Talk:Numbers station/Archive 1

Archive 1

For real?

is this for real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarquin (talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 January 2003‎

Sure. They're a little weird, but real, honest. The external links give pretty good introductions to the subject. --Camembert 20:27, 14 January 2003‎ (UTC)

Indeed, just got myself a new short wave radio, and I've already heard the Lincolnshire Poacher & the MOSSAD phonetic stations on them. James2001 17:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Most definitely. I just got the Spanish Atención station yesterday using a Grundig YB400PE. I live on the east coast of the USA, so it comes in fairly well. Also heard MOSSAD's phonetic station once a little over a year ago with an old analog dial radio. I'd kill to get a clear transmission of Lincolnshire Poacher, far too much interference in my listening area. --Indigo 18:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, it is very weird. Imagine just looking around on a shortwave, tuning, and suddenly you hear someone saying "123456789". Gives me the jibblies. - Kookykman|(t)(c)

I can vouch for the fact that these are real. I heard the Czech one on a shortwave radio. A friend surmised that they were broadcasting lottery numbers, but the truth is far more intriguing.

The Czech word for "end" is "konec," pronounced "KO-nets." Russian uses the same word. I suppose that the person behind the Conet Project just misheard the Czech voice. Mwalcoff 03:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, it kind of sounds like a usual (false) conspiracy theory. The article doesn't mention anything about such suspicions, mabye it should. Anyway, a friend just gave a sensible reason for why they wouldn't be very useful anymore. It goes basically like that today the easiest way would probably be using email or cell phone. If you are confident that you can hide in the massive information flow you wouldn't even need any fancy extra encryption. The only case where using number stations would be a good idea would probably be if they are watching you (reading your email, listening to you phone, ...). You would already be a useless spy (because they would probably not let you have any secret information) but it could possibly prevent you from getting caught. To summarize: They shouldn't exist anymore. At least not for spying purposes. Too bad. :-( Or possibly, if you assume you are bugged (but still getting information and is able to work as spies), you could possibly make use of it, but wouldn't there be an easier way?

It's not a hard task for computers to search for suspicious communication, even from a massive flow of data. In certain countries this is done by humans. Emails and cell phone calls can be traced afterwards via telecommunications data retention. Using them also always ties you to third party services which may not be available during, say, a severe crisis. –Mysid 18:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The stations are certainly real; not sure about the spying thing. I heard one of these several years ago in France; just a guy with an odd accent (not French or English) reading numbers out. I was fairly young at the time and just seeing what I could hear with an old radio, but it was so weird I remembered it clearly. I didn't know what it was until I read this wiki entry just now. As for the issue of whether such a thing would still be used, the methods of communication you mentioned are all traceable to the receiver (spy), whereas SW radio is only traceable to the transmitter (who is probably in a base abroad and cannot be arrested). Ben Morris 13:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't really say this is a false conspiracy theory, when anyone with a shortwave radio can tune into them and see that it's not!

Sprinkles 00:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm from Czech Republic. I can remember that long time ago - before 1989 I learned about the numbers transmissions in school geography lesson.

The transmissions were used to create kind of weather forecast map.

We were provided with numbers in one lesson and had to manually draw those isobars over the Bay of Biscay on a map. I can't remember but I think the numbers were latitude, longitude and perhaps atmospheric pressure? It was long time ago - perhaps some meteorologist should know more. I think at least some of the transmissions could have been sort of emergency meteorological map info for sailors, mountaineers etc.

Urwald 12:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is going far from the article. But weather stations are a different thing completely, see SYNOP for example. ›mysid (☎∆) 13:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Numbers stations to fake out one's enemies

Someone just added an assertion that some numbers stations (perhaps all?) are primarily to give the impression that a country has many spies. This is plausible on its face, if restricted to "some". However, I would like to see citations. I do not find any discussion of this kind of numbers station online.

The author then went on to assert that a numbers station believed to be Taiwanese has 5,000 codes for spies, despite the unlikelihood that Taiwan has so many overseas spies. For this I would especially like to see citations, because (a) one shouldn't be able to tell what part of a numbers station broadcast is a code identifying a particular spy, (b) Taiwan has a population of some 25 million, and in its precarious geopolitical position, has reason to have an active espionage agency, hence an assertion that they are unlikely to have as many as five thousand spies (0.02% of population) should be backed up with evidence; (c) I am more than usually suspicious of unsupported assertions involving Taiwan, again because of its precarious geopolitical and cultural position.

For the moment I have only corrected the author's spelling and grammar, but I am seriously considering deleting the entire paragraph.

Zack 00:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I've moved it here for now, pending sources (follows below). If "many have argued", then this should be straightforward to demonstrate. We have to be very careful with this kind of topic, as a lot of things fly about as unsubstantiated rumour, and it's more difficult to get hold of solid, verifiable fact. — Matt Crypto 00:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Another possibility is that numbers stations are not primarily used to comunicate with spies, but to give foreign counter-intelligence officials the impression that a country has many more spies than it truly does. For example, a number station believed to be operated by Taiwan has about 5,000 different codes for spies, despite the unlikelihood that Taiwan has so many spies."

Swldxer 16:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture

Does the mysterious radio transmission in the TV series Lost count as a Numbers Station? -- AlastairR

Not sure, but it is certainly inspired by it. Cross-linking here could be healthy. Perhaps as part of a larger Numbers stations in the media section? -- Jon Dowland 19:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The song "Where You'll Find Me Now" on the Neutral Milk Hotel album On Avery Island ends with what sounds exactly like a tune that comes from a numbers station. I can't find the tune on my Conet Project CDs, though, and can't find any references to it online. Anyone else heard this? I'd like to add it to the "Recordings and Music" section if I can confirm that it's a numbers station recording. Rjhatl 13:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I just listened to the Neutral Milk Hotel clip and it is not a number station. It sounds like a distorted ice cream van tune instead. Swldxer 16:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I'd like to propose that a new page be created for the Conet Project. JohnDouglasPorter 2006-02-02 20:15 UTC

The Conet Project has now been created. I also added links to it in this and other articles currently referencing it. --FICT, 2 April 2006

Transmission technology

Now, I may just be an electrical engineer, but I take issue with this:

"Amplitude modulated, frequency agile Cplass-B (Push-Pull) modulated HF transmitters are the workhorses of numbers stations. Polyphase and PDM modulators were not used by numbers stations because energy costs were not an issue in the running of these stations."

First of all, class C amplifiers are used for transmission as they have tank circuits (inductors and capacitors) to broadcast RF radiation. Class B amps are simply push-pull amps (as correctly pointed out) but not designed for broadcasting. Furthermore, I have no idea what "frequency-agile" transmitter means. Not sure this bit about Polyphase or PDM is useful or relavent.

