Talk:Red rain in Kerala

An entry from Red rain in Kerala appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 8 March, 2006.

Wikipedia

What a shame there's no way to get a mention of the Peter Gabriel song in this article (But I'll link from that one back to here). Daniel Case 16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

==Red rain in popular culture== ...? (I'm joking, of course!) Worldtraveller 22:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Fungal spores?

Contrary to the article various press releases say that the red material in the rain was identified as fungal spores.

Those links say 'tentatively' identified. Sheffield University are conducting tests at the moment. Worldtraveller 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. And we all know that the explanation that includes Santa Claus visiting life from outerspace should be given at least equal treatment to that which relies most heavily on known entities (such as fungal spores). Gamahucheur 18:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing how the analysis turns out. As the releases note, even if they are something as common as earthly fungus, there are loads of questions to be answered here.168.224.1.14 11:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Various press releases" posted on a website called "UFO India" do not inspire much confidence in me as to their accuracy. Are there any other references available? PPF2006

You betcha: Indian Express. Gamahucheur 19:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you guys mean actually Red Rain happening in Kerela, how is it possible?? Can somebody describe this term Red Rain to me. I know I might sound dumb but I need to go deep down the roots:)Bold text

Science?

If the "Did you know" teaser is going to invoke a scientific explanation, then would someone please cite a peer-reviewed scientific article of the findings? Lindenb 17:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)lindenb

We have done - in the references, you'll find a paper by Louis & Kumar which is accepted for publication in Astrophysics and Space Science. Worldtraveller 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Graffitipedia

Yes, the inevitable, inexorable failure of Wikipedia continues. Gamahucheur 17:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? And don't be calling people 'dorks' in edit summaries - it's incredibly rude. Worldtraveller 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The elaboration is that Wikipedia cannot effectively shield itself from incompetent posters; as its popularity grows, it attracts articles such as this, written by someone who cannot recognize and organize theories according to underlying plausibility. And what was truly rude was blowing-off the rules of English punctuation in your posting here. In future, run your work past someone who knows the differences amongst the marks of punctuation. Gamahucheur 18:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I like this one better. — Omegatron 19:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So did I, for that matter. Gamahucheur 19:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

:-) The thing about this article is that it wouldn't even exist if not for the crazy outer space theories. It's pretty unbiased considering its cause of notability. — Omegatron 19:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the article is entitled “Red rain in Kerala”, not “Extraterrestrial theory of the red rain in Kerala”. Hence, its relative treatment of theories is quite inappropriate. Gamahucheur 20:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Gamahucheur - read WP:CIVIL. Worldtraveller 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Worldtraveller– No article in Wikipedia is going to trump the basic facts of what is civility. You don't understand the function of civility, and this makes you unable to recognize what is and isn't civil. BTW, it is uncivil for you to put your note in the wrong sub-thread. Gamahucheur 20:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Gamahucheur– Please cease your violations of Wikipedia's official civility policy. It is undermining to the serious discussion of a very interesting subject. Thank you. PPF2006

If you don't want this argument (long ago reduced to a tangent about civility) to continue, then don't continue it. The ostensible incivility about which you are complaining is continuing exactly and only because Worldtraveller and you insist on making untenable claims about civility. Your pursuit of some sort of pile-on victory in it is just one more act of true incivility. Gamahucheur 16:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

But until further tests show DNA, or some other plausible explanation, this explanation is plausible. We know that bacteria from Earth are floating in the rest of the solar system, if only because they hitched a ride on our equipment. What's implausible about them already being there? Personally, I think they sound like red blood cells, but don't think a cloud of red blood cells surviving that long, leaving no other traces of animal, is more plausible than bacteria hitching a ride.

Incidentally, this article seems to be largely based on the New Scientist article last week, not going as far as plagiarising obviously, but the fact-base seems to be the same. The NS article had more pictures and diagrams, of course. 57.66.51.165 19:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I expect the fact base is the same - there's a limited number of articles and news stories about this incident! But I haven't actually read the NS article. As for images, I've made some requests and hope to get some suitably licensed images here soon. Worldtraveller 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Plausibility is subject, at the very least, to a partial ordering. No one here has claimed that the extraterrestrial explanation is impossible; so, yes, you could say that it has some plausibility. The fact that there is some chance that the red rain was caused by extra-terrestrial life shouldn't place that theory on an equal footing with every other theory; nor, in the course of an article about the red rain per se, should it be the principal theory. (If, on the other hand, the article were entitled “Extraterrestrial theory of the red rain in Kerala”, it would make perfect sense to focus on the extraterrestrial theory.) My earlier reference to Santa Claus was advisedly made; there remains some tiny chance that there is a Santa Claus (granted that it is far smaller than the chance of extraterrestrial microbes making their way to Earth) and that he was responsible for the red rain; but we don't give such explanation equal or superior footing. Gamahucheur 20:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Panspermia is a theory considered reasonable by many in the scientific community. Santa Claus is a fictional character. Please limit your discussion points to those of a serious and well-reasoned nature. Thank you. PPF2006

It would be a fine exercise for you to attempt to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. The existence of Santa Claus is an empirical proposition, and presentation of new evidence could compell reasonable people to accept that existence. Presently reasonable people do not exactly and only because more parsimonious explanations are available for all observables. Likewise, more parsimonious explanations are available for the red rain in Kerala. And that much would remain true even if, more generally, the case for panspermia were placed on firmer ground. Please learn to recognize discussion of a serious and well-reasoned nature. Gamahucheur 16:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, okay. Youst just plain need to get your argument straight before contributing. "Santa Clause?" Come on.

"Burning" leaves?

Surely you mean staining or darkening or something, not fire. — Omegatron 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There are also chemical burns. Gamahucheur 20:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

??? Never heard that. If the rain caused chemical burns, that sentence needs a reference. — Omegatron 05:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Gamahucheur 16:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

References

↑ Ramakrishnan, Venkitesh (2001). Coloured rain falls on Kerala. BBC. URL accessed on Mars 6, 2006.

Although 'Mars 6' is an actual page, should it not read 'March 6,2006'?

Yes - changed it. Thanks! Worldtraveller 21:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Pics plz

This is a great article. What would really improve it is if someone could get a picture of the red rain, or stained clothes! Ernestleonard 01:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Working on that at the moment. Hope to be able to put some images up in the next few days! Worldtraveller 01:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got some collected already. I can upload them if they count as fair use. — Omegatron 05:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Images!

• in a bucket
  in a bucket
• 
  optical
• SEM
  SEM
• 
  TEM

— Omegatron 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Have to say I am not sure that fair use can really be claimed for these, especially not for all four simultaneously. I sent an e-mail to Godfrey Louis a few days ago asking for permission to use these images but haven't heard yet unfortunately. They really make the article look good though! Worldtraveller 20:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I put them through fair use review and everyone thinks they're fine. — Omegatron 23:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's good. I'm still a bit concerned that Dr Louis might yet read my request for permission to use the images, look at the article and find they're already in use... could look a bit bad... Worldtraveller 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more images:

• Photomicrograph of spores from red rain sample
  Photomicrograph of spores from red rain sample
• 
  Another image of spores
• 
  Rain water sample (left) and after the particles settled (right). Dried sediment (centre).

