Talk:Arecibo message/Archive 2

55

message as binary string

the binary string is too long to fit on one page without scrolling left A LOT more, so I think it should be formatted to fit on one screen without scrolling, and still readable. 70.241.246.53 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

Great work on the article guys, I remember reading it over a year ago and was totally baffled, but the illustrations and the binary really helped this time, anyone ever considered pushing for GA with this one. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the 25th anniversary of Earth's first (and only) attempt to phone E.T.

Uh, excuse me? There were plenty of other messages, the Soviet MIR message for one. This source is bogus. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia displays the title of sources in the reference section: Arecibo message#References. The article text doesn't repeat the claim that it's the only attempt. The source is used for other things. By the way, the source itself has a footnote saying it wasn't the only attempt: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov99/Arecibo.message.ws.html#footnote. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It didn't when I checked it. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov99/Arecibo.message.ws.html#footnote starts: "After issuing this news release we were informed that a new message to extraterrestrials was sent in May of this year". I guess "this year" refers to 1999. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov99/Arecibo.message.ws.html shows the footnote was there on March 4, 2000. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Parts of this text are used in recent paper

Parts of this text seem to have been used in this publication without acknowledging Wikipedia: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.4968.pdf (page 5) See also: http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/01/28/0228202/Physicists-Call-For-Alien-Messaging-Protocol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.61.194 (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy

Because ... the Arecibo message was more a demonstration of human technological achievement than a real attempt to enter into a conversation with extraterrestrials. ... [1] According to the Cornell News press ... the real purpose of the message was not to make contact, but to demonstrate the capabilities of newly installed equipment. I think we can omit the first part, since the CNP source alone says it all. The CNP article only copy-pastes what is said in the first sentence I quoted. -andy 217.50.63.159 (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The first sentence says what the Arecibo message is not. The second sentence explains what its purpose is. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Arecibo reply

Arecibo reply and Arecibo Reply should link to Arecibo message — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.210.148 (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure but please check this:

Article says: The numbers from 1 to 10 appear in binary format (the bottom row marks the beginning of each number).

Shouldn't it actually say: The numbers from 1 to 10 appear in binary format (the top row marks the beginning of each number).

Sorry if I'm confused/confusing, just wanted someone more knowledgeable to check that. Wawawemn (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The bottom row of each number listed in the top "block" of the message marks the beginning of that number. It could have been expressed clearer - Alltat (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

arecibo message reply!

i think this should be added https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4CYcp5wObs 122.161.3.143 (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if that video is backed by a reliable source. If not, then no. — 99.99.220.158 (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

different distance in different wikis

• german wiki, M13 is 22,800 lightyears away
• engish wiki: 25,000 ly
• esperanto: 22,800 ly
• french: 25,000 ly
• netherlands: 25,000 ly
• magyan: 25,100 ly
• italiano: 25,000 ly

...

Seems for me a grat mess! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.245.147.81 (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It gets worse. The English M13 page lists the distance as 22.2kly (22,200 ly) AND 25,100 ly, and cites the 25,000 year figure. 25,000 is a reasonable rounding of 22,800 or 25,100, though not of 22,200. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divad27182 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Arecibo Reply redirects to this page but there is absolutely no mention of the reply on the page. It's pretty confusing when you're trying to find information on the reply, even if it is a hoax. 64.223.151.21 (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. 87.13.38.101 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

An article was deleted in 2008 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arecibo reply. The current redirect at Arecibo reply was created in 2011. If you want it deleted then you can nominate it at Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion. People searching on "Arecibo reply" might be looking for different information. Arecibo message does contain this of relevance to some people: "Because it will take 25,000 years for the message to reach its intended destination of stars (and an additional 25,000 years for any reply), the Arecibo message was more a demonstration of human technological achievement than a real attempt to enter into a conversation with extraterrestrials." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

And the entire quote you gave is completely unrelated to the content in the old Arecibo Reply article - exactly why the redirect is pointless and confusing. Good job. 74.47.85.165 (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Audio version?

From the Cornell 25th anniversary press release: "We translated the radio-frequency message into a warbling audio tone that was broadcast over speakers at the ceremony." This is intriguing. Can someone reconstruct this? It would be a nice complement to the visual depictions.--Pharos (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Questions?