Anyhow, didn't want to change it without at least a little more consensus, but I am certain about the amplifier class business. -Muspud2 12/21/05

Well I'm not an electrical engineer but you have my vote to change it. I dislike using jargon-heavy prose in a relatively unspecialised topic like this without at least linking to the relevant background articles. Also, given the relatively mysterious nature of numbers stations, such details about the amplifiers used would seem to be firmly in the realm of speculation, and hence should be denoted as such. Either that or some substantiation should be provided. -- AlastairR 00:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree: delete "Class-B (Push-Pull) modulated". "Frequency agile" is accurate, but perhaps could be better stated. It means the transmitter is capable of being quickly tuned to another frequency, perhaps in another band. Maybe this was a bigger deal before solid state electronics. As for the "polyphase and PDM modulators" - not only does it sound like BS, but it seems unsupportable. How do you prove the non-existence of something? Maybe simply no one ever heard such a transmission. JohnDouglasPorter 2006-02-02 20:15 UTC [ 198.201.23.10 20:15, 02 Feb 2006 (UTC)]

I'm a ham radio op with advanced licensed (same as extra class in the US), class b amplifiers are low tech but perfectly usable at high-frequency you just need transistors with a higher frequency response than you typical "class b" home stereo, but it's hardly this simple, even if you're not concerned about power usage you'll probably don't want to waste too much power because then cooling and max power dissipation of the transistor become the "bottleneck" of the power output of your transmitter (this is a very real problem at 100 kW) so class a-b in multiple stage are much more common, but "Class-B (Push-Pull) modulated" is wrong "Class-B (Push-Pull)" isn't a modulation type nor a modulator type so you'll need to rephrase that, by "polyphase and PDM modulators" the original poster probably meant either phase division multiplexing or phase modulation (both unrelated communications technologies you might want to link, but since this is generic radio tech and no one has dissected a numbers station who knows, it's likely they would use this but there's no documentation and wikipedia has a strick no original research policy, it's as relevant as saying that numbers stations use lightbulbs and chairs) btw class c amplifiers are no good for numbers stations unless they're morse because those amplifiers and a modulation baseband too narrow for voice. shodan wikipedia~at~domn~dot~net 11 april 2006 [ 72.0.198.207 11 Apr 2006 (UTC)]

I agree that "Class-B (Push-Pull) modulated" is wrong and that Class-B power output heat dissipation at 100KW is a serious issue. However, "too narrow for voice" isn't a problem when using Class-C with plate modulation, since the audio doesn't pass through the narrow RF stages. A more likely correct article statement is 'Amplitude modulated (AM) transmitters with optionally variable frequency, using Class-C power output stages and plate modulation, are the workhorses of international shortwave stations. Class-C has optimal efficiency for converting electric power into radio energy, which is no small matter in transmitters rated at half a million watts'. See a 500KW transmitter picture and specifications at http://www.transmitter.be/riz-or500k01a.html Milo 22:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Further to this section, I couldn't understand the relevance of the DRM information. Reading it, it sounds like a speculation on what technology might be used to transmit numbers stations in the future, followed by a list of unimportant characteristics and finishing with a further speculation. Am I missing something? -- scwimbush 02:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I've been considering removing it since it was added. Honestly, I'm not sure this article needs a transmission technology section at all -- does it really add anything to speculate on just what sort of shortwave transmitter the (presumed) spy agencies are using? Zack 17:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

An alternative is to replace the irrelevant DRM material and describe why it or any high tech radio modulation ("polyphase and PDM modulators") doesn't fit with numbers station theory. Being caught with more than a civilian shortwave news radio is evidence of spying. Future numbers stations may be the last to use DRM, since future DRM radios will have an AM mode, and AM may penetrate slightly better under the worst conditions. The transmission technology section is useful in describing a black art, because it places known technical and economic boundaries on necessary speculations about what governments might do secretly. There are a modest number of big transmitters in the world, and they have tiny technical characteristics like fingerprints, which by comparison may suggest who built them and when. Milo 22:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The original piece, "Amplitude modulated, frequency agile Class-B (Push-Pull) modulated HF transmitters are the workhorses of numbers stations" was originally posted to the ENIGMA 2000 Group in August 2003.

It was quickly removed from the Group.

The poster of that message also posted other nonsense about the Polytone transmissions.

Looking at his other postings it can be seen he was regurgitating others work, eventually posting stuff of which he had no knowledge.

The polytone correcting piece - with reference - can be seen in ENIGMA 2000 Newsletter of Sept 2003 Issue 18 [Paul Beaumont, for ENIGMA 2000 Number Monitors Group] [ 155.198.203.13 55:25, 21 Apr 2006 (UTC)]

---

Well there seems to be a consensus here... the section sucks! (Interesting bit about the amplifier classes though, they didn't teach that in my design class!) So I think I'll just... I dunno, delete it? Mark it for deletion? Anyone more familiar with wikipedia policy should have a look at this and do it, I'm still a newbie at it. All I can do is write ;) --MUSpud2 04:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have implemented most of these edits discussed above. Milo 09:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Direction finding

Is it possible to locate the transmitters by direction finding? — Matt Crypto 18:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, if anyone knows all about this subject, kindly do add a section to the article about this. My understanding is that it's very hard to triangulate a shortwave radio signal, but I'm no expert, and this is just a recollection from the old Cecil Adams article on numbers stations. An obvious question most readers must be thinking is: Why don't they just find where the broadcasts are physically coming from, pounce on the station, and figure it out? Thanks in advance. Tempshill 18:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Having read a little more, it seems high-frequency direction finding was possible at least as early as World War II within the military (see Huff-Duff). — Matt Crypto 14:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Direction finding (DF) is so easy you can experimentally do it with an AM table radio. Triangulation requires a minimum of two DF locations and two pencil lines on a map. I'll add what I remember from a magazine article by a DF hobbyist who actually found a USA numbers station, though a citation is needed. These stations are physically guarded by governments so they can't be pounced on and figured out. Milo 02:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but you would be able to say which station is transmitted from which country. — Matt Crypto 06:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with DFing is that a signal may not travel in a straight line from transmitter to receiver. You can see this with ghosting of a TV signal when the aerial is not pointed directly at the transmitter. It's worse at HF where the signal has usually bounced off the ionosphere and varies in amplitude and phase. The more ionospheric hops, the worse the distortion, and there are many reasons that the signal may not come along the great circle bearing, such as scatter and grey circle propagation. Joe VK4TU 203.25.140.98 07:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Phone numbers station?

I just heard about this on Off The Hook. Maybe someone who knows more about this sort of stuff should write a section on it. It's a new numbers station discovered operating from a phone line rather than on SW radio. The original post about it is here. [1] Ben Morris 13:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. But before it finds its way into the article I think it's better to wait awhile. It may be a joke of some kind – I ran some basic analysis on the transmission and it's not a strong cipher (i.e. not a one-time pad cipher), contrary to what one would expect from a regular numbers station. –Mysid^(t) 15:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done my own summary of this phone number station, including all of the available facts I've been able to find. It's not much, and I didn't get very far on the encrypted message, either. Wired reporter Ryan Singel thinks it's a prank. --Error28 02:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There's now a second phone numbers station operating. --Error28 19:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the the link(and number)[2][3] a supposed Men in Black/Mothman phone number located in Point Pleasant WV. I called it a few times and it asked for numbers to be entered. Can these be included in the article?Drazil91 17:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is [4]. I had forgotten where I learned about it, but after a few days of searching and asking folks at UnFiction, we figured out the "Phone Numbers Station" was Project Evil. Pyrogen 20:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-listening illegal in UK

Listening is illegal in the UK, however it's nothing to do with espionage, nor is it limited to numbers stations. It's simply that, without appropriate permission, it is illegal to listen to any radio station in the UK. Since it is likely to be impossible to get permission to listen to these stations, then it's an offence. It's covered by s5 Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. Out of interest, the public have been given blanket permission to listen to stations that are actually intended for broadcast!

Citation amended accordingly BaseTurnComplete 10:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Illegal Listening in Great Britain - another view:

The now obsolete Radiocommunications Agency produced a interesting document, RA169, which adequately illustrated the type of Radio Stations that can be monitored.

See: [5]

The above stated URL will take you to the last revised issue - which takes into consideration the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

See: [6]

The 'Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000' defines those who can and cannot listen to things other than 'general broadcasts' and gives notice of those who can authorise certain persons to listen to other transmissions. It is a most powerful piece of legislation and removes any misunderstanding concerning interceptions.

