Talk:C/2010 X1 (Elenin)

Conspiracy theory

Elenin has been linked to the (incorrect) Niburu/Planet X conspiracy theory. A quick search shows that half the sites about Elenin is about this. The only problem is that none of them are RSes. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not have the slightest idea that people where comparing Elenin to Niburu until Fjörgynn's edit on 10 March 2011 added an external link to Leonid's blog. I guess some people are afraid of things that are not known and others simply enjoy stirring the pot. -- Kheider (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that people are, albeit most likely mistakenly, linking it to a conspiracy theory and dominating the Yahoo! search engine, seems to imply that this is worth a mention in the article; as I said, the only problem is the lack of RSes. Unless someone can read this... Kayau Voting IS evil 03:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no reliable source that alignments of the comet are causing Earthquakes, and thus it may be simply fear mongering, it is probably best to leave it out of a scientific article about what we DO KNOW about the comet. -- Kheider (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, comets causing earthquakes is up there with pyramid power. Leave it out. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nibiru, yes not a fact... Planet x, yes thats a fact, pls do ur research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.31 (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Planet X is a placeholder term that astronomers use when they know that a body exists but they haven't found it. So yes, research is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.38.55 (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

While the comet is obviously not causing earthquakes, if you do feel like it's WP:DUE and want a reliable source that verifies that some conspiracy theorists believe it, then you can use this yahoo article. Alternatively, that could just stay on the hatnoted Nibiru page. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Internet rumors have no business in a scientific article. As an admin on the Comet Elenin - Official Facebook Page, I am very much aware of the unscientific fear mongering in regards to Elenin. -- Kheider (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but, since the fringe conspiracy theory itself has gotten mainstream coverage, how is it substantially different than Venus#In culture? Is there a significant difference between internet conspiracy theory rumor mills today, and astrological "analysis" or mythical storytelling of ancient times? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A big difference is that these claims are modern day fear mongering and as soon as the comet passes "our culture" will quickly forget all about "the wimpy" comet Elenin. I still believe "internet rumors have no business in a scientific article". The most significant claims are covered in the Nibiru collision article anyway. -- Kheider (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is unreadable and totally lacks what people come to it to find: References of it in popular culture. As of now the article is next to meaningless to 90% of the people who actively seek it out, and I for one rate it as lacking significant content. Tatlock29 (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's out of order to add a brief statement about the comet's connection to conspiracy theories. Obviously the Nibiru theory has no credibility in the scientific community, but it's a piece of popular culture connected to C/2010 X1 which is worth mentioning in the article. -- 174.109.99.78 on 01:09, 8 August 2011

The problem is that none of the conspiracy theories have any credibility in the scientific community. I do not want to risk pseudoscience being confused with or manipulated as scientific consensus. -- Kheider (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously. I like how we have it now; people wanting to read the woo-woo can click on the link in the hat note. However, since this page gets many more hits per day than most similar comet articles, it may be worthwhile to add a sentence to clarify the orbital information for someone who has not read an astronomical wiki article before. Something vaguely like "the comet is not on course to come within 15 million miles of earth in the next 10,000 years." VQuakr (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording some. -- Kheider (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that those (or any for that matter) pseudoscientific theories are nothing but a bunch of crap. However, I think that they are a cultural phenomenon related to this comet and notable enough to be included in this article. Ironically, this wacky mumbo jumbo is what is this comet mostly known for. :/ --78.0.245.13 (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Since it is garbage, why would we include it in a scientific article? There are zero reliable articles that any of that garbage is true. Youtube Fringe theories should not be promoted in a scientific article. Let Nibiru collision deal with the woo-woo ideas. -- Kheider (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I strongly agree. El Ingles (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Kheider, you seem to misunderstood. Of course it is not true but we would not promote it adding content about it (if it's done properly). We would only say about notable cultural phenomenon that many people believe this. This mumbo jumbo is certainly not true, but it is true that there is some craze for it, and additional section in this article would talk about the later and in the way so that no one reasonable would mistake it for scientific consensus.

