Talk:Yosemite Sam (shortwave)

Untitled

I thought Bugs Bunny always said he shouldn't have taken the left turn at Albuquerque? B7T 02:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed...

Nope, it is should have - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herr_Meets_Hare —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.75 (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mystery solved.. ?

Is the new edit about how it was just a test of new software/hardware really true? The cite note doesn't seem to be that informative, just details on a hardware system that may or may not be related to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:404:C402:79C2:91F4:C7CC:E217:B540 (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be true, but I'm unsure as to if this is sufficient material for citation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioRh-vf2nsg

Hope this helps people. 82.19.73.104 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

You realize that this whole video is merely based on the exact same information that had already been published 8 years ago on this very same Wikipedia page?... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yosemite_Sam_%28shortwave%29&diff=prev&oldid=654669646 The video's author is literally just reading this old Wikipedia post and the link within it recovered from web.archive.org The only new information here is that some guy who wishes to remain anonymous contacted a youtuber to claim that he was the same guy who anonymously stepped forward 8 years ago to edit that information into Wikipedia without source or proof, and to explain now that he had first-hand knowledge of that information by working that project himself - but we are still not provided any proof or verifiable information, neither for the new or old claims.

Thus I've reverted it. Information needs to be backed up by reliable sources that are not original research, and I can see none of that neither in the 2015 edit nor now - which is why it had been reverted in 2015 already. As far as I can tell the linked case study makes no claim that what it describes is indeed the Yosemite Sam station. And in the consensus opinion of numbers station and shortwave oddity experts I've heard from, the linked youtuber's channel is not a reliable source: it's shown consistent issues with information sourcing and attribution, minimum effort and lack of verification, misleading clickbait claims, sensationalist tone and content, lack of discrimination about unnotable topics, etc...

Now I have no reason to assume bad faith from the original 2015 editor. But "some guy online said so, it seems to add up and I have no reason not to believe him" is not the standard by which Wikipedia operates. This is at best a misguided, subpar attempt at publishing what unfortunately remains unverifiable information and anonymous first-hand knowledge; and at worst an attempt at self-promotion. The IP address of this new 2023 edit matches the location of the youtuber it talks about and links to; but I'll keep assuming good faith about that.

In any case, this whole citing as reliable source a video which itself just cites as source an edit from the same Wikipedia page which had already been reverted for being unsourced, just really stinks. And information presented as fact shouldn't be a gratuitious story about who obtained it and how - that's what the reference section is for. This is just drivel. Who is this purported former Laguna employee? Are there any claims that there were journalistic attempts at verifying their identity? Pulling corroborating records? Cross-checking their story? Calling the contractor company to ask them? Or the authors listed in the linked case study? Sending an FOIA request?... Was there any reliable journalistic work beyond anonymous first-hand claims and reading out loud the contents of an email and Wikipedia edit - and was that published anywhere? As far as I can tell: no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.64.25.168 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I am the editor that added the 'drivel' that you were talking about. I did say that the discovery was 'alleged' and I did not claim that it was true. What I put in was not original research as I was merely citing Ringway Manchester, who is a pretty reliable source anyway. I understand that there is no sufficient proof that the anonymous employee who contacted Ringway was telling the truth, however, the fact that he even talked about the specific device used makes the story believable. Also, I realized that you mentioned my IP address, I actually live in Aberdeen, it is just that Vodafone is notorious for changing peoples locations, and they have done the same for me. Although we have no proof that Ringway's claims are true, we also have no proof that they are false; therefore I would like to kindly ask you to stop calling my first Wikipedia edit 'drivel', I understand that Wikipedia is harsh in terms of what it lets to be put on It's pages, but that is no reason to use such a toxic tone against me. I would also like to point out that Ringway is not overly 'sensationalist' or 'clickbait', as, from my experience, he delivers expected content. However, after writing this I will look at that link that you posted to that 2015 article, and I will adjust this comment as necessary. That is all. 84.65.177.198 (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Even if the new revelations are unsourced - because the person behind this wished to remain anonymous, could it not be reported as true that a credible (but unverified) explanation for these broadcasts was made, as being a fact in itself? And that also what makes the situation significant and interesting is how a shortwave radio broadcast became a mystery and intrigued people from all over the world, whilst the person behind it was completely oblivious to the fact it had become so famous in the world of shortwave radio, and also the reasons for these broadcasts were in contrast extremely boring and mundane?