V. Sasi Kumar 07:43, 09 June 2006 (UT)

Possible cometary origin

Sorry, a sonic boom WOULD NOT OCCUR FROM A COMET, they only happen when entering the speed of sound- like an airplane does. Sonic booms do not happen when slowing down from above the speed of sound, and then falling below it. This is extrememly suspect, and flawed. If these red particles were alien life (made up from proteins), they would be completely destroyed by the heat caused when the comet enters the Earth's atmosphere. Chickenofbristol 19:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually anything which causes shockwaves in the atmosphere can cause a sonic boom, and temperatures deep inside impacting objects doesn't necessarily rise very high. Worldtraveller 20:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A comet cannot cause a sonic boom, perhaps a loud noise but this should be cleaned up. Sonic boom is a very specific thing. Also, you forget that for this red rain to happen for 10 days, it has to explode in mid-air. Would these particles survive that? The article should be less POV, and more objective.

Sorry but you're wrong - things moving at supersonic speeds in the atmosphere generate shock waves which are audible as sonic booms. This is not the place to discuss what may or may not have happened to any particles which may or may not have been in a hypothetical impacting body. The article doesn't express a POV, I don't believe, it just reports what is claimed by various parties about the dust. Worldtraveller 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A sonic boom was reported in Western Australia recently when a comet exploded in mid-air, it was captured on home video and is probably available online somewhere.... SeanMack 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

More explanations here

I think this article could use more material taken from this paper by the Indian researchers:

• New biology of red rain extremophiles prove cometary panspermia

Basically, these researchers make a really good case that these new extremophiles are the common demoniator underlying the three domains of life. These cells also have a distinct reproductive life cycle. This material needs to be independently assessed but unless these researchers are looking to destroy their career, I expect it will be confirmed. It is likely that these organisms fill the universe like bacteria filled out world. --64.230.127.189 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (Ben Houston)

I think it would be best not to make any more than a tangential reference to the contents of that paper as it hasn't been peer reviewed. I will be very interested to hear what comes out of Sheffield University who are currently carrying out tests. Worldtraveller 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What I'd be very interested in understanding is the table of elemental composition in the article. It seems (to my untrained eye) to suggest that these particles contain no hydrogen. If this is true, they would certainly be unlike anything that we have called "life" in the past, and the suggestion that they are some sort of universal anscestor of life on Earth would be rather questionable at best. -Harmil 22:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Shape

Just to point out, the shapes of RBC are an optimization for maximizing surface area(diffusion of oxygen and carbon dioxide). The same could be true here(assuming they are not RBC of course). Can anyone validate/back up my statements? Dude 05:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikefadock (talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for validation on, but certainly a sphere which has been deformed into a concave shape will have a higher surface area-to-volume ratio than a perfect sphere. That much is a rather basic element of geometry which can be easily proven by the fact that a sphere can contain the deformed sphere with additional space left. For further reading, see red blood cell#Mammalian erythrocytes. -Harmil 22:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Article stamp of approval

What makes a good article?

A good article shares many characteristics with featured articles, and like featured content it must:

be well written

Yes

be factually accurate

Seems so.

use a neutral point of view

Yes

be stable

Yes

be referenced

Well referenced

wherever possible, contain images to illustrate it. The images should all be appropriately tagged.

Looks good - slight concern about the fair use but benefit of doubt given for now.

Good articles may not be as thorough and detailed as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic.

SeanMack 14:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The above comment is structured to appear analytical, but its actual content is little more than that of a bald stamp of support. This article has been challenged for its lack of neutrality, and saying “Yes” to whether it's neutral doesn't amount to a meaningful response. This article is not neutral, because it accords disproportionate space to an unconventional explanation. It is as if an article entitled “Ice ages” were in discussing causation to give over, say, 70% of its space to pole shift theory. Gamahucheur 02:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not neutral. The very nature of the "red rain" has even been fully explained yet. What we have to do is go off the information of what we do know and present that in as neutral a position as possible. Quit obfuscating things.

Proof of exogenesis?

To quote from the article: "The researchers theorise that the dust is in fact composed of organic matter of extraterrestrial origin. If this were to be proven, it would be the first direct evidence in favour of the theory of exogenesis, which posits that life on Earth arrived here from outer space." That isn't really true. It simply says that life can get to earth from space. Might it not be more accurate to say, "If this were to be proven, it would be a major boost to the credibility of the theory of exogenesis," or something similar? I admit that isn't very good language, but something along those lines might be more accurate. 129.44.216.105 00:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see the difference between the two. The statement as it stands says "If this were to be proven, it would be the first direct evidence in favour of the theory of exogenesis." Which is really only arguable on the basis that it's not really the first. I think you're reading "direct evidence in favor" as "proof". Those are very, very different things. For example, human body hair is direct evidence in favor of common descent, but it's hardly "proof" of common descent. -Harmil 01:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks. 129.44.216.105 02:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen

Can someone who understands the science involved please either make a notation as to why hydrogen isn't included in the composition breakdown or make a note here to the effect that we're really saying that this thing wasn't composed of hydrocarbons? It's kind of wigging me out that a) people are suggesting that this is a life form b) there is no hydrogen in it and c) there hasn't been a huge uproar over a) and b)

Thanks. -Harmil 01:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine the machine doesn't test for it. They did find it with another machine, as it says in the paper:

The elemental composition of the red cells was further checked using a CHN analyzer

(Model Elementar Vario EL III). The presence of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen can be analyzed using this analyzer. About 30 ml of red rainwater when dried gave a solid residue of about 3mg. This under CHN analysis showed 43.03% carbon, 4.43%

hydrogen and 1.84% nitrogen.

— Omegatron 01:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you -Harmil 02:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

'Outlandish'

In the articles intro there is the following sentence: "The event became much more notable when scientists at the Mahatma Gandhi University in Kottayam proposed a far more outlandish theory". How is using the word 'outlandish' NPOV? That word comes across as negative or pejorative. Something more neutral should be used, like 'non-conventional' or something. FistOfFury 06:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Official Findings

I've added links to the official findings about Kerala's red rains. They're defined as "official" due to being commissioned and reported by the Government of India. The oversight of these findings in public discourse on the Keralan red rains is in need of the remedy of such inclusion. I have also uploaded the abstract page of the official study itself, Sampath et al. I will seek permission to post the full study, but believe quoting the abstract to be fair use. I have been given permission from one of its authors to use the photos from the full study, which I have posted here. Ian Goddard 09:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ian, thanks very much for adding these references. They caused me to do a little poking around, and I'd like to call into question this assertions in the article:

Another possibility was that the rain contained pollen, fungal spores or algae, which can be carried high into the atmosphere; but the appearance of the red particles did not correspond to any known microbe. Microbes would be degraded with long storage periods in non-sterile conditions, but this did not occur with the red particles.

I searched on "fungal spores" in Google images and I found a lot of images like this [1] and this [2] that look like the Kerala images. I also see that there is a wide variation in the size, shape, and color of fungal spores.

While the above assertion mentions fungal spores, it discounts only microbes, which are not the same thing. Therefore dismissing fungal spores and moving on to less conventional explanations is a non sequitur.