And why would this article talk only about the scientific aspect of this comet and not about the cultural (which is also notable)? --93.136.95.254 (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the cultural has its own page. Serendi^podous 05:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but why is that not the case with other such astronomical objects, such as comet Hale–Bopp? --93.136.95.254 (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the idea of an imminent collision with a large object is a meme that began years before Comet Elenin was discovered. It was started by a paranoid schizophrenic in 1995, and has been randomly associated with nearly every astronomical object, real, hypothesised or fictional, that has come up since. Elenin is just the latest one. Serendi^podous 08:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I must agree with the contention that the conspiracy theory angle should be covered in the article. This is Wikipedia, where people come for instant information and authoritative links. The article should not narrow down its scope without first considering the social significance of the conspiracy theories. Thousands of sites have sprung up over the past year with this cuckoo theory, and yet, apart from a few little known site, no one has actively discussed, what more addressed, this misguided assertions. Is Wikipedia merely a scientific journal, or a compendium of information, a chronicler of events? Even after Elenin has come and gone, there will still be residual effect of this conspiracy theory for years to come. And people will continue to ask about it, if only to debunk another new comet in two year time. Please reconsider. If you need further proof, do a search for Elenin on every major search engine. All the search results are led by one conspiracy website, and at times, Wikipedia is not even on the first page. Surely that alone is reason enough? Thanks mate. MishaKeats (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO the offer of a redirect on the very top line is an adequate service to readers who would prefer to read poppycock rather than facts. El Ingles (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

El Ingles, I was aiming for a header hyperlink, but I guess very top line works as well. That said, consider this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing#Hoax_accusations Once again, the conspiracy theory has no basis, and yet, its presence in the article did not detract from the quality of the Moon Landing article as a whole. One could even say, the article exhibits integrity by opening itself up in such a manner. Thoughts? MishaKeats (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Awfully quiet here. Should I just go ahead and include a new section? Thanks MishaKeats (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No. The consensus from established members (such as myself, VQuakr on 03:57, 8 August 2011, El Ingles on 23:42, 16 August 2011, Serendipodous on 08:04, 17 August 2011) has been to keep all the woo-woo garbage in the Nibiru collision article. -- Kheider (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Kheider, but I have yet to see you actually address the merits, or the lack, of placing the conspiracy section here, apart from saying it has no place in a scientific article (paraphrase). But this is not a scientific article. Can you please explain your position on the matter instead of just the woo-woo argument. Reading the above exchange, one may get the impression that you're just dismissing the idea out of hand without due consideration and are just steamrolling past those who disagree. Surely this has not become a matter of pride? MishaKeats (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This article's 2k daily hits is almost certainly due in a large part to the conspiracy theory meme. However, whether material is selected for inclusion in an article should be based on more than just assumptions about why people are typing "Elenin" into google. I would reconsider my position on including more than a hat note on the topic if multiple, reliable sources could be produced that directly discuss, in depth, conspiracy theories that specifically pertain to this comet (a similar bar for inclusion that justifies the moon landings article containing a paragraph on hoaxes). I glanced at the applicable section in the Nibiru article and none qualify thus far. VQuakr (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I could point you towards hundreds here: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/search.php?q=elenin , but some of them are just too outlandish. Alternatively, coherently presented theories could be found here:http://elenin.org/ , here:http://sites.google.com/site/omerbashich/, here: http://elenin.net/ (anti-conspiracy) and here: http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2011/04/nasa-elenin-2011-comet-planetary.html. There are thousands of people who buys into this theory, and just as many who challenges them on a daily basis. Some of the proponent themselves are professional astronomers and scientists, as can be observed from the depth of their writings on the subject. I strongly believe that a single paragraph addressing this angle is important.MishaKeats (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

