Talk:Eagle Nebula

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Eagle Nebula is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Eagle Nebula[edit]

the eagle nebula is exhilerating =] -Wrestlenovi 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed --GTPoompt 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You can see a little face in it ^^ 19:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen.

it is amazing but why doesn't it show the hole picture, does any one now were you can get the hole thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Seditives (talkcontribs) 10:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Theories of formation?[edit]

Anyone know of any theories of formation? It's a strange object. It looks like a matter explosion into what was once a homogenous matter cloud. (Does WP:NOR apply to talk pages?) Jeff Carr 23:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it was a large explosion of anti-matter that annilated several light years of matter. Undoubtedly some alien Dr. Strangelove built it to erase nearby stars :) Jeff Carr 23:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


From what ive read in the BBC website the pillars of creation have probably been destroyed by and exploding star

They have, but are still visible because the nebula is 7000 light years away.

Added Color?[edit]

I hear that they add color to certain space images, probably to enhance them. Is this one of them? Or is it in original color?

This image is not true-color, no, and instead is a narrow-band image showing sulfur, oxygen, and hydrogen emissions from the cloud and surrounding area. There are however images approximating the true color available (for example, ) that are relatively representative! Some other folks may have more useful links as well. Cheers! Krinberry 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


The article states that protostars are only found in the Eagle nebula. This doesn't seem like a reasonable statement, could it be that the author meant to say they have only been observed in this nebula?--Hgebel 19:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I updated the text per the original wording and asked that author to provide a citation. WilliamKF 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was my past addition, which is not true for now - W5, imaged in 2005 is much larger star formation region. I've added reworded citation. Cmapm 16:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


I read that the eagle nebula's pillars were not destroyed by a supernova, it was actually an elementary error by the people who run the Spitzer space telescope. I am going to remove that part, because it is false. TheOtherSiguy 14:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I have read the same thing, the pillars were not destroyed by a starburst, it should be left out of the article because it is false info.--Metalhead94 (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That is indeed the statement we are typing with the joint bones located in our fingers which is how fingers are ambulatory, therefore due to the report drafted by scientists employed and payed salary by the Spitzer Space Group, we are going to precede to remove the article because the original report was an error.- (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

But see "Supernova again" below. -- Elphion (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Baby Twin?[edit]

No citation for this statement? I'm going to remove it. If anyone believes it is a basic fact re-add it, or please add a citation.

Something doesn't add up[edit]

"The Eagle Nebula was actually blown to bits by an exploding star 8,000-9,000 years ago, but in pictures it looks fine, because it takes 7,000 years for light to reach Earth. Therefore, it will take another 1,000 years to see the destruction"

This seems to be FTL information?

--M a s (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It was just some random nonsense. It's gone now. --Harald Khan Ճ 15:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I retract that it was random. There was indeed a supernova explosion in the Eagle Nebula 8-9000 years ago: [1]. Excerpt:

According to astronomers' estimations, the explosion's blast wave would have spread outward and toppled the three pillars about 6,000 years ago (which means we wouldn't witness the destruction for another 1,000 years or so). The blast wave would have crumbled the mighty towers, exposing newborn stars that were buried inside, and triggering the birth of new ones.

--Harald Khan Ճ 15:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not a 100% positive, so I will not edit the article myself, but shouldn't this section say that it will take 1000 years for the VISIBLE light to reach earth? -anonymous 13 April 2009

(see "Supernova again" below) -- Elphion (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Catalogue names....[edit]

I don't know much about the Eagle Nebula, but according to several sources that I've read (including Philip's Astronomy Encyclopedia and, linked to in this article), the cluster and the nebula as a whole is referred to as the Eagle Nebula and catalogued as M16; while the nebula itself is catalogued as IC 4703 and the cluster NGC 6611. --Harald Khan Ճ 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Whole Image?[edit]

The images (most or all from Hubble, I believe) are nice, but none is a complete image of the Eagle Nebula. The main image is identified as just a portion of the nebula, but only in a small-text caption. The large-font title simply reads "Eagle Nebula", creating the impression to the that this is the whole thing. Full object images, and more details in text and table form than in this wiki article for that matter, can be found at MikeHousky (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use File:Eagle Nebula from ESO.jpg which is a full M16 image, not the spire. We could have the image of the spire further down in the text. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 09:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Image taglines[edit]

Coming across this article by chane (as with most of my article reading), I've noticed some wierd wording in the captions for each picture.