Apparently the reason DNA was not found in the sample is that it was heated to 370C before it was tested for DNA. DNA begins to degrade at 100C, so this explains why no DNA was found. This test needs to be run again on a fresh sample. It should have been replicated by another lab anyway. Canon 13:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Right Canon, the statement you point to, "the red particles did not correspond to any known microbe," misses the game altogether since the red particles did correspond to known spores, which are not microbes. I corrected the passage that statement was in (see) to accurately reflect the official findings.

Hay, I just got permission from V. Sasi Kumar of the Center for Earth Science Studies to post the full official report on the Keralan red rains. This is the first time the official report commissioned by the Government of India has been available to the public! It took me an enormous amount of research to track it down. The fact that the only clue to its existence is in this (see pages 31-2) Government of India document is apparently why it's been overlooked by media sources. Ian Goddard 02:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that - it's definitely a huge asset to the article. The fungal spore theory definitely seems to explain it well, and perhaps better. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that.) But there's still one major problem with the "official" findings - DNA. What possible reason would lead Louis and Kumar to heating to 370C the sample that they were going to test for DNA? Obviously they know that such high temperatures denature and degrade DNA. But even if the sample was heated to 370C before testing - DNA contains large amounts of phosphorus, and no matter how high the temperature is, I don't think you're going to destroy phosphorus atoms, no matter how degraded the DNA is. But the Louis and Kumar peer-reviewed report analyzed the elemental composition, and didn't report any phosphorus. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Zafiroblue05, I sent an inquiry to Milton Wainwright mentioned in The Observer as having received a sample of the red rain for DNA testing. He replied saying his team is finding DNA using fluorescent probes, but another team at Cardiff cannot find DNA using PCR. In light of Sampath et al who actually grew the spore-like "particles" into Trentepohlia algae, that any tests find DNA satisfies me. I see no reason to doubt the competence of the scientists at the Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute who grew the spores right after the colored rains and who are experts in the identification, growth, and preservation of botanical species of Kerala. Ian Goddard 02:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but at the same time, I don't see reason to doubt the competence of Louis, either. Particularly when the spores growing into algae could be conceivably explained by outside contamination, but the lack of phosphorus cannot. The Sampeth paper (or at least the abstract) seems to be making a key mistake: the fact that local lichen grew into algae similar to that of the red rain sample does not reinforce the idea that that the red spores are of local origin - it throws it deeper in doubt. Lots of stuff floats around in water, and Trentepohlia may very well be included along with the spores. Just because the red rain sample grew into a type of algae doesn't mean the red rain cells are of that type of algae - it just means that something in the sample, which includes everything in water, grew into the algae.

I'm not an expert on this, so I don't see how you can find DNA with "fluorescent probes" (what does that mean, exactly - what's a fluorescent probe, and how does it illuminate just DNA?). PCR should work - but still, keep it simple! If there's no phosphorus (which is what the Louis paper claims), then there's no DNA, period, the end. Right?

As it happens, I think it's more likely than not the the ultimate explanation for the red rain will be terrestrial. But I do think it's up in the air still - and very mysterious altogether. :) zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Zafiroblue05, your argument in essence is that Sampath et al is not trustworthy because, while some rainwater particles may have been algae spores, others may be extraterrestrials (ETs). Sampath et al even report that only "90% of the spores were of algal origin." So, indeed, there might be ETs lurking in the other 10%. To falsify that hypothesis we'd have to prove that each and every of billions of particles is not an ET. Note that we should then also have to falsify the hypothesis, "Some apparent humans may be ETs" by a careful examination of billions of people before we can trust the conclusion that "All apparent humans are humans." However, the burden of proof is not for Sampath et al to prove that no ETs exist in the rain. The burden of proof is on Louis & Kumar to prove that even one ET exists.

Moreover, note too that even if any "cells" lack DNA, one must still prove that having no DNA is a property of ET cells. The inference from unique cells to ETs is unfounded since there are no known ET-cell properties. Suppose we just discovered the first anaerobic organism on Earth, we would not reasonably infer that because all previously known terrestrial organisms are aerobic, this one is therefore an invasive ET. So too, a finding of cells without DNA on Earth does not by any reason entail a discovery of ETs. Thus the purported "ET evidence" is an empty mental projection onto physical objects that presents no reason to doubt Sampath et al. Ian Goddard 07:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Official report" is not a paper which appeared in any scientific journal. Which means it was not peer reviwed by any experts in the area. Zafiroblue05 has a valid point.(unsigned comment by 202.88.224.52)

Incorrect. The findings of Sampath et al appear in Kumar et al:

• Kumar, V.S., Sampath, S., Mohanan, C.N., & Abraham, T. K. (2002). Colored rain falls in Kerala, India. Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 83(31), 335.

But official government-commissioned studies rarely appear in peer-reviewed journals. And I've never seen such stipulated as a criterion for acceptance of an official study. For example, I've never even seen its critics argue that the official findings on the Kennedy assassination are suspect because the report of the Garrison Commission was not published in a peer-review journal. Ian Goddard 01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy the articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about scientific experiments, including medical studies. The best scientific journals are peer-reviewed, which means that independent experts in the field are asked to (usually anonymously) review articles before they are published. This usually results in corrections and improvement, sometimes substantial. Many articles are excluded from peer-reviewed journals because they report questionable (or perhaps merely unimportant, in the opinion of the editors) results. There is sometimes no one prevailing view because the available evidence does not yet point to a single answer. Because Wikipedia not only aims to be accurate, but also useful, it generally tries to explain the theories and empirical justification for each school of thought, with reference to published sources. Editors should not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position.

The private researchers theory based on official findings is not from a reputable source and hence removed. --Rainsman 18:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Rainsman raises some generally fair points. However, this is a unique case given that as a matter of fact the media had overlooked the official study, which was not available online until I tracked it down and posted it, with permission. I also sent it to scientists being quoted in the media to ensure that they were properly informed. The responses I received confirmed the appearance that they'd not known about it. I also posted the official findings to wikipedia. So the editing here seems excessive.

It should also be noted that the Storm Circulation and Cyclonic theories I included here suggesting how so many spores may have been drawn into the clouds are published in the journal of the Mega Society Noesis: Goddard, I.W. (2006). The Colored Rains of Kerala: An Exploration of Possible Causal Mechanisms. Noesis, 180, March, 10-18. Ian Goddard 22:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Gamahucheur's Edits

I took the liberty of reverting most of his/her/its edits, since most of them make no sense ("these" refer to the theories below, not above; random hyperlinking of years seems...pointless). However, I'll shortly fix a few linguistic mistakes that the revert reintroduced.

