Talk:Cydonia Mensae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cydonia Mensae article.
Article policies
WikiProject Mars
 This article is part of WikiProject Mars, an attempt to improve and standardise articles related to Mars. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth.

Contents

[edit] Mission to Mars

The two references to "Mission to Mars" are confusing; are they the same movie? Did the movie directly reference Cydonia or not? They should be merged.

[edit] Media Usage

I think it is important to have a section dedicated to Cydonia in media. I can think of a few examples: (Mission to Mars and Battle of the Planets (Invader Zim) and Where the Buggalo Roam (Futurama). If someone can start the section and add these and others to it that would be great. 71.225.125.176 13:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC) -Stexe

[edit] Merge proposal

It is proposed to merge The Face on Mars into Cydonia as both are essentially duplicates, and the former article gives undue weight to the crackpottery of Richard Hoagland. Dr Zak 23:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Merge them! ^_^--Havermayer 17:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

do it, do it Kennykane 05:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There is too much duplication. MrStonky 02:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Do it--86.42.47.14 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New picture by Mars Express

Folks,

There is a new pic by Mars Express here (in Portuguese) --Pinnecco 10:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the ESA's copyright policy? —ptk✰fgs 12:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Basically "For informational and non-commerical use, feel free to use, just give credit; for commercial use, contact first". [1] Tricky. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Not that simple. Look around. Very few ESA images on Wikipedia, for reasons I can't fully comprehend. Those that are here could be deleted any moment. Besides, the older image for MGS is (somewhat ironically) several times higher resolution. No need to add anything. Mars Express is really a step back, now that I think about it. --Planetary 06:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Ayp. "Free for non-commercial use" licenced pics are deleted, and there's no way to use {{Non-free fair use in}} or like. Perhaps the pics would fare better if there was a licence tag that explained the ESA policy, but even that might clash with our policies. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I never understood that. If somone gives us permission to use their image after May 19 2005, we can't use it? Seriously, what the hell?--Planetary 17:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has to be forkable. That means our content has to be redistributable by others, whether they're profit or nonprofit. Permission specifically for wikipedia doesn't help. —ptk✰fgs 02:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
What about fair use? Could that apply to ESA images? --Planetary 20:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call For More Editing

