Talk:Life on Mars

Study Suggests That An Aggressive Alien Species Wiped Out An Ancient Martian Civilization Through Massive Nukes

A study by John E Brandenburg suggests that a paleolithic equivalent martian civilization was wiped out by 2 massive nuclear weapons. I would urge you to please read and discuss before you delete my topic, thank you!

Not peer reviewed but free: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340952315_EVIDENCE_OF_A_MASSIVE_THERMONUCLEAR_EXPLOSIONS_ON_MARS_IN_THE_PAST_The_Cydonian_Hypothesis_and_Fermi's_Paradox

Peer reviewed but paywalled: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2016-5529

Thank you for reading! :D

These studies could contribute to the Fermi Paradox Article as well! Chantern15 (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Chantern15[reply]

@Chantern15: I don't think anyone will delete your post here on the talk page (no one has yet, over year later and counting), but as for adding this to the article, right now it likely falls under WP:FRINGE. Since you've only provided the two sources, one that has not been reviewed and one that has but is paywalled, it's hard to say if they would be sufficient enough to support adding mention of this to the article (though it's probably unlikely). You would in all likelihood need more sources, and solid ones at that. (imho) - wolf 16:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not paywalled nor peer reviewed - it's a conference abstract, with no attached paper, it seems. In any case, it is wildly WP:FRINGE speculation and there is no reason to include such stuff here. It might go on a page about contemporary fringe claims of intelligent life on Mars. cyclopiaspeak! 13:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 September 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 12:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life on Mars → Possibility of life on Mars – Wouldn't this be more suited? We don't know that life exists on Mars, and even the first line of this article is "The possibility of life on Mars...". Most sources used in the article are also titled with some level of uncertainty, too. GeorgeHav (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the title is about the concept itself, and does not imply anything about it actually existing or not. This is standard in articles about things that we don't know if they exist or not, such as Planet Nine or even Extraterrestrial life Cambalachero (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-says-mars-rover-discovered-potential-biosignature-last-year/ Dontkillberry (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So? A raw link is hardly an argument. Cambalachero (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link is to show that life on mars has become increasingly likely, and almost proven. Why change the name now when something new may be released very soon that will make us have to change it back. Dontkillberry (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While I understand Cambalachero's perspective about this being an article more on the "concept" of life on Mars, in looking it over. I actually think the article is more accurately about the "possibility" and the investigation thereinto of life on Mars. I do believe "possibility" is a slightly more accurate title, and does also avoid the possibility of someone considering the article to be insinuating that it's a confirmed fact. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it's not only about present knowledge about life on Mars but about the concept. Also, the shorter the title the better. Artem.G (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with 'oppose' reasons above. The subject "Life on Mars" is essentially synonymous with historical and present speculation, research, hypotheses, perspectives etc. as presented in the article. Very minor distinctions between the current and proposed title don't amount to a material difference in scope and content; thus there is no compelling reason to move a stable title to the new, longer title. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — The current title is short and concise, I see no reason why it be changed. —𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘 (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The title suggests, correctly, the general topic of "life on mars" - My position is that the general topic referred to as "life on mars" is not indicative that there is, as a matter of fact, life on mars. If you look at this through an academic lense: having discussion, experiments, analysis, or study related to astrobiology, particularly on mars, does not imply that there is proven life on mars. You do not always have to have a pretense of something not being matter of fact when discussing it.
There are many instances of academic/theoretical concepts being referred to as a generalized term, even if not proven or fully understood, such as Anti-gravity/non-gravitational field. The most known example of this is Gravity, which admittedly is measureable, but not fully understood. More specific to astronomy, Planets beyond Neptune is not referred to as "possible planets beyond neptune"