What you primarily did was vandalize, by restoring a dating format that isn't the Wikipedia standard (and in at least one case was improperly done anyway, as an additional comma would be required after the year). You might find the hyperlinking of dates pointless, but it is how they are handled on Wikipedia. Your point about that to which “these” referred simply highlights the problem with using a bald “these” (especially with a period rather than an colon comming after the apparent sentence). Also, you need to beginning signing and timestamping your remarks in discussion. Gamahucheur 18:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links; see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Years.2C_decades.2C_and_centuries" Face it; you're wrong about dates. And, while the use of the word "these" might be misleading, it's not blatantly wrong, as the term "the above" is (the term should refer to the paragraph BELOW, not above). I will revert back to my edit, using 2/3 of my 3 reverts. I intend to respect the rule. Do you? (Oh, and since you asked so nicely, I'll sign and date myself) 72.140.137.189, 03 Apr 2006

First, you've only attempted to address trhe issue of linking dates, and not of your imposition of the wrong format. Second, because dates are being tied together in chronological tables, there is strong reason for linkifying them; people are seeking context and correlation. Third, had the sentence with the bare “these” been grammatic, then the demonstrative prnoun would refer to antecedents; the point that I was making in my comment above, then, was that a bald “these” was unacceptable; once it was made clear that the sentence was ungrammatic (nad not merely hard to read), I replaced the “these” with “the following”, as you might have noticed before blatting. Fourth, learn the four-tilde trick. Gamahucheur 05:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I realize now that you've presumed an unstated “in that order” (not in fact there) in the statement that you quote! Gamahucheur 05:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

First, it's not my format, but I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't care either way; I'm leaving it as is until the linking is sorted out. Second, that's your opinion only; I'd rather follow the guideline, unless you can properly explain what the hell your second statement means (I'm assuming it's relevant). I can respect the third change. And fourth, thank you for your most sincere advice, which was obviously meant to help me save time. Oh, and your bald changing of the title was a big disappointment to me. Please, stop with the juvenile tricks. 72.140.137.189 19:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at how the Wikipedia software itself timestamps things. See the format? I really don't give much of a rat's ass about the Wikification of dates (though it's easier, however, for me to revert in a way that rewikifies), but your insistence on trashing-out the format is what's truly juvenile here. You've made the other format yours. If you'd paid attention (insteead of butt-wiggling) in response to my original comment to you, you'd have seen that I explained the essence of the “third” change;p I just didn't spoon-feed you. I'm not going to bother with much further spoon-feeding; it's nto worth my time. My bald changing of the title was to have it accurately reflect what you'd done. Rather than just unwikifyinbg the dates and launching a civil discussion, you trashed-out everything and then “justified” it with an insult. This discourse is not going to get nice until-and-unless you back-pedal hard-and-fast, and I'm not holding my breath on that one. Gamahucheur 01:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop changing my title. Now. I won't warn you again; it's simply not worth my time. You do raise a good point on how the wikipedia software treats dates in the talk page, but that's not a guideline on how dates in an article should appear. Since you've graciously admitted to being wrong about hyperlinking, your revision has nothing going for it. The original version didn't have hyperlinks, which is the correct procedure, and thus it is superior to your version. Therefore it should be the version that visitors to wikipedia should see. Note that in my argument I assume that "alii" and "al." are equally correct; if you have an opinion as to why I'm wrong, please say so. Oh, and I also assume we both agree that the new edits by neither of us are acceptable, having a place in both of our versions.

Your Version

Hyperlinking:Wrong

Dates:Correct

Citing Sources:Correct

Original Version

Hyperlinking:Correct

Dates:Correct

Citing Sources:Correct

72.140.137.189 19:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

One: Warn me? Yeah yeah, I expect you to stop by my place with your posse any day. Two: The Manual of Style clearly gives clear preference to formatting dates as I have. Three: You are simply trolling in claiming that I admitted (graciously or otherwise) to being wrong about the Wikification of dates; I admitted to being relatively uninterested. In any event, the Manual of Style also notes that Wikification of dates serves multiple purposes (with at least one being unrelated to hyperlinking), and that the issue of alleged overlinking is under discussion. Four: “et al.” is no more than an abbreviation of “et alii”; either is correct, though the former is a bit like writing “Apr.” for “April”. Without a period, “et al” is wrong.

My Version:

Hyperlinking of Years: More controversial.

Wikifying of month-day combinations: Best practice, for reason unrelated to hyperlinking.

Default format of dates: Standard.

Citations: Correct.

Your Version:

Non-hyperlinking of Years: Less controversial.

Nonwikifying of month-day combinations: Poor practice, for reason unrelated to hyperlinking.

Default format of dates: Non-standard but no longer incorrectly lacking some commas peculiarly needed by that format.

Citations: Now correct, with the addition of previously absent periods.

Gamahucheur 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

One thing that has become evident is that you presume that Wikipedia mark-up more closely approximates a a tag-by-tag translation of HTML than it does. Gamahucheur 22:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: From here on, I'm not even going to bother changing the main article until this is resolved. After all, all I have to do is change some dates and links, and I'd rather do it one final time at the very end. Anyway, to the matter at hand: One, you'll notice that I neither uttered nor implied the threat of violence. That would be most uncharacteristic of me. Two, you're wrong about hyperlinking whether you admit it or not (and you've provided no defense); but to save time, your gracious admittance of "less controversial" is all that I need to show that non-hyperlinking is superior, provided you cannot justify why hyperlinking is otherwise better (see the last point). Three, the manual of style clearly states that your format is the only accepted one "For topics concerning the UK, Australia, and New Zealand." Need I remind you that Kerala is in India? For those countries, "either format is acceptable." This directly contrasts with your words "The Manual of Style clearly gives clear preference to formatting dates as I have." I kindly suggest that you read the manual of style more carefully next time. Four, you'll notice that I have inserted periods behind every "et al." quite a while ago. Therefore, both forms are equally correct. Lastly, I would greatly appreciate some mention of exactly why adding hyperlinks to dates is useful, beyond "for reason unrelated to hyperlinking.". Oh, and again I have no idea what your last statement is supposed to mean. Interpret that as you wish.

Your Version:

Hyperlinking of Years: More controversial.

Wikifying of month-day combinations: Unsubstantiated so far.

Default format of dates: Correct

Citations: Correct

My Version:

Non-hyperlinking of Years: Less controversial.

Default format of dates: Fully acceptable

Citations: Fully acceptable

Since you insist on calling this "my version," I'll be happy to oblige. You'll notice that "my version" has never lacked commas or periods, as far as I can tell. In fact, it might not have lacked periods and commas even before I took the version under my wing, but I haven't checked. 72.140.134.165 03:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I see you've wisely chosen the less loaded word "presumptiously" over "vandalistically." Bravo! However, changing someone else's text on the talk page is still incredibly rude. I can quote a WP guideline for this, but I think we both know this already. 72.140.134.165 03:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

One: Of course you weren't threatening violence. In fact, your warning was utterly lacking in efficacy. Two: You still haven't got it that Wikipedia mark-up isn't just weird HTML. That's why you're using HTML in discussion here, and that's why you don't know why Wikifying dates is best practice regardless of hyperlinking. So long as you assume that Wikipedia mark-up is simply disguised HTML and that Wikification is just hyperlinking, you'll make laughable demands to know how hyperlinking serves more of a purpose than hyperlinking (when I am instead saying that Wikifying serves more of a purpose than hyperlinking). Three: The Manual of Style also links to the controversy on actual hyperlinking per se. (You want to claim that I'm wrong without substantiation, yet you hypocritically complain about my not allegedly not substantiating things.) Four: I never denied that the other form was acceptable (if done correctly); showing that the form that is standard is the only acceptable form in some cases doesn't mysteriously not make it standard in others. Fifth: Your version once lacked at least one grammatically necessary comma after a year.; but I'll accept that you indeed couldn't tell as much. (It also lacked a period for “et al.”) Sixth: Oh, yes, I was so terribly, terribly rude in response to your most amusing insults, wasn't I? You poor, poor thing. I weep to think of it! I am consumed with such guilt! (Let me guess: Canadian, right?) Gamahucheur 04:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't got it that Wikipedia mark-up isn't just weird HTML. That's why you're using HTML in discussion here, and that's why you don't know why Wikifying dates is best practice regardless of hyperlinking. So long as you assume that Wikipedia mark-up is simply disguised HTML and that Wikification is just hyperlinking, you'll make laughable demands to know how hyperlinking serves more of a purpose than hyperlinking (when I am instead saying that Wikifying serves more of a purpose than hyperlinking).

