Jump to content

Talk:UVB-76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.76.176.180 (talk) at 07:35, 12 January 2011 (→‎Buzzer changes: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMilitary history: Russian & Soviet Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
WikiProject iconRadio Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do List:

USB or AM?

Good article. However in my experience of monitoring UVB-76 for several years it always uses full carrier dual side band ( Amplitude modulation) for broadcasting not upper side band (USB).

December 2 2010 14:44:00 UTC voice message

December 2 2010 14:43:00 UTC: MDZhB MDZhB 39 351 Pavel Roman Elena Gregory Roman Anna Dmitriy Anna 80 18 06 57 should be available at the archives soon http://uvb-76.blogspot.com/p/test.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.231.201 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Roman Elena Gregory Roman Anna Dimtriy Anna = Pregrada, a town in Croatia.
Or, you know, it could be this. We can't be sure either way, can we? :) 93.86.184.161 (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Messages

We need reliable sources for any messages. Personal websites are largely not acceptable. The recordings that have been linked to aren't acceptable either since anyone could post an audio file on the net and say it is UVB-76. Adambro (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we source Numbers and Oddities? They are very reliable. Also, it is NOT UVB-76 anymore. That callsign has been changed due to the new Western Strategic Command in Russia. It has been changed to MDZhB.PresentedIn4D (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you really consider as reliable source, if you link to old Jan Michalski's geocities page, which contains A LOT of speculations and UNCONFIRMED INFO. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the removal of some content on the basis of it being unsourced/poorly sourced isn't an endorsement of the other sources. I don't doubt there are other sources that shouldn't be considered particularly reliable and therefore content which is based upon those sources should be removed. On the general issue of sourcing for this article, that UVB-76 may be a secret radio station of some description doesn't mean we lower our requirements for information to be properly sourced. Where appropriate sourcing is difficult/impossible we either have a brief article which covers the basics for which there are reliable sources or we simply don't have an article. Adambro (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I understand what you say, but also the changes of the station have not been talked about, such as the callsign change, the tone changes recently, ect. All the info here seems to be outdated by 2 years or so. PresentedIn4D (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That whole list of UVB-76 messages was translated from cyrillic from Russian Wikipedia, additionaly they are on old geocities page in Russian version. There were over 20 messages nor only 2 in 1997-2003 as you say now. Where are transmissions from August 25, September 5 and 10? The best reliable source is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What you confirm from geocities page? Radio center: 143 (only known source is November 3, 2001 conversation), Military unit: 44684 (there aren't ANY sources saying that, + this is outdated like whole page). This page is often first page where enters person who want to know what is UVB-76. You want donations for something with politics like that? No way. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that "This page is often first page where enters person who want to know what is UVB-76". That is why it is important, as per fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that information presented here is based upon reliable sources. If, as you seem to suggest, there is other information on this page that isn't supported by reliable sources than I would very much encourage you to remove it. Adambro (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not site 'Spooks' newsletter as being verifiable or a valid source OR reliable source. It's no better than any other amateur listener/source. I suggest removing that also. Unless you can prove to me someone on the spooks mailing list/newsletter worked in UVB-76. Spstarr (talk • contribs) 02:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://danix111.cba.pl/ns/uvb-76.html contains only confirmed info, not SPECULATIONS like GeoCities page, which is RELIABLE SOURCE, as you say. That page say, that first table may contain speculations, but they are minimal. It contains transcripts of ALL UVB-76 and MDZhB transmissions. In other part of it: http://danix111.cba.pl/archives there are even recordings. So I don't really know what is reliable source in your definition. PS: For example of speculations on GeoCities page: Purpose, radio center, military unit, how we know these? PPS: Nothing is wrong that it's part of personal website. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your assertion that http://danix111.cba.pl/ns/uvb-76.html contains only confirmed info, not SPECULATIONS, the website itself states "This table may contain speculations" and there isn't anything to suggest the website it anything other than a personal site which can only be considered reliable sources in exceptional circumstances. You are right that the GeoCities site doesn't look like a reliable source either so it, and any content which can only be sourced to that, shuld be removed. Adambro (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know what is reliable source, delete whole article. http://danix111.cba.pl/ns/uvb-76.html doesn't have any attentions now, it's updated daily with new transmissions. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia is explained at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. As is explained there, self-published sources like your personal website, http://danix111.cba.pl/ns/uvb-76.html, are largely not considered to be reliable sources. I see nothing particurly special about this situation to make me consider it to be a reliable source as per Wikipedia's guidelines. Whether the content is "updated daily with new transmissions" isn't relevant here. Adambro (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename due to callsign change

