Jump to content

Talk:Unidentified flying object/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Comment

I just returned from vacation to discover that my recently-hired assistant has made a mess in my name while I was gone, so let my start by apologizing for what has transpired.

I like the layout for what you guys have done with the whole UFO entry here in wikipedia. Very substantive for an elusive topic.

I did notice that there is not much on man made flying saucers.

I can appreciate the emphasis on the unknown. What kind of things do you think would make a fair posting in in regard to man-made UFO's?

Regards, Luke Fortune ?Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukefortune (talk ? contribs) 22:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent sighting

this is a peace of $hit Should this be included?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/02/ufo.sighting.ap/index.html

regards,David

This should be included, I think. http://www.ufoseek.com/news/ I'm surpriced it is not already there.

Miro

?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.164.100 (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Look at the picture, you see a meandering trail of exhaust. Obviously it's a picture of a TOY.

Unanymous. U guys are doing a great job.Look on the bottom of this comment for a few places to research. Whenever i am researching about this stuuf, people, the 1st thing they jump to is, oh it's fake it isn't real. And at times, not all the times i tell them, they can't say anything for many reasons. An example is, they can't say it's fake becaue they do not research it as much as other people do, and sometimes i tell em, if God created this huge universe, which has been scientifically proven it's huge, how can there not be other life?If you believe in God you should know how powerful he is, so powerful he can take your life in a second. People may say oh but the bible doesn't mention anything about other life. Well guess what, there are plenty of different types of bibles. For example, some Jews, or other people don't belive there was a Jesus.another thing people should realize is how much info is out there. Those of you who believe in other life,(and it doesn't have to be only aliens), my congrats because you give alot of ufo and other life believers hope,plus you help them know they aren't the only believers. Well here are a few good sights for you guys to do research, or just go to a library they have plenty of books about ufos in history, newspaper articles, etc. The library in downtown miami is a good resource. Oh one more thing, yes there are man made ufos, the militairy has tried and are probably still making, but hey the ufo sighting and the 4 alien bodies came 1st.Hey, spread the word and don't be embarrased, feel proud of what is, and for some people,may be true.Hey I'm a believer and I'm proud. Here are a few web sights.

www.ufoevidence.org if you want info on area 51,Aka dreamland, go to, www.dreamlandresort.com www.ufocasebook.com for a variety of pictures.The pictures are great. www.unexplainedresearch.com or simply go to google and type in what you would like to find out, and i suggest going to you tube for a variety of videos.Very few are fake, but I'm certain many of you can determine.Enjoy, and don't stop believing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.141.220 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Need for skepticism

This needs to be written by someone who doesn't study UFOs. It should be done from a mainstream viewpoint. By calling some sightings "hoaxes", it's being implied that the other ones are real. There needs to be a section which makes the debunking more prominent, instead of just writing it off as a minority. 23% is NOT a majority. ?Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.100.165 (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the section on Explanations and Opinions to include broader skeptical views. I would also like to point out the possible misuse of the word 'inexplicable' in this article. It and 'unexplained' do not mean the same thing; concluding that something is inexplicable implies genuine and deserved bafflement. It is not clear whether the French government actually described about 14% of 5800 cases as "inexplicable" or whether they merely meant that there was simply a lack of data available to explain these incidents. Could this be clarified - and has there been similar possible misuse of these terms elsewhere? Rikstar 00:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The French GEPAN/SEPRA studies dumped cases with "lack of data" or insufficient information into a separate category. About half of the total cases could definitely or probably be identified, whereas about 14% of all cases with sufficient data could not be explained with any possible conventional explanation, i.e., they were indeed "inexplicable". Thus the cases with insufficient information formed about a third of all case and were not included in either the identified or unidentified categories.
Regarding your addition of more skeptical viewpoint, all I see is what I would describe as a totally irrelevant paragraph expressing your personal opinion there are too many books about the paranormal and people try to make money from them. What does this have to do with unidentified flying objects? People also try to make money writing badly written and popular accounts on WWII, astronomy, etc. So what? That doesn't somehow negate the core of information about these various subjects.
Frankly, I think the paragraph is totally off topic and NPOV and should be deleted ASAP. Dr Fil 00:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Heres a paragraph on the study that makes the French statistics a little clearer. Note that cases lacking data are around 41% of the cases and are in a separate category. About 46% have definite or probable explanations, and 12.5%, according to this article, (I previously saw 13.5% or ~14%) are considered unidentified and "inexplicable." Source: [1]
"Yet the statistics that Velasco has made public are eloquent. Since, 1977, Sepra has received some 6,000 reports of alleged UFO sightings. Of these, 110 are from civil or military aircraft crew, and the rest from ordinary French people who have almost invariably contacted their local gendarmerie. In 21.3 per cent of cases there is a clear, indisputable and banal explanation: a firework display, a novel lighting system involving a luminous balloon, a cloud above the Pyrenees that is shaped like a flying saucer. In 24.9 per cent there is a probable explanation, and in 41.3 per cent the information is too vague to be of use. But in 12.5 per cent of cases "about 750 sightings since 1977" the evidence is precise, detailed and inexplicable, and is thus categorised as an unidentified phenomenon." Dr Fil 00:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Dr Fil: The difference between WWII, astronomy, etc. and UFOs is... the former do or did really exist, whilst UFOs, as a paranormal entity, might not. The sociological, psychological and cultural implications of this are inevitably tied up with many things; like human needs and the nature and availability of information to meet those needs. Which is what some editors see as a legitimate point to make in offering alternatives to paranormal explanations. UFOs could be a cultural rather than a 'nuts-and-bolts' phenomenon, boosted and perpetuated by human vested interests. Psychoanalyst Carl Jung himself noted how the media seized on out-of-context quotes or misunderstood his theories about UFOs ("Jung believes in flying saucers!!"), but when he asked the media to publish corrections (which showed his real views were much more mundane), nobody was interested. This is a real example of cultural bias. IF UFOs 'do not exist', the existence of such a massive body of UFO works (especially the sensationalist stuff) becomes something of an enigma in itself, requiring an explanation of the socio-cultural variety. It is this that my contribution touched upon. I do wish I could have made this clearer without writing a thesis on the matter.
I am surprised any fair-minded editor would think such an observation "is totally off topic and NPOV and should be deleted ASAP" - I am disappointed by the rather impolite tone of your comments (please see Talk page guidelines). The same skeptical observations have appeared in other articles about controversial paranormal topics - without provoking such censure. Indeed, they have been welcomed for adding relevant and much needed depth to articles of this nature - however uncomfortable others may feel (I have seen the latest version of my edit and feel it is reasonable, in spite of editing).
I think the trick with all articles on controversial paranormal subjects is to reduce to a minimum how stupid a believer who writes such articles would look if it was shown that the mystery was just a load of bull. Likewise, skeptical contributors (in this case) need to minimise how dumb they would look if, say, a flying saucer landed on the White House lawn. Rikstar 09:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If you read the article at present, I left in your cultural/social aspects comment, but deleted the comment about people supposedly making money off the topic, which is irrelevant and off-topic. The same could be said for all the debunking books written about UFOs. People writing books and making money on one side or the other has nothing to do with the validity of the various arguments or phenomenon.
Incidentally, the so-called "Psychosocial Hypothesis" is already listed in the article under "Popular ideas for explaining UFOS", and there is a link to a separate Wiki article on the subject (Psychosocial_Hypothesis), so it hasn't exactly been ignored.
BTW, I don't know where you got the idea that Jung thought UFOs had a strictly cultural/psychological explanation. There are many direct quotes and writings by Jung where he did indeed think that SOME UFOs might very well be nuts-and-bolts craft, and cited such things as corroborating photographs and simultaneous radar contact. He was also impressed by the quality of many of the witnesses. Dr Fil 22:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall writing that Jung thought UFOs had a strictly cultural/psychological explanation. I was making the point that the press obviously went for simplistic, headline-grabbing interpretations - which just might have something to do with selling more newspapers which = making money!! I totally agree that: "People writing books and making money on one side or the other has nothing to do with the validity of the various arguments or phenomenon", but I am not talking about intellectual validity, I am talking about powerful factors that might add bias and create and perpetuate mystery where none exists. The main article itself includes the following reference:

"UFOs constitute a widespread international cultural phenomenon of the last half-century. Folklorist Thomas E. Bullard writes, ?UFOs have invaded modern consciousness in overwhelming force, and endless streams of books, magazine articles, tabloid covers, movies, TV shows, cartoons, advertisements, greeting cards, toys, T-shirts, even alien-head salt and pepper shakers, attest to the popularity of this phenomenon.?"