This is titled Cydonia and yet only the Face is mentioned ? I would like to see more edits about the "City" and "D&M". Cydonia is also interesting geologically. There is also a "Square" feature to the South of Cydonia main. Even though these features remain unproven from a Scientific standpoint, there is a STRONG counter current to the prevailing "there's nothing to see here" argument. In my opinion this article has fallen prey to political editing. There are MAJOR holes in the references. For example see my addition of the ref to the Carlotto paper that shows that the Face still looks like a face at different lighting angles. I know I may fall prey to those who say that any Cydonia Face "believer" has not got any facts to add to an article. An attitude sadly started in reaction to the likes of Richard C Hoagland, who I regard as having seriously damaged the field (I'm with the Bad Astronomer on that one!). But not all Mars researchers follow the same methodologies, or think in the same way, or think that NASA is a "conspiracy" (ABSOLUTE NONSENSE in my opinion!). The Face and wider Cydonia has generated some very intense speculations and research that should be recorded in the article in my opinion... EVEN if unproven or flawed. Wikipedia is not the place to "prove" anything, one way or the other. Thankyou! DJ Barney 23:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about a scientific topic, hence NPOV requires us to present the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is that there is nothing to see. If you disagree with this consensus, I suggest you do some research, publish it in a peer-reviewed science journal and try to convince the scientific community. THEN if you convince them, come back here. Mikker (...) 11:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
ROTFL. Good call Mikker. Regarding the article, I've removed the cite to the Applied Optics paper. Not because there's anything wrong with the paper per se, but it was published ~20 years ago and uses the old Viking data rather the more recent imagery. And, in the context of the article, the cite appeared to be disputing NASA's statements about the recent imagery, when it was doing nothing of the sort. Cheers, --Plumbago 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think you're wrong, but I shall seek advice, and see how to proceed. In fact, for give me User talk:Mikker, but you seem to have contradicted yourself. If an article is not supposed to have one point of view (NPOV right?) then why would an article carry ONLY the Scientific consensus. It is well known that Wikipedia is a place to record facts. It doesnt matter if those facts are considered plain wrong, or whatever. If they are part of the field of argument and knowledge then they should be in the article! Some people think there IS a LOT to see at Cydonia. I should NOT use this article to argue for Cydonia one way or the other. But I would like to see the point of view documented here, that does "see something at Cydonia". I find the accusation that no one apart from NASA can have the say so on how certain areas of another Planet are viewed rather insulting, even scary. The Universe is a big place and anyone can make observations. Not all of them will be widely heard or even useful, but Cydonia has always had a controversial status since the Viking images, and I think you should be able to see that, curiously, only ONE point of view is being documented here. Can you NOT see that ? EVEN if that point of view is wrong. Would an article about Cancer exclude any details about alternative Cancer treatments ? Would an article about Computers exclude Linux because "it does not have full Unix certification" ? Would an article about the Paranormal exclude any mention of Psychics.... "because it hasn't been Scientifically proven" ? Come on guys! Where on Earth does it say I have to go through the peer review process before I can edit in research that is in the field ? You make Wikipedia sound like some kind of peer review journal...it is not ! PLEASE point me to the article that says that ONLY accepted Scientific knowledge is allowed on Wikipedia! Thankyou for your response. DJ Barney 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed the cited reference because it was touted as refuting NASA's statement. However, given that it was written in 1988, and used the limited data available then, it could not be said to "refute" a statement made by NASA than a decade later with the benefit of much better data. Were the work to be repeated with the new data, then that might be something (the author has several subsequent papers, but none appear to do this). As for the importance of the scientific viewpoint over others, that only applies on science topics, and exists so that the encyclopedia reports minority viewpoints with their due weight. Were we to give naive equal treatment to all science topics we'd be drowning in pseudoscience and herbal remedies before we knew it. --Plumbago 10:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Plumbago There is no time limit on Scientific research ! Are Darwins papers "too old" to be used ? The article you critiscise is CLEARLY refuting NASA's claim's by carrying out an investigation using 3D data ... This is a quote from the article ( http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/martianenigmas/Papers/AO1888.pdf ) "Once the 3-D shape has been derived questions such as: "What does it look like when viewed under different illumination conditions and from different perspectives?", or "Does the underlying 3-D structure also resemble a face, or is the impression of a face merely a trick of light and shadow?" can be answered." That seems very clear to me. The article is countering the "Trick of The Light and Shadow" NASA argument. This term is even mentioned in the text. I want to say this again as well: I'll make this clear. I regard any speculations as unproven at Cydonia, but they are in the field and should be included in the article in the usual balanced non-political way. Thankyou :) DJ Barney 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. There is no reason whatsoever to give equal credence to fringe hypotheses and the general scientific consensus. The latter will, and should, trump the former every time.