The station has changed its callsign a couple of months ago. The old one seems to be no longer in use. I know that this may sound silly, but should we rename the article? --Edwin33 (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, SOME people (ahemadminsahem) want it to be cited that this happened, because it turns out, radios lie to us ;)! PresentedIn4D (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires its information to be verifiable, which means that it needs to be included in reliable sources as to prove the information. This isn't a blog or a fan Wiki where anyone can add in information, it's an encyclopedia. You have to prove through reliable sources that you are including correct information, since we can't just accept your general word on the matter. If only the world was that trustworthy. SilverserenC 18:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who would prove it? British scientists? Forget it. They wouldn't waste time on this station. But amateurs would do. And if not, who can prove that the station exists at all? --Edwin33 (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are already reliable sources utilized in the article, which shows that some professionals do take notice. You just need to wait until an article comes out in a reliable source about the change. SilverserenC 22:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, what about many, many people listening to the station and reporting it, how is that NOT reliable. PresentedIn4D (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to give me an example, but I would presume that they are not reliable sources. As has been already stated, if they are amateurs on the subject, then they do not have the professional discretion that is required for their word to be reliable in this field. That's why we rely upon reliable publications for information, because there is editorial fact-checking on multiple levels for such publications that makes the information verifiable and likely to be true. The word of a random listener of the station does not fulfill any of that criteria. SilverserenC 01:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enigma 2000. Numbers and Oddities. Both are very respected in this field. Along with us who listen to it live all the time. We log these transmissions daily. The website that has been edited in here recently is simply a collection of all known voice messages. We have a stream on the UVB-76.net website which rebroadcasts the station live. Along with this, I have been in calls with people who are receiving the message live on the radio on the buzzer frequency. PresentedIn4D (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We need to rename this article from UVB-76 to MDZhB, actual callsign. You, admins, need to listen to all these recordings of messages (http://danix111.cba.pl/archives - here are all collected). Best source for you are only commercial websites? Forget it! For what f... are all these study pages (at least http://danix111.cba.pl/ns/uvb-76.html - the most actual one, based on work of whole community of UVB-76) Along with this, I have been in calls with people who are receiving the message live on the radio on the buzzer frequency e.g. me. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this a different way

To all those who commented above, look at this a different way. No, the article shouldn't be renamed just because the call sign changed, since the title UVB-76 is still descriptive of the signal for what it has been for almost all of its history. Yes, a section should be made in this article that discusses the call sign change, but the entire article should not be moved because of that. The current title is the most descriptive and well-known title and, per WP:COMMONNAME, should be kept the way it is. SilverserenC 09:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I added it moments ago. Now it was deleted. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There still needs to be reliable sources regarding the name change. Adambro (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All reports of radio amateurs, recordings and its transcripts... why that's NOT reliable? 89.76.176.180 (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can a recording or transcript on some random personal website be considered a reliable source? Couldn't anyone say anything is a recording of UVB-76? Adambro (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro, no. They can't. We listen every day on the frequency. The buzzer stops, and voice messages occur. Not faked. We have triangulations going on, frequency analysis, you name it. PresentedIn4D (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro, you're welcome now to listen to stream on http://uvb-76.net, wait for message and confirm it yourself. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can I be sure that anything I listen to on uvb-76.net is actually UVB-76? Adambro (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other receivers tuned to that frequency reveal identical results. PresentedIn4D (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am listening to it from receiver also. Everything is identical. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The next problem then is how do we know the transmissions are UVB-76? I heard something on X frequency isn't a reliable source. Adambro (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transmission was broadcasted few minutes ago, on 14:55 UTC. Recording: http://soundcloud.com/danix111/uvb-76-2010-12-26-14-55-utc 89.76.176.180 (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We know the transmissions are from (what was) UVB-76 due to buzzer. The buzzer has always been on 4625 khz. Always. And it still is, aside from the occasional outage. Whenever we have a voice transmission, the buzzer stops. It is turned off, then a voice starts. Repetition. PresentedIn4D (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No more arguments? 89.76.176.180 (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the other users, including myself, are just annoyed that you don't seem to be getting it at all. I'm fairly tempted to just go with the argument of "Thats how things work here". The words of people on a personal forum, regardless of the fact that all of you personally listen to it, does not have reliability on Wikipedia. As i've said before, we cannot just take your word for it. Now, if one of you got such information published somewhere, that would be different, because it would be independently corroborated by a known reliable source. SilverserenC 19:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can say that you just deny your own rules. This page is outdated for over 5 years, you have somewhere what's going on station. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does publishing make it more legitimate? PresentedIn4D (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is missing - continuation: Callsign changes, tone changes, voice transmissions, transmitter location, any oddities, events noted, presumed purpose, stoppages, useful sound samples, so you have a lot to fill, especially with events and messages, and try to find other reliable sources http://danix111.cba.pl/ns/uvb-76.html. But because author didn't wanted creating other domain on it. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Verifiability:

"To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.[1]" As far as I know, this is not likely to be challenged. I sure hope I'm reading this right. Take it this way as well. How do we know, without triangulation (original research) that that is the location? Many of these so called "reliable sources" do nothing but restate what we have already discovered. Some even just use this very page for information. I hope you understand the point that I am trying to make. Everything comes from original research. We are having an article published in Wired in the coming months (hopefully, if the writer is legit) about the station. I dont understand what could be wrong about the lists of voice messages. How are audio recordings from a known source not reliable? How is having multiple source confirmations not reliable? PresentedIn4D (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point you make about some sources using this very page for information is a very important one. This is one of the reasons why reliable sources are important but also why it is very important that Wikipedia articles only contain verifiable material. Because Wikipedia is such a well known website, often anything said on Wikipedia is taken as fact and so then other sources reproduce the content and so we could end up in a downward spiral of the quality of the information we present on a subject as incorrect or dubious info gradually gets considered to be accurate as it is reproduced elsewhere. Less reliable sources may just copy content from Wikipedia and then that provides a source for the sourced material on Wikipedia.
I remain sceptical as to whether a rigorous analysis of the sources used here would actually provide enough basis for an article about this topic. Unfortunately this is a technical subject and potentially a clandestine operation and that makes finding reliable sources difficult. Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't permit a relaxation in terms of the requirements for verifiability and use of reliable sources so I think things are very difficult here.
Regarding Wired (e.g. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-08/25/russian-numbers-station-broadcast-changes), I do wonder whether their article about this subject would fall into the category of reproducing content from Wikipedia. I wonder, for example, where they got the information from that the origin of the transmissions is Povarovo, Russia? Without a better source for this I do think we should consider removing the location info. On the basis of their previous article, I would be a little unsure as to whether Wired would be a good source.
As for "this is not likely to be challenged", or rather "any material challenged or likely to be challenged", what are all the discussions that have gone on on this page about sources and the removal of content from the page if it isn't the challenging of some of the content that has been added? You don't need a reliable source to say London is a city in the United Kingdom, because that is unlikely to be challenged, but when we have apparent messages from some radio transmitter then you do need a reliable source. Adambro (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you just wan't to say, that only big commercial websites, which copies original research to more people are reliable? Triangulation did by radio amateurs in 1997 which pointed location as Povarovo was original research. That page I am still mentioning above was based on reliable sources. I wan't to criticize you here so much, but no, because that Wiki consider as "personal attacks". 89.76.176.180 (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to criticise what I have said, only criticising me personally for saying something would be a problem. Clearly as I've said regarding Wired, being a "big commercial website" doesn't mean a particularly story is automatically reliable. As WP:RS says, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis." As I've suggested, I think the Wired story might not be a reliable source for some info, such as the location, which I suspect was taken from Wikipedia's article. Do we have a reliable source which says the location of the transmitter was found by triangulation in 1997? Adambro (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now this page is one huge lie about the station. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lock Request

Can I request that the article be reverted to what it was on November and then locked until the Wikipedia staff can make a fair investigation? Seems fair enough to me!

Voyager78906 (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the article be reverted to as it was in November and what needs to be investigated? Adambro (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be under "attack" by some editors who are not playing to the spirit of the rules of wikipedia. Reliable sources are only needed where the article is likely to be challenged. Now we have a number of sources such as a well known and respected listening group (Enigma 2000) and other people who listen in and record each message as we hear them - I am such a person. From what I have seen and been told, some editors here are saying that the messages are not confirmed, even though there are hundreds of people listening and recording. I seems to me that the only fair solution is to revert back to how the page was in November and then to lock it out pending an investigation by wiki staff as to the sources used. As I say, the wikipedia rules state that reliable content must be present when the content is likely to be challenged. This just seems to be the most fair option at the moment.

Voyager78906 (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you mean by "wiki staff"? There is the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation but they won't get involved in issues such as this.
As for "Reliable sources are only needed where the article is likely to be challenged", Wikipedia:Verifiability says reliable sources are needed for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged". It is too late now, after material has been removed and myself and others have suggested there should be proper sources for content to say it doesn't need a reliable source on the basis of whether content is likely to be challenged. It already has been challenged.
As is explained at WP:BURDEN, the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". It is now for anyone who wants to add the disputed content to find the reliable sources to support it. If that isn't possible then it shouldn't be added to the article.
On the issue of reverting the article to the version as of sometime in November and then protecting it, I fully support efforts to improve the article in keeping with our guidelines and policies but I struggle to see how that would help achieve that. Adambro (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malfuctions conversations

In the Malfunctions section there are two sentences quoted as overheard conversations. Two sources are cited for these, but the English translations in both sources is noticably different than the English versions in the article. I don't read Russian so I can't comment on the accuracy of any translation, but I noticed this. --24.168.240.243 (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzer changes

On January 11, 2011 buzzer changed its gap length to 1.85 s, now it's 20 times per minute. Many others can confirm same. Sample: http://danix111.cba.pl/ns/audio/buzzer-2011.mp3 89.76.176.180 (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UVB-76&oldid=407437591"