those are all personal sites, blogs or forums, none of which could be considered reliable sources unless they are shown to be connected to individuals with credentials in a relevant field. Serendi^podous 08:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Dr Mensur Omerbashich is not a noteworthy scientist and can not be used on Wikipedia as a reliable source. You did not list one professional source, and yet you want to include these fear mongering links in the article? Let's keep the sources to reliable/scientfic links. -- Kheider (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not using him as a source. I am showing the prevalency of the conspiracy theory, as requested by VQuakr, and naming him as an example, as requested by Serendipodous .Misha Atreides (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Now you're making me confused. Are we trying to validate their claims now? Surely not right? We are talking about the huge amount of internet chatter on the subject of Elenin and the so-called conspiracy behind it. I don't understand why this resistance from you guys. Is there anyway I can escalate this to someone else, because things are moving so slowly, and when someone responds, no one actually addresses the points I raised. Oh, and btw, the second link was written by Dr Mensur Omerbashich, a member of the Bosnian Royal Family and an infamous conspiracy theorist.Misha Atreides (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, we're trying to demonstrate the cultural penetration of the Comet Elenin phenomenon. If it has yet to move beyond the cranks and conspiracy theorists, then it probably isn't worth including an in-article section. Serendi^podous 09:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite, even if this is the first mention of this requirement. First question is, by what metric are you going to rate the cultural penetration here? Is there a defined standard, or will it be arbitrary on your part? Second question: Why is a higher standard imposed on Elenin? The article I cited earlier, the Moon landing hoax, has only this for justification "Some people insist that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax. Their accusations flourish in part because enthusiast predictions that Moon landings would become commonplace have not yet come to pass. However, empirical evidence is readily available to show that manned moon landings did indeed occur." Now considering that the Elenin conspiracy theory is quite possibly the most pervasive in the last decade after 9/11, plus,it touches on so many different vectors, relationships, individuals and causal effects, it boggles the mind why it is being dismissed with so little explanation, so readily, despite the existence of hundreds of sites, Javascripts imagery, Youtube videos, forums- heck, even a NASA official saw a need to respond to it. Misha Atreides (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The moon landing hoax conspiracy has been covered widely in reputable sources. If the Comet Elenin conspiracy is indeed the most pervasive since 9/11, then it's up to you to prove it. If all you can offer is conspiracy or crank websites, then you haven't made your case. Serendi^podous 13:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me break it down. (i) Repeat: "by what metric are you going to rate the cultural penetration here?" (ii) No source is cited in the moon landing hoaxpage. (iii) David Morrison, NASA Scientist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwZb-ERpY-U (iv) A simple Google search: ResultMisha Atreides (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you feel this mention is necessary when the whole story already has an entire separate page dedicated to it. The reason I don't think a mention is warranted here is because Elenin is only a tiny fraction of the actual story, which goes back to 1995. Serendi^podous 14:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not propose a long story. I feel this page is bare and its lack of mention of the conspiracy angle as particularly surprising, considering the airplay it gets elsewhere online. Almost half a million Google searches are made on Elenin monthly, four times as many as Halley. And yet, this page does not address it at all. A two or three sentence paragraph, similar to that of the moon landing would be extremely useful and relevant. It has become an internet phenomenon, and unlike Schwassmann-Wachman or Hartley, it will continue to generate queries in years to come. I am amazed at the sheer amount of online literature on the subject, and the amount of people who pores over any data relating to it. It first came to my attention when it was blamed for the Nasa Buzzroom closure. Misha Atreides (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