I know that Wikipedia is just reporting on this had nothing to do with the message, and that it wasn't meant to be a serious attempt at communication; but this just seems ridiculous.

1. No one knows how to read this properly (I had to read this whole article and put myself in the right mindframe to actually make sense of it)
2. Even if they know how to decode, who says that they have the right equipment to receive the message? (Reversely it could be argued that aliens are always trying to communicate with us, but we cant decode their messages)
3. How would aliens even know what the message is supposed to be? I mean if you have a bunch of data but no real clues as to what the data is for, then no one bothers....like to anyone that doesnt know what it is, it would appear to be some data dump (think of a corrupted computer file that is just junk data on your computer.
4. What if aliens dont even have physical senses such as sight or hearing? Then our efforts are futile.
5. How would aliens even be aware of any sort of transmission?
6. Why on earth would an alien care about our DNA?

Adlhgeo1990 (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a couple of discussions:

• http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/circulos_cultivos/chilbolton01.htm
• https://writescience.wordpress.com/tag/arecibo-message/

Kortoso (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Will it reach M13?

The Messier 13 article notes that "the proper motion is small enough that the cluster will only move 24 light years, only a fraction of the diameter of the cluster". However, this article states that "the stars of M13, to which the message was aimed, will no longer be in that location when the message arrives". Both articles hence contradict each other

After reading the relevant source, I believe the M13 article is right about this issue (and I've made a quick edit to reflect that fact). However, could someone doublecheck the math?The Universe (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This does raise the question of how widely the beam will be spread by the time it reaches M13. Is there a point at which the message becomes too faint to distinguish from cosmic background radiation? That would give a maximum range of the message. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018

106.79.235.92 (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a War

http://www.pufoin.com/images/arecibo_reply2.jpg

I wanted this too and it's hard to find on the internet. But now I see why. Somebody made a whole page on it complete with references and sources. Then it was just shot down. Deleted. Who cares. Gone, bye.

I DON'T CARE IF YOU WANT TO MAKE FUN OF IT, I DON'T CARE IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT, BUT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE IT!!!!

GO AHEAD. MAKE A MOCKERY OF THE REPLY ALL YOU WANT. IT WAS HOAXERS, IT WAS IDIOTS. SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT BUT DO NOT HIDE THE TRUTH!! THAT CROP FORMATION WAS MADE AND THAT IS THE TRUTH!!!!!!

I will be fully satisfied if that response message is just kept somewhere discretely on the page (say it was probably hoaxers, doesn't matter)

But I tell you what. I've been threatened with being banned just because I want one lousy link somewhere on this page that has everything to do with the arecibo message. And I guess there are forces that wouldn't tolerate that *knowledge* -- just like anything else potentially democratic, wikipedia gets stolen by asshole authoritarian bullshit.

So go on home. Remain stupid. Remember that there's nothing interesting to see in the world. It's all a hoax. Shut up and continue to get dumbed down by your schools. Just fine.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaiaguerrilla (talk • contribs) 00:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concept of an "encyclopedia"? Even though the reply was a hoax, it's still something that happened in response to the message, so why isn't any reference to it being made in the relevant article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.73.155 (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It certainly should be, if it has been described in reliable, independent sources. So far, though, the only source I've seen doesn't appear to have met that criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A photograph of a this crop circle [1] exists and it has been mentioned at [2] which is the relevant place to propose noting it in that Wikipedia article. Ranting abuse of Wikipedia and schools obtains nothing. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this article should discuss the famous "response". Tempshill (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should, even if it was a hoax.. or not, it happened.. you can't just banned something because it hasn't been scientifically proven. I mean.. God? Ghosts? there's plenty of links and articles about this all around Wikipedia. Cut the Assholeness.--189.156.247.12 (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have read the responses given here, noone wants to ban something because it isn't scientifically proven. As have been stated several times above these things aren't being added because they have not be described in reliable, independent sources. Please simply find such a source, and present it here, then it could be added. I suggest reading what "reliable, independent sources" means, from that link, before you do so. Chris M. (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