However, it is not just the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 as amended, nor the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 that the Short Wave Listener or Number Station Monitor should be aware of, especially if they intend to publish logs to do with British Communications.

Whilst DA Notices are generally aimed at the media the scope is such as to be of interest to those who offer logs or perhaps publish details of British Communications:

See: [7]

Whilst it is unlikely that any British Number Station Monitor is likely to be immediately arrested, it does pay to know what legislation exists. With the content of DA Notices [3 & 5] in mind one should be aware of the ever present Official Secrets Act 1989 [replaces S2 OSA 1911] and the way it could affect those members of the public who have intercepted Official messages. [Which, of course, HM Government might not readily tolerate given todays' world].

See: [8]

[Paul Beaumont for ENIGMA 2000 Number Monitors Group [9]

Actually I'm very doubtful that the UK government (nowadays anyway) would give a damn about people listening to their number stations. The whole concept means it doesn't matter. Besides that, the people they would want to worry about would not be UK residents but the local agents of target countries (located in these countries). These are the one's who would be most risky (altho again, the whole concept nowadays is that it doesn't matter that people know what they're for or that they may try to decode them. They can't.) Instead, I suspect what the UK government would be concerned about is people listening to non-UK stations. I.E. foreign agents (illegals according to this article). It's these kind of people that they would be worried about and assuming they lack the evidence to prosecute them for espionage and presuming they can't continue to monitor such people for whatever reason, they may very well use this law to go after said people. Nil Einne 12:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Transmitter power

[2006-06-18 article:] "Since numbers station broadcasts would typically require higher wattage electricity than is available to households"

What is the basis for this statement? An HF signal can circle the globe on less than 40 watts - Mark, N4JMT [ Jmturner 15:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC) [10] ]

The context of the article statement is a refutation that drug smugglers would be likely to use numbers stations, which gets into proving a negative. (Note, "households" really should become "third-world ranches, farms, or plantations".) But for now let's apply your technical question to government numbers stations. ≈ The 40 watt figure you cite was probably logged under ideal conditions of frequency band, local RF noise level, weather, season, sunspots, big receiving antenna, and a superb receiver, not to mention spending many hours in a comfy chair to reliably log a weak signal. To the contrary, spies have to work under all local conditions in all seasons and sunspot years. We know from the Cuban Atención Wasp Network and the East German My Spy Story numbers station cases, that spies have to work with available hand held receivers, sometimes under pressured conditions. Only really big transmitters are guaranteed to get through to nearly any basement-dwelling spy, nearly any place on earth, nearly all of the time. Milo 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement is different now, saying that farms and rural drug smugglers wouldn't be able to do this. The problems remain the same. That 40 watt number certainly sounds ideal but I don't think you need to be global either. Earlier in the comments on this page someone who appears to have a handle on the technicals talks about the power requirements being somewhere in the vicinity of the output of a general purpose truck engine. Rural facilities are definitely more than likely to have that, so I'm flagging the section dubious in hopes of someone finding the original reference. Otherwise, it should be taken down as baseless. --— robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 12:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

ACtually you really dont need much power at all, a few tens of watts of RF at most, if your recipient has the unobstructed space for putting up a reasonable length of wire antenna outdoor, and you can change frequency to avoid any local jamming/interfernce. You do need some knowledge of the ions-pheric daily cycles though, as the optimum frequency needing minimum power is a strong function of time of day. However, if you can afford to wait at most 12 hours for conditions to open (which like the tide is reasonably predicatable), and are not too fussed about observing the frequency band plan, you could pretty much guarantee to get through to anywhere on the planet from anywhere else using car battery sort of powers. This is both the attraction and the curse of short wave. Kilowatts are for those who need to get through at anytime on a fixed frequemcy.

109.207.29.2 (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Mike G7VZY (ham and occasional SWL)

True but irrelevant. A few tens of watts can certainly be sufficient when propagation conditions are right, but that sort of relatively low-power signal is virtually unheard of with numbers stations. All of the most common North American numbers stations (Atencion, Spanish 4-digit, English 3/2 digit, etc.) consistently have very strong signals which are clearly not the product of a few watts. The claim that these powerful, clear signals might be the product of a low-power system is at odds with observed evidence. 132.3.25.68 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Franz (ham, SWL, numbers enthusiast since 1992)

I must say that under IDEAL conditions, one may be able to transmit a signal of merely 10 watts around the world, however, to get through to whomever you need to, regardless of circumstance, great power would be necessary. Elmulletto (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC) (AKA: KC8YJW) radio enthusiast and amateur radio operator.

Spelling check.

I noticed that there is spelling problem in this article. The spelling was Probalmatic. But Some editor changed the spelling. Probalmatic into Problammatic'. Does anyone know which one is correct spelling? Thanks. *~Daniel~* ☎ 03:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly where is that spelling error? The "Transmission technology" section says "–making good HF direction problematic" which is the correct spelling. –Mysid^(t) 14:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said above yesterday, I was confused with Problammatic and Probalmatic. That's what I asked for. *~Daniel~* ☎ 23:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither one of them is correct. –Mysid^(t) 04:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Revolution No. 9

Very intriguing article. I remember briefly hearing these stations in the past and assuming they were some sort of test transmission - it's interesting to know that the truth may be somewhat stranger!

After listening to some of the recordings on Conet, I can't help but be reminded of Revolution 9, the "song" on the Beatles' White Album which consists of the repeated phrase "number 9", "number 9" against a backdrop of strange sounds and weird music (including music played backwards).

I have to wonder whether John and/or Yoko were inspired by these stations, or if they incorporated number station recordings into their bizarre musical collages. Having said that, some of the stations (Swedish Rhapsody?) sound weirder than anything those two ever came up with! 217.34.39.123 09:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

According to a definitive web site Revolution Number 9 Lyrics and Audio "number nine" was "taken from an EMI test tape" containing a series of spoken numbers. This number would normally be dubbed prior to the beginning of a track "indicating a recording of the ninth take of a song." The "avante-gard" artistic rivalry struggle by Paul to exclude John's Revolution Number 9 from the White Album was a harbinger of the breakup of the Beatles. Milo 14:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Letter beacon

Proposing that Letter beacon be merged into this article, assuming it can be reliably sourced.--Rosicrucian 19:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Letter beacons aren't just numbers stations with letters; they serve a conceptually different purpose for encyclopedic classification. Radio beacons are transmitters, not radio stations in the formal sense. Stations usually transmit a signal of new data. Beacons always transmit the same thing, which in communications theory is a sign (as in a stop sign), not a signal. It's analogous to the difference between lighthouses and fire/flag signaling towers.

Granted that mystery beacons are usually reported by numbers station monitoring groups, but Numbers station is a popular article by standards of distribution. Do we really want to change the name to accomodate letter beacons? Article size seems not an issue. Numbers station is currently 24K, and Letter beacon is only 1.5k.

