it was in only one horn suggests equipment origins. That depends on just what the angles were like. Maury Markowitz (talk)

No, the horns were pointed at different areas of the sky (as indicated by this image). The Earth rotates at a rate where the 'scope can only see any given point for 72 seconds. Think about it like if you were looking through a spyglass and spinning around in a slow circle - a tree enters your field of view, and you'll see it for a certain amount of time before it leaves the field of view. The primary uncertainty in the source of the signal is actually due to the two-horn setup and the fact that only one horn received the signal but both signals were then merged (as explained a bit in this section). Primefac (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

But but but...if the horns were pointed at different areas of the sky - I assume the two red marks in the figure - that's different from how binoculars/spyglasses work, in which a single field is sampled by two optical detection mechanisms (of course from two slightly different directions). I have always assumed, with reference to that figure, that the horns swept across the sky in a generally left-to-right or right-to-left (or some angle to it) manner, such that a single point in the scanned field would be sampled twice, implying that the signal source, if extraterrestrial in origin, should have been sampled twice. Alternatively, the sweep might be close to the horns' long axis - up-to-down or down-to-up in the figure - such that two different fields were sampled simultaneously, in which case it is tough to identify any stellar object as a signal source. I suspect, however, that my typical MO is at play here, meaning that I am completely at sea. Any and all clarification/correction/education would be welcome! Thanks in advance. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the sweep was right to left. If you assume stationary, continuous contacts, any new contact should always be in the east horn, so there was no need spend money on stuff to figure out which horn saw it. (this was the 70s, computers and electronics were expensive). The design just didn't account for the possibility that something would appear or disappear in the interval in between. I think the assumption was that would mean it was something a lot closer than they were interested in. If they got a hit on the first horn, which was doing a wide scan, the plan was that the second following horn could be tuned to do a narrower frequency scan to get better information. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, MrOllie. If I understand that correctly, it seems remarkable that a single, necessarily incredibly strong extraterrestrial source would just happen to appear or disappear during the brief interval between the two horns, and never emerge again. And by remarkable, I suppose I also mean highly unlikely. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

This is precisely the issue that prompted this question. Yet the article does not consider this timing issue in the "hypotheses" section. Surely there is some citable discussion of the absolutely fabulous timing this would require? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hacker

Why hasn't the possibility of a hacker been proposed? In the end it's just some data, some letters on paper. Hackers are known to be real. Alien lighthouses, not so much. It seems about a billion times more likely. 137.186.209.180 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

While I am tempted to laugh this suggestion out of the room, I'll instead ask the question - hacked how? This process was almost entirely analogue. Primefac (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)