MishaKeats, your comment about the NASA Buzzroom makes me sense a serious disturbance in the force given that the Buzzroom was closed back in March. Since the conspiracy theories are all tied to Nibiru collision ideas, it is more accurate to keep it all in an article that properly covers the conspiracy theory since 1995. -- Kheider (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's always something new. Kheider, first off, you owe me an apology for the inappropriate comment you left in my talk page. I am still waiting. Secondly, not all the conspiracy theories are tied to Nibiru. Even if it was true, it still does not detract from the fact that it is Elenin that is crux of these conspiracy theories. Nibiru started of as a fringe story, and remained so until a new version of Elenin/Nibiru theory were cooked up. Now, I'm sorry, but it seems there is always some new reason that is being introduced to prevent the inclusion of the conspiracy angle from being mentioned here. I am new to Wiki, but this doesn't look right to me. Misha Atreides (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is why we keep the detailed story under the Nibiru collision article. The Nibiru story will not end with Elenin. -- Kheider (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

To echo Serendipodous, the list of sources provided do not include any that meet the criteria I mentioned. Please review WP:SECONDARY and WP:RS; an indication that this theory is significant enough to merit inclusion here would be discussion in mainstream reliable sources. Note that while Moon_landing#Hoax_accusations is not well sourced, the main article to which it was linked contains a number of independent sources that neutrally discuss the moon landing hoax theories. VQuakr (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the discussion above is the proof of why Wikipedia is the most unreliable source of all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.9.212.26 (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Wikipedia is unreliable because we debate whether or not to include insane material? Have you seen similar debates on Youtube? Serendi^podous 07:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few mainstream sources demonstrating that the comet's doomsday theories are being noticed in the real world: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. I think a proper treatment of the article will include a few sentences about the mass-delusion phenomenon associated with this comet. For example, sun discusses worship of the sun even though it is probably not a deity. Maghnus (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Comet NEAT 2003 and forward scattering

The Sun has been worshiped since the beginning of recorded history. Comet Elenin conspiracies started in January when the woo-woos realized that comet Elenin might become a naked eye object, and like C/2002 V1 (NEAT), comet Elenin would pass close to the Sun as viewed from Earth allowing the woo-woos to make weird claims based on the forward scattering of light. Comet NEAT was also claimed to be a "Jupiter-sized comet whose debris field, trailing after it, will smash into the earth and destroy all life" (01-March-2003). All the woo-woos needed to do was change the names and dates, same story different comet. -- Kheider (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Comet Elenin hasn't been known about since the beginning of recorded history. It was discovered in December, the stories started within a month, and they've been going strong since. The Elenin disinfo is much more widespread than it ever was for NEAT. Besides, the NEAT article does mention one of the pseudo theories that scientists dismissed. I don't know why the Elenin stuff has become so prominent (probably the emergence of YouTube and Internet radio), but it has, and it will be the comet's legacy whether Wikipedia includes it or not. My interpretation of WP:POPCULTURE suggests that it should be included because "when properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias." Maghnus (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Move to Comet Elenin?

I think WP:COMMONNAME applies here, no? Serendi^podous 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not have strong feelings either way on where the main article goes, but the disambiguation page at Elenin should be moved to Elenin (disambiguation) with Elenin redirecting here (if not becoming the main article); the other uses are relatively obscure. VQuakr (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but C/2010 X1 is not the only comet that Elenin has discovered. See: P/2011 NO1 -- Kheider (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

But it is the only comet with the common name "Elenin." VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree this move may be a good idea. I am neither for or against it. -- Kheider (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Would it be better at Elenin or Comet Elenin? VQuakr (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely Comet Elenin, given the brown dwarf nonsense. -- Kheider (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If we moved it, it would save us the awkwardness of this page being a subpage of Talk:C. Serendi^podous 18:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Elelin has disintegrated as predicted scientifically

As non-one here appears to be following the observable scientific events on this comet, it should be noted that in late August, early September the comet started to diminish in brightness. Shortly afterwards imaging showed that the comet was in the process of disintegrating and the nucleus was dispersing. The disintegration of the comet was predicted by John Bortle back in February 2011 based on measuring the orbital characteristics and mass of the comet using a method he published in the early 1990's that had been tested against known comets that had undergone observed fragmentation/disintegration. Scientists 1 - woo-woo's NIL.