How would Letter beacon be helped by merging? Milo 07:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It was initially proposed by another user, so I was largely doing the formalities. Your clarification does help though, and I think that was some of the trouble we had when we stumbled upon the Letter beacon article. We're not shortwave enthusiasts, and we weren't sure where to start to source an article that at present seems to be OR, and as such we didn't know the distinction between the two terms. If we can get that distinction made in the article itself, as well as some help on the sourcing, there should be no need to merge.--Rosicrucian 14:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge. The distinction between the terms should be obvious, even to non-shortwave enthusiasts (I'm also not a shortwave enthusiast), simply from reading both articles. A numbers station typically transmits groups of apparently random numbers, read usually by what seem to be recorded voices, at what appear to be scheduled times. A letter beacon transmits a single letter of Morse code continuously. After the upcoming U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, I may be able to source at least some of the information at Letter beacon (I have a book from the 1980s that documents both types of broadcast; we'll see how RS it is). --Tkynerd 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge also. Letter beacons are assumed to be radio navigation aids and therefore are maintained for either secret military or legitimate civilian purposes. With a few exceptions the letters only serve to identify the station. Numbers stations are (most likely) assumed to be used by governments for clandestine communication to secret agents and the numbers (and letters) they broadcast usually contain the message. The two are very different beasts.BaseTurnComplete 15:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons listed above. A numbers station is transmitting varied data (the number streams) at specific times. A Letter Beacon just transmits one letter, over and over again. Pyrogen 20:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Two totally different things. While there might be some aesthetic overlap between the two, each certainly deserves its own article. Tzaquiel 18:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. They Are totally different topics they should remain just how they are now. DO NOT Merge these 2 articles togther they are NOT Related. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.60.72 (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

It seems there is unanimous consensus not to merge, even among the proposers, so I'll remove the propose merge article tag. If Rosicrucian and other Letter beacon editors need technical assistance, I think they are welcome to post a request here for editors to help over there. Hopefully Tkynerd has already done that. Milo 21:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Overview: Dead Link

The link for Introduction to Voice Numbers Stations, http://filebox.vt.edu/users/tmays/classdocs/Final%20Project.doc requires a username and password to log in. For the general public, this link is effectively dead. There is no Google Cache for this document. While Tim Mays's intention in 2005 is laudable, the information he made publicly available needs to be moved to an accessible website, or this link dropped. Jedwards05 00:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It was quote of Smolinski, IIRC, basically mentioning Warrenton, VA. You could write to Mays at the email he provides higher up in that directory and ask for suggestions, including how to contact Smolinski.

A better approach is to extract the (IIRC) five CIA numbers stations history from the Enigma 2000 archives, which would include both the Florida and Warrenton site stations, and blend that in to the existing paragaph.

Meanwhile the link could be moved to a footnote. Wikiguides call for keeping the link stored somewhere even though stale, as proof that it was once sourced . Milo 13:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Done — link marked as needing a password and moved to footnote. Milo 10:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Tone?

User:Takeel just placed a {{tone}} tag on this article. I am curious as to what specifically Takeel objects to, as I don't really see that there are problems with the tone of this article. What do others think? --Tkynerd 18:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, it's a mystery for armchair spooks. Have a look at Takeel's Contributions. Anyone see matching patterns? Milo 10:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the "tone", I spent a lot of time and trouble on the interference + jamming sections, which I wrote from scratch, then somebody comes along and says it's not good enough. You write the next section then Pal ;-) Simon Mason.

In Takeel's edit summaries, he has complained about rumors and a technology section in other articles. This article discusses both of those things, but maybe they're unrelated to the informality tone tag.

I think the tone is mostly formal. I did spot these sentences:

Here you can view a video... You can view a video of V2 interfering with ...

If 'you' change those 'you's' to third person, then I guess it will be ok for 'you' to remove the tone tag. :) Milo 10:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the word mysterious in the indtroduction gives an informal feel from the start. If we would pick a less emotive word it could change the tone of the article. On the otherhand that is what they are: mysterious. GB 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I simply removed the word mysterious in the hope it doesn't break the flow much. –mysid☎ 08:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I just edited that sentence for flow, breaking it up into two sentences and doing some rewording. --Tkynerd 15:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed by these changes in the mood-setting intro for several reasons.

• First, this article is popular in large part because it is about a mystery. (In the golden age of radio there was a show titled, I Love A Mystery.) I recall the chills down my spine when I first heard a numbers station. That emotional reaction is publicly captured in the discussion at Alien Hub. Part of the article's encyclopedic flow of satisfaction is the way it establishes a mystery, transports the reader to some illumination, yet penultimately halts at the governments' stonewall. It follows the showbiz dictum of leaving the audience wanting more, which they can get by following the outstanding selection of external links. (If It Had Not Been For 15 Minutes is as good as TV spy fiction.)

• Second, removing "mysterious" is a fix in the wrong direction, as suggested by the "tone" complaint. While I respect that Graeme feels the way that he feels, most people don't respond that way. In both writing and life, mystery increases formality (a metaphorical distance) because it is the opposite of familiarity (a closeness). Whatever Takeel may have intended, the tone tag is technically a complaint of excessive familiarity in writing, which is why I suggested removing the overly-familiar 'you's.

• Third, changing male/female to men/women also increases familiarity. Since these are (usually) mechanical voices nowdays, and not real men or women speaking, then male/female is also rhetorically more correct. Milo 06:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

First, "mysterious" is POV and not encyclopedically formal, and was properly removed. Mood-setting is not the job of an encyclopedia.

Second, I changed "male/female" to "men/women" because a third category was also involved, namely "children." Children are also either male or female, so the contrast "male - female - children" is simply inaccurate. If you would like to change "men" and "women" to "adult male" and "adult female" respectively, I wouldn't argue, but I don't see a problem with the current wording, which I don't think "increases familiarity" -- it's not as if I'd written "guys" and "gals," for heaven's sake. --Tkynerd 13:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the tone is good now, so I am going to remove the tone alert from the article. I have also given a B rating - what's there is good enough, but we need some pictures, and an infobox, possibly some tables such as a list of stations. With this added I think it could get an "A" GB 05:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference in Grigorjev novel

The fictional book "Med SÄPO i hälarna" by former Soviet spy Boris Grigorjev contains a section wherein a spy tunes in to a number station to recieve a message encrypted with a one-time pad. Since the author probably knows something about how spionage, this caught my interest. Is it worth adding to the article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabianlidman (talk • contribs) 15:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Silly speculation

The article says: "A person hearing strange music and a young girl reading numbers, may pass such a broadcast off as being a child playing around with the radio for example, however the astute listener will notice that such numbers are read out identically (much like when you dial the wrong number on the telephone and a machine reads you the number that you incorrectly dialed)."

Given the general awareness of such stations this silly bit of speculation should either be thrown out or backed up by a citation. "Listen ma, it's the neighbor girl playing around with the radio again. Silly thing, never got past numbers, did she."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.99.168.66 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 20 May 2007‎

Good point. I removed the speculative bits, including the unlikely stuff about French spies using Chinese numbers.--agr 12:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Numbers messaging on loop lines"

Given the little amount of information surrounding number stations on loop lines, I suggest it should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.181.35 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

'simonmason' and 'swldxr' content concerns

I'm concerned in the first instance with the quantity of links to these two external sites from within this article. I'm especially concerned as many if not all of the 'simonmason' links appear to have been added by a user called Simon Mason, who has commented on this talk page, and who doesn't appear to have done much editing outside of this page (so near as I can tell). I'm worried for two reasons: firstly, this could be an example of a Wikipedia article being used to promote a website; and secondly, we should not have such a high number of off-site links appearing in references in any article - either the content should be incorporated into the article, or it should be linked once, as a reference, or as footnotes.

I also question the format of these references. Typically, references should be used to link to a footnote, and that footnote should provide a link to evidence to support a claim that is made in the article. Many of the links to these two sites are in fact just audio files or additional information about the point that has already been made in the article - in this case, they are unnecessary, or should at the least link to a footnote, not be a direct off-site link. Also the wording of many of these references is incorrect. For instance, from the Interference with documented broadcasts section: The interference can be heard here: [3] - this is an incorrect use of the reference function, as well as being an unnecessary link.