If you agree with the inclusion of this quote, there's little to "suppose" about people making money off the topic. And I don't suppose any skeptical viewpoints make up a more than a tiny fraction of such sales (If you want know how hard it is in reality to get well-researched skeptical material published in a market swamped with pro-paranormal stuff I can oblige). And there's a "Psychosocial Hypothesis" link, too? Good. Rikstar 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Rikstar, I think you are confusing UFOs as entertainment vs. UFOs as a serious subject of study. Yes, there is much cultural material in movies, ads, etc. treating the subject as entertainment. But that is very different from the media treating it soberly and factually as something possibly real. Rather, the media bias is definitely towards either ignoring it altogether or ridiculing the topic. Incidentally, in the U.S., skeptics have their own publishing house called Prometheus Press that publishes anti-UFO books, controlled by the same people who put out the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine. There is no comparable "pro-UFO" publishing house.Dr Fil 18:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
WRT Rikstar's comment of "how dumb they (skeptics) would look if, say, a flying saucer landed on the White House lawn", I'd like to remind that in 1952 they came quite close to doing exactly that...
Quote I was fascinated by your account of the 1952 UFO flap around DC. I'm 68 now, but at age 13, I was there, living with my family - temporarily - in the sedate, colonial Alexandria home of my mother's sister and her husband. (My father was an Army officer. En route to Bogota, Colombia, Dad was going through Pentagon briefing.) What I recall as most striking about this flap was the ubiquitous excitement on local television, newspapers, and so forth. You didn't mention this in your piece, but individual sightings seemed to be all but continuous. Cars were piled up along the shoulders of the Mt. Vernon Parkway. Crowds gazing out across the Potomac toward DC and National Airport came and went. I remember my grown cousin - Jim (a broker in the family real estate business) - arriving at the house one day all but breathless with excitement over a sighting. As a sociologist I've long been fascinated by how civil authorities are able to virtually erase the direct experience (in this case) of literally hundreds of witnesses. Years would pass before my own inquiries would lead me to understand that UFOs represent a vital dimension of the human picture - hidden though it is behind smoke, mirrors, disinformation and sheer ignorance. Source ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhatz (talk ? contribs) 21:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Mainstream science and Prozac explanations

This article still has "Flat Earth Society" comments such as "the general opinion of the mainstream scientific community is that all UFO sightings could ultimately be explained by prosaic explanations" which is clearly untrue (if you bother to read BlueBook Special Report 14 where Battelle Memorial Institute investigated 3201 cases you'll see why).

Also, if you read the content rather than just the title of many so-called "prosaic explanations", you'll understand why many humorously refer to them as Prozac-induced explanations.

On the issue of Science and UFOs, quotes by Dr. Peter A. Sturrock (Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics at Stanford University; Director of the Skylab Workshop on Solar Flares in 1977 etc):

"The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study by the normal procedures of established science. This requires a change in attitude primarily on the part of scientists and administrators in universities." (Sturrock, Peter A., Report on a Survey of the American Astronomical Society concerning the UFO Phenomenon, Stanford University Report SUIPR 68IR, 1977.)
"Although... the scientific community has tended to minimize the significance of the UFO phenomenon, certain individual scientists have argued that the phenomenon is both real and significant. Such views have been presented in the Hearings of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics [and elsewhere]. It is also notable that one major national scientific society, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, set up a subcommittee in 1967 to gain a fresh and objective perspective on the UFO phenomenon.
In their public statements (but not necessarily in their private statements), scientists express a generally negative attitude towards the UFO problem, and it is interesting to try to understand this attitude. Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view works against the presentation of relevant data." (Sturrock, Peter A., "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1987.)"

Recently Dr. Sturrock reported that the journal SCIENCE has agreed to publish "well penned" papers on UFOs.

To be frank, it's simply been a "your soul or your job" situation.

Dhatz 19:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's silliness. Scientists have doubted the existence of UFOs because reports of such are based on tenuous and untrustworthy eyewitness accounts with precious little hard evidence to back them up. Just like the 9/11 conspiracies, Loch Ness monster accounts, Kennedy assassination, and all the other conspiracy theories out there, they're all based on subjective and ambiguous "nagging doubts" rather than real evidence. UFOs are no exception. With the tens of thousands of purported sighting of UFOs, it is certainly remarkable that no one has managed to pull one conclusive piece of evidence to support the existence of aliens.
Complaints about how scientists are in a "your soul or your job" position are just a manifestation of the frustration conspiracy theorists have toward scientists, the only people who can give them the credibility they crave. Since scientists won't give them that credibility, they expand the conspiracy until it includes most scientists. It's sour grapes. Aplomado talk 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


Ufo's. Real or fake. A question that boggles the mind to the end. I believe the is life out there, but UFO sightings, no. I think are justscientific tests of Unidentified Aircraft that designs havn't, or never been re-leased to the public. But i do believe in life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelykid.master (talk • contribs) 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This talk page isn't for general discussion of UFOs. "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. WP:TP 79.233.114.87 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Length of the article

This article is getting very long eh? Maybe someone should divide it up into different articles

Um, how would one go about doing so? It doesn't look easy to cut up into smaller parts. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing scientific research and opinion polls

We should mention ongoing scientific research such as Project Hessdalen in Norway, an monitoring of UFOs (UAP) by teams from Norway and Italy, using CCD cameras, magnetometers etc

There should also be a correction to the section on public opinion, because all polls I've seen sofar (CNN/Time 1997, BBC etc) in the 1990s and this decade show that over 50% think UFOs are ET craft (and percentages go up with level of education). This is quite a bit more than the 24% claimed by "Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion - American Piety in the 21st Century" cited now. Some ideas can be had from http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/publicopinionpolls.htm (I'll add if I find time)

Feel free to take ideas from my page at http://www.hyper.net/ufo.html

Dhatz 02:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Project Moon Dust? I'm not quite sure what it is, but the U.S. government created it to do something that pertains to UFOs. I'll look it up in some books. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Astronomers and UFOs

The part of the article on astronomers, starts quoting Plait that "amateur astronomer's don't report UFO sightings to HIM", this is an old issue, answered even in McDonald's testimony in 1968, but here are a few more relevant items:

1/ comments on astronomers and UFOs and Plait's comments that others don't report UFOs to him

2/ Haisch, a professional astronomer (who has actually studied the UFO subject, unlike Plait who merely states that "most UFOs are probably due to mundane causes" which is pretty obvious) gives a perspective on astronomers and requests help from aviation professionals http://www.ufoskeptic.org/aviation.html Dhatz 22:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Vimanas - ancient flying machines

http://www.dark-truth.org/okt222006-4-vimanas.html Vimanas - Ancient Indian flying machine

Suggest adding the above article in the external links section of UFO topic, as its an important piece of UFO history in ancient times, and very well documented.

