Talk:Cydonia (region of Mars)

Conceding?

The bit in the article about Carl Sagan's assessment of the "Face" has been amended to note that he "conceded" that the "Face" should be studied. The source for this is listed as both Sagan's book and a WP:FRINGE title, and the specific "conceded" wording appears lifted from the latter. Now, I've not read this book by Sagan, but I seriously doubt that he "conceded" this point at all. He probably, as would most scientists, accepted that the "Face" was a subject for study, much as with any number of other features on Mars, but that's quite a different thing. Anyway, does anyone have Sagan's book to hand to check what he actually says? I suspect that the article is currently given WP:UNDUE weight to the opinion of a fringer (who is bound to want to make it look like Sagan agrees with him). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. An alternative wording for this section might be: "While accepting the "Face" as a subject for scientific study, astronomer Carl Sagan criticized much of the speculation concerning it in an eponymous chapter of his book The Demon-Haunted World.^[17]"

Hello. Thanks, that wording is better and more balanced. I have read the Sagan book which is why I remembered the reference in the other cited work, but I'll dig out a copy from somewhere and confirm. I don't think the Case for the Face work that I cited is a WP:FRINGE title. It is about a fringe subject but is an investigation of that subject by qualified Scientists which is something different and qualifies it as a relevant citation source for Wikipedia. Obviously I am closely involved in the subject matter but my intent is to (I hope) record pertinent facts about this subject area within WP guidelines. DJ Barney (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for getting back to me. I've made the change to the article as per the wording above. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

All the attention is on the Face?

In my opinion that's the least intreasting feature, I'm much curious about the "Pyramids" I want to be fair to both sides but everyhting I've read on Cydonia that delves into more then just the Face are pro crazy theory cites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.234.42 (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

split the lower double image?

I would like to split the lower double image into two separate ones. The features in the images are not directly related, so it does not appear there is a strong reason to keep them together. Yet they are so big that on my screen the push all the text over into broken lines on the left, which makes it difficult to read. Any objections? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maury. Poke around - you may be able to find the original, separate images somewhere in wikiland. I think they were once separate, but were fused by an editor. Similarly the triple image. I never liked the fusion exercise myself, so will try to look for the singles myself if I find the time. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 13:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Another cover up. Where are the piramids?

Oh. I forget the oficial BROOKINGS REPORT. Good americans have to hide the truth. What Obama has to say of Brookings report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.208.142 (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, do you have a point? If so, can you make it clearer please? The Brookings Report is already covered here. Why do you think it has a bearing on crumbly Martian mountains? Please explain. --PLUMBAGO 08:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

IT'S A GONSBIRACY!!!!!11one"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.67.138.7 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is an article on the Brookings Report, enjoy yourself there. This is on a mountain on Mars that some thought was a giant face, which later proved, as expected, not a face.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)