I would suggest that the copious links to these two sites be stripped right back. Many of these references can be removed as contributing nothing to the article; in other cases where they do actually contribute, I'd suggest they be converted wherever possible to actual footnotes, correctly formatted.

The majority of such links can be found in these sections of the article: Interference with documented broadcasts and Attempted jamming of number stations; I count eleven usages all up in those two short sections.

I won't do anything as yet, until I hear if there is any feedback to this suggestion. It could be that this is a useful and acceptable use of reference links by the project; it just appears to be gratuitous and self-promotional to me. CastorQuinn (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If the above is true, then remove the links, they're obviously promotional. Tempshill (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You can remove them all if you wish. The only problem is that you have left illogical statements such as :

"SW Radio Africa transmits from Meyerton, South Africa, on 4880 kHz and is the "Independent Voice of Zimbabwe".

Without the video link this makes no sense and you have removed the comments about ULX using the same frequency. If you wish to remove "promotional" links then please make sure what you have left makes some sense, or write some material of your own rather than deleting other people's work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swldxer (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that's remarkably poor form to declare clean-up edits as discussed on this page as "vandalism" swldxer. Very bad form. You are absolutely welcome to disagree with the changes, but they were discussed, at least three people agreed with the changes (two here and a third who made the changes), they were flagged on the talk page ahead of time, and they are justified - even if the justification turns out to be incorrect, the changes were made in good faith, not as random acts of vandalism. From the policy page: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." The changes made were intended to improve the article. You may disagree that the changes achieve that goal, but do not suggest that the changes were made with the intention of reducing the quality of the article.

I'm going to suggest we get someone else involved with this. As there are more than two people involved we can't use Third Party, I'm going to go to Request Comment (Policy) to see what the general consensus is. I'm happy to be bound by the consensus in this matter, if one is reached; would you agree also to be bound by the consensus swldxer? CastorQuinn (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The editing I referred to as "vandalism" created lots of "orphan" paragraphs that made no sense whatsoever. In that sense it "improved" the article not one jot, but made it nonsensical. For example, my contribution is:

"Radio Africa transmits from Meyerton, South Africa, on 4880 kHz and is the "Independent Voice of Zimbabwe". Here you can view a video of the MOSSAD E10 station "Uniform Lima X-Ray" interfering with the African station."

Thus you have external evidence that the MOSSAD station ULX is interfering with Radio Africa by using the same frequency. The "improved" version as you describe it was:

"Radio Africa transmits from Meyerton, South Africa, on 4880 kHz and is the "Independent Voice of Zimbabwe". Which makes no sense at all in the context of the section.

If you wish, I can remove all of my contributions to this page which make reference to external evidence which happens to be on my own (non commercial) site. Of course, it will remain on my site, but people will have to find it with a search engine, rather than directly. If the consensus is reached that wishes that all of these links be removed, then I will comply and in effect all of the "jamming" and "interference" sections will be removed since I wrote the entire two sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swldxer (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Characteristics of Modern Stations

Since I've never heard a Numbers Station live, only recordings on the web, I was wondering about the characteristics of modern stations. From what I've read elsewhere, it seems like most of the unusual aspects of stations (strange call signs, the use of children's voices, etc) seems to have fallen by the wayside in favor of computer voices and bland call signs. Am I correct in this assumption? --Hillbilly Profane 6 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by HillbillyProfane (talk • contribs) 19:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the above modern stations are in fact not much different. However in the age of widespread internet access many stations are going offline in favor or web sites with hidden content within the html/xml/etc of the page, in the code of an ad image, etc. These are much more useful as they use less power then SW radio and can be less up for weeks on end. Pages can easily be hidden on a site if need be and instead of a one time page and second page on a different server can use the same system to hide a one time key. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.65.206.180 (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I listen to modern stations. They haven't changed much from the date of the Conet Project. I.e. nowadays you do mostly just get the numbers machine read. However, there are some oddities, e.g. E25 uses music. And, of course, the Lincolnshire Poacher has used music every day for the last 3 or more decades.

Re: hiding messages on the web... it's less reliable to rely on other people's infrastructure - any break in the chain can leave a critical message undelivered.

Lcdut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.219.82 (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The article says the voices are usually artificially generated. Many of the voices are in fact real people, simply reading a monotone and slowly, trying to form the sound of the numbers or letters distinctly so they can be understood over the noise floor of the shortwave frequency they are on. I monitored a numbers station as recently as 09/05/2009 on 5897 Khz at 0814 UTC. Over the last three deacdes I have logged hundreds of these stations, I have recorded them dozens of times. The stations use a one-off tablet code, it is read and received by the respective sations who then tear off the code sheet from the tablet and destroy the sheet. The transmissions originate from a variety of sources including jungle stations in Central, South America and the middle east. This methodolgy of transmitting coded messages is used by intelligence services, military operatives, drug smugglers, spies, embassies and guerilla operatives. The reason why the messages remain mysterious for six decades now is because so many different types of governmental and non-official services use the encryption methodology. The stations rarely remain on the air long enough to radio direction find them and the coded tablets are used only once. So they will remain enigmatic and open to all kinds of interpretation. But that is the very nature of the business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garandguy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Media Materials and how they are referenced in this article

Is the use of media materials in this article appropriate, or should they be rendered as footnotes, a resource link, or removed?

(Sorry for the multiple edits to this - I've never done an RfC before and I'm still learning).

This is intended to discuss the use of references to media materials in this article, in particular as mentioned here. The primary question is: Whether numerous in-line links to off-site media files is appropriate in the context of this article, or whether they should be rendered as footnotes, rendered as a single resource link in the resources section, or removed altogether as not enhancing the article.

I apologise for not knowing exactly which policy areas cover this issue - I'm working on getting the policy links, but I welcome anyone who can provide them. I'm sure this *is* covered by either policy or guidelines, or if not should be, I'm just not sure which.CastorQuinn (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Voices

What the hell is a "mechanically generated voice"??? For example a diesel engine modified to produce a human voice? WTF?!! Someone who knows about the technology should definitely correct this. I am not aware of any mechanical device that generates voices! --84.250.188.136 (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would assume its a mechanical way of producing the broadcasts, similar to the way the old mechanically-generated operator assisted number searches worked. Dayewalker (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

See the photo "Mechanical speaking clock at the Victorian Telecommunications Museum" at Speaking clock#Australia (1954), and see an account of the invention at Speaking clock#The Netherlands (1934). This equipment used optical sound technology developed for film in the 1920s, which was only some years after numbers stations began broadcasting circa WWI.
In the developed countries, I think it would have been possible to adapt the design of a speaking clock for numbers station use, circa 1935 onward. It could have been interfaced as the output device of a Teletype running with a paper tape loop punched with the message numbers. However, the additional labor to punch the tape while avoiding keying errors might not have been practical compared to just announcing them. After computers were available, circa 1950s, to do the one time pad encoding directly from keyed clear-text, they could have output error-free directly to a numerical voice machine line-connected to the transmitter.
It would be useful for the article if the experts here could provide verifiable dates for the earliest known mechanical and/or digitally synthesized voices. Milo 08:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

On my website is a description of such equipment:

"My friend had some information on the voice machine used. It was a system manufactured by the Cognitronics company of New Haven, Connecticut and used mainly for telephone intercept messages (ie "the number you have reached xxx-xxxx has been disconnected," etc.) in the '60s and '70s. This machine used announcements recorded on optical soundtracks rather than magnetic media, which gives the Cognitronics machine a distinctive sound. Apparently they used the same woman to read all their announcements. (The latter half of the file cognicomparison2.rm demonstrates the optical version of the voice.)"

