Talk:Martian canals

message: It seems someone has added some text about martian RSL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_flows_on_warm_Martian_slopes which are a completely different phenomenom, and completely invisible from Earth. I don't think RSL are relevant to this subject, and I will be deleting the references to them in this article in a few days if no one objects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.121.6 (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring Slope Lineae and cannalli? 

message: I believe that he and others, escpecially the others, using their eyes and equipment at the limit of their power, simply experienced a case of wishful thinking delusion. However, it may be that Schiaparelli and some others actually saw a faint reflection of their own capillaries in their own eyes which are organized in a way that resembles the canal drawings. This is something that actually has happened to me when I use certain makes of binoculars. Unfortunately, I do not know of a name of the phenomenon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.234.174.228 (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illusion 

message: how do I go about doing that so it doesn’t get removed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.219.113 (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments - adding a citation from a reliable source would be helpful of course - please see WP:CITE and WP:RS for more details - thanks again for your comment - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A citation to prove what? both S. M. Stirling and In the Courts of the Crimson Kings have their own Wikipedia pages, there's no question that the novel it exists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.219.113 (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I *entirely* agree and have removed the "citation needed" template in the article - thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think  S. M. Stirling's In the Courts of the Crimson Kings should be added to the example in popular culture section 

message: Schiaparelli's book La Vita Sul Pianeta Marte (Life on the Planet Mars), published in 1893 argues for a natural geological origin of the channels and compares them to the English Channel. He says "The network formed by the channels was probably shaped by the geologic state of the planet and it is slowly developing over the centuries. There is no need to suppose the work of intelligent beings; and despite the quasi-geometric appearance of the system, we are for now inclined to believe they are products of the evolution of the planet, just as on Earth, the English Channel and the Mozambique Channel."  This is my translation from  http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7781/pg7781.html which lacks pagination but you can search "Non occorre suppor qui l'opera di esseri intelligenti." Colin McLarty (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Colin McLarty, OK, but you haven't said what you want? Prhartcom (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article says an intelligent origin for the canals "was first hinted at" by Lowell and others but does not specify that Schiaparelli published his own doubts of that.  I think Schiaparelli's own view should be added, though I guess that would be even more important in the article Giovanni Schiaparelli which does say Schiaparelli's term "canali" was mistranslated as "canals" but gives no good documentation.  People continue to debate the question of Schiaparelli's own intent without finding sources on it and I think Wikipedia could easily clear it up Colin McLarty (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. As long as you avoid original research while reporting (and not "interpreting") what Schiaparelli says, you could write a neutral passage describing Schiaparelli's analysis and conclusion, write the verifiable  reference to your source, then place what you have written into both articles. (You would want to use different wording appropriate to each article.) Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Schiaparelli against the intelligent life explanation

message: The article is about the concept of the canals on Mars, not about a specific canal. Shouldn't its title be plural?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keavon (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the article be plural? ("Martian canals" instead of "Martian canal") 

message: https://www.space.com/mars-big-rivers-billions-years.html Physicsjock (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: no, but thanks for playing HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking news: Looks like we need a major rewrite! 

message: Martian canals have been photographed (very rarely) and digitally imaged much more frequently. As far as i know this has only been done from the surface of the earth. I was surprised there was nothing on Wikipedia about this, but then more surprised that i can't find it anywhere on the net either. The phenomenon is not merely a psychological aberation (though that may be a factor in some of the more elaborate old maps). Exactly what is going on is hard to understand. Martian style canals are not observed on other planets, such as  Jupiter, so not just an problem with the instruments. On the other hand, close ups from space probes strongly suggest the canals don't exist. Has anyone seen any sources on the net, or in print, outlining the evidence in a sane way? 110.145.170.78 (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the article - this sort of bunk is completely disproved - and some time ago, I might add. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photography