And also it should say that he posted a full explanation for these broadcasts here on this very page when he realised that his broadcasts had become so infamous, but because he wanted to remain anonymous, they got wiped, for lack of verification. King alex77 (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

A credible (and verified) explanation for these broadcasts had already been made: they were operated from a military contractor's test facilities. And this former employee was not "the person behind it", nor were the project's operators oblivious to it, since the transmissions abruptly stopped after site security noticed the investigating party. The only reason why this became an intriguing mystery, in contrast to mundane digital or test transmissions that shortwave is rife with and that nobody cares about (apart from dedicated hobbyists), is the peculiar Yosemite Sam voice sample. And as I said, that's about the only valuable piece of information worth mentioning in my opinion.

Who was the customer? What was their use case for the product? What happened with it afterwards? Who were the additional contractors involved? Why did the customer randomly chose a Yosemite Sam sample? These new revelations reveal none of those real questions. Should we make this article about the developer's personal point of view and their trip to realization, by degenerating into self-referencing the article's own history?... Well, maybe some of their point of view would be interesting; but in that case we should reach out to them and properly interview them and then get it published in a news outlet or a reputable hobbyist newsletter, so there is something worthwhile to cite and include here. — 82.64.25.168

Hello. Thanks for your interest in this topic! Please do not take the drivel comment personally, it wasn't focused on you: unfortunately that kind of unproven claim or theory is all too common in the field. First of all the original 2015 edit was already pretty much drivel itself: who cares that the system was designed using LabVIEW or National Instruments hardware, and won the developer an award? That's trivia that does not belong in the article. And we already knew that it was the Laguna Industries contractor at MATIC. Frankly the only valuable new information it brought was that the Yosemite Sam voice sample was just a randomly provided test payload. Then who cares what youtuber he contacted, how, and when? That story doesn't belong in the article itself. The video is just an outrageous minimum effort voice-over of published material that anybody who can read, can read for themselves. There was no research or solving of anything. Wikipedia follows an encyclopedic tone and standards, and the edits and sources used so far were subpar. I understand that it's unpleasant to hear, but that's nonetheless true.

You point out in the changelog that we should not remove this because we have no proof that it is not true. I'm sorry but as I said, that's just not how Wikipedia works. Material on Wikipedia must be verifiable: the basic idea is that if we don't know whether it's true or not, then it should not be on the page. And as per policy, the burden is on you as an editor to ensure that what you add is verified and verifiable. You can't just push it in like that and threaten edit warring to keep it in in the meantime: that is not okay. The original 2015 edit would be considered original research, or original knowledge if you prefer, because it was information not published anywhere else: you can't just come to Wikipedia and add newly discovered information here even if you know it's true. And publishing your original research on your personal blog first before citing it as source on Wikipedia is typically not acceptable either. That YouTube video is pretty much on that level. And we're clearly going to disagree about the reliability of that YouTube channel. Reliable sources would typically be a proper news article from a reputable news outlet. A self-published YouTube channel would be a borderline source at best.

And I've listed the reasons why that particular channel should not be considered as an exception and a reputable, trusted expert on the field. I could go on about how I saw it willing to pick up the worst same-old unoriginal rehashed bottom-of-the-barrel evidenceless, counterfactual wild speculation theories and present them as fact, after they were thoroughly rebuked and rejected by experts. But even just this video: in the title and first few seconds, he claims that HE "solved" what was a "mystery" "until now". Then proceeds with information already published 8 years ago by someone else. I mean, I already knew and remembered about this. If there had been any "mystery" left to "solve" then it would already have been 8 years ago, and not by him; and even then receiving an email from someone else and reading on video the material they sent you does not give you the credit for solving anything. I can't understand how you would not see that as sensationalist clickbait and unreliable editorial practices. We all have to consider what is more toxic to the field, from an encyclopedic point of view at least: that kind of insidious content, or directly and clearly addressing it in terms that may come off as harsh?