Yes, a scientific paper becomes obsolete when new data contradict it. There are indeed large portions of Darwin's work that should no longer be cited. Evolutionary biology has progressed quite a bit over the last 150 years, as piles of new data have accumulated. Same with this. An analysis based on an out-of-focus, low-resolution, poorly-lit image taken from a single angle becomes obsolete when clearer, higher-resolution, better-lit, multiple images are available. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I will not reply to these until I have got advice and consultation from an experienced editor and the community. DJ Barney 12:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the face feature, to anyone who takes a look at it in the newer higher-resolution pictures (See the HiRISE one, if you want), is not a Face at all. I happen to know the suggester of the HiRISE picture actually requested it not knowing that it was the famous "face". As to expanding the article further, I believe it would be fair to include more of the geography of the region, but discussing the other "artifacts" that have been seen is probably a bit out of line. However, as there are many people who are interested in the "Popular landform in the Cydonia Region", I think it's definitely worth it to include something about it here. The other "features" don't have a tenth of the following, and only have any standing due to the interest in the "popular landform". As to doing anything about it, well, I might, but right now I've got my hands full elsewhere. Also, if there is a paper from 1988 refuting the "face", it is acceptable to use, as that is the current almost unanimous consensus in the scientific community. Tuvas 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The 1988 paper used the original Viking image, and some clever data processing tricks, to suggest that the shadowed features of the "Face" were not associated with unusual illumination or viewing conditions. I believe the 1988 paper was added to the article in response to a quoted statement by NASA that made the reverse point. However, the NASA statement was made with the benefit of both higher resolution and stereo imagery of the "Face". To this end, the 1988 paper is no longer a valid source; although if its author has repeated their analysis then that might be worth adding. As an aside, an ESA article, also cited in the article here, makes the point that NASA judged the "Face" a product of viewing conditions even from the Viking imagery. Anyway, I hope this helps explain the situation. --Plumbago 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This won't satisfy the conspiracy theorists, you realize. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
<reduce_tab> Of course it won't satisfy conspiracy theorists, you could take Richard Hoagland, fly him to mars to take a personal tour of the popular landform, and he would still refute it, who knows how. But the point of this is to try and help with the merely interested, let them know how it really is, and let them judge things for themselves. Tuvas 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. As the reference I removed is a bona fide paper on the topic I've restored it to the article. I've repositioned it to make it clear that it used the old data though (which was all that was available at the time; c.f. my remarks above). Anyway, I'm much happier with this than my earlier edit; I hope others are too. Cheers, --Plumbago 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was looking for. That seems much more balanced to me. I am still thinking / getting advice, but I wonder if I should start a new page specifically about the "minority view" on Cydonia? I would put in a link especially announced as the "official" accepted view (this page). A link from this page would (hopefully) be allowed for people curious about the Cydonia controversies. After all they were espoused by many (not just Richard c Hoagland!)on Coast to Coast AM, for a long time. Don't know about now as I don't listen to it anymore. This does not mean the minority viewpoint is real of course. In fact Cydonia is somewhat of a cottage industry along with Area 51, or the Loch Ness Monster! But as I think you noticed, there are legitimate papers that have been produced. And this whole field (ridiculous or otherwise) does have value IMO. It deserves to be documented. What would happen if we came across real artifacts ? What would happen then ? Could future Astro Archaeologists learn from this example (how not to do it probably .. LOL!) DJ Barney 20:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As a further change, I've rewritten the three isolated paragraphs about new data into a longer, (hopefully) more concise paragraph. That may/may not be a good idea given that more data will become available with time. Anyway, regarding my previous edits, thanks for your comments DJ Barney. I'm very pleased that I was able to get the reference you added back in; my apologies for hacking it out so bluntly at first. Regarding the view of Cydonia as artificial, I suspect starting a new page isn't a good idea. That people think this is already noted here, and there are plenty of external sites listed for people to check if they wish to pursue this further. To be honest, apart from discussing the endless "detail" Hoagland et al. have created, I'm not sure what extra information such an article would contain. That said, I'm probably just being unimaginative - if you do take this idea forward, perhaps you could give us some idea what you had in mind here first? Cheers, --Plumbago 10:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Further to the above, I've now removed the short paragraphs I earlier fused into a longer paragraph. I'm fairly happy with the result. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I mentioned something about having a seperate article for the fringe view. This is clearly against Wikipedia guidelines, so that's a no no ! See Content forking. DJ Barney 16:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


