Talk:Counter-illumination

Image request
This article needs a photo of the underside of a squid or a shark, shining by its own light, to illustrate the camouflaging effect of counter-illumination. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it does (again). We'd be really grateful for a suitable image, and that means one with a valid CC-By license on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Adaptiv camouflage
I'm not sure that the 2011 BBC piece "Tanks test infrared invisibility cloak" is necessarily a "" here, hence my addition of primary source inline. It is an independent source, but that isn't the same thing. According to WP:SECONDARY, a secondary source "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". In other words, it is not simply routine reporting of facts. Apart from the quoted words of "project manager Pader Sjolund", the information in the 2011 BBC piece may as well have been lifted straight from a company press release – there is no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis to be found. I think that this material needs more substantial secondary sources to avoid the kinds of problems that WP:NOTNEWS and especially WP:NOTPROMOTION warn about. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The BBC has an exceptional reputation for careful journalism. However, I have added a further secondary source from Popular Mechanics which discusses both BAES's Adaptiv and the Israeli Eltics prototype; there is no indication that Popular Mechanics has any bias in favour of either company (being neither British nor Israeli), and indeed its articles cover products from all over the world. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The BBC's reputation notwithstanding, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROPORTION are still valid considerations. I think the Popular Mechanics article, coming from a monthly magazine, is a better source for content relating to this technology, but I'm not sure it belongs in this article. Do any published sources explicitly compare this kind of camouflage system to biological counter-illumination? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad you are happy with the additional source. Valid considerations are that journalists have only had access to what BAES has been willing to reveal about this secret system, along with what engineers and scientists can readily deduce from the scraps of information and photographs provided. Primary sources are perfectly allowable to support claims such as that company C claims to have built system S with features F, G, and H. In BAES's case, nobody doubts that they did build a prototype as shown in the photographs and video: their reputation would be badly damaged if these were ever found to be less than genuine. As for proportion, coverage of vehicle prototypes forms a small percentage of the article, and there are multiple sources for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It was relevant nonetheless. However, ref 12 (Dann) shows that military counter-illumination prototypes are considered to be forms active camouflage. I'm unsure why we would need a source that compares military counter-illum to biological ones - they're just different instances of the same technique, but I'll have a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The NSF's Science Nation website has an article on Glowing Squid which says "This successful counter-illumination, anti-predatory strategy could lead to several applications for human benefit. Materials science experts in the U.S. Air Force are studying possible improvements in camouflage through the reflective qualities of the squid-bacteria symbiosis." (It looks as if the "reflective" is a mistake by the reporter, given the rest of the article.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * However, all of this belongs in active camouflage, not here. I've removed the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)