Simon Mason author of "Secret Signals".Swldxer 12:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not numbers station media

A media poem about numbers stations is as valid as media lyrics, but the poem by Antoni Słonimski added to the article isn't related to numbers stations. Perhaps the fragment should be moved to the talk page of another article. Is there a consensus as to what should be done? Milo 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"tried for" receiving messages

I changed this line in the intro:

..the United States tried the Cuban Five, a group of individuals, with spying for Cuba and receiving encoded messages from a Cuban numbers station.[1] In June 2009, the United States similarly charged Walter Kendall Myers with spying for Cuba and receiving encoded messages from a numbers station operated by the Cuban Intelligence Service.[2]

This is misleading because it makes it sound like these individuals were tried for the crime of receiving the messages. This is untrue; they were all tried for espionage and various conspiracy charges; and if an individual wants to sit down in his house and receive and try to decode the messages, this is not a crime. I've rephrased the statement to remove the claim these people were "tried for" receiving the messages, but retained the statement that these people had decoded such messages. Tempshill (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not entirely correct, at least as to Kenneth Myers, who was in fact charged with, among other things, receiving messages from Cuban intelligence (CuIS) for the purpose of furthering the conspiracy. (I haven’t yet seen the Cuban Five indictment).

Myers’ indictment, on line here, charges him and his wife with conspiracy. Paragraph 63 of the Indictment charged them with conspiracy to act as unregistered agents of Cuba, defraud the US of secret information, etc., by committing many overt acts. One of those overt acts is receiving messages from Cuba:

“In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the objects thereof, Kenneth Myers and Gwendolyn Myers did commit overt acts in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, including but not limited to the following: ... (h) At various times during the conspiracy, Kendall Myers and Gwendolyn Myers received encrypted shortwave radio messages from CuIS in Morse Code.”

Under federal criminal law, the crime of conspiracy requires "an agreement between two or more persons to join together to accomplish some unlawful purpose." See Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions,18 USC Section 371, Conspiracy. One element of the crime of conspiracy is proof that at least "one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the overt acts described in the indictment, in order to accomplish some object or purpose of the conspiracy." Id. The overt act itself can be an act that otherwise is perfectly legal, but it becomes illegal where committed for the unlawful purpose of achieving the goal of the conspiracy. Typical overt acts charged in federal conspiracy indictments are receiving or mailing letters, making telephone calls or making payments – acts that in themselves are not illegal – for the purpose of achieving the unlawful goal of the conspiracy, e.g., fraud, selling drugs, etc. In such instances, the affirmative acts are part of the crime charged, i.e., are illegal conduct. In Myers case, receiving a message, for the purpose of furthering criminal activity, is a part of the crime charged.

The sentence about Myers could be revised to read:

In June 2009, the United States similarly charged Walter Kendall Myers with conspiring to spy for Cuba and receiving and decoding messages broadcast from a numbers station operated by the Cuban Intelligence Service for the purpose of furthering that conspiracy.

Of course, there is nothing illegal for an individual to receive and decode (if he can!) messages from a numbers station, as long as it is not done as part of a conspiracy for an illegal purpose. Ecphora (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

when I was a kid these were called "spy and number[s]"

Just for fun, I'll rummage through my mom's garage attic next week and try to find a dead-tree source on this since goog only turns up about 10 hits on exact term. You would think that QST or ARRL pubs would use the term if it ever had common usage. A mention with note "archaic" may be helpful.

LOL.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 16:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Most of the article seems to be from personal knowledge of the hobbyists. The section "Documented instances" for example does link to audio files but do not cite any "documented" reference that the names and the occasions did happen.

The phrase

A station operated by the West German BND agency whose callsign was "Hotel Kilo"

refers to a number station called "Hotel Kilo"? And if yes, how do we know that it is operated by the WG BND? Citations?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictureuploader (talk • contribs) 11:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for Removal of 2 Statements on Direction-Finding of Superpower Stations

Removed: "Superpower number station broadcasting from the USSR cannot be concretely proven to this day as the USSR jammed HF broadcasts from the west making many HF direction finding attempts significantly more difficult." Explanation: this means that since YOU jam MY transmission, I can't find the direction from which YOUR transmission is coming, although I am not saying that YOUR transmission is being jammed. How can the jamming of one transmission affect another one? This does not make any sense. Paraphrasing for the benefit of the willfully technically inastute: "I can't read the sender's address on my incoming mail, because my outgoing mail is being tampered with". If a form of magic is implied, this should be stated.

Removed: "The HF bands in Europe and Eurasia were very crowded during most of the Cold War making HF direction finding often problematic during the best of propagation conditions." Since we are talking about some of the strongest signals in the bands, interference is not really relevant. Paraphrasing for the benefit of the willfully technically inastute: "Your voice is the clearest of all, but somehow I still can't understand you because someone else talks softly in the background". Unlikely to be true and to advance knowledge. Furthermore, no basis is provided.

Spamhog (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough to remove that stuff, but I suspect that the first statement is also untrue as many government agencies will have performed direction finding and would know where the signal came from. Records from the old USSR on the matter probably still exist in secret. The second statement sounds like something that someone may have said, but it would need a reference, and in any case is just an excuse. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "In popular culture section"

Crossmr (talk) removed the entire "in popular culture" section, with an edit that it was mere "trivia". I restored it with a note that it was not "trivia" but appeared to be acceptible content under Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Crossmr replied on my talk page with the following:

To start with, WP:TRIVIA is a guideline. You've only cited an essay. Further, you might actually try reading the essay you've cited as a defense for the restoration of that content: Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content#Good_and_bad_popular_culture_references. More specifically:

When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:

1. Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
2. Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference?
3. Did any real-world event occur because of the reference?

If you can't answer "yes" to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia. Get all three and you're possibly adding valuable content.

Can you answer yes to all 3 of those for each and every item you restored? I don't think so. In fact all but one are unsourced and that's only to a primary source. There is also no evidence of #3 in any of those that you restored since they're all unsourced, same with #1. So unless you can even begin to answer those 3 questions on an individual basis and provide citations they don't belong in the article. These are nothing more than name-drops of the subject. wikipedia is not a list of every time a subject has been name-dropped in a book, TV, or song.--Crossmr (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I continue to believe that this material is acceptable under Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, and provides interesting information that readers may look for here. These also seem very comparable to entries in other "In popular culture" articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps additional sources should be cited, but that is no justification for removing it wholesale. Let's have some comments from others on this. Ecphora (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Then answer the 3 questions. If you can't, then you're just pointless edit warring as you've done. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS just because it appears in another article doesn't mean it should appear in this article. We have a project wide guideline with consensus, already cited. You've provided no justification for its restoration other than the fact that you like it. This is not a valid reason for restoring content to the article. Also see WP:V under burden of proof. As the one restoring or adding the content its your responsibility to find sources which you've failed to do. Continually adding unsourced material to an article when it's been challengd is disruptive. You've cited 1 essay as your defense and you're not even editing in-line with that. If you want to demonstrate some kind of consensus that this material should be here, show it. WP:ILIKEIT is insufficient.--Crossmr (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no indication here that any of the references cited seem to meet any of those three criteria. A fourth possible criterion implied by WP:POPCULTURE is whether someone could learn something meaningful about the topic from the popular culture reference alone. I would like to hear from proponents of this section which of these four criteria are met by each of the pop culture references. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr, You really need to watch your tone. You come across as being very Bossy.( "Then answer the 3 questions") You sound like a Smart Alek think he knows it all. Watch it. --99.177.248.92 (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

An impact on popular culture section, even such a broad one as this, is, I think, both justified and valuable. It is a niche and fascinating topic, and if they aren't documented here, where would they be? I think a very good job has been done of distilling the section to some of the more pertinent examples, however what does need to be done sharpish is proper citation of sources - for instance, the video game listed, which wouldn't strike me as particularly culturally significant, but which could be justified if it was referenced properly. How do we know that numbers stations figure into this first person shooter? --Tosk Albanian (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Suspected origins and use

"According to the notes of The Conet Project,[4] numbers stations have been reported since World War II. If accurate, this would make numbers stations among the earliest radio broadcasts."

