Talk:UFOs and the Bible

Rewrite

Add some wikilinks to this when rewritten. Timneu22 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

The page was tagged with neutrality templates because I and several other editors believe that the article violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. From the deletion discussion:

If you take a look at UFO, Ancient astronauts and other relevant pages, you'll see a number of sobering disclaimers like these:

Such theories have not received support within the scientific community, and have received little or no attention in peer-reviewed studies from scientific journals.

In his 1979 book Broca's Brain, Sagan suggested that he and Shklovski might have inspired the wave of '70s ancient astronaut books, expressing disapproval of "von Daniken and other uncritical writers" who seemingly built on these ideas not as guarded speculations but as "valid evidence of extraterrestrial contact."

Some scientists have argued that all UFO sightings are misidentifications of natural phenomena and historically, there was debate among some scientists about whether scientific investigation was warranted given available empirical data. Very little peer-reviewed literature has been published in which scientists have proposed, studied or supported non-prosaic explanations for UFOs.

This article, however, takes these fringe theories and treats them as if they were almost universally accepted facts.

From WP:FRINGE: In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Most of the article is direct WP:OR analysis of minority views, not supported by any independent major publications or notable scientific groups.

From WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Again, the article's views are extremely one-sided. From the very start, it threats fringe science as if it were mainstream and doesn't offer any objective commentary from reliable scientific sources. Its language also gives such minority views as the "government cover-up" theory an inappropriate amount of undue weight.

Please help improve the article or discuss these issues here. — Rankiri (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Now what

Now that this article has survived its AFD (although on a no-consensus, so if improvements aren't possible, a second go round is not out of the question), what is to be done with it? The problems, as I see them, are as follows:

1. The very title seems to be wrong: the article only connects UFOs to the Bible in a very roundabout way. Once the "angelic theory" section was stricken (as the creation of a single author, who also happens to be the original author of this article), none of the rest of the article is specific to the Bible.
   • The "ancient astronaut" theory touches on all ancient civilizations, not just the Judaeo-Christian civilization of the Middle East.
   • The "demonic theory" seems to be a synthesis of the author's own making, as he cites no sources that link the "alien abduction" phenomenon to any Biblical demonic manifestation.
   • The "fallen angel" theory may be the only section of the article that directly relates a UFO phenomenon to a Biblical phenomenon.
2. The "Religious imagination" section is already sufficiently covered in UFO religion.
3. The article starts from the premise that UFOs exist, which is hardly a given. It makes no effort to indicate that these are fringe theories, and presents them as mainstream thought.

Any ideas? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as #1 goes we've got two broad options - change the title to reflect the content, OR change the content to reflect the title. I think we should do the latter - restrict the article to a discussion about UFOs and the Bible. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Such a restriction would eliminate virtually all of the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Then so be it. But as far as I can see, it was kept because people thought the topic was notable. StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I voted a weak keep on this. I agree that you need to change the content. Wipe it clean! Timneu22 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I was sort of hoping that those who voted keep would have some ideas on how to manage it. My first impulse is to delete it entirely, but that was not the consensus of the community. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, the clean-up is done, I think. I'm removing the tags. Maybe the next step will be to merge it into the Ancient astronauts article. StAnselm (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think my keep was because looking at Amazon there are 300+ books on this topic. It seems sad to have two sections with two book references. Where is the theory that Astronauts are working on god's behalf? I think this topic has a place of its own, but the connections are now week.Timhollen (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> The initial article contained no assertion that the ancient astronauts were "working on God's behalf". The ancient astronauts were posited as an explanation of "angelic" visions by early peoples, but no attempt is made (either in the ancient astronaut article or in any prior version of this article) to assert that the "astronauts" were messengers of God in any way. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)