Talk:Gillevinia straata

Dispute of Factual Accuracy template

This article implicitly makes a flat assertion (i.e. that there is life on Mars) the factual accuracy of which -- according to the article itself -- is disputed by such bodies as NASA and other countries' space missions. This issue is quite well covered at the Life on Mars article; at the moment, this article just seems a POV-fork that asserts one side of the issue as fact. -- simxp (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Done; rewritten as suggested.200.42.29.119 11:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a publicity for this investigation of the Psychiatric Hospital Borda--216.155.91.205 19:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The single source for this appears to be Gilbert V. Levin. His lecture paper may be found here: Carnegie paper. I am not sure a single sourced article meets standards. SunSw0rd 13:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

afd? - or merge with Life on Mars perhaps... sbandrews (t) 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A neurobiologist and the Psychiatric Hospital Borda has relation with the astrobiology?. In taxonomy, Gillevinia straata really is single a Nomen nudum--200.126.86.196 18:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

to clarify, you mean a scientist can't give a name to something not yet discovered? I wonder what that means for this article... sbandrews (t) 19:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

yes. a Nomen nudum is not correct in taxonomy, reason why Gillevinia straata is not recognized scientifically and officially.--190.95.29.153 17:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

However Gilbert Levin has always claimed his part of the Viking experiment did find life - if he was right - and surely that remains an open question - then wouldn't he have the right to name it? Though I doubt he is the one who suggested the name Gillevinia straata, sbandrews (t) 18:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that single it can name the scientist who analyzes and identifies a specific microscopic species directly (it must have collected it for the analyses), and present the results first in a scientific magazine of prestige (example the Nature (journal)) , that has accepted the investigation.--190.95.29.153 18:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Exobiology has different requirements. It should not bring samples to Earth, under complex ethical, legal, and technical issues. Yet it has a right to apply biological nomenclature on what its descriptions arrive to distinguish. A Wikipedist claims that Gillevinia straata is a nomen nudum (nude name) here and in other languages entries - this seems me a personal opinion, obviously adversary to the naming, an opinion that was refuted in the Spanish discussion page. Later, things moved further, always against the "nomen nudum" claim. On August 30, 2007, a SPIE meeting pointed out to and discussed together a number of putative exorganisms, on different epistemological status of course, and this obviously requires naming them apart. As I see it, this much enfeebles that Wikipedist's previous opinion. No article claims the same as him/her, or, in other words, s/he is the only one voicing G. straata a nomen nudum: if due to back-contamination reasons intl. law compels exobiology to carry out all of its observations only in situ, such an opinion would defend an excess of ritualism closing and decapitating this whole new science.

Thus, until the nomen nudum derogatory reference is withdrawn, I find it proper to keep the unbalance label, because of that personal claim (nomen nudum) is not grounded in the published discussions. Wikipedia seems me not a site for it.

In sum, I propose to withdraw the factual inaccuracy label and the inaccurate nomen nudum mention.--200.42.29.195 21:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Done--Paleorthid (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion (2007)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

stale discussion

I propose a merge with Life on Mars, probably also cutting down on the amount of info presented quite a lot, as per discussion above, sbandrews (t) 19:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I rather think of not merging this article with Life on Mars, because the entity referred to by the Viking's metabolic observations and scientifically named Gillevinia straata is a case of special interest, demanding more detail than available in the already long, more general article Life on Mars.--200.42.29.195 21:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support, per my comments back in June above. -- simxp (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge. So a guy proposed a name for a hypothetical bacterium that he has never observed. So what? This article needs to deleted, or be merged into Life on Mars. Tempshill (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge. Life on Mars article should include all theoretical/proposed Martian life. Any proposed/theoretical Martian organism would be expected to be explained in detail in that article.BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not support merge Edited to add: I changed my view since I believe the Gillevinia straata article now is solid and stands well on its own. However, I have copied the most relevant information of it into the article Life on Mars. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge per Tempshill and BatteryIncluded original statement (I don't think it deserves a whole article even after new information has been added -Mario Crocco's article is pathological science at its "best") --Cyclopia (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Relevant scientific investigation in the wikipedia?

The Electroneurobiología journal (published by the same Neuropsychiatric Hospital Borda, where works the author of the investigation), has Peer review?. When I reviewed journal, discovered is not a journal specializing in astrobiology or science equivalent. Also is not a prestigious Scientific journal. If it is really an important scientific investigation, because it was not published in scientific journals of true prestige (example Nature (journal), Science (journal) or PNAS). It seems that it is not really a relevant and correct scientific investigation.--Urco (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a delete of this article or a merge into Life on Mars - article certainly seems single sourced and the above comment casts aspersions even on that. Tempshill (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Article seem pretty fringy to me, like one computed hypothetical planet, that the astronomer dared call Jano without detecting it. I support kicking this article to smithereens and dropping a few well chosen pieces into Life on Mars, jumping on the rest till it's atoms cease to exist. Said: Rursus ☻ 17:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We can not perform exobiology investigation through Wikipedia but select quality sources. I agree that the references/sources cited may not be from exobiologists and that they oppose the current world scientist consensus of the Viking's indeterminate metabolic data, besides, side-step the lack of liquid water on the planet's surface. The peer reviewed point can be noted in a new "Controversies" section or after the merger with "Life in Mars" and compared against peer-reviewed conclusions on the subject. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed that their research got published by the 'Proceddings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA', a very good peer-reviewed scientific journal.[1] Still, the data is the same inspected all over the world, and the controversy seems to be in its interpretation.

I just finished reading the references and figured who is proposing what. I performed a major editing and cleanup of POV and unsourced statements and deleted some dead links. I searched and included the best peer-reviewed references published and some more will be added in the comming days. Your feedback and/or corrections are always welcome; unless they are radical, I don't think it needs discussion for now. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)