That derivation is plain wrong, commercial radio broadcasting started in the USA in the 1920s, so almost 20 years before world war II. Given the relative timespan of 90 years that doesn't make them 'early' at all.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.47.109 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Bunk: increased or decreased?

This article used to claim that "their overall activity has increased slightly since the early 1990s", unsourced. Then this January edit[11] changed "increased" to "decreased", equally unsourced. I call bunk an article that can blithely pretend something and its contrary on anybody's whim: if you don't have no source about that point, then don't pretend nothing about it. 62.147.25.15 (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Fallout 3 Number Stations?

In the popular culture section, Fallout 3 is mentioned and an uncited claim that there are number stations in the game that point you to locations is there. I can't find anything to do with number stations in Fallout 3 that isn't creepasta. 21:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jookia (talk • contribs)

Why the fictional recording as an example?

Why use a fictional numbers transmission as an example when real examples abound all over the internet and directly off the air which could be used?

The fictional one does not resemble a numbers transmission very much at all. The sound quality and modulation are much different. There is far too much extraneous dialogue and the inclusion of full orchestral instrumental music adds an element that is not found in any real numbers transmissions.

Furthermore, since officially these stations "do not exist", hardly anyone will be making a copyright violation claim, will they? 95.209.138.250 (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the example doesn't seem particularly representative. I'm not sure whether we could use any off-air recording as a public domain non-creative work, but the Conet Project recordings appear to be released under an Open Content License. --McGeddon (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely by pure virtue of the Conet Project recordings being such a pervasive presence and having had no objection raised over their usage rights, using recordings have been proven unobjectionable? --Tosk Albanian (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the the fake recording.

I removed the the fake Numbers Station recording. It is original research and it is pointless as it is made up and fake. Also it sounds NOTHING like a real Numbers Station.--99.177.248.92 (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And it would have been real nice if you'd told me your concerns. It sounds a lot like some real numbers stations. It's not OR, since I am allowed to make files for demonstration purposes, and there is nothing wrong with it. I've spoken with several other people who listen to these types of stations, and been told that for some transmitting stations, it is as close to accurate as you will get.

The whole purpose of a demonstration is that it is not real, it is a demonstration - intended to give an example of what a transmission would sound like. You obviously have "consensus", but I would not like to be uploading potentially real data from a numbers station onto Wikipedia, given the risks it carries - if you think you can make a better demo, be my guest.  BarkingFish  21:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Article has been tagged long-term for needing sourcing. Please feel free to reincorporate the below material with appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The USSR and superpower number stations

=== The USSR and superpower number stations === During the Cold War there was substantial evidence from the amateur radio community that the USSR may have been using transmitters to reach agents in Western Europe, North Africa, and possibly North America with output power ranging up to 500 kW. HF direction finding evidence that was collected by many different sets of amateurs in Europe, Africa, and the Americas during the Cold War substantiates number stations broadcasting from east of the Urals. USSR technical literature shows that the USSR pioneered HRS 8/8/1 directional HF antennas for shortwave news and information broadcasting in the late 1960s–mid 1970s. Thus it is possible that lower transmitter powers (around 100 kW) were used in the 1980s for numbers station use.

'it is widely assumed'

I thought that was one of the specific terms that Wikipedia tries to avoid (appears in paragraph 2)Adagio67 (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct, see WP:WEASEL. --SubSeven (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Timeline discrepancy

In the first section it says Time magazine says the stations started springing up after WWII, but in the next section it says they started appearing shortly after WWI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone with a Time subscription could make use of their archive to find the article this is from.50.195.92.241 (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

In accordance with WP:IPC, please note that discussion of appearances of numbers stations in popular culture should be accompanied by third-party sources that demonstrate the significance of this appearance. For this purpose a game guide does not qualify as a third-party source, as it only establishes the appearance of the numbers station, not its significance. It would be little different from using a book about Star Trek to demonstrate that a Star Trek reference was significant. DonIago (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So what, exactly, do you consider a reliable source that demonstrates the significance of the appearence of a numbers station in a video game where the plot revolves around the shutting down of a numbers station? CaptainPedge | Talk | Guestbook 01:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If the New York Times mentioned it I'd certainly have no problem with that, but any publication that isn't specifically dedicated to videogame discussion but notes the appearance of a numbers station in a particular game would likely suffice provided it passes the general reliable source criteria. DonIago (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Why should it not be a VG specific publication? CaptainPedge | Talk | Guestbook 21:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

For the same reason that a Lost-related publication talking about the numbers station that shows up in Lost does not demonstrate significance. We should use a source that does not already have the subject as its primary focus. DonIago (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? What makes a non-specialist publication better than one with expertise ont he subject matter at hand? CaptainPedge | Talk | Guestbook 15:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

An anonymous game guide isn't a reliable source. It also says nothing about how the game "prominently features a numbers station in its themeing", it just tells you to how to kill a guy in an area mentioned once as being "The Numbers Station". If it's a prominent part of the game, it should be easy enough to find reviews that talk about it. --McGeddon (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please add that in the program The Americans, the two soviet spies receive orders through a numbers station? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.48.232 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the "references in mass media" section alongside LOST, Fringe, and Scandal. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Declassified documents about a Numbers Station (aka. official confirmation by a gov't II)

Priyom.org has obtained a declassified Top Secret document from the Czech Security Archives, of 1st and 6th Administration (StB), of Czechoslovak State Security. It contains sentences such as "On the recipient's side, strictly an average commercial receiver is used."
It shouldn't take more than a month to get it published, please stay tuned. --TotoCZ 10:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotoCZ (talk • contribs)

Sourcing required

Article has more citations than when the tag was added in 2012, but banner tag remains as there are still multiple sections with information that isn't sourced. (Pasted here from User_talk:Doniago#Numbers_station.) – Fayenatic London 21:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of the citations in this article are not RS. Some examples: self-published sources, personal websites, and original sound recordings. What it comes down to is that this is a "fringe" interest without a lot of coverage in the mainstream press. When faced with this problem, the correct solution is not to lower the standards for references. Geogene (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Official confirmation by a gov't