---Excessive Hyperlinking = Bad. Excessive Hyperlinking =/= Wikifying. Changing Date Format MIGHT = Wikifying. Sorry, you're completely wrong about hyperlinking and I doubt you can somehow change that fact. My use of HTML has nothing to do with this discussion.

"You want to claim that I'm wrong without substantiation, yet you hypocritically complain about my not allegedly not substantiating things.

---That sentence makes no sense. Sorry.

The Manual of Style clearly gives clear preference to formatting dates as I have.

---No such preference was found. You were lying. Simple, no?

Your version once lacked at least one grammatically necessary comma after a year.; but I'll accept that you indeed couldn't tell as much. (It also lacked a period for “et al.”)

---Link to the version, please.

yes, I was so terribly, terribly rude in response to your most amusing insults, wasn't I? You poor, poor thing. I weep to think of it! I am consumed with such guilt! (Let me guess: Canadian, right?)

I am so amazed by your ability to look at my IP address and guess my country. I also never made a single insult. Unlike some, I keep things civil. I never called anyone a "dork," I never said anyone was "trolling," I never called someone a "vandal," and I've never edited someone else's discussion page text. 72.140.134.165 04:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

1. You are still proceeding as if Wikipedia mark-up is simply synonomous with HTML. (Your use of HTML is in fact a reflection of your presumption of simple equivalence, albeit that it has no more to do with this discussion than serving as such a reflection.) One of four things will happen: You will test your presumption by looking into what happens when dates are Wikified; or someone will take pity upon you and explain how it's not simply hyperlinking; or you will weary and depart; or this will go on indefinitely.

Hey, good job making a point that says absolutely nothing. I applaud you. Your "I'm right and I won't bother explaining why" attitude is a real winner, here. Keep making excuses so that you don't have to justify yourself.

It's not “I'm right and I won't bother to explain why.” It's I'm right, I've explained why, but I'm not going to further explain the explanation just because you're too sloppy-lazy a thinker to get it. However, someone spoon-fed you below, which is perhaps why you've gone from writing as if you're right to whining about my unwillingness to help you. —Gamahucheur 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Your inability to see sense (in multiple places) is a very different matter from an objective lack of sense in what you view. As I've stated before, I'm not much inclined to spoon-feed you.

Hey, good job making yet another point that says absolutely nothing. I applaud you.

The point it makes is that you confuse your failure to see something with its absence. —Gamahucheur 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Pore over the versions and find the missing punctuation, or don't. I don't respect you enough to care.

Ditto. So I guess this matter is dropped since neither of us can bother.

Presumably. —Gamahucheur 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

4. So my gender might plausibly be neuter, and you're unable to recognize French masculine nouns, eh? Your mother should have taught you better, but I guess that he/she/it failed you. (I'd guessed your nationality well before running an nslookup; Canadians so often insist that they've not been insulting when they have that I infer this to be a national trait.)

Well, I'm sorry if my politeness offended you. There are hermaphrodites out there, and if I had wanted to insult, I have much better insults than calling others "it." Take it the way you want, though.

That's pretty much the passive-aggressive dodge that one expects from your part of the world. Hermaphrodites, of course, don't usually like being called “it”, and one who did wouldn't use a masculine French alias (“-eur”). I'm sure that indeed you could produce better insults, but this was just a throw-away act of passive-aggression. —Gamahucheur 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Gamahucheur 05:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Afterthought: My presumption has been that spoon-feeding you about the relevant issue of Wikification here would do no more than (1) enlighten you and (2) silence you. But were I offered some greater reward, I might actually get out the spoon. —Gamahucheur 06:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

All in all, your recent posts have said absolutely nothing. Don't stop now, though; this has become a rather fun diversion. I'll visit this talk page again when I have time, at which point we can resume our enlightened discussion.

All-in-all, you've gone from certitude that your changes were correct to whining that I wasn't kind enough to gently and patiently explain them to you after you'd undone them and then underlined your act with insults. —Gamahucheur 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd welcome the judgement of others on this issue. We're getting nowhere with each other; perhaps it's time for someone else to judge this. I give my word that if the majority side with you, I will stop this argument. If you're as confident as you say you are, you would do the same. No pressure, though. 72.140.134.165 04:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If I were confident in the judgment of democracies, then I'd endorse the decisions of every one of the world's democratically elected leaders. Do you, or are we witnessing more of your hypocrisy? In case you hadn't noticed it, Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and I'm not going ot bother with a Get Out the Vote drive. (But show me that you've assembled some people who know the differences in effect between Wikipedia mark-up and HTML, and then you'll have my attention.) Gamahucheur 05:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the policy. Last time I checked, I didn't force you into anything. Straw polls are perfectly acceptable, and used in many discussions. You don't need to make excuses. Too bad; we could have had a resolution to this issue. 72.140.134.165 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Last time that I checked, I didn't claim that you'd forced me into anything; indeed, I would have chuckled at the thought that you could force me into anything. The issue isn't whether straw polls are acceptable; it's whether your argument for using one here was reasonable or hypocritical. Your spoon-feeding below should tell you what the out-come of a poll would have been. —Gamahucheur 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's End this Flame War

• Challenging someone's sexuality is an insult.
• Saying that what someone has done is completely without sense is an insult when it's true and it's an insult when it's false.
• Wikifying dates not only creates a hyperlink, it also affects how dates are rendered for users who set date preferences.