1. Article states that "after detailed analysis NASA stated that Face on Mars is natural formation".

The reason I have removed part of this sentence (about "detailed analysis" is because I believe that Wikipedia is (and should be) stating documented facts. NASA has never conducted any scientific research on the feature in Cydonia region. In fact, it has always dismissed even the slightest possibility of it being artificial. It stated without ANY analysis during press conference after the Face was discovered in 70's that it was an "optical illusion". It also added that "on the next photo taken just hours after the first one was taken, the facial resemblance of this feature dissapeared because of different light conditions". In fact, that second photo NEVER EXISTED and NASA simply lied. All I want to achieve here is that NASA has never done anything to prove/disprove the artificiality theory, apart from stating that "it looks natural" (the Face). On the other side, many scientists (including Carlotto) produced numerous scientific papers on this subject treating it in a scientific way.

2. The Badlands Guardian Geological Feature.

It is stated that it is a "similiar feature". Since when we know that the Face is natural / artificial ? Wiki is about facts, so I believe this comparison is not appropriate at all. Similarly, if I was to include sentence: "A similar feature on Earth is the Sphinx, which resembles a human head wearing a headress" - surely it would have caused anger. Because it is not similiar, nothing is similiar to the Face as we know nothing about its origin.

3. "Today, it (The Face)is generally understood to be an optical illusion.

Generally understood by whom? NASA, of course and millinons of other people. Equally it is generally understood that the Face is artificial - by many credible scientists and millions of other people as well. By adding "generally understood by mainstream science" I am simply stating the fact. Also by adding sentence about other scientists believing it is artificial - I simply make it more ballanced. Since when NASA is Earths "oracle" on Mars? Whatever NASA says goes (as I can clearly see in this article about the Face. ). This is bias behaviour and calling non-NASA-believers "pseudoscientists" shows it all very clearly, that article is one-sided.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.203.82.194 (talk • contribs).

Ah - you had started editing here. My apologies.
On the first point, are you sure that NASA haven't analysed the Cydonia feature? There are certainly publications (e.g. Ferrand et al., 2005, Pitted cones and domes on Mars: Observations in Acidalia Planitia and Cydonia Mensae using MOC, THEMIS, and TES data, JGR 110, Art. No. E05005) that study the region. And what exactly would you expect NASA to say about the feature? In all but the original poor-quality images it looks like a tumble-down geological feature. It certainly looks nothing like a face in high-resolution. Please explain what sort of analysis is necessary here.
On the second point, you're right, the Badlands Feature isn't like the Face on Mars - it actually looks like a Face while the one in Cydonia looks just like a crumbly mountain. However, as an illustration of the human ability to see pattern where none exists, it's an excellent example.
On the third point, I think you'll find that the Face "is generally understood to be an optical illusion" by those people who study Mars. But I'd put money on the general public thinking exactly the same. Hence "generally understood". Note that it doesn't say "is understood"; the statement is qualified to indicate non-universal acceptance of the blindingly obvious.
This is a science topic; therefore the scientific view predominates; hence the current form of the article. There is plenty of information in the article that allows readers to bone up on the "face as artifact" literature, and it's abundantly clear from the text that there are a minority of people out there who take the view that the face was built (= mistake regular mountains for the handiwork of space aliens). If this article were actually suppressing views, none of this would be here. --Plumbago 15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Anon IP says "NASA simply lied". There is NO evidence for this. All the "supression of evidence" can be traced back to simple human error. Take the "MER are altering the colours" myth. THAT can be put down to some processing mistakes by NASA and inconsistencies ( see http://www.atsnn.com/marscolors.html http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10795 ). I would keep this "they are lying" attitude far away from Mars enthusiasts and people who have given their whole life's to the study of Mars. It is insulting and divisive in my opinion. The only reservation that I'd have with what Plumbago says is this. Is'nt the article about the AREA of Mars. That means it is NOT JUST Scientific, although Wikipedia guidelines certainly say that the Scientific consensus should be properly represented. Shouldn't the page give all the facts about this area? What about the Geology ? What about the known processes that could create the strange objects we see ? This page is still really a battle between the Face proponents and the "there is no face" Scientists. It should not be this ! There is more to be found at Cydonia ! DJ Barney 15:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The new picture for the face on Mars in question was processed by NASA to make it look as if there wasn't anything special there. This was proven by noted and reputable astronomer Van Flandern (see his videos on You Tube) and others. They also clearly demonstrate another face on Mars as well as many other structures, including pyramids, that are 90% certain of being man-made. The question is not their artificiality as this has been well established but who made them? Mars is too small to harbour complex life, at least not any that would resemble us in stature. Yet it is claimed they are our ancestors. Also, it is probably a former moon but the parent planet is supposed to be too large to support complex life. Go figure. As well, fringe hypotheses are often right, like heliocentrism, the round Earth, and comets as celestial instead of atmospheric. It took some 2000 years for heliocentrism to be generally accepted. So the orthodox view is often often wrong but conservatives on both the left and right want to maintain the status quo and the conventional paradigm even if it's proven wrong. Scientists should have a more liberal and progressive attitude. Mars Bars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs) 11:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit-warring and WP:WEIGHT