If you're enthused and would like to contribute, my recommendation would be to endeavor any kind of research to verify and cross-check that story, like I listed above - reaching out to the youtuber would be a first step, indeed! Regardless, in my opinion, as it is now this whole thing should be given no more weight than a passing mention, perhaps something like: "Someone anonymously stepped forward claiming to be a former developer on the system generating these transmissions - explaining that the Yosemite Sam sample was just a random test payload supplied by the customer, and providing other technical details on the system's internals. However these claims remain unverified." But even reading this really begs the question of whether it should be included at all, since it's so anonymous and unverified and anecdotal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.64.25.168 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello again! Since posting my edits, I have reached out to the creator of the video, and it turns out that he was actually citing the 2015 Wikipedia article, and was only informed of its existence by the person who made that edit. I have also switched sides since then because the YouTuber in question actually said in the video title and thumbnail that HE discovered the truth, when, in reality, as I mentioned earlier he was just informed of the unverified 2015 article by the articles creator. Therefore, I will stop trying to put that edit on to the article, and if anyone else does, that isn't me. Have a good day! 84.65.177.198 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• Interesting that so much discussion is going into such niche folklore curio. Would it be harmful to present the "solved" mystery in the context of exactly how it was presented - that an unknown person reached out to a youtuber and made edits as to exactly what this was, perhaps presented as "claim" rather than confirmed fact? Oakshade (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

"an unknown person reached out to a youtuber and made edits as to exactly what this was": I don't believe it should be mentioned in the article at all, no more than we'd report about someone making (for example) a bold claim somewhere on Facebook. I'm not sure it matters at this point, because (if I'm reading the above correctly) no one is currently pushing to include this information anyway. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that so much focus is going into some unverified anonymous comment and whether to report it on Wikipedia, while there are 10 other actual ways to go find the truth for real. This is like slacktivism or something. Nothing was even solved by that comment; at best it just confirmed what we already knew. But I guess we could make a passing mention of it, yeah; not sure if we should though. 82.64.25.168 (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Info supporting the explanation of the transmissions that was reverted

On 18:49, 2 April 2015 a section was added to the article purporting to provide the mundane explanation that the transmissions were simply test transmissions from a test system, set up without anticipating that short-wave listeners would find them, and find them interesting.

That material was reverted 16 July 2015 due to the paragraph not corresponding to the linked reference (to an article in NI Week). And at this point (2023) that link no longer functions.

So, just to keep track of a few details not mentioned in the ensuing discussion on this talk page:

1. The technical article describing the system: [1]https://nts.com/wp-content/resources/PXI%20Based%20RF%20Antenna%20Testing%20System.pdf This appears on nts.com, where NTS is now a subsidiary of National Instruments, so essentially the same platform as the original one. The article provides a location of Albuquerque New Mexico, which fits the story.

2. Article's author: Lance Butler.

3. Lance Butler's LinkedIn page: [2]https://www.linkedin.com/in/lance-butler-008ba577 ... which describes both employment at the relevant company, and mentions the technical article.

The NTS article is, I would say, published on a credible site, and could be construed as a secondary source. However, it does not directly link the project it describes to the specific location, customer, time, or to the "mystery transmissions" in particular. That said, the story details from the supposed anonymous email correspondent do sound authentic (no mangled terminology or concepts).

In order for this story to be false, anonymous emailer would have had to know the details of the NI/NST technical article, realize that it could fit the test facility that the enthusiasts located in New Mexico, and make up a narrative that fit very conveniently.

I guess stranger things have happened, so maybe not quite 100% solved. Gwideman (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It was already established that the transmissions were operated from a contractor's test site, so we don't exactly need insider knowledge to tell us that it was simply test transmissions from a test system. The original link can be accessed through https://web.archive.org/web/20150404011043/http://sine.ni.com/cs/app/doc/p/id/cs-712 It lists a second author too in addition to the one you mentioned. So now you could reach out to them and ask them all the relevant questions :)

This site has been testing plenty of radio systems all day every day, that's what it does, so all that was needed was to find a published description of one of those systems that didn't sound too different from the Yosemite Sam transmissions. I think that would be rather easy to make up for anyone who worked there at some point. 82.64.25.168 (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

" we don't exactly need insider knowledge to tell us that it was simply test transmissions from a test system". Well, you probably do, because in the article used to support the description of the hams triangulating the site (ref 3), "routine testing" is only one of the speculations, with "prank" being another. So, if true, the story from the supposed anonymous perpetrator would provide complementary info. But so far it's unknown whether that anonymous story might be a hoax. Indeed, one or other of the authors could be contacted... but what they say would still need to appear as a secondary reference to be accepted here.

Anyhow, while on the topic of that supporting ref 3, the statement in the wp article "when they were approached by an angry security guard" is not supported by the reference. The article says "a man approached them yelling and ordering them to stop taking pictures". A raised voice would be ordinary when communicating at some distance, and there's no mention of the man being a security guard. Both items could be true, but not based on the article. Gwideman (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)