12.72.69.52 08:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Does wikipedia have a policy on this issue? I mean, if the dates are changed for everyone then I'd heartily agree for hyperlinking, but the majority of people probably don't have a wikipedia account. 72.140.134.165 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I told you that there was a policy and how to find it. But, since you were reading my “wikifying isn't just hyperlinking” as “hyperlinking isn't just hyperlinking” (even when explicitly told that this was a misreading), you just butt-wiggled instead. —Gamahucheur 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"Louis and Kumar" v. "Louis & Kumar"

References to the paper as "Louis & Kumar" are fine, but a paper is a singular noun and takes a singular verb. The team should be called "Louis and Kumar" and take a plural verb. 12.72.69.203 05:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Orthography

Both American and British spellings have been used in this article. The word "color" has been spelled with and without a "u". I've tried to make things more consistent. I've used mostly American spellings, simpl because I'm American. If someone made the spellings consistently British that would be fine with me. 71.154.215.168 00:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer American spellings, but in India they use British spellings, so so I standardized them to be British.Cameron Nedland 17:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In India, they also use a slightly different grammar. Unless you are going to use that as well, rendering everything with different orthography is inappropriate. —12.72.68.76 11:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting to your preferred spellings, anonymous user. The earliest version of this article used British spelling, so that's what it will remain as. There is no good reason to change it to US spelling. Worldtraveller 11:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not just one person doing the reversion, so you need to refer to “users”. The fact that you originally wrote it in British English gives you no ownership. As I noted, this article was a mix or British and American when 71.154.215.168 made it consistent, and he made it consistently American. Changing just orthography just to impose your prejudices — and especially just to impose your ethnic prejudices — is quite inappropriate, and will be resisted. —12.72.71.49 12:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Users? Curious that two IPs (12.72.... and 71.154...) apparently used by entirely independent people would choose to use exactly the same comment when butting in and imposing their preferences, don't you think? [3], [4] Worldtraveller 01:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop imposing US spelling inappropriately. There is no reason that this article should use US spelling. If you continue to revert to your preferred version you're likely to be blocked. Don't take everyone for fools by reverting from two different IP addresses. Worldtraveller 13:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The only violator of the 3RR here is you. Don't insist that your opponents must be one devil with sock-puppets. —12.72.71.161 13:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing inappropriate about US spelling, and there would be nothing inappropriate with British spelling either, except that the article was already fine with American spelling. Again, spelling had become very inconsistent until 71.154.215.168 made it consistent. American spelling was then established simply in the act of making it consistent. Now you are trying to make the spelling British out of pure prejudice and spite. Each is inappropriate. —12.72.71.161 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the conventions followed throughout wikipedia, all India-related articles are to use Indian English. Please see Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics#Conventions. Also, I would like to point you to this policy -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}14:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have more than once earlier noted that Indian English is not being used by anyone here; if it were, then I would be fine with it exactly because of policy. Instead, there is a struggle between British English and American English. —12.72.71.1 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The rules are pretty clear - anything with a clear reason for US/UK spelling should use that. In the absence of a good reason, go with the original. In this case, the original is UK, as WT wrote it. As for reasons, India is more UK spelling than US. So it should be coloured. William M. Connolley 20:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

“In the absence of a good reason, go with the original.” Prior to clean-up in early April, it was a mish-mash; at clean-up, it was American. In the absence of a good reason, stick with the last convention consistently used. “India is more UK spelling than US.” The rule favoring Indian English does not order other dialects based on approximations. —12.72.71.1 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The article's spelling was perfectly consistent right at the very beginning, anonymous editor. Why would you think you need to revert to enforce someone else's subsequent conversion to US spellings? You might note that that editor said if British was preferred he had no problem with that. It's very strange to me to suddenly see lots of IPs with no other contributions than changing spellings to this article. What is your motivation? What has made you pick out this one article in particular as worth attacking to impose US spellings? Worldtraveller 22:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be rather unlikley for the spelling of an article not to be consistent at its very beginning. The spelling of this article, however, was allowed to become a mish-mash. 71.154.215.168 cleaned it up in early April, at which point it was not a mish-mash; it was also not British. The point here is not that 71.154.215.168 somehow came to own the article with that cleaning any more than that you came to own the article by beginning it. I am not imposing American spelligns per se; I am unimposing British spellings. I would have had exactly the complementary reaction had 71.154.215.168 made the spellings all British and someone made no changes other than to Americanize them all. I don't bother to sign in to Wikipedia unless I have good reason (and providing a target is not what I regard as a good reason), so I just take the IP that AT&T assigns to me at dial-up. —12.72.71.1 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's incredibly annoying to see someone who's made no substantive contributions to the article at all blathering on about rules they obviously don't understand and imposing their preferred spelling against all good sense. I don't really give a toss if people introduced US spellings into an article which I originally wrote using UK spellings. I don't mind the anonymous editor making it all US, although according to the conventions he should have made it all UK. What I do mind is someone suddenly deciding to take it upon themselves to determine what spellings should be used. Who do you think you are, really, to emerge from nowhere and act in this way? I can't think of any good reason at all why someone would choose not to log in but to make disruptive and unhelpful changes anonymously. I do not think you're acting in good faith. Worldtraveller 01:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally endorse Worldtraveller. In India, we use British spellings, and as such it should be left as colour and not color. And like I said before, please do not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. We are not interested in feeding trolls. Regards, thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}10:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

“Extraterrestrial explanation”

“Unconventional” wasn't less accurate, but it was less precise. The article is definitely easier to process with “Extraterrestrial explanation” for the heading. Gamahucheur 23:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Critique of official study

Rainsman, your interpretation of the elemental analysis of Sampath et alii ought not be included in the Official Findings section. So I opened a whole section (stub) for it. I also pulled the elemental table since its inclusion in the Official Findings section was for the purpose of critique. Also consider...

There are two problems with what you posted. (1) The elemental analysis of Sampath et alii was on the whole residue, not only on the primary colorant -- Trentepohlia spores. The whole residue includes not only fungal and algal spores, but protozoans, and other debris. So you can't attribute all the elements to said spores. (2) You posted that, "Sampath et alii also lists some 57 cases of colored rain." However, at first I assumed as you did, but in communication with one of the authors I was informed that many of the places are contiguous (ie, they share a border) and so multiple entries may represent a single instance of colored rain. Also, entries represent reports from residents; so suppose there's a blackout in your neighborhood and five residents report it, that would not mean there are five blackouts. Of course there may have been more than 57 separate colored rains, but we can't infer that or 57 separate rains from the listing.

Also, in your argument that enough spores could not be produced and in your selection of sections from Sampath et aii to support that argument, consider that they also said: "The extent of lichen in the region is sufficient to generate the quantity of spores seen in the rainwater." Ian Goddard 02:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian, thanks for you suggetion we can have a seperate section on the problems of Sampath et al. study. Readers may get a more balanced view. This will also hilight the need for further research. No theory presented here is complete. Personally you may believe in one theory but you should not impose that on the readers by projecting only positive arguments and hiding critical points. Scientific progress takes place by critical examination. This is an encyclopedia article and we should limit our discussion based on available reports and published papers. It is not correct to argue on the basis of personal communications you had with the scientists.--Rainsman 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If regions share a border, then count has different meaning. While perhaps Mr Goddard could be said to “argue on the basis of personal communications” that some regions do share a border, even without that communication there would be the possibility that they did. And he's not presenting the personal communication in the article; he's just offering it here in discussion. Gamahucheur 05:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Rainsman, you say input should be "based on available reports and published papers," yet you entered a series of factual claims about elementals of living organism with zero supporting references. Your claims are not credible without references. And without a known elemental analysis of spores, you're just shooting in the dark. You also continue to make the erroneous attribution of all the elements to the spores when you say: "The presence of Aluminium and Silicon in these spores is very strange." Again, the study tested the whole residue. It's also odd that you suggest I attempt to silence other theories when in fact your first input was to entirely delete the storm-circulation theory, whereas my responce to you was to open a whole section for critique of the official study. Ian Goddard 01:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr Goddard— You are dragging into the article things that do not belong in it, albeit that they certainly belong in discussion. (Not only was your “According to wikipedia editor Rainsman,” inappropriate; it transforms your demand for a citation into an active absurdity.) —Gamahucheur 03:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does the source of an argument not belong in an article? There is no absurdity in my requirements since there are factual claims (that require citations) and there is an argument of which they are a part, for whom the arguer ought to be cited. So citing the source of the argument does not absolve the need for factual reference to support the argument. Ian Goddard 04:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to see your question as other than facetious; you asked for citations exactly because, by presumption, Rainsman has a source other than himself. And the reason that you made your demand for a citation actively absurd is because, as the sentence was then written, the citation would be to establish that Rainsman had made the claim, not that the claim that he'd made had a foundation in the literature. —Gamahucheur 04:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Geez! Ian, I am sympathetic to your desire for substantiation, but you are letting your irritation spill into the body of the article. —Gamahucheur 04:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Gamahucheur, my appropriate citation of the argument's source did not also call for a reference. I entered: "According to wikipedia editor Rainsman, the presence of Aluminium and Silicon in the sediment is very strange and the very low content of phosphorus is still more puzzling." With no "citation needed" added at the end of the sentence (see). But I'll add that now. Also, consider that there is a difference between (1) an argument and (2) facts used to support 1. It is appropriate to cite both the source of an argument and references for the facts in the argument. Ian Goddard 04:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr Goddard— I stand corrected on the point of the citation for that sentence. I apologize for that much, but the reference to Rainsman was still inappropriate. —Gamahucheur 06:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In other words, Rainsman's argument roughly takes the form:

Argument: (It's odd that y and z are in S. It's odd due to Fact 1, Fact 2, ... , Fact n.)

As my edit shows, I called for references to the supporting facts, not to the argument proper, which the cited facts ostensibly support. I factually attributed the argument to Rainsman and called for references to its supporting facts. That's not absurd. Ian Goddard 05:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As I say above, I conceed that I was in error in claiming active absurdity. —Gamahucheur 06:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the need for most or all of the citations that you've demanded. —Gamahucheur 06:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The concept of accurate source referencing being inappropriate strikes me as ethically untenable. But I also know where you're coming from -- an encyclopedia ought not contain claims with anonymous sources. But therein lies an anomaly: claims may be entered into wiki by anonymous sources, but anonymous sources should not be cited in wiki. The only resolution I see is that claims should be either referenced or not entered.

Yet as it stands, we have a series of claims with "citation needed" appended to them. I find only this to be inappropriate. I frankly don't mind Rainsman being referenced, it's truthful and thus ethically appropriate and it allows readers to judge for themselves. But appending "citation needed" implies that a reference to some fact-anchored source may exist, but anyone who's been following this topic should know that no critique of Sampath et alii has been published (in fact, it was virtually unknown to the world and mass media till I tracked it down and posted it). So allowing the claims to stand with "citation needed" appended and reference to the known source omitted is a disservice to readers. Ian Goddard 01:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Citing Rainsman is inappropriate for a variety of reasons. First, his alias isn't an acceptable terminus of citation by anyone; your citing “Rainsman” provides no more effective substantiation than what is provided by the history and discussion tabs. What citing Rainsman really does is just call him out in the article by name to defend his claims; the article is not the place for that; “discussion” is the place for that.

Leaving "" in these various places is quite appropriate as a temporary measure. It warns readers, and it puts anyone (Rainsman or other) who wants those claims to stand on notice that citations should be produced. If, after some reasonable interval, those citations are not produced, then the assertions should not again be attributed to Rainsman; they should just be deleted. (Again: “Rainsman” isn't an acceptable terminus of citation.) Rainsman can in-the-meantime save the raw source to his HD (or somesuch), to be restored if-and-when he has appropriate citations; or he can dig that source out of the article's history.

I understand your concern about how "" might be interpretted by the unwary; but the very existence of the fact tag shows that a decision was taken in the design of Wikipedia to allow assertions in need of citation to stand at least temporarily. Note that even the name of this tag reflects a notion that the citation is to address doubt, rather than merely to pad the end of a book report. ;-)

Rainsman has been silent on this matter for about half-a-week. My suggestion is that he be given the remainder of a week before the assertions are removed.

—Gamahucheur 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Silicon Rarity

There is, of course, a very great difference between

Diatoms use silicon.

and

Few microörganisms use silicon.

Rainsman had linked to an article that supports the former, as-if it supports the latter; it does not. I have removed the superfluous parenthetical citing of Diatom, and reïnserted a “”. I hope to see Rainsman provide an appropriate citation promptly. —Gamahucheur 14:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Rainsman— I don't see that the silicon claim necessarily needs a link. But it does need a citation. If you can direct readers to a credible source in print, then that should be fine. —Gamahucheur 04:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Gamahucheur - The 7.5% silicon presence in the sediment appears as an anomaly if it is from the spores, but it is difficult to argue that due to the lack of data on the elemental composition of algal spores. Further search for information on this shows that in addition to Diatoms some marine organisms, some large plants and grass leaves also contain silicon in small quantities. These are however connected with water or soil from which silicon can be easily obtained. Algal cells in the lichens growing in the tree bark has to get silicon from the rainwater or through the fungal partner, which may extract it from the tree bark. It is unlikely that they can obtain so much silicon from such sources. The case of silicon anomaly can be kept away from the article till more data is available. --Rainsman 06:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Subterranean bacteria?

High temperature resistibility and precense of metals...Possibly ejected to atmosphere by volcanic activity? - G3, 11:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Conventional theories

I question the factual accuracy of the conventional theories section based on the fact it does not address the known analysis report on the red matter inserted into the rain. No dust particles were found. No bat parts (big bloody flock of bats, HUGE, keep dreaming whoever put that one forward) nor animal cells were found. What was found were odd living cells that are still undergoing analysis. Perhaps someone would be willing to ammend the conventional theories to prevent them being outlandish suppositions and urban myth based on information that is contrary to the facts that have thusfar been proven? Jachin 20:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The primary case put forwards in the 'conventional theories' section really irritates me with it's lack of scientific reasoning. Red rain falls, they identify the cells as alleged 'spores' from an algal genus, then support this algal deduction based on the fact similar cells were found in algal cultures of local lichen. Anyone who has read the Sampath report has probably had the same thought I did when finishing it: of course you'll find the cells on local lichen, it rained the cells for 20 bloody days! :P Jachin 06:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice article and everything, but...

...we don't have any info on how this red things behave. Do they eat other particles? Do they reproduce? Apparently they still reproduce at high temperatures but it's not explained how they reproduce. So any info added would make me happy :D Vitriol 00:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think that's known yet. Louis and Santosh Kumar made claims that I think have not yet been verified. I'm sure that as soon as anything's known it will be added here! Worldtraveller 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

They're cells, so mitosis would be the presumption. Jachin 07:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's very speculative and quite astonishing, that's why there's caution in the wording and a "current event" tag. Procrastinating@^talk2me

From the literature it appears that only a minority claim to have seen them reproduce, so it may be an illusion. Since the tests required take a matter of days, I've taken out the current events tag as there has been no more news on this. If it can be verified as still being an a current event, then put the tag back. Jefffire 12:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Louis has a paper on extremophilic behavior and reproductive cycle here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0312/0312639.pdf

Go bloody rain, come fishy rain!