I've restored some of Plumbago's edits per WP:WEIGHT. Rather than edit-warring about it the solution is simple: Find sources that suggest different treatment. Minority viewpoints should only be given as much treatment as warrented, which may be no treatment at all for viewpoints held by a tiny minority. -- Ronz  16:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carlotto reference

Needs removing IMO, reads very poorly and not from any recognised organisation as far as I can see sbandrews (t) 14:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The Carlotto reference is a regular peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal, so it's a very good source. It's limited by the fact that it made use of the early low resolution data (which was all that was available at the time). However, as such it illustrates why the "Face" was taken seriously in certain quarters for a while. I think it deserves to stay. Cheers, --Plumbago 15:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
taken seriously in what quarters? This is a paper published in applied optics - what do they know about geology, let alone the geology of Mars? Exceptional claims require exceptional proof, so for me to judge this as a very good source it should have been in an appropriate journal. I think we are giving this paper undue weight, I can find no other mention to it in scientific papers on the subject - If anyone has the capability it would be nice to know how many citations the carlotto paper has had, and where. sbandrews (t) 18:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
You make some very good points, but I think they are outside the scope of Wikipedia. This entry is an encylopedic entry about Cydonia and seeks to document it. It does not seek to prove the Face one way or the other. The paper is included to make a NPOV balance IMO. I'd also like to know what other papers cite it. I do know that it was widely quoted, at least in the circles I mixed in for a while, because I was involved in the debate at the time. The problem we discuss here is a well known problem in Science. For example take this arbitration... "There's a lot of gray area here involving a Demarcation problem of science that hasn't fully been solved outside of Wikipedia." Don't we face similiar issues here ? DJ Barney 10:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thanks DJ, that's some good reading for me to do! In the meantime it seems the consensus will have the reference stay, but I still want to grumble about how it is presented - 'While analysis of the early Viking images suggested that the features of the Face might not be an accidental consequence of viewing conditions[1], today, it is generally understood to be an optical illusion, an example of pareidolia.' - makes it sound like the carletto analysis was the one adopted by most people, when in fact, correct me if I'm wrong, NASA and all other clear headed scientists were happy to go with the geological 'mesa' explanation - the following from NASA 'There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Lab when the face appeared on their monitors. But the sensation was short lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.' [2] sbandrews (t) 11:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, it sort of does give that impression! Better wording could be put in. I still think this paper should be left in there because it at least shows that there was a serious investigation of this object by some people. There are other papers out there, in fact ! See http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ for example. I just hav'nt worked out how to write them in yet without my (probably obvious to you) fascination with this area creeping into the article. I have been involved in this debate since about 2002 so I am well versed in the history and issues and have, I think, something to offer to this article. DJ Barney 14:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. I've just reworded it yet again. While the last edit made it clearer what the scientific consensus view at the time was (= natural), I think it may have put words into NASA's mouth. Anyway, I've reworded but made it clear that it was a minority of researchers that thought the analysis supported the alternative (= artifact) view. I think it reads better, but that might just be because I wrote it!  ;-) Cheers, --Plumbago 07:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I'm off WP for a week, so won't be able to reply to any comments. Sorry. --Plumbago 07:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left messages at talk page of all the editors that appear to have been edit-warring about this article. I'd like to resolve this through discussion, though the opinion of an outside party may be necessary to get consensus. How do regular editors of this article want to proceed?--Chaser - T 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you read this page? The problem has been under control for a few days. --Ronz 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture

I've just trimmed the "Cydonia in Popular Culture" section down to a single sentence and a reference. The sentence notes the frequent mention of the Face on Mars in popular culture, while the reference cites a few choice examples over a range of forms of popular culture (specifically films, TV, videogames and music). I've trimmed these examples to two per medium (there's only one film to my certain knowledge), and may have possibly not picked the best examples (though I'd like to think that most people would trim the Power Rangers wherever possible). I've supplied dates to the choices to make it clear that this isn't a completely flash-in-the-pan phenomenon (i.e. mentioned immediately after the Viking picture was published but never since). Anyway, I hope the result satisfies both pro- and con-trivia camps (or, more likely, is something that we can grudgingly agree on). Cheers, --Plumbago 10:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Great job! --Ronz 15:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Oh, and thanks also for sorting out the arXiv preprint in the main body. I'd grudgingly left that in the last time that I edited the article, but was having second thoughts about it given that it still wasn't published more than a year after its submission to arXiv. Well, that and it being rather speculative (to say the least!). Cheers, --Plumbago 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted link

I think that the link you've deleted >>> Why the "Face on Mars" wasn't made by Aliens >>> should be added again to the main article since it give good reasons against the popular myth of an alien-made sculpture (why other opinions' links and debates are allowed on the main page?) PS - sorry for my ghostNASA article about the alternative ("Direct"-like) ESAS rockets DEATH, but it's (simply) the reality of facts... :-) Gaetanomarano 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link because it added very little useful information that wasn't already covered by other links. We have guidelines on what constitutes a good external link, and on this occasion I didn't think the link that you tried to add was up to these (more generally, we have to be careful that WP doesn't turn into a link farm). There may be others there which aren't particularly good either, but that's no argument for including further weak links. On a style point, the link you added was simply badly written (grammar, spelling). Sorry. --Plumbago 16:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

1. if you delete my link, then you must delete the full article, since, until we will go on Mars and study the "face", EVERY single word written in the article (or in the articles linked) is just a matter of OPINION

2. since english is not my mother language, I'm aware it's not perfect, but, so far, thousands english and non-english peoples have read my website and blog (and 4000+ posts and comments on other space forums and blogs) and actually UNDERSTANDED them ...if you want only PERFECT english articles and links on Wikipedia, that sounds like a sort of USA/UK "intellectual dictatorship" since we would read ONLY american and england texts/point of views

