Talk:STEVE

Pronounciation of "Steve"

An IP editor is trying to add a weird pronounciation of "Steve" to the lead if this article ("STE-vay"). And rather than continuing the edit war, we can have a discussion here. From the edit summary:

> ?? Find me another pron. that is sourced. Just going off how my professor says it, it's different from the movie, in which it's just the common male name.

The burden of proof is on the person trying to add a claim (WP:V), not on me to prove a negative. Even if I couldn't find sources, that doesn't mean that your version of the edits should persist.

But anyway, see this presentation by Eric Donovan himself, at 1:19:25 he repeatedly pronounces it like the male name "Steve".

> Is the pronunciation of ‘Russia’ sourced on the Russia page? You're being childish.

The pronounciation of "Russia" is not controversial. The non-standard pronounciation of "Steve" you're trying to add, is. Per WP:V, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations" and consider the revert to be a challenge of your added material. -- intgr [talk] 13:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This pronounciation was also on BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfV5avWRsoI&t=2m15s -- intgr [talk] 11:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Steve vs STEVE

@Ttedor: In reply to this edit changing the capitalization in lead: are there any reliable sources using "STEVE"?

Right now all but one source use capitalization "Steve" -- the only exception [1] even uses capitalization inconsistently (and it's not clear whether it's WP:RS). -- intgr [talk] 16:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The capitalized version (STEVE) is used consistently in the peer-reviewed scientific articles. Popular articles mix between STEVE and Steve. Casey boy (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The fact this article indicates that NASA has adopted it, and that peer-reviewed literature capitalizes, I think makes its existence as an acronym official. Both trump popular media (considering that some media follow style guides that forbid capitalizing acronyms i.e. the Daily Mail using "Nasa"). This article should be retitled accordingly. 136.159.160.5 (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Possibly observed before?

This may not be new. It may be sunlit auroral ray, known about for the better part of a century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.196.226 (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to support the claim that they are the same thing? -- intgr [talk] 08:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

One example is: Stormer, C., "Blue Sunlit Aurora Rays and their Spectrum", Nature, Vol.142, Iss.3606, pp.1034 (1938). A Google-scholar search on these terms and papers that cite this paper will reveal others in this scientific investigative thread. Given that these papers were published 80 years ago, they cannot, of course, distinguish themselves from the auroral rays that have been recently "discovered" and reported here. Instead, if there really is a distinction, the current scientific community (amateur and/or professional) will need to demonstrate how these recent sightings are a new type of phenomenon compared to those of the historical reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.196.226 (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

As long as there's no reliable source linking them these two terms, we follow the null hypothesis and don't suggest any relationship. Either claim (that they *are* the same, or that they are *not*), would be original research. -- intgr [talk] 16:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Section title/c changed to avoid the assertion.

Important?

Scientists discover what powers celestial phenomenon STEVE +

I've added a section about Steve's association with picket fence aurora which covers some of the results from this study Casey boy (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Meaningless Scientism

The lead paragraph says,

"STEVE is caused by a 25 km (16 mi) wide ribbon of hot plasma at an altitude of 450 km (280 mi), with a temperature of 3,000 °C (3,270 K; 5,430 °F) and flowing at a speed of 6 km/s (3.7 mi/s) (compared to 10 m/s (33 ft/s) outside the ribbon)."

This is not a CAUSE, ...it is merely a description.

The cause is still unknown, but is probably related to earth's suddenly fluctuating magnetic field. Why can't scientists ever admit when they don't know something?? Egotism? I think we need a new name for this kind of arrogance in the scientific community. How about, "Scientism", as in "ego-motivated scientists can't explain what causes many natural phenomena but won't admit it due to authoritarian scientism." There. Sounds about right to me. lol

STEVE is the name of an optical phenomenon – as stated in the first sentence. The plasma that is described IS the cause of the light display. The cause of this peculiar plasma is not fully understood – as already stated in the article.

And you know baby, Wikipedia pages are not written by scientists. I am a professional scientist, and I found this intro sentence silly, because numbers are overly precise: the values quoted come from a single measurement.

130.179.243.124 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Pole shift imminent or already underway

Question put to Edgar Cayce in 1936:

Q: "What is the biggest change in store after the millennium?"

A: "HIS light will again be seen in the skies; there will be a shifting of the poles."

They wanted you to laugh this off so they deliberately gave it a stupid name.

Wiki Education assignment: General Biology I Honors

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sprygrocki (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Smildmo, Aserritella64, Wertex1031990.

— Assignment last updated by Wertex1031990 (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)