Hello all numbers station researchers, I have recently been able to obtain an email confirmation from Czech Ministry of Interior that the czech station OLX was run by Foreign Intelligence (UZSI) under MoI's cover and the purpose was "broadcasting into foreign countries"... This is perhaps the best proof besides trials with the Cubans we have about the purpose of numbers stations. Any ideas how and if that could be used as an article reference? http://priyom.org/blog/czech-intel-confirms-it-used-to-run-a-numbers-station.aspx and I of course have the full email in original language.--TotoCZ 17:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations. I'm sure you're excited about this. Sadly,this is not news; OLX has long been the only numbers stations that will send QSL. Your website isn't a reliable source so we can't cite it here. The reply from OLX is a primary source so it's not really appropriate for use in an encyclopedia, anyway. I think the best way to get this information included is to find a publication (print, not online) that discusses this. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is that website not a reliable source? You have to consider reliability relative to the subject matter, and for numbers stations there is never much "official" information to go on. Within the field of clandestine radio stations, it's probably one of the most respected sources. CodeCat (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because you like the information provided by a source doesn't make it reliable. Probably half of this article should be cut simply because of these issues, but I'm not a deletionist. I am content to at least prevent further nonsense until we can get real sourcing. The more you introduce unreliable material the greater damage you do to the reliability of the project. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is ultra big news. We now have a first intelligence agency directly tied to a NS, not just some "Ministry of Interior" that could be broadcasting weather information for fun. MoI responded today, gave clear information about their history with the station, priyom reprinted the thing with a translation (not my website), and you want to get some printed publications? Are you crazy? So just ignore it for 25 years before somebody bothers to update Encyclopedia Britannica Outdated Edition, and then it can be added online? Or we'll wait for somebody to print out the priyom page ten times to get enough sources? Should 10 other people email them? No, let's just ignore the thing. Better idea: Delete the whole page, isn't that even a better solution? I'm surprised that some old speculation about 2 buzzers or a dead hand system doesn't matter in UVB-76 articles, but now when we get actual information from the guys who ran the thing, it's discarded as "not reliable". Lincolshire Poacher has ZERO primary sources and 98% speculation (albeit correct), and yet is still allowed to exist.. So why not mention that the Czech Republic's own MoI says it was Intel station? You said it yourself it was run by MoI - so they are now not reliable? Even though you believe they ran the thing and it's nothing new? What the hell..--TotoCZ 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotoCZ (talk • contribs)

Put simply, Wikipedia's reliable source policy requires "reliable, published sources". Unpublished personal correspondence is not considered to be an appropriate source. --McGeddon (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

But this is not unpublished personal correspondence. It's published on the website, under a Wikipedia-compatible Creative Commons licence no less. You also have to consider that defining "reliability" too narrowly will cause systemic bias. It favours those topics for which a lot of information is available in traditional media, while rejecting topics that have less information about them by their nature. Wikipedia's goal is to represent the whole of human knowledge, so that means that sometimes concessions have to be made when the tradeoff is between having information from more niche-oriented sources such as websites, and having no information on a topic at all. If the definition of a reliable source is held absolute, then that is essentially conceding that Wikipedia is not intending to fulfill its goal, but that it is intended to focus only on a subset of possible notable topics. And I think such views are, paradoxically maybe, damaging to Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, because it reduces the scope of information that is available in favour of what is "mainstream". Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia of the mainstream, or is it an encyclopedia of everything? CodeCat (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is explicitly not an encyclopedia of everything. It's a shame that sourcing policy can make it difficult to flesh out historical articles where the details were only ever informally documented, but if the definition of a reliable source was stretched to include "screenshots of personal email that the uploader assures us was sent by a particular person", you can imagine the chaos. (Disagree with a statement? Just forge a quick email source and upload it under a CC licence!) That version of Wikipedia would have a wider scope, but be far less credible. Even if self-published sources were restricted to obscure topics where few better sources existed, anything even remotely controversial about those topics would fuzz into unreliability.

The current system of "inadequately sourced material stands until someone objects and removes it, and such content on less-read subjects will receive less scrutiny" is perhaps, to paraphrase Churchill, the worst form of wiki policy except all the others that have been tried. --McGeddon (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's why I think consensus building on sources is even more important than following rules. I believe in the value of peer review, which means that I believe that Wikipedia becomes better through discussion and agreement on content. In my opinion, WP:RS often subverts that process, because it basically says "no reliable sources? no discussion". I think that badly sourced material should be able to be kept if there is a general agreement to do so among editors. I'm not saying that this is a case where the source is clearly reliable, but I do think that "reliable sources" shouldn't be the answer to end all discussion. CodeCat (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, it was not personal email. The correspondence was between me and Petr Cink, a public employee of 5th Secretariat of MoI authorized to give statements on behalf of the Ministry, therefore is an official letter, and it can be verified, either (a) by writing to the Ministry, (b) by writing to Czech Intelligence, (c) using phone instead. But again since we have the new document soon this won't be necessary. --TotoCZ 10:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotoCZ (talk • contribs)

Quite obvious to me that biased parties are trying to block this valuable info from wiki. Troutman and his pals are not crazy but they are trying to gaslight you (ie make you feel crazy.) Keep up the good fight.:: 2604:2000:F6C6:7C01:5AB0:35FF:FE73:EC9D (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Casting aspersions on the intentions of other editors is discouraged. The rules are that all WP must be properly sourced. If a subject is important, that should not be difficult. Geogene (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Second government confirmation

For those who don't consider the Czech state a reliable source:

http://www.sakerhetspolisen.se/hundraar/telegram.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotoCZ (talk • contribs) 21:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(I forgot about mentioning the other document here when we released it, so for completeness: Top Secret Document from the Czechoslovak State Security: http://priyom.org/blog/priyom-releases-a-top-secret-document-about-numbers ) --TotoCZ 21:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotoCZ (talk • contribs)

The page has been updated accordingly.--TotoCZ 22:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotoCZ (talk • contribs)

Some examples?

Shouldn't we give some examples such as the US and UK "Backward Music Stations" or the German one, "Swedish Rhapsody"?

If and only if reliable sources have taken note of them, IMO. DonIago (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Some Unsourced Content

Citing recordings of jamming and interference is original research, so it doesn't qualify as a source. I've deleted that, as is the usual policy for unsourced content. Note that the entire article needs better sourcing: personal websites, email newsletters, and self-published sources don't count. Geogene (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that the jammming statements sounded like original research, I will disagree with the comment on sources. In this topic the personal websites, email newsletters, and self-published sources are the best. Books on the topic are even less clearly sourced than the hobbyist authored stuff. Accademic literature ignores this, and much else will be classified and unavailable. However archives may be declassified as the years go by, eg the Czech station above where the declassified document talks about the transmitter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've listened to these as well and I feel that most of the conclusions that hobbyists have come to about these stations seems fairly reasonable. But the issue of reliable sourcing is a central tenet of Wikipedia and it applies universally to every article. I don't think we can make exceptions to them, if that were possible then everyone would do it and the quality of WP articles project-wide would go into the ditch. Geogene (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have often seen "reliable sources" used to perpetuate systematic bias on Wikipedia. What we should do is use the best sources possible. Where we can determine where the writer got their information from and can trust what they say, then that source can be reliable. It does not matter if it is self published, a blog, or in a preserved email. It does not have to be written by an accademic as a review in an accademic journal, even if that is better. In the case of topics of interest to hobbyists, (or life at home for that matter) there is little accademic material and it is not a good source for the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are pretty clearly defined. When there's a question about whether a source is appropriate, there's a noticeboard for that. DonIago (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with DonIago. If the best (or only) reliable sources on this topic are personal websites or old usenet group chats, then wikipedia must, unfortunately remain silent on the issue. WP has strict rules about what counts as a reliable source. Please see WP:RS and WP:TRUTH. Ashmoo (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Film disambig / top line redirect

There appears to be a film with the same name, so I included a top line redirect. I don't know why this is contentious. If there's an issue, let's please discuss this. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Good article comments

I don't think I want to do a GA review, but I will comment that the page is not yet illustrated enough. I would expect some photos of known numbers stations. There could be a map of where transmitters are/were. There could be a timeline to show history. There could be a bigger text sample of numbers so our readers get the idea of size. Also I am not convinced that the References in mass media section is completely stable. It looks to be better referenced than many earlier instances of the section though. And lastly the see also section should disappear, being replaced by mentions of the links in the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; this article is nowhere near the standard expected of GA quality and so I have failed it as such. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Endeavour episode

A numbers station featured in an episode of the TV series Endeavour, broadcast in March 2018. Sophisticated penguin (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)