-DB ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.188.150 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

UFO Pix and NEW case

Links are: UFO cases incl. Pix of O' Hare UFO, [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53820 Ark UFOs viewed AS "The Devil"], Ark UFO Case: Ark UFOs seen AS "Of The Devil". The former link has a pix of the UFO seen over the O' Hare Airport in Chicago. The latter links refer to a possibly still ongoing UFO incident in Arkansas. The explanation there by locals is that they believe that "The Devil" is in the area, while a primary witness, who is a former USAF noncom says that the incident was that either a military exercise was going on OR that a hoax is being perpetrated by pilots in aircraft. Can this be placed in the "

Main article: List of major UFO sightings

" article ? I'm still investigating the latter case. Martial Law 21:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Propulsion?

Should the article have something about UFO propulsion? It could be used because there is some speculaion over what technology they would use to power the UFO. ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by The chamark (talk ? contribs) 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

An interesting idea. But being speculation, wouldn't it fall under the heading of speculation? BRiCKDuDE102692 05:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, there are many theories about propusion out there. Ill look into it :)
Jabbafett (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Schulgen memo

A quite significant declassified document I couldn't find in here, is the Schulgen memo 1947 (http://www.project1947.com/fig/schulgen.htm), which proves that USAF was on the look for "flying saucer type aircraft" since 1947.

Note there is an inaccurate modified version in circulation (read more in http://www.roswellfiles.com/Articles/Schulgen.htm), which was changed to suggest that USAF already knew they were dealing with interplanetary craft (to "prove" the Roswell crash).

Dhatz 23:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Now this is a find we need to see. This could be a big help. Good work finding the fake, too. Some of us could have been tricked by it. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a cigar cigarette...

This image featured in the page [[2]] seems to clearly be a cigar type cigarette placed over a photo plate of a picture of some sort of foam background, possibly tissue paper or more likely a painting. Close examination of the 'UFO' shows the front part to be fractured in a way exactly similar to a wet cigar. Examination of the background of the image shows the "clouds" to look nothing like natural clouds and more like tissue paper or a painting. Examination of the cigar itself shows that the cigar is on a different photo level from the background. The background is flat and the cigar has more dimension to it suggesting it was placed on top of a painting. Easily hoaxed with 1870 photo technology. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

At least the caption says "purported"... Using an actual cigar to represent the "cigar-shaped" UFO type really is taking the biscuit though. Can we have a vaguely believable picture please? Totnesmartin 14:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I laughed when I saw that picture. I find it hard to believe anyone could be gullible enough to believe that's actually a "UFO" let alone an alien space craft. The 1st picture is obviously fake as well. Looks to be a tin homemade saucer floating up in the air with a fishing pole and string. If you look close enough you can vaguely make out fishing string.Wikidudeman (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
of course if we insisted on genuine photos then our options would become slightly limited... Totnesmartin 13:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, although the article has improved immensely since 3Q2006, it's still very weak wrt photographic evidence and physical trace cases. It should at the very least have Trent and Heflin's, Costa Rica 1971 and Kelsey Bay photos. And potentially Childerhose and Trindade too. One can look at my own page at http://www.hyper.net/ufo.html for links to UFO photo galleries, e.g. the article from Popular Mechanics The 6 UFO Sightings THEY Can't Explain. The problem is that there are WP editors, who insist on editing the UFO subject, although they haven't the vaguest idea... Dhatz 23:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I understand that many UFO photos might not look like one "expects" a "real alien spacecraft" (i.e. like the ones of Klingon from StarTrek or Shadows from Babylon5), but many UFOs are indeed discoid and spherical and often self-luminous. Btw initially it was quite hard for me to accept as well, until I spent several hundreds of hours researching the subject. Dhatz 23:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single photo of a supposed alien space craft that I couldn't provide an alternative explanation for. And going with Occams Razor, What's more likely? A super advanced alien civilization visiting earth from thousands of light years away and floating up in the sky? Or a hoax?Wikidudeman (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Those aren't the only two options. Totnesmartin 13:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right in most cases. But when you go back further in time and the saucers look so overtly 1950ish "Ufo movie" then they are most likely a hoax.Wikidudeman (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
oh yes, there are loads of hoaxes - but there must be some squeaky-clean pictures we could use. Totnesmartin 16:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman, when you write "I haven't seen a single photo..." etc just how much time have you spent researching the subject of UFOs, on which you insist on offering an opinion? Why don't you first e.g. take a look what the people in charge of various countries' (Hynek in US, Poher and Velasco in France, Smith in Canada, Pope in UK) UFO projects have said, who -unlike the armchair theorists- did field investigations of many different cases over decades. Or take a look at the list below, feel free to research those cases. ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhatz (talk ? contribs) 02:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
I've spent several years studying "UFO"'s. When I was a child I even believed they were Alien space crafts. The list below is impossible for me to read and follow through on. And even if you posted the actual pictures I simply don't have the will or time to follow through on them and post explanations of how they are natural phenomenon or could be faked etc just so you could post a rebuttal and we argue for weeks on end point to point and get nowhere. If you want to believe super advanced alien races travel thousands of light years to little old earth just to float up in the sky or abduct farmers and do sexual experiments on them then that's fine with me. Really...Wikidudeman (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is correct -- it's not a airship but a cigar, sitting on rime ice. It's not actually a hoax, but a misidentification -- the photo was taken during a scientific expedition to Mount Washington in the winter of 1870-1, and the cigar was used to provide scale. It was only a few years ago that somebody decided it was a UFO in clouds. So it should be removed. See Image_talk:1871UFO.gif. Airminded 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Er, it's still there... not for long though! Totnesmartin 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

i dont agree with the removal, that is why the word "purported" is used, there is no reason at all to remove this picture, the subject (whether real or not) deals directly with the subject at hand (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk ? cont ? email 16:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think this photo is not at all convincing. Nobody at the time thought there was anything strange about it, and nobody claimed there was until 2002 when a 19th-century commercial stereograph reproduction was placed on eBay and sold at an inflated price because the seller had the bright idea to call it a UFO photo (eg see here: [3]). There's just no provenance for this idea. Also, I don't think it's plausible that with 1870s photographic technology that you could take a photo like that of an airship in distant clouds and have it turn out so clear (and this version is much more cropped than the original; it was clear that the "airship" was not the primary interest of the photographer). I emailed Mt. Washington Observatory back when this photo first surfaced and was told that

The stereograph in question is of rime ice (atmospheric icing, caused when supercooled water droplets in clouds collide with an object) covering a terrestrial object (perhaps a pile of rocks), not of clouds. I daresay the "UFO" is either a cigar or similar (put in for scale?), or perhaps is indicative of a flaw in the manufacture of the stereograph. Clough and Kimball were resident photographers for the 1870-71 expedition, which was the first extended winter stay on the summit of Mount Washington.