after about a year I come back to this discussion. My attitude was very aggressive and baseless, though it was frustrating to see that the arecibo reply could not somehow be linked to the arecibo message, also that someone had created the page long ago and it was deleted. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_review/MBisanz_2 Too bad I couldn't be very adult about it. I do think that something in our world methodically destroys our ability to inform ourselves and prevents humane effort. But whining doesn't fix it. I'll try to earn back some sort of stature and contribute something worthwhile if I get the opportunity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaiaguerrilla (talk • contribs) 02:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You should understand that keeping in balance and remaining sceptical about a need for spirituality, which manifests in some humans more than in others, is something very important. Otherwise you will exhaust yourself by chasing these supposedly worldshaking revelations which are however usually without merit. And I would question that even if a reliable source was to report about some crop circles which were created in response to this message, it would not necessarily justify including it in the article. --lmaxmai (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, let me put a rhetorical question on the subject of the Arecibo reply: since reliable independent resources should be referenced for all wikipedia entries, how about showing the same fervor for the wikipedia article on crop circles itself? No, right? After So many years, right? I am from Greece, and government cronies deny access to photos and names of embezzlers of public money (mostly themselves) due to ..."personal data and respect of privacy" reasons, same as your "reliable, independent sources" sorry excuse. I have heard enough of this kind of excuses to recognize it a mile away. StevenK71 (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:StevenK71 "…how about showing the same fervor for the wikipedia article on crop circles itself? No, right?"

Well YES, actually. I count 73 reliable sources currently referenced in the article on crop circles. What is your issue with them, or did they escape your attention?

And "…your "reliable, independent sources" sorry excuse…"

What exactly do you think Wikipedia 'is', if not a massive repository collected from reliable, independent sources? Do you really think Wikipedia would be improved by abandoning a policy of referencing sources that have a track record of at least trying to be accurate and truthful? Would you trust Wikipedia more if it were full of advertiser's messages, politician's messages, and half-baked conspiracy theory blogs?

I know the Greek government did some reprehensible stuff, as do most governments, but get a grip. Captainllama (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism

Were there any controversies or thoughtful protests to the message contents or transmission that could be included here? I would suspect that some must have criticized the data sent and others were paranoid about sending any explicit message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niedzielski (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times Magazine recently ran this article, which references contemporary criticism of the message as inviting an unknown potential threat to all of humanity. I, too, am surprised none of this is in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I mean, it's kind of screwed up that something that is supposed to represent humanity only gives the average height of an adult male instead of the average height of humans. Given that it's something that would be criticized today, I'm sure it was 45 years ago, but less widely. I don't have references to offer, though. -- Phyzome (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Chilbolton crop glyph references

SETI has acknowledged it, Ancient Aliens had an episode on it, Richard Hoagland has written on it, and Rense has reported on it. There's also an article in The Independent.

References

Enix150 (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The SETI Institute only acknowledged that it was a hoax, pointing-out that any reply to Frank Drake's message would have taken thousands of years to get to its intended destination and thousands for Earth to receive a reply. The other sources, as I have pointed-out to you in February 2019, are not reliable; Hoagland in particular has a long record in trying to promote WP:FRINGE theories. Any repeated fringe theories will be deleted from Wikipedia. Please stop this now. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: In February 2019 you did point out that Richard Hoagland was not a reliable source (we have an article on him, so I figured his opinion was noteworthy), but aside from that instance you have made no mention as to any of the other six sources being unreliable. Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is strongly biased towards science and written for the general public. While it is not our job to debunk every conspiracy theory in the Interwebs, I think now that having a section on the "reply" hoax is acceptable since it seems to be a popular and recurring issue. But if users push again their POV towards authenticity, it may have to be deleted. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Average height of a male

My edit was just reverted as 'unnecessary': https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Arecibo_message&oldid=prev&diff=936063518 The average height of a human male isn't anywhere near 5ft9, that's the average height of a human male in the US. Yaxu (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Arecibo Reply image has wrong dimensions

The Arecibo Reply image shown here is 23 bits by 74 bits. It's not 23 by 73 as claimed in the text. Go ahead and count the rows yourself to check this claim.

Either this image is wrong (is there a photograph of the actual crop formation to check against?), or no one has ever bothered counting the rows on the original formation (yes, that's hard to believe, isn't it!). SmokeyVW (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, the two images align fine until the planets / telescope at the bottom. Here's one image: https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_circultivos/chilbolton02_01.jpg

It looks the same except it's back-to-front. That kind of makes sense, if it was beamed down onto earth. Yaxu (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply.

I want information on the so-called "reply" but the page was deleted.