Yesterday the comet was at perihelion and could only be observed (reported by Michael Mattiazzo) as a faint smudge dimmer than 11th magnitude - far below its expected brightness

I added these notes to the article at the end of Aug / early Sept. The fragmentation event likely occurred around Aug 19th. The comets remnant may still be visible in SOHO on Sept 23rd as a result of the forward scattering of light. -- Kheider (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"...has disintegrated...", really? Now five days have pasted since the last entry into this section, yet no one has bothered to update this article with past tense verbage, and other necessary changes; such as "C/2010 X1 -WOULD HAVE- made its closest approach to the Sun (perihelion) on 10 September 2011...", etc., if the putative disintegration is indeed scientifically true. This was an interesting process to observe; the article, the discussion and the larger emotion-based phenomenon that was not allowed to overwhelm the evidence-based article. I was gratified to see that the scientists on this page did not cave into popular opinion, but stuck to the available facts. On to the next distraction! 91.155.92.202 (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't disintigrated yet, though it has faded when it should have been brightening. This should be noted I think, and the brightness paragraphs rewritten. Can't do it myself right now as the computer I'm on can't copy/paste. Serendi^podous 13:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It is important to note that the CME is likely not the cause of the significant fading. -- Kheider (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

you can't see the comet really well anyways yet because it is mostly lost in the solar glare, you know there are pesky things to take into account when observing, like actually being able to see the object. Some purported pictures from Stereo B seem to show the comet barely alive at magnitude 13, at perihelion is when a comet should be at its brightest, not dimmest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choronzon (talk • contribs) 15:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Some youtube videos are claiming that comet 45P/Honda (as seen by STEREO-B on Sept 18th) is Elenin. On 2011-Sep-18, 45P (as seen from STEREO-B) was located near 03 47 59.41 18 35 31.1 (in Taurus) which is not far from the Pleiades (M45). -- Kheider (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Nibiru conspiracy theory

Could you please stop removing the sentence about the Nibiru conspiracy theory? Most people who come to this page probably first heard of Elenin because of the whole conspiracy theory behind of it, and so it deserves at least a passing mention on the lead.Evenfiel (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why be redundant when there is a link to Nibiru at the top of the page? This is suppose to be a scientific page and the consensus has been to NOT include rubbish. -- Kheider (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I support leaving the garbage out of this article. The hat note at the top of the page is worded well and the Nibiru collision article has everything a person seeking that kind of information wants. For the rest of us we have this excellent article. Dawnseeker2000 03:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before here; there is no indication that the consensus has changed (I still think the hat note is sufficient. Please only re-add after (and if) consensus here changes. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

add this to the article ?

In August, 2011, Comet Elenin began to disintegrate,[64][65] and by the time of its closest approach in October 2011 the comet was undetected even by large, ground based telescopes.[66]

per wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_collision#Comet_Elenin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No. That's why we have the other article-to lump the fringe theories together. Also, it's going to be tough for Elenin to come smashing into earth (or graze it, or whatever it's supposed to do) since it's already broken up. There's one conspiracy theory down the drain (unless, of course, NASA knows that it's on a collision course and invented the break-up story then used it's secret world-wide cabal of independent astronomers to invent false data to support that so that...sorry, this is the part where I get lost--why do they care if we all know?) Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually took that line from this article. It's in the opening paragraph. Serendi^podous 07:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge of general ignorance is still knowledge

This article should contain all information pertaining the subject. Including any emerging mythology on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.1.38.174 (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on C/2010 X1 (Elenin). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110313092023/http://jcometobs.web.fc2.com/cmt/k10x1.htm to http://jcometobs.web.fc2.com/cmt/k10x1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110313092023/http://jcometobs.web.fc2.com/cmt/k10x1.htm to http://jcometobs.web.fc2.com/cmt/k10x1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)