There's nothing mysterious about this photo at all, except why some people seem to think there is ...
Having said all that (and got it off my chest!), Nima Baghaei is right: it is now a purported UFO photograph, whether that's justified or not (and whether I like it or not). So I guess there is no basis for not including it on those grounds.
But there are thousands, if not millions of purported UFO photos around, so the question should rather be: why include this particular photo and not one of the many others? From its position in the article, in the history section, it's evidently there because it's old. But there are (a few) other old UFO photos out there, ones which have a demonstrable provenance and were recognised as anomalous at the time. The one that springs to mind is the 1883 photograph taken by an astronomer in Mexico, which is already in Wikipedia: the Jos? Bonilla sighting. So why not use that instead? It's a classic and much more verifiable than this silly photo. Airminded 06:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
it is on the subject, it has been uploaded onto wiki project, and so we use it here to show to the public a purported UFO (whether one wants to believe it or not is up to them), if you want to add the mexican photo also (why not have two instead of one hehe) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk ? cont ? email 12:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
or some add the information about how it came to be thought of as a UFO, if that can be cited. Totnesmartin 16:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think at minimum that should be done, but good luck finding a credible citation for this photo, it just floats around on the internet, context-free! But I'd still like to know what Nima Baghaei (or anyone) thinks this photo adds to the article? Fine, it's a purported UFO photo, I already conceded that ... but why should this particular purported UFO photo be included, and not some other one? Airminded 15:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. let's use a well-known picture of a cigar shaped UFO 9even if adamski took it), rather than a photo of a cigar! Totnesmartin 21:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
no i disagree once again; if you want, add another photo to the article, but do not remove this photo, i have already explained (no reason to repeat this again) that it is a purported UFO and is related to the article (whether or not you believe it is a UFO is up to you, but do not let your own personal judgment of the photo cause you to want to remove it), quite a famous photo at that (even has its own article Mystery airship) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk ? cont ? email 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you haven't addressed my questions; perhaps I am not being very clear -- I'll try to do better. ALL UFO photos are purported UFO photos, so on that basis it is no different to any other UFO photo. I'm asking how specifically does this photo enhance this article? Wikipedia is not a place to dump every single purported UFO photo in existence, so we must have some criteria for choosing some and not others. It's not a particularly famous image, despite your claims to the contrary, and just because it is already in another Wikipedia article, it doesn't mean it is famous, just that somebody uploaded the image into Wikipedia! (And in fact, I flagged it as dubious on the Talk:Mystery_airship page over a week ago. Mystery_airship is not about the photo at all, it doesn't even mention it.) The fact that it is already in the UFO article is no reason why it can't be replaced with something better known, better attested, more illustrative of the UFO phenomenon. If it's such a significant photo, why isn't it given a citation? Why is it not even mentioned in the text, like the other two historical UFO images? All I'm asking for are positive reasons as to why this photo should be in the article, something more than "it's already there so why remove it?" Airminded 07:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
its very well known classic UFO photograph (whether other agree with me is up to them) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk ? cont ? email 17:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Obviously, I disagree. As I've explained a couple of times now, its history as a UFO photo dates only to 2002. You won't find it reproduced or discussed anywhere before then as a UFO photo, in books or on the web. So it absolutely is not a "classic". As for "very well known" (which would appear to be a step down from "quite a famous photo", lol), perhaps it's becoming so, but in part because of the legitimacy Wikipedia is giving it by prominently placing it in its UFO article! But regardless: by your criteria ("very well known"/"classic") there are many UFO photos which should get into this article way ahead of this one. Some suggestions have already been made in this section: eg, Adamski, Trent, Trindade Island. Others could be added: Gulf Breeze, the Phoenix Lights, heck, even Billy Meier. (That list should show you that my concern is not whether the photo is "real" or faked.) There are currently no "very well known classic" photos in the article! Airminded 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The McMinnville photos would be a good idea to add. They have yet to be disproven and are considered genuine by many ufologists and photography experts. BRiCKDuDE102692 05:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Significant or convincing UFO sightings

For reference (but can't be added to this article, it's already too long):

Jacques & Janine Vallee, Challenge to Science (1966) Survey of 29 U.S. UFO organizations (about 13 responding) of Most Significant or Convincing UFO Sightings

  1. Socorro, NM, Apr 24, 1964 (Zamora case)
  2. Washington, DC, July 19-20, 26-27, 1952 (Wash National Airport)
  3. Trindade Island, Brazil, Jan 16, 1958 (IGY photos)
  4. Mt. Rainier, Wash, June 24, 1947 (Kenneth Arnold case)
  5. Ft. Knox, Kentucky, Jan 7, 1948 (Mantell case)
  6. Southwest U.S. (Texas), Nov 1957 (Levelland etc.)
  7. Kinross AFB, Mich, Nov 23, 1953 (jet disappearance)
  8. Rapid City, SD, Aug 5-6, 1953 (radar-visual jet case)
  9. Lubbock, Texas, Aug 25, 1951 (Lubbock Lights photo)
  10. Newport News, VA, July 14, 1952 (Nash-Fortenberry case)
  11. Boianai, New Guinea, June 26-7, 1959 (Father Gill case)
  12. Fort Itaipu, Brazil, Nov 3, 1957
  13. Salem, Mass, July 16, 1952 (Alpert photo)
  14. Red Bluff, Calif, Aug 13, 1960
  15. Washington, DC, May 29, 1950 (Capt Sperry case)
  16. Goose Bay, Labrador, June 30,1954 (BOAC radar-visual)
  17. Rome, Italy, (Oct 28, 1954 ??) (radar-visual?? Clare Booth Luce??)
  18. New Jersey, (Apr 24, 1964 ??) (Wilcox contactee ??)
  19. Montgomery, Alab, July 24-5, 1948 (Chiles-Whitted case)
  20. Ubatuba, Brazil, Sept 1957 (magnesium physical evidence)
  21. McMinnville, Ore, May 11, 1950 (Trent case photos)

Nos. 2, 8, 16, 20 and 21 were investigated by the Condon Committee and 2 of the 5 remained _unexplained_ (nos. 16 and 21), Goose Bay and McMinnville.

Ronald Story with J. Richard Greenwell, UFOs and the Limits of Science (1981) Oct 1979 Survey of 90 Leading UFO Researchers (33 responding) Strongest UFO Evidence on Record

  1. McMinnville, Ore, May 11, 1950 (Trent case photos)
  2. Great Falls, Mont, Aug 15, 1950 (Mariana film)
  3. Newport News, VA, July 14, 1952 (Nash-Fortenberry case)
  4. Lakenheath AFB, Eng, Aug 13-14, 1956 (multiple radar-visual)
  5. Levelland, Texas, Nov 2-3, 1957
  6. Trindade Island, Brazil, Jan 16, 1958 (IGY photos)
  7. Boianai, New Guinea, June 26-7, 1959 (Father Gill case)
  8. Whitefield, NH, Sept 20, 1961 (Betty & Barney Hill case)
  9. Exeter, NH, Sept 3, 1965
  10. Ravenna, Ohio, Apr 17, 1966 (Spaur chase case)
  11. Mansfield, Ohio, Oct 18, 1973 (Coyne helicopter case)
  12. Tehran, Iran, Sept 19-20, 1976 (Iranian jet case)
  13. Kaikoura, New Zealand, Dec 31, 1978 (New Zealand film multiple radar-visual)

All three of the cases on this list that had been investigated by the Condon Committee, Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (McMinnville, Great Falls, and Lakenheath) remained _unexplained_ after investigation by the Condon Committee. ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhatz (talk ? contribs) 23:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Finally someone's making some sense. It struck me as odd that some of these weren't mentioned in the article. Perhaps these cases can be put in an article entitled 'List of UFO cases' with each case having it's own sub heading, mabye divided by country. Or mabye a list of UFO cases per country (i.e. List of UFO cases in Argentina). Thank you for putting this down, because this is pretty important.BRiCKDuDE102692 07:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Its funny, it seems almost all UFO sightings hapened near a large body of water. Jabbafett (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources and citations