Perhaps the article should also mentioned that it rained fish in different parts of Kerala this year. Sadly this phenomenon can be explained by the scientific explanations, I guess. No extra-terrestrial theories till now. ;-) -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}10:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain

I don`t get it. Can someone please explain to me how hard it is to dry them and do an isotope analysis for let`s say two or three of the most significant elements, especially since i actually know that this process usually doesn`t take much longer than about a day. So what`s the hold up???Slicky 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh ho, very true. I made a similar point over on Panspermia about the red rain. Basically there are a few extremely unreliable sources being used to bouy up a lot of statements made during a fad a few months back in July when the subject was featured in a "pop science" magazine. The entire subject seems to have been dropped, and alas noone cares to write articles titled "We were completely wrong about the Red Rain". I think we should crack down on the reliability of the sources, and cut out some of the bogus claims. Jefffire 17:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind isotope analysis, no one seems to have used chromatography (GC-MS or other forms) to see what compounds are in the particles. Except for an assumption in Louis's first paper on arXiv of a value of 1.5, there doesn't even seem to be any attempt to measure the specific gravity of the particles or that of the shell/core. All that this would require at its simplest is a test-tube and some concentrated sugar or salt solution and a bit of patience.Davy p 20:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I have requested a peer review. This is a very good article for something that I know little about, and neither do very many people in the project. This is a step towards this becoming an FA. CrazyC83 19:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Critics

Sorry if this is not the proper way to add my comment, but this is my first time writing in Wikipedia. I am astonished how most of you accept this "research" without any critics. There is no evidence whatsoever that those particles are alive. I checked several papers of Godfrey Louis on Arxiv.org, and I think his whole theory is at least doubtful.

The elemental composition of the particles clearly indicates that it is of inorganic origins. On pics it looks like sand dust. There is no picture where we could actually see these things moving or dividing.

If this were really extraterrestial life thousands of scientist were already studying them. In contrast, Mr. Luis has published only on Arxiv.org, where anyone can publish his/her papers without control.

Best regards, B.Zoltan, Hungary.

I hear your concerns and agree with them. This is a topic where normal scientific methods tend to get overlooked, and as a result the article has a tendency to fill with pseudoscience. Keeping it in line with Wikipedia's policies is an ongoing challenge and one which does become quite tiring. Jefffire 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Glaring problems with the comet theory

Please correct me if I am wrong, as I understand it, it has been suggested that the red rain consisted of some sort of biological material from a comet. Mainly or wholely biological material, not a mix of inorganic comet fragments and biological material. However, the obvious problem with this theory would seem to be how exactly biological material, which one would expect to make up a small part of the mass of the comet if it existed, became seperated from the inorganic comet debris before falling in the rain. Surely this is as implausible as the theory that the red blood cells of bat blood were somehow seperated from all the other components of the bats. What happened to all the inorganic component of the comet debris? If there was an estimated 50 000 kg of biological material that fell there must surely have been a far larger mass of inorganic debris. Booshank 18:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is another critical problem with the idea that a comet comprised mainly of 'spores' could have broken up allowing them to arrive on earth without being toasted. Although, had there been such a thing, particles could have taken several weeks to fall to earth they simply would not have fallen over the same area. There are strong currents in the upper atmosphere. Godfrey Louis appears to have tried to counter this problem by suggesting that there were even more 'spores' in the comet which went undetected: they either fell where there wasn't much rain or fell out to sea. (This, of course, would imply that the comet was rather larger than the 50 tons worth that came down in Kerala, and thus even less likely to be un-noticed.) Davy p 21:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Other Possibilities

I am not a scientist, But I feel these points have not been considered as possibilities

1. An activity by some government or organisation? : Biliogical warfare? Secret experiment?

2. In the article it says "rust fungus" and somewehre else it says "aluminium content". Planes are made of Aluminium material. Can we connect the dots?

We're not here to speculate. There's enough misleading stuff in the article as it stands without adding conspiracy theories. Jefffire 12:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Found or not?

I'm slightly puzzled in terms of proofs here. In the paragraph below, the wiki article states that the red rain was 'found' (ie) proven to be algal in origin (and later this is restated in longer form under 'Initial Reports'). If it was thus proven, what then lead to the later speculation of other origins ? Either the initial report was incorrect, or there was some doubt in the diagnosis, or it was correct and the other speculations are non-scientific loony hypotheses. The article doesn't state why was the original report was questioned (if it was), but just launches into other speculations on origin. Why did people look further into this than the initial report's answers, which, the way the article reads, were very definite of a straight forward terrestial origin ? If the Gov of India's report had reservations in its summation, this should be stated (it would explain why people offered other theories). If the Gov of India report is so definite in its conclusion, then an explanation is needed as to why people doubted it (sorry I haven't read the report in question). That is, as the wiki artcle stands, it is unclear (at least to this poor user) as why 'found' ≠ proven here.

"...initially ... but the the Government of India commissioned a study which found the rains had been coloured by spores from a locally prolific aerial algae. Then in early 2006, the coloured rains of Kerala ... are extraterrestrial cells ..." PS the reference to the Gov of India study could do with a date added, to add context to initial and then in. When was this report published ?

The Yeti 02:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The CESS report, 'Coloured Rain: A report of the phenomenon', is dated November 2001. It has 'Distribution Statement: Limited Circulation' on its documentation page.

Some of the reasons why this doesn't appear to be the end of the matter include reservations by the authors about how an actual algal bloom onset could be so sudden and how large quantities of spores could become airborne during the night prior to the first red rainfall; each of which is substantial problem for the hypothesis. Equally the 1% aluminium that they found in the stuff isn't consistent with spores; neither is the 7.5% silica that they report, though this isn't directly addressed in the report. It's not impossible that there are pressures on (non-loony) academics in India just as there are elsewhere.

As I've mentioned elsewhere on Talk pages, the use of GC-MS could have been expected quite early on and could have been expected to nail the matter quite conclusively. Even now no chromatographic analysis has appeared, at least I haven't been able to find any trace.

The CESS report did conclude that trentepohlia was the cause, but didn't 'prove' it, so it's appropriate to use the word 'found'. The initial official explanation had been that the raindust came from a meteor travelling west to east. As the red rain continued, this obviously didn't wash (pardon the pun ;) Davy p 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. However, I have to disagree in saying it's appropriate to use the word 'found', as when I read the word 'found' I mentally read this as 'proven'. This part of the article (& initial reports) needs to be rewritten to make it clear that the conclusions were only a hypothesis & therefore open to interpretation/doubt, rather than implying a conclusive answer had been agreed on  ; and also stating the problems with their hypothesis (some of which you've stated above. I mean, one would've thought they would know with fair certainty whether the red rain was straight forward algae or not, but apparently is isn't so obvious after all). In other words, the wiki article doesn't make clear it why people went and looked futher into this.

Let me put it this way, if a reputable scientific body had said 'yep, this mysterious stuff, we've looked into it, and are pretty certain its nothing special', most other scientists would just nod their heads, and get on with soemthing else. Except in this case, they didn't. Why ? The Yeti 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)