Talk:The Day After Roswell

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Day After Roswell article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 21 December 2007 by reviewer Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs).

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

POV/OR

The last two paragraphs are basically POV/OR comments on the book's merit. GregorB (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed it, so I removed the tag. Bubba73 (talk), 01:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed external link to a review of the book

Removed external review of the book. It is not WIKI practice to have such links.I assume it was put in place because it was critical of the book. If so, this is simply lazy wiki editing. If there is enough criticisms of the material then an editor should include this in the text referencing back to reliable sources. The7thdr (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I see it was. In that case it is already included in the references and does not to be in the External Links section. Please do not put back again without further discussion and explanation. Edit wars war pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 11:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am confused. If Wikipedia is not supposed to include links to book reviews, what should be used as a source about a book? I would appreciate it if you could point me to the Wikipedia policy that clarifies this. Bhimaji (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links should be relevant. Are you suggesting that for every book that is included in WIKI we should include every review written about it? It seems to me that the link was included as an indirect form of advertising for the SKEPTIC website. WIKI is certainly no such thing. Can you explain why the link is needed? Especially as a link to that review is already included in the article? To help you please see WIKI guidelines regarding links

Shortcut

WP:ELYES

The7thdr (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You initially wrote,

"Removed external review of the book. It is not WIKI practice to have such links."

That seems to be a claim that there should *never* be a link to a book review, which is a ridiculous idea.

I obviously don't think that every single book review should be linked to; I don't know what I said that would imply I believe that.

Having the link in there twice is of course pointless. However, your initial argument was that it should not be in the article *at all*, and that is something I disagree with.

Also, as to whether something should be included because it's critical: Notable sources covering a range of viewpoints should be included. If there is notable criticism of a book, it should be mentioned. The same with praise Bhimaji (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Curso's book is the biggest load of tripe I have read in a long-time, however:

Why only one book review and why only a negative one? If one is to be included then there should be one that shows balance - this was not the case. The article is already POV enough - that review hardly helps matters Every single argument in that review - and indeed much of this article has been reasonably counted. Do we want to get into a silly stage where this stuff is given any more coverage? What, ever my personal feelings about the book we need to keep some resemblance of an encyclopaedic entry. I personally grow tired of seeing every "esoteric" subject in WIKI countered with an argument from a professional debunking site like Skeptic - can't editors be a bit more imaginative? The7thdr (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Finally, as I have said now countless times - it is already included and linked to from the article The7thdr (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a positive review - especially one that responds to the arguments in Skeptical Inquirer -- please add it to the article. Zagalejo^^^ 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Zagalejo, but I have neither the time or the inclination. Sorry, but the arguments against are to be found easily online. The7thdr (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, for your interest some of the counters to the common criticisms can be found below, some are from the co-writer/ghost writer/editor from the book and others form qualified UFOlogists - the ones with Doctorates if that means anything I do think - although I dislike the book - that the arguments in this wiki artcle are VERy VERY weak and highly POV - but that is just my view. Perhaps it concerns me most due to the the authors very well documented - and outstanding - military and "political" career:

http://www.exopoliticsjournal.com/Journal-vol-1-2-Salla.pdf http://www.exopoliticsinstitute.org/Journal-vol-1-3-Salla.pdf http://www.binnallofamerica.com/boaa6.16.8.html

The7thdr (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i totally agree with you all who feel this book is being passed over by WIKIPEDIA...This is a travesty of the truth being denied that there are no excerpts from the book by a Lt Col. US ARMY officer on his involvement with ET, UFO crashes or high technology. I am very sad that this is the case here. It speaks not of a literary hoax by Corso but a coverup by deniers and worse...of the Truth. Read the book...I did. And I am former Military. The book carries great weight. The absolute minimal that Wikipedia could do if it has the arrogant audacity to list Corso and his book is to quote some of the more important comments in the book ! the information for this topic is so important that is why it is not reviewed properly at all.Blondeignore (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpts

I moved the following from the article page. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is a travesty of the truth being denied that there are no excerpts from the book by a Lt Col. US ARMY officer on his involvement with ET, UFO crashes or high technology. I am very sad that this is the case here. It speaks not of a literary hoax by Corso but a coverup by deniers and worse...of the truth. Read the book...I did. And I am former military. The book carries great weight. The absolute minimal that wikipedia could do if it has the arrogant audacity to list the information for Corso and his book is to quote some of the more important comments in the book ! Blondeignore (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has this book been definitively debunked?

Question (summarized above):

Has this book been definitively debunked, and if so, where?

I am especially questioning Corso's claims about how "retrieved material" was instrumental in advancing American technology. Although not specifically from the book, see Corso's claims at 1m30s on this video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NWg5IZgssGs&t=1m30s

I assume similar claims are in his book. KHarbaugh (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is absolutely 100 percent knowable...but it's more likely Corso was a fantasist who spun tall tales for book deals than a handler of extraterrestrial technology [1], [2]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question (at least in part):

Google

philip j. klass corso day after roswell

for a 1998 PDF. KHarbaugh (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]