A lot of the statements concerning historical sightings of UFOs have citations that are dead links. Per WP:V, I have removed these statements. However, if someone can find the citations that go with them, they can probably go back in. Djma12 (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

nope they are working and so i added them back on, check to make sure your browser and/or internet connection and/or ISP and/or Firewall is not blocking or malfunctioning (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Grr, that's what I get for editing from a hospital. Will check when I get home. Regards, Djma12 (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This information will open peoples eyes to UFOs but destroy any prof they think they have on UFOs. Im not going to deep into deatwils but the original desine of the UFO was by Hitler. He hired a sientist to come up with a powerful death machine that could fly extremaly high in the sky. Most of these files were clacified by our goverment in hopes to copy and profect the idea. Unfortunatly Hitler was successful and used them only twice in the war. After this the Nazis lost the war and Hitler and Eva Bron killed them selves. After that the idea in Germany became a fable. Then the soviet union found traces of his plans. Then America picked up on it and we tried to use this. The crash at Roswell was a test flight of one of the saucers that exploded on the airstrip. When the media picked up on all of this combined with other movies and fakings and questions about space fulled it into a conspiracy. Most UFOs are either controled by goverments or fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.170.17 (talk • contribs)
Uh, why exactly are you telling us this? We're not here to prove or disprove anything. We're here to write a quality article. And no one is certain that Hitler killed himself... BRiCKDuDE102692 07:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unusual Foreign Objects?

bbc.com uses a reading of the abbreviation i've never heard before. Is the author just an idiot, or is this the british version of the acronym? -Shaggorama 00:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A Google search for the full term "Unusual Foreign Objects" shows only some 100 hits, with those generally not even applying to anything UFO related. It can be safely ignored as just somebody not knowing what he was talking about or making something up. DreamGuy 22:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh. It seems to link to medical articles anyway, and just doesn't seem used enough. "Unidentified (or unidentifiable) flying object" is the usual reading of the initialism. mike4ty4 19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It could also be the British way of saying it. Jabbafett (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

When I visited some of the external references in this page, I found that most of them were filled with anecdotally evidence, while the article claims physical evidence. Is it possible that we could reference the claims to the actual declassified information, rather than sites like ufoevidence.org ? 59.92.85.242 09:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

if you know of any links, or documents, please do share (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk ? cont ? email 15:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If such documents were released, then information would be plentiful. Sadly, there are few declassified reports, and some were destroyed by government projects like project blue book. However, if recent documents come to light, including them would be greatly appreciated. Oh and Mexico's government has released a handful of declassified documents, so that may help. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Try NICAP (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena). They have alot of sources and documents. Jabbafett (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge UFO categorization

Signal vs. Noise, what percent of cases unexplained?

Our article, in the section ?Explanations and opinions,? is talking about in the neighborhood of 30%. I always heard 1%, and that doesn?t mean insignificant! For our observational powers are great in some cases, but poorly adapted for other circumstances, so yeah, there?s going to be all kinds of false reports. Once you put those to the side, you?re still left with residual cases and that?s the real mystery. FriendlyRiverOtter 08:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

PS And I think a long article is a good article. This is a big topic!

Certainly agree with the PS comment. Studies typically come up with unidentified values of between 10 and 30%. The French SEPRA/GEIPAN studies at first indicated about 13% unidentified, but since they put their files up on the Net earlier this year, they're now talking about nearly half having no explanation. There is a lot of variation in the identified/unidentified numbers depending on who is doing the study, their methods and criteria, what type of cases they study (e.g., many vs. few military cases), and what political agendas may be involved. See Identified flying object for some more details. Dr Fil 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The percentages are difficult to figure, but I think Dr Fil got it right. Yes a long article is a good article because it tells you all you need to know. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxes

CHAD Drone/CARET has not been proved to be a hoax yet. The resemblance of the antigrav device and a pipe pig are vague at best and is no way indicative of a hoax in any way. Before this is classified as a hoax, you'll have to do present much better evidence than that.

Planetfall 15:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a complete hoax done by computer graphic rendering technologies... ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.188.142.105 (talk) 01:46, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Planetfall is right. There is no proof that it is true nor a hoax, so it should be kept in consideration until such evidence is presented in favor of or against it. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is no proof that it is true, it must be considered a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

UFO theory

It is foolish to assume that we are alone in the universe. Our planet is but a small speck even smaller than the ones we see in the sky. We could not possibly be the only planet with life on. However it is also foolish to believe that objects in the sky that we haven?t seen before are aliens. If thought about it the whole UFO crisis can be explained. The crisis happened during the cold war, when both Americans and Communist were developing new weapons against each other. Some evidence is very obvious for example one of many descriptions of a UFO by a USAF pilots following it was "It was silver or white and something red." Those were the colors of the Soviet Air force. At that time it was easier for US government to say it was a UFO. Saying it was a Soviet plane would mean creating panic; people would have been very disturbed that their enemy could get inside the country so easy. So the best thing to do was blame it on aliens. It is easy to assume that people saw right through the pilot's description and recognized a soviet plane, but the pilot's also reported that the object was very maneuverable and extremely fast. Well, compared to the old air force planes that were following the "objects" a lot of things were advanced. Let us not forget that 1950's-1980's were times of great achievements, for example the jet engine, they were just starting to developed. It is more than possible that USSR, who put almost a half of its economy into military productions and developments, had produced a plane that was far more advanced than the US aircraft. There were reports of UFOs from USSR too so you can assume that US was developing new aircraft too. And the Roswell crash, there is enough evidence to say that a new jet under development had crashed on a test flight or something along those lines. The government covered it up not to let any information out about their development to Communist spies. True, it is weird that the crash and other events are still kept secret. But maybe those aircraft are still being developed or they are being used right now we just don't realize it.

Skeptical, but enlightening. It is ridiculus to assume that we are the only intelligent life in the galaxy, let alone the universe and the dimension. You make many excellent points, but you lose me on some of them. The 'foo fighters' you described above are described as spheres capable of 90 degree turns. There is no plane that can turn at such an angle; it would be ripped apart. Also, the Soviet Union and China reported the same phenomenon, beleiving it was an American secret weapon. I would also like to mention that the Freedom of Information Act, an act that releases confidential government documents that are fifty years or older, is being ignored by the U.S. Government, with no given reason. It is possible that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial beings, for we have been sending radio and TV transmissions into deep space. If intercepted, then something knows plenty about us. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
"It is possible that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial beings, for we have been sending radio and TV transmissions into deep space." This is the only actual content of your statement, and it's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Yer maybe they Like Days of our lives or the young and the restless, i always thought those shows were out of this world LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.72.227 (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

IFO/UFO

So what happens when a UFO is finally at some point in the future identified as a flying saucer? Will people still call it a UFO, even though it has been positively identified? Gavroche42 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the "people" in question and who "positively identified" it as what. Some UFO investigators record and report UFO reports which are easily identified; some discard these reports. If the "positive identification" is made by a known debunker or does not fit the reported properties and behaviors of the UFO, then many researchers will continue to treat the report as unidentified. As far as the public in general... who knows. As with any field of serious investigation, public terminology will vary from technical terminology. Some UFO investigators are starting to use the term UAP (unidentified aerial phenomenon/a) in lieu of UFO, as UAP is a more neutral term without all of the varied connotations associated with the term "UFO". -WikiFelix the WikiCat 07:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless absolutely proven, a UFO should be considered a UFO. If it was proven to be a lenticular cloud, weather balloon, or the like, then it is considered an IFO. And the phrase UAP is a more neutral term, thank you for pointing that out. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Bear in mind that some people will believe whatever tabloid rubbish they come across, and others wouldn't accept UFOs if one landed in front of them. Also, remember we're not here to prove or disprove UFOs (even if we could), but to make the best possible article. Totnesmartin 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

When the term Flying Saucer was invented

"Before the terms ?flying saucer? and ?UFO? were coined in the late 1940s..."