Please tell me where I can find relevant information now that Wikipedia isn't listing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.79.218 (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Try [Google]. 74.161.38.253 (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the article about so-called "Arecibo reply", which was posted on the main page of SETI official website: Is the Latest Crop Circle a Message from E.T? SETI claims that it's a hoax. I think, this information can be added into the article. Nimbie95 (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the message won't arrive for another 25 000 years, the "reply" cannot possibly be anything except a hoax. There quite naturally cannot be a reply to a transmission that hasn't yet arrived. So it's not really notable in the context of the Arecibo message, except possibly that the message is apparently famous enough that people make joke replies to it. But there are few things in the world that people don't joke about. - Alltat (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This "claim" is unproven. Furthermore, the idea that they wouldn't have received the message on time is based on too many assumptions. Specifically, it assumes that A) they didn't have any local source for reading the information - what if they had intelligent beings in closer space? Separately, it assumes that we understand science as well as any higher intelligence which is absurd. We don't even understand things happening on Earth. This "claim" from SETI, although thoughtful, does not represent proof of a hoax. - monokrome (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh please, I suggest you re-read all of the views contained within this Talk page. As someone who was actually present at the SETI Institute when the crop mark was made, I can assure you that no-one took it seriously and my daughter researched the occurence in the UK on behalf of the Institute, but that is WP:OR on my part. Can I respectfully suggest that you stop attacking other editors, which has already seen you blocked. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Assuming that it wasn't intercepted before it reached its destination.68.228.59.214 (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The Mirror

The drawing of the dish itself has a large M underneath it. The article explains that "the part of the image that looks like a letter "M" is there to demonstrate to the reader of the message that the curved line is a spherical mirror". This could do with clarification. I've always assumed that the graphic is supposed to resemble parallel beams bouncing off the mirror into the telescope's focal point, but the wording of this sentence almost implies that M simply stands for Mirror, which is obviously silly. Or is it a drawing of the telescope's gantries? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Parabolic reflector not spherical ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Arecibo's reflector is spherical it makes more sense that this would depict a spherical rather than parabolic reflector, although at this resolution I suppose it could be either. I updated the language to match. Retswerb (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Jumbled Nonsense

The information arranged the first way produces jumbled nonsense, but if arranged the second way it forms an image containing information about Earth and the human race.

Does anyone have an example of what it looks like arranges the second way?

I made a small program to rearrange the image just like that. The resulting image can be seen at Image:Arecibo shifted.png. User:Aadnk 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Even properly decoded. How many humans would be able to understand the message without prople pointing out the details. Even putting aside all the possible other formats it could be decoded into. And looking at the small percentage of humans who could figure it out... how many extraterrestrials would be shaking their head? Naturally making a language free, culture independant message is hard.. but there has to be a better way.. if we get to the point where we send a binary or waveform encoded message that everyone on earth can understand like "duh, of course it means that" then we'd at least be one step closer to having other civilizations understand it as well. But as stands, we need a better message, hehe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.248.128 (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we display the image in the actual article, because I don't think a lot of people would guess that they can see the image by clicking the link. --Henrikb4 (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, so I put it in. Many people would probably have thought "jumbled nonsense" was an article. Superm401 - Talk 09:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

On this note, a link was recently added to the image in the lead. There must be a more elegant solution than having the jumbled image and an individual link to it in the same article. Chris857 (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above: the article says the message won't reach its target because the target will have moved. Couldn't this have been computed into the actual trajectory of the signal so it really would reach the target? What utter bollocks. Wythy (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The links to support the claim that the reply is a hoax don't. N0MINAY (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Computer-readable form

This edit makes the rather interesting point that a computer-readable form of the message is WP:NOTNEEDED. I'm not convinced that this is a strong justification for excising the message, but I think a bigger point is that right now the message is not provided in any form except an image out of which it is basically impossible to extract the bitwise information. I am, perhaps, sympathetic to the idea that Wikipedia might be the wrong venue for its display. Wikisource, perhaps? What do people think? jps (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

E.g. [3]. This may suffice, but perhaps the transwiki add-ons then might be appropriate? jps (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Aaaaaand, now deleted there. Fun times, friends. There's gotta be a venue somewhere in the Wikimedia universe that can store these 1679 bits, right? 13:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Rampant subjectivity

It's interesting that the elite who devised this message in 1974 were oblivious to their own rampant subjectivity in showing "average height", in presuming that a few pixels can "surely" be interpreted as the number of planets in our solar system (revised in 2006), that a pixel image of the Arecibo dish shows an inanimate object while a stick figure of a human shows an animate one, and so on.