I do not believe readers will be misled by the current title and will understand that the general topic of "life on mars" is just the general topic. I feel as if changing it to "possibility" or "concept" is more misleading/biased than just leaving it how it is. You do not have patronize or train readers into being skeptical, that comes with the territory of the pursuit of knowledge. Saucelionhotdogwheat (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am well aware that there is no life on Mars, and that NASA's recent report of evidence coincides with their request for additional funding. However, your argument that "Planets beyond Neptune" is as clear as "Possibility of Planets beyond Neptune" paradoxically persuades me that "Possibility of Life on Mars" is a better title. The title "Planets beyond Neptune" implies to me that there definitely are such planets, as I was thinking of Pluto and other dwarf planets. It is good to remind readers, via a clear title, that something does not exist, despite widespread speculation.86.152.99.21 (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The title should be changed, however we should wait.
The page is clearly more representative of the search for life on mars, making either "The Probability of Life on Mars" or "The Search for Life on Mars" a more fitting title. With NASA's latest release, I could see how people could get confused for pages such as these making a statement of fact rather than presumption. Reading the page further it gives history to the search and scientists making observations, while the page does speculate on whether or not human life may exist on mars, it is clearly more interested in the discussion of if it exists or not in any form natively.
It is crucial that we wait for more evidence to come out before making a hasty decision on this matter, if life on mars is in fact an actuality, a title change would not be in order. As instead of changing the title, significant portions of the page would have to be recomposed to reflect this discovery. This would likely result in a portion being left for the "Probability of Life" or "History of Discovery of Life" on this rewritten page.
As of now the current title would suffice, but it should be changed if more information does not confirm these were in fact from iron-redox bacteria. TruthGuy69 (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your reasoning of changing it *only if* the latest NASA release is shown to be inconclusive, because then that leads to the problem of what happens with the next promising discovery of evidence. Do we then at the time of the next (hypothetical) preliminary discovery of promising evidence return to the current title, Life on Mars, pending it's subsequent confirmation or denial? 142.163.32.244 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that we keep the current title if life is in fact proven in this case and not extending it due to my personal convictions on the matter, as I believe that it is likely. I imagine that a discovery that rocked the scientific world this much would not happen again, and if it does this is likely to be the only discussion surrounding this topic for the foreseeable future. Meaning that if life is proven there is no need for change, and that if life is not, then we change the title for clarity. TruthGuy69 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
im not sure where the idea that the NASA report is inconclusive comes from.
It has already been peer reviewed, and they are quite clear, that it's either life WAS/IS on Mars or our understanding of that field of science is completely wrong.
That's about as conclusive as it gets in a leading edge science, it's literally a smoking gun. You can't see the bullet move, but you know it did because the smoke is there, and a hole is in the opposite wall now.
You may be able to find some other explanation but it will be so outside the realm of probability, it's not even worth considering 2001:56A:7B33:D600:EBE2:1022:6F58:8A13 (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The only reason that I suggested that it may be incorrect stems from the fact that even though we don’t know for sure, there could be something about the conditions on mars (pressure, temperature, soil composition, even the lack of a atmosphere as of current) could have a strange abiotic chemical reaction that we don’t see here on Earth. The only way to tell will be with a conclusive return mission or some other significant discovery.
However, I do agree that this is likely ancient evidence of life, which is why I am urging people to go for a patient response to this new information. As if this is true, then the page will likely be rewritten or modified to reflect these significant discoveries, as opposed to renaming and renaming again. TruthGuy69 (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Adding to my reasoning here: the article also seems to be, as others have pointed out, quite focused on the actual search of possibility of life rather than the life itself. It covers biosignatures, habitability, etc, and little about the (potential) life itself. Perhaps if evidence of ancient life is confirmed then it'd warrant a separate article? GeorgeHav (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I thought about this while writing my original reply, I came to the conclusion that if all we can find is bacterium and archea, then it would likely just be better to document them under their own section under the same page. However if significant specimens are found having a distinct “Life of/on Mars” would be a good idea seeing as they are distinct ideas. TruthGuy69 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's still uncertainty if life on Mars is actually confirmed. Rager7 (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Life_on_Mars