3. since you (Wiki admin) are so fast and zealant to delete an innocent link (with some thought about the Face on Mars) in MINUTES, I really don't understand why you still leave (TEN+ months after it was published!!!) the "Direct Launcher" full article (and dozens texts and links about this concept in other articles) despite it's only a PRIVATE, PERSONAL, COMMERCIAL, NON-OFFICIAL, NON-NASA, ADVERTISING, UNEXISTING, "PHOTOSHOP & WORD" proposal (now DEAD, like all other alternative concepts, since NASA has assigned all contracts to develop the Ares-I "stick") ...WHEN you will delete the "Direct" article, texts and links??? ...why the same question (posted several times on many Wiki discussions' pages) have had no answer so far??? ...nor the "quick-as-my-links" "Direct" article deletion?) Gaetanomarano 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that my last response didn't answer you fully. I'll try again.
Firstly, there are a large number of webpages that discuss/mention the Face On Mars. As per the guidelines we should be aiming to include those which are the most informative and reliable. The link that you added (which you wrote yourself, I might add) appears to be a blog or something similar. It also contains a number of statements which are either unsourced or ambiguous ("the face of our forefathers was VERY different", which forefathers specifically?; "the mountain has THIS face-shape from BILLIONS years", is this age correct/verified?). As for whether the Face On Mars is actually a face, well, I think that's already covered in the article, without getting into the "we must go there to be sure" debate.
Secondly, my apologies if I sounded rude about your English. I well-appreciate that English is not the first language of most people. All I meant by this was that it was difficult to understand parts of the link's text, which doesn't help establish that it is informative or reliable.
I'm afraid that you've lost me on your final point above. What's the "Direct Launcher"? I'm sure it's obvious, but not to me I'm afraid. If there are links out there you think should be removed, just be bold and remove them. As I said earlier, it's important to stop WP becoming a link farm. Incidentally, I'm not a Wiki Admin. --Plumbago 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't waste your time trying to explain him why his link was removed (right decision off course). This guy is promoting his eye-hurting website all around the web, trying to sell ad slots and his "veryeasyeuro" domain. He is accusing DIRECT project everywhere, everything is DIRECT's fault, well it's a plot and the DIRECT guys are dressed in black I guess ... --192.54.144.229 09:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks 192.54.144.229 for clarifying the whole Direct Launcher thing for me. I'd have never found that particular tangent. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Now this guy is attacking Google (check his entries), quite funny. --Scorpene 14:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] REASONS FOR WANTING A "FACE" ON MARS

The supposed face found on Mars was nothing other than a publicity stunt to revive public interrest in a program that has very, very...little to offer to the average person out there. Thus, by "enhancing" the images from 1988, NASA community has managed to stirr the masses in such a way, call it a comspiracy that needs to be INVESTIGATED, and resolved once and for all. Thus NASA conveniantly managed to conn us all in order to pay for yet another multi-billion boondoggel pet project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.90.28 (talk • contribs)

Whatever you're smoking, save a few grams for everyone else. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Discovery" section

I don't understand why details of the "discovery" of the non-existing face deserve any attention at all, let alone the amount just added. If we cannot verify this with a reliable and independent source demonstrating it's importance, I think it should be removed per WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I've edited it into the main text and added source tags where appropriate. Amongst other things, the new text contradicts itself by naming two engineers as the "discoverers" but then going on to add that the Chief Scientist dismissed the Face when the images were originally acquired. That, to me, suggests that he discovered it (though presumably someone else drew it to his attention), but discounted it at the time as a coincidentally-lit mountain. Additionally, while the history of the original Viking images probably merits some description, since those images have comprehensively been trumped by more recent and higher resolution images, the article probably dwells a bit too much on them. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please debunk this

UFOTV: Life On MARS-New Scientific Evidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u-20g7Bwdw

  • "The natural origin hypotheis is disproved at odds of 1000 billion billion to one."
  • "The artificiality of Cydonia is established beyond a reasonable doubt."

--Heckubus4 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the name Cydonia?

The article should mention where the name came from. That's the only reason I looked at this >_> --Snaxe/fow (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Face on Mars?

"There's a face on Mars Looking upward at the stars . . ."

When you first heard about the "face on Mars" or saw the photo, I bet you knew perfectly well NASA would later furnish more photos from different angles to prove there was no face on Mars at all. Am I right? Of course I'm right.

But you also knew that IF (just for the sake of argument) there really was a face on Mars put there by intelligent beings, NASA would just as surely have come forth with similar photos to prove it was no such thing. Except in that case the photos would be faked. There's no way NASA would share such knowledge with little old you and me; they wouldn't want us to know. So my disbelief in the "face on Mars" does not derive from NASA's subsequent photos. Instead, it derives from my deep seated prejudice against the idea that there is intelligent life on Mars, a prejudice that derives from my exposure to scientific thinking.

Actually, the Galle happy face looks a lot more artificial to me--two dots and a semicircular mouth! Galle is actually easier to credit as an artificial structure than Cydonia is! Tom129.93.65.103 (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)