Under that assumption I'm giong to be bold and remove them but if I've missed something important somebody please message me and change it back. BigHairRef | Talk 03:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Having read the copyright tags on some of the pictures, I've noticed that most of them mention a requriement of attributation to NASA/ESA so I didn't bother with what I wrote above. BigHairRef | Talk 03:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of US Copyright law isn't as good as for my home nation but under the FUR criteria, such an attributaion as "Courtesy of NASA" isn't required as all NASA works are public domain?

Supernova again[edit]

Although I read through the talk page and the general concusses was that the supernova hypothesis is incorrect, I sill see it stated in the article. So I inspected its source, a subdomain of Caltech. The article makes some rather ridiculous assertions. For instance the website states about the supernova, "an event humans most likely witnessed 1,000 to 2,000 years ago as an unusually bright star in the sky." The argument for the pillars destruction is very dependent on the concept that light takes 7,000 years to reach us, so a supernova that occurred 6,000 years ago would still take another 1,000 years to reach us. However according to the cited article, the visible light reached earth 1,000-2,000 years ago. So the changes would have been visible up to 2 thousand years ago, not one thousand from now. As far as I am concerned, the credibility of the source is in the garbage. Burden of proof is on the one who claims it to be true. This source does not do so. In a few days I will delete the entry, unless someone wants to persuade me not to.

As far as I know, the source is the home page of the Spitzer Telescope, and there is also a video there going a bit more into detail [2]. It is clear, though, that the shockwave needs some time to reach the pillars. --Harald Khan Ճ 17:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the problem is that the article states the supernova would have been witnessed 1 to 2 thousand years ago on earth. If this were true, the supernova explosion would easily be recognizable by now. Compare to the Crab Nebula, which is a similar distance from earth. It was a star that was witnessed going supernova 1000 years ago and the result is very recognizable now. The same result should be visible by now at the Eagle Nebula. I acknowledge that the supernova might have happened, but the source contains some obvious factual errors. I am going to do a search for a possible replacement. -- (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I feel so bad about this one. After rereading portions of the article, I did come across the information that the supernova wave is already visible. I'm sorry for my screw up and withdraw my argument. -- (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I've rewritten the treatment of the conjectured supernova in the article to try to make the idea clearer. Given the amount of dust in the area, it should not be too surprising if the SN remnant is not readily visible. It would be a stronger theory, however, if some direct remnant could be pointed to. E.g., Cassiopeia A exploded in the 1600s and was not noted from Earth at the time because of all the dust -- but it remains a strong radio source. -- Elphion (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

confusing paragraph[edit]

Images made using the Hubble Space Telescope in 1995, by Jeff Hester and Paul Scowen, greatly improved scientific understanding of processes inside the nebula. One of these, a famous photograph known as the "Pillars of Creation", depicts a large region of star formation. Its small, dark areas are believed to be protostars. The pillar structure of the region resembles that of a much larger star formation region, imaged with the Spitzer Space Telescope in 2005, in Cassiopeia, which is designated W5 and has been dubbed the "Pillars of Creation".