This is now a controversial point, as the term has been discovered to have existed before 1947. See this presentation by Chris Aubeck: http://www.magoniax.com/downloads/Flying%20Saucers.html --217.125.215.83 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC) [user:caubeck]

I think the Haiti UFO should be mentioned in this wiki entry. It is a complete hoax, yet many think it to be absolutely real. THis is very similar to the CARET Drone Hoax, using 3D Graphics Software to render out very realistic looking imagery. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up5jmbSjWkw ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.188.142.105 (talk) 01:57, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

back on topic, what about rephrasing it to "[...]were popularized in the late 1940s[...]"? 82.176.216.87 12:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
According to a handful of books I've read, the term flying saucer was coined in Texas around 1940 by a farmer, but became famous in the 1950s or 1960s. Apparantly, some incredible footage was captured by this famous guy (I can't remember his name) and he described the UFOs as "flying saucer." The Air Force took the footage and did not return it. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Astronauts have seen UFO's while in space, which is very interesting. It seems to disprove the idea that UFO's are biological creatures that live in the atmosphere. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

How about we include the following link under "External links" and not under References...so the external links page doesn't look to biased...if you know what i mean. link: http://www.nuforc.org

I've checked it...it's not some crazy lunatic page. It's a page where people all around the US are reporting UFO sightings. The owners of that page seem to be credible, since they investigate the reports...and of course have caught hoaxers too. So I don't think they are crazy...but open minded.

My 2 cents

UserDoe 23:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)UserDoe (hope i made a correct signature..if not tell me)

I kinda don't get what you mean by biased, could you please expand upon that? :3 Lychosis T/C 23:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

National Aviation Reporting Center on anomalous phenomena

CIA educational summary on UFO NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts

British Ministry of Defence (MoD) -- Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region

Look at those...i mean not to remove the links to official websites...no way...but people will rather click on those instead of the others. So what we should do is the following: Give the people a chance to read credible reports of unidentified flying objects and then they can decide whether or not to believe it. But ok...the "biased" was probably overdone, but i was reffering to those "official" webpages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UserDoe (talk • contribs)

I kinda see what you're saying. And your edits are showing up like that because you're indenting them manually. Use colons to indent. Look at mine in the editing thing. As for that link, I'll throw it in there, and see if anyone has an issue with it. :3 Lychosis T/C 23:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
ok thank you :-) i think i got it now UserDoe 23:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)UserDoe

Definition of UFO

The article currently states that a UFO is "any real or apparent flying object which cannot be identified by the observer and which remains unidentified after investigation". This definition does not reflect the consensus in the field of UFO investigation. According to UFOROM's (Ufology Research of Manitoba) 2006 Canadian UFO Survey, a UFO is defined simply as "an object seen in the sky which its observer cannot identify". (6th section down, under "UFOs and IFOs".)

This wording is clearer and definitely reflects what at least one national organization in the field uses as its definition. According to the cited report, this working definition is also what was used by the US Air Force's Project Blue Book. The exclusion of any reference to or qualification by independent investigation serves an important purpose: it allows for the collection of more complete statistics concerning UFO sightings (refer to the cited report for a more complete explanation of the rationale behind using this definition of UFO). WikiFelix the WikiCat 06:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The current definition is fine as it is. It's accurate enough for the time being. And thank you WikiFelix for mentioning Project Blue Book. Some people overlook it. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Objective proof, from the "Wikipedia Policy"

Someone deleted my posts, without comment or contact, evidently because they did not like what was posted, in clear violation of Wikipedia's policy. What was posted was an offering of proof byway of evidence from the patent office that man has had the ability to build flying craft that people call UFO's for the last 100 years. I think that expired patents from the patent office qualify as "objective proof ... something which can be validated by a third party", and I doubt that anyone can argue that patents are not objective proof.

Perhaps because I am new to this forum, I may have offended someone, and if so I would apologize. I have gone through the regulations listed on this website for posting, and I can not find where my error may lay.

As such, I am convinced that this deletion was a partisan attack, and I am asking the moderator of the website for assistance. At no point am I saying that aliens don't exist. I do say that proof in the form of a living alien being, or even an alien corpse, has not been presented. I do also say that proof from the patent office exists that man has invented and does fly UFO craft. The fact that I am not a believer in whomever's alien cult does not warrant that my posting should be deleted. Where is the fairness in that?

regards, Lukefortune 21:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)lukefortune

JFlav deleted your comment on the talkpage. But I have to tell you, that all your recent edits on this article clearly show a bias and therefor are against Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. See NPOV for details. Lets just take these phrases: " Every photograph and film footage of flying saucers can been adequately explained by patented technology" "However, "believers" seem to be easily offended at the prospect that UFO's can be proven to be made by people here on Earth. "This does not belong into an unbiased article, since this is your own opinion.No offense, just to avoid further mistakes :) Regards UserDoe 22:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
JFlav,
Which sentence in the above appears to you to be biased?
"Every photograph..."
or
"However, believers..."
If you say the former, then you display an ignorance of the technology that has been patented in the last 100 years. Craft that glow like fireballs in the sky, make right angle maneuvers at high speeds, that are invisible to radar, and can jet away at speeds in excess of 9,000 miles per hour are a patented REALITY.
If you say the latter, than you identify yourself as a "believer", and show your bias by deleting my post.
Don't get me wrong. I am not a debunker. I would very much like to see humans make contact with alien life and move into a galactic or cosmic society. But that proof has not been provided. I have proof by way of the PATENT OFFICE of the US, and a few other countries, that shows that mankind does possess the technology. In the interest of fairness to every reader, and the progress of the human race as a whole, please restore the original postings and reference to the encyclopedic series that displays this proof.
lukefortune —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukefortune (talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Since when do patents qualify as opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.118.139 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just returned from vacation to discover that my recently-hired assistant has made a mess in my name while I was gone, so let my start by apologizing for what has transpired.

I like the layout for what you guys have done with the whole UFO entry here in Wikipedia. Very substantive for an elusive topic.

I did notice that there is not a lot on man made flying saucers.

I can appreciate the emphasis on the unknown, for this topic. What kind of things do you think would make a fair posting in this entry for man made craft?

Regards, Lukefortune 00:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Luke Fortune


Luke - could I respectfully suggest that if an entry of that nature is made that you start with the German RFZ series of craft? They were essentially flying saucers created ny Nazi Germany and yes they did work...kinda. They could fly but were inherently unstable and the war precluded any further development of them...but flying saucers they were. OzScot (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

The article states the following:

  • "Unusual aerial phenomena have been reported throughout prehistory (flying saucers in cave paintings in Hunan, 47,000 B.C., southern France, 20,000 B.C., etc.) and history. Many of these phenomena were undoubtedly astronomical in nature: comets, bright meteors, one or more of the five planets which can be seen with the naked eye, planetary conjunctions, or atmospheric optical phenomena such as parhelia and lenticular clouds."