Most surprising of all is that it was deemed "clever" to use a semi-prime of 23 x 73 which "obviously" would not be misinterpreted by an alien mind as 73 x 23. Big duh: why not use a square of primes like 37 x 37 to ensure there'd be no accidental "rotation"? Martindo (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverted Edit

I'm a little confused about why my edit was reverted. I'm sure it was reverted fairly, but I'd like to know if it could be improved or if it just doesn't work with the article. I'm a new user, so bear with me. Opportunity Rover (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I think your edit should stand as Wikipedia reports how far humanity's other resources have reached into interstellar space, e.g., Voyager. Similarly, the whole plot of Contact (1997 American film) rested on how far an earth-originated signal had reached (Vega). That's my 2 cents. Johncdraper (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

We already note the date it was transmitted. A refreshable widget converting that to ly is not an improvement IMHO. VQuakr (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That's true, the light-year counter is pretty much the same thing as a Julian year counter. That said, I still think there's some merit to having a refreshable tracker. Readers could make a pretty good estimate for light-years just by looking at the date, but for other units, like miles, kilometers, and AU, it's much harder to make a rough estimate. Those additional units are likely necessary to put the distance to scale for some people. It can be hard to grasp how large a light-year is.

Also, it would take some work (albeit not a ton) to get an exact value. The distance increases constantly. By the time you calculate it, it will have gone up slightly. It's much faster to click a refresh button rather than find a constantly changing number (that's surprisingly hard to find) and do the math.

Without the counter, it's also possible that readers wouldn't even think to calculate the distance. Even if they do, they might not be confident in their answer. They might think that they got something wrong, or that it's more complicated than it actually is. The counter could act as a sort of verification.

Plus, like Johncdraper mentioned, it isn't out of place. Wikipedia has similar trackers, like for Pioneer 10. I even found one for another interstellar radio message. Opportunity Rover (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOT applies here. Even the calculation with the automation would be original research which WP:FORUM points out. – The Grid (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A probe is/was capable of sending data back about its environment. Its distance at least arguably has some relevance there. The distance a radio signal has traveled does not. VQuakr (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Arecibo answer

The new entry on "Arecibo answer" is based on crop circles, and sub-optimal references. I propose to delete it, or move it to some article dealing with crop circle hoaxes. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The article currently has a section titled "The Response from "Aliens"" which is a bunch of conspiracy theory stuff citing crop circle sites and UFO conspiracy theorists. Can this kind of stuff just be deleted? It obviously has no legitimate sources, but I don't know what the procedure is. 80.221.144.4 (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is nonsense. No reason to perpetuate that hoax in this article. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Prove it not true before saying that OBVIOUSLY its false.

This answer is no hoax and the sooner people start raking these things seriously the better 118.92.107.252 (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You need to give evidence that a claim is true before expecting people to treat it as such. If you can provide reliable sources that it isn't a hoax and is in fact a response from aliens, then by all means, add that section back in. Germanater09 (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Audio version

This is pointless to include. Even the plain text version as 0s and 1s lets someone copy/paste it if they want to do something with the raw data, but the audio version does nothing to aid understanding; it's just one particular sonification of a binary string, with no particular indication that it's even representative of how the message was modulated in the first place. I strongly suggest removal. Any objections? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Please remove the audio file from the top (File:The_Arecibo_Message.wav) per the above comment and lack of objections. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Claim that the image of the message shifted is "sufficiently organized"

I think this needs a reference or elaboration. Quantifying degree of organization is a delicate matter. I can add some discussion on this point, but just checking whether the original author of this line had something in mind that I haven't heard of? Probably not, I've researched this topic quite a bit, but it would be interesting if they did. Bollus101 (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2023

The word ‘Hoax’ should be removed in the subheading. There is no evidence to suggest it is a hoax, and indeed, the research carried out by experienced biophysical and aerospace scientists have established it is exceedingly complex and was completed in a matter of hours. It would be inappropriate to call it a hoax without the proper citation and conclusion which does not exist. 2.25.78.74 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The article was just protected again, and this time for three months, because of attempts to make this change. Meters (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)