Does this sentence confuse anyone else? It's saying that the pillar structure of the 'Pillars of Creation' resemble a much larger one called, the Pillars of creation???? I just googled W5 and it should be titled, the Pillars of Star Creation. I just signed up to discuss it here, I have no interest in editing a Wiki article, but someone should, that whole paragraph left me confused until I looked up W5 and realized it was a different nebula, with a different name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rounder421 (talkcontribs) 13:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten that paragraph to reflect this information. -- Elphion (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I suggest merging Pillars of Creation in to Eagle Nebula. Thanks largely to my own lack of reading comprehension, but also in part my assumption that the two would be one and the same, I just changed the importance of Pillars of Creation within Wikiproject Astronomy to be "mid", thinking of how well known it is as part of the Eagle Nebula. Then I realized they were actually separate. Yet, a large fraction of the coverage in each article is currently overlapping. While the Eagle Nebula article could probably stand to be expanded in areas beyond the Pillars of Creation, the current coverage in that section seems to be at a reasonable level, and to say as much about the Pillars of Creation as needs to be said. Maybe that could change at some point in the future, and if so, they could be split in to separate articles again, but given the current coverage, these two seem like they ought to be one article. James McBride (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Support merger, for the reasons outlined above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The "Pillars of Creation" refers to an astrophotography image, not the objects themselves. The Pillars of Creation image is probably THE most famous astrophograph, and perhaps one of the most famous scientific images ever. The subject is both easy to source and highly notable. That the Eagle Nebula article talks a lot about this region (despite it not even being a very prominent feature of the nebula itself...) is simply because detail of the rest of the nebula hasn't been added yet, that would be no reason to merge even if the Pillars of Creation was referring to a physical object. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree it is notable and worthy of coverage. However, that coverage can occur within the Eagle Nebula article, rather than having repetition of 75% of the content between the two articles. If the Pillars of Creation had received notable coverage AS an astrophotograph, with perhaps adaptations or something of the sort, I think it would belong on its own. As is, I do not see evidence for that. I see six sentences in the current Pillars of Creation article that are about the photograph itself, which describe its popularity, its authors, and a description of its appearance. All of these would fit naturally in the article on Eagle Nebula if it were merged. James McBride (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per X01, that is an astrophotography topic, and famous in its own right, and more recognizable to the general public than the nebula. Just as we don't merge Pale Blue Dot into Earth, or Family Portrait (Voyager) into Solar System, these can remain separate. (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Not only is Pale Blue Dot not merged to Earth, or Family Portrait in to Solar System, neither are mentioned in the respective articles. Content on Pillars of Creation constitutes something like 75% of the current Eagle Nebula article. I do not see the two as being entirely apt comparisons in this situation. James McBride (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
      • We have a {{main}} template to solve such unbalances with summary and separate articles. If you merge it, then the Eagle Nebula article becomes mostly about a photograph, but nominally being about the nebula. so if 75% of the nebula article is about the photograph, then in reality it is a photograph article, and not a nebula article. Merging does not solve that problem, it just exacerbates it, since there is no article to move the unbalance off onto. As the photograph is also quite notable, trimming information on the photo from the nebula article would solve the unbalance, as a {{main}} can point to a fuller set of information. (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
        • The way I see it, the Eagle Nebula as currently written already is about a photograph, as you say, but most of the discussion in the section on the photograph and the article on the photograph is about physical conditions that are of more general interest to the article on the Eagle Nebula. My suggestion of a merger does not change that. But natural expansion of both articles includes a more detailed discussion of the physical conditions, the stellar populations, and the fates of the regions, and there is significant overlap between the two. All of that said, if someone wants to put a {{main}} template in there, do some work to re-distribute information between the articles, and provide broader coverage of the Eagle Nebula in that article, that would be great. Given the current status of the articles, it just makes more sense to me to try to merge them for now. James McBride (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge the astrophysical content (composition, fate etc.), but split the astrophotography content to Pillars of Creation (Hubble Space Telescope image) or something similar. The discussion of the HST image does not belong in Eagle Nebula, but the name Pillars of Creation refers to a part of the Eagle Nebula, which should be it that article. The other images (Spitzer, Herschel etc) don't merit their own articles, and aren't shown anyway. They should be merged into Eagle Nebula, especially since they both imaged the entire nebula (not just the pillars). Modest Genius talk 12:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I assume you mean that "Pillars of Creation" means the "Eagle Nebula" and not the photograph? So that would mean that "Pillars of Creation" article is moved to Pillars of Creation (Hubble Space Telescope image) , and that content between the two articles is rearranged? Why "Pillars of Creation (Hubble Space Telescope image)" instead of Pillars of Creation (astrophograph)  ? (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
'Pillars of Creation' is the name of an astronomical object, which is part of the Eagle Nebula. It is also the name of a famous image, which depicts the object. But the primary use (and the one used in the astronomical research literature) is as the name of the object. Yes I mean moving the current content of Pillars of Creation to Pillars of Creation (Hubble Space Telescope image), turning Pillars of Creation into a redirect to Eagle Nebula#Pillars of Creation (or turning it into a disambiguation page), and moving the content around so the topics are covered as I suggested above (discussion of the image on it's own page, astrophysics on Eagle Nebula). The exact phrase in brackets was just an example, if there's a better one then please use that. But it's not actually a photograph... Modest Genius talk 10:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not seeing the problem here. A rename might be justified to clarify that the image is the subject, but the image is independently notable and the article contains plenty of information specific to the image - I don't agree with the nom's: "the current coverage in that section seems to be at a reasonable level, and to say as much about the Pillars of Creation as needs to be said." if that covers the image here. There seem to be more pressing problems here - how many of the issues raised in sections above have been checked or addressed? Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unlike "Mystic Mountain" for example, Pillars actually have a pretty good coverage ([3], [4], [5] etc). Putting the Pillars entirely in Eagle Nebula would sway the balance, so WP:DETAIL applies here. Brandmeistertalk 00:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose They are two seperate and distinct subjects, both worthy of notice per WP:N. Any overlapping material—material that is problematic—should be taken care of through editing, not merging. As a side note, both these articles could use some expansion and cleaning up, but that's a different discussion. (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment There seems to be a consensus to keep them separate, along with acknowledgment that the current situation is undesirable. If someone wants to implement their desired solution, I'd be happy to see it happen. I would have merged/expanded the joint article had that been the consensus, but I'm not personally interested in expanding these in parallel. James McBride (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)