It could just be me, but this seems a bit biased, mainly due to the phrase 'were undoubtedly'. Can this be replaced with 'could have been' instead? Just wondering. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds indeed a bit biased, might even be POV. I'll be bold and change it. If anybody has any issues with this edit, I'd be happy to hear them. Regards UserDoe 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Aplomado and Brickdude. Wikipedia should not be representing interpretations and opinions as fact. Facts should be held to the same standards of evidence as is used in court proceedings. Grafitti in caves on another continent does not constitute a "report in prehistory," nor should the interpretation that the pictures are flying saucers be presented. Pretty pictures on a cave wall are pretty pictures on a cave wall. The interpretation of said picture does not constitute fact, nor does it constitute a "report." ````lukefortune ?Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukefortune (talk ? contribs) 20:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that some undoubtedly were. See historical astronomy for more. ScienceApologist 22:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I changed it a bit now. Now it says:

"Some of these phenomena were undoubtedly astronomical in nature: comets, bright meteors, one or more of the five planets which can be seen with the naked eye, planetary conjunctions, or atmospheric optical phenomena such as parhelia and lenticular clouds. An example is the Comet Halley , which has been recorded the first time historically by Chinese astronomers in 240 B.C. and possibly as early as 467 B.C.."

I think this should be more suitable. UserDoe 01:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

UFO search engine

IBM and Yahoo have launched a search engine dedicated to ufos: http://www.ufocrawler.com/search/ ?Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.211.101.193 (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Major cleanup needed

This article is a joke. It's rife with speculation, rampant insinuation of government conspiracy and a generally heavy bias in favor of UFO theories. It is in need of a major cleanup in regards to the tone of the article and its sourcing. I would encourage someone to take on this task, as unfortunately I don't have the time these days. Aplomado talk 17:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

POLL: Adding material such as this of Lukefortune [Contribs] which he created himself ?

The result was Don't add User Doe ☻T ☼C 03:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


A section on "explanations" for why governments' are mum on UFOs

I've been thinking about this for 30 years and today it occured to me that there may a case to made that that the US, Russia, China, UK, ect. are NOT talking about what they DO know about the existence or non-existence of UFOs NOT because it's THEIR policies, but because they have been "given" specific guidelines on how to deal with their countrymen. This should be explored. For the sake of argument, let's posit that, OK, these aliens "do" exist and come and go on a regular basis. Perhaps they, themselves have established the protocols for informing a planetary population. They could simply have informed the major governments more than 50 years ago of the following policies, for example. 1. We get "interested" in a planetary civilization once they go nuclear. 2. But since continued planetary existence, at that point, is problematic and our experiences have been that some planets never get past the nuclear stage, and self-destruct at one point or another. 3. We do NOT deal with such planets until they outgrow the need for nukes and other WMD and also 4. Establish a planetary form of government.

Only at that point do we deal with a specific planet, and since you are perhaps centuries from that point, your governments are PROHIBITED from confirming our existence until these milestones have been met. Thanks for your attention to adherence to these protocols, it might NOT go well for you planetary-wise, for your to chose to ignore these protocols. Have a nice day, "us..."

See my point, it's not like there isn't plenty of phenomena and data out there. I mean, is it even remotely plausible that our planet's so-called advanced national governments "don't know," one way or the other about the existence or non-existence of UFOs powered by extra-terrestrial beings? Gimme a break! We HAVE nation-state governments primarily to insure the existence and survival of the nation states from internal and external threats. It's their dang BUSINESS to know such things. My whole point is simply this, there should be either a section or a separate article just on justifications for non-disclosure. I know we're not supposed to "discuss" the existence or non-existence, but think about it. Ideas? -- SimonATL (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A section on why individuals don't "want" to believe in UFOs

I have friends who DON'T believe in the existence of ETs simply because it conflicts with their theological beliefs. Their answer is that ETs "can't exist if MY religion is 'true,' and I think that these theological and sociological aspects should be discussed. There are a lot of articles and even scholarly papers on these aspects. Ideas? -- SimonATL (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, people are too closed minded. I think you should show them some hard evidence and logical facts such as "The universe is so large, what are the possibilities of their not being ETs"

Jabba Fett, November 19th, 2007 ?Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabbafett (talk ? contribs) 22:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

indeed your right show them a alien or an ufo 82.217.143.153 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Technology

When was the idea of ET's having better technology than we do? If there are ETs, they will most likely be single-celled oganisms. Jabbafett (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ever see the movie Independence Day? That is how people will find out that "we're" not alone. 205.240.146.37 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why people don't "believe in UFOs"

  • Some religions claim they're "The Devil"/demons
  • The Robertson Panel and Operation Mockingbird, both CIA operations make sure "UFO shit" does'nt become known to the sheeple. See all articles mentioned.

I've read all discussions here and they indicate all hell would break loose IF aliens are found, incl. alien germs, aliens find US. 205.240.146.37 (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone agree ? Disagree? Remember, Wikipedia is NOT(supposed to be)CENSORED. 205.240.146.37 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Clean up coming?!

About time. Hope it does'nt end up being either pro Skeptic (per Operation Mockingbird and Robertson Panel, two CIA guidelines), nor "UFO Believer" either. 65.163.112.28 (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree - I'm a believer but refuse to believe in anything which can't be substantiated. I really do think there's a case for dealing with UFOs as precisely what they are - Unidentified flying objects - please remember that if a UFO can be shown to be something carrying life from 'out there' then it ceases to be a UFO and becomes 'something else' ie - flying saucer, spaceship, alien craft or whatever but it ceases to be a UFO. I find arguments that UFOs have to be referenced as 'alien technology or life' bewildering as they would then move out of the ufo category completely. So many believers put the cart before the horse without pausing to think about it - if it's an alien craft for example, it is no longer a UFO so why argue to steal the 'ufo ground'? I agree with most of those who describe the entry as a mess - it truly is, and all I see mostly are competing 'beliefs' and not encyclopedic calibre content. OzScot (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Major cleanup coming

Agreeing with several posts above, this article will be undergoing substantial revision in the future. The article is poorly organized, it contains reams of irrelevant, unverifiable, or unreliable data, and it has nothing even plausibly mistakable for neutrality. Some of the information is repeated elsewhere on the very same page, and some entire sections can be deleted because they only summarize other Wikipedia articles that can be just as easily slipped down to the References or Other Sites sections. I do not want to just demolish the whole article and just start over, but that might be a necessarily solution given the huge number of changes that need to be made.

Almost all of the "history" section can be merged into pages like ancient astronaut theories, list of UFO sightings, ufology, things like that. If necessary at all, this section should be an extremely general sketch of the character of UFO sightings. There are editorial remarks throughout, and some of the material sighted is simply obviously unreputable (and often, unsourced). Skepticism is applied extremely selectively: notice that there is great concern expressed over the 1968 Condon Report, which had a "negative conclusion" (about what the author doesn't say, but about the ET UFO hypothesis), but there is none whatsoever taken in the interesting anecdote by Dr. Olavo T. Fuentes about two Brazilian military officers confessing to a worldwide military/government conspiracy to hide the truth about UFOs to prevent "widespread panic and social breakdown." Why is a double-blind study the subject of ridicule, but not one guy's story about an imminent "invasion" of the Earth, "perhaps a police action to keep us confined to the planet?"

There isn't even a properly-fitted "skepticism" section. Some of the things included, such as the different UFO classification systems, are simply junk that at best deserve their own, brief articles. The general bias throughout this article is that UFOs are extraterrestrial craft, and any dissenting data is treated as faulty (almost always without good reason) and the inclusion of things like "ancient astronaut theories" and the UFO classification system savagely buttresses the article's apparent assumption that every unexplained light in the sky is a Klingon Bird-of-Prey.

Under "Some Popular ideas for explaining UFOs," there are the completely ridiculous "Paranornaom/Occult hypothesis" and the "time machine" hypothesis, which are advanced as being "common" explanations that are listed higher than the "skeptical ones," and the "skeptical ones" are listed as though skeptics believe only one of them to be true.

The "Identified Flying Objects" paragraph is totally unnecessary. At best, stick Identified flying objects into the See also.

The UFO categorization has nothing to do with UFOs, it has only to do with the Extraterrestrial Visitation Hypothesis. It should be deleted or moved to its own page.

The Conspiracies section is its own article. It needs only a very cursory survey of the literature and a general description of the claims and skepticism. This article is already a whopping 30 pages on MS Word; we can cut this thing down BIG TIME by not letting every tin-foil Rense reader copy and paste her or his favorite paragraph out of a Jim Marrs book. ChrisRay6000 (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The contents of this article are all notable IMHO. I fail to see why this article needs a complete or major rewrite. Wikipedia does not exist to promote one person's opinion and it does not publish POV articles, and is of course not censored. This article is in no way POV, it is a very informative and well written article about a very notable topic. LightAnkhC|MSG 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit: Concerning the removal of categories...I personally think that the "UFOs in popular culture"
Use in film and television" sections can go...I don't think that they are necessary to the article.LightAnkhC|MSG 00:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some specific changes

Hi everybody, as stated above this site is going to undergo some imminent, severe changes. I'll start with a general description of what I think needs to get done, and then I'll offer some specific recommendations.

1. Sources

The sources for this article speak for themselves. Between the guy who relied on an "amateur astronomer poll" from "International UFO Reporter" and the guy who relied on "ufoevidence.org"'s forums (FORUMS) are a whole lot of people, including myself, who are at least slightly irritated that this entire article was written by people with a deliberate disdain for intellectual integrity.

2. Language

As indicated above, and as should be obvious to anyone with even a slight amount of incredulity at this article's presentation, the language of this article communicates solely the idea that UFOs as alien intergalactic craft are real, and that everyone who dares question this fact is either a "dogmatic skeptic" or, worse, a "government cover-up" participant. This is an inexcusable attack on academic neutrality, a condition that demands explanation of the fact that the UFO phenomenon has many plausible, rational explanations.

3. Organization

"1.2.2.: Other sightings."
"2.3 Explanations and Opinions
"2.3.1. Some Popular ideas for explaining UFOs."

Enough said.

Some specific recommendations:

-This article is long due for a grammatical overhaul. Awkward sentences abound. The only thing worse than an article on a paranormal topic written by a credulous die-hard is an article on a paranormal topic written by a drunk, credulous die-hard, and that it seems is what happened here.

-All of the sources need to be reviewed. All sources based on forums and blogs will be deleted and new citations will need to be provided.

-All of the sources that rely on people of, er, questionable integrity (J. Hynek, the various self-published UFO die-hards, etc.) need to be carefully assessed and more reliable people need to be found to corroberate or explain the findings of believing UFOlogists. This article needs to be presented in a carefully neutral manner and to that effect not all believers need to be scrapped, but surely no one can deny that the scholarly spirit in this article is almost entirely absent.

-The "Skeptical" section needs to be completely re-tooled so as not to sound like the presentation of a bunch of whining curmudgeons. Science and UFO theory need to be integrated to present the beliefs in and explanations for the UFO phenomenon in a much more balanced manner.

And so on.

Just to give everyone a heads up so that there will be no surprise. Serious changes need to be made, to the benefit of both skeptics and believers - but most of all, to intellectual and academic honesty in general. ?Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlray (talk ? contribs) 05:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is properly sourced. It's not up to one single editor to decide whether or not he/she likes the sources. "the language of this article communicates solely the idea that UFOs as alien intergalactic craft are real" I disagree with that. Nowhere does the article implie whether or not something does exist or not. The article is perfectly NPOV. As stated above: The article should remain in its current state. LightAnkhC|MSG 00:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing against editing of this article as long as it's not what happened to Extraterrestrial hypothesis page recently (see talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Extraterrestrial_hypothesis#Total_overhaul_needed). One person completely rewrote the article to make it suite his world view. He removed a HUGE amount of sourced information, only explanation being "the author might be UFO believer". Actually I'm afraid the initiative to edit this page comes from the same person. He has been in trouble with Wikipedia authorities earlier because of his biased editings.128.214.205.5 (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is exactly my concern...in a nutshell, thanks for the warning. Wikipedia is not censored and does not publish opinions. The material of the UFO article is properly sourced and totally NPOV. I have put the UFO article on my watchlist and would appreciate it if others would put it on their watchlist as well. Just to keep an eye on it. LightAnkhC|MSG 15:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Can I suggest please that at least some reference to Dr Persinger be made? Here is a man who at least has had peer reviewed academic work on the subject published. His Tectonic strain/stress theory being relevant to ufo sightings is one of the very few scientific explanations for at least a part of the phenomena. May I also add that the entire subject is rife with people with no credentials purporting to be experts, people with psuedo-credentials purporting to be experts, and genuine experts out to make a fast buck and as a consequence just about everyone has to be checked and double checked for authenticity. I noticed the entry in relation to the much awaited and much speculated on 'Press club' announcements from late last year - but should it be mentioned here? I ask because just about everyone in attendance at the event has a stake in the movie 'Out of the Blue' and hired the Press club to launch their so called 'conference' - was it really a conference or a promotional push for the movie? I ask these questions not because I support one side or another - all I want is absolute neutrality befitting an encyclopedic entry. OzScot (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Some examples of bias

Here is a list of *just some* of the bias me and my brother have found in this article:

-Paintings in caves are uncritically reported to be UFOs ("flying saucers in cave paintings," heavily-biased language), rather than shapes that an author 20,000 years later decides are shaped like his own personal opinion of how a "UFO" would be shaped. No source given.

-The "The Baptism of Christ" painting is described as a "flying saucer shooting down beams or religious symbolism" - when my brother took editing notes on this one, his simply read, "is this a joke?" It is ludicrous to pretend that describing a 300-year-old painting as containing a 21st-century imprint of what a UFO should look like is ludicrous. No source given.

-A sentence states that a "sighting" in 1561 showed "a multitude of objects seemingly engaged in an aerial battle," citing no source, cleary the author's opinion. The second source that is cited for this does not contain that information.

-The next paragraph begins by saying that "such sightings were usually treated as supernatural portents, angels, and other religious omens." No source given.

-The next sentence reads, "Some contemporary investigators believe them to be the ancient equivalent of modern UFO reports." Not only is no source given, but this is historical imprinting at its worst: there wasn't even the Western concept of the manned spacecraft in such shapes until the early 20th century, and not even the phrase "UFO" for decades afterwards. This is blatant bias.

-The paragraph concludes with the uncritically-offered idea that ancient art portrays "strikingly similar" "UFO reports," without offering the glaring and obvious reality-based explanations.

-The next section begins with the claim that the term "UFO" was invented in the late 1940s. No source given.

-The bullet point concerning Copiapo city gives absolutely no context or description of the supposed "first modern sighting," never mind that that seems to contradict the earlier unsourced claim that "UFOs" were known by the 1940s.

-All of these bullet points uncritically accept the eyewitness' imagined "size of the UFO" without mentioning that none of them would have a proper frame of reference.

-All of these bullets belong in a "famous sightings" article.

-The Fatima sightings in Portugal were never said to be UFOs. No source given for this claim. This is historical imprinting and blatant bias.

-The claim is made that on 2/25/42 the US Army saw a UFO. No source given.

-It is identified by the author as "the West coast air raid." No source given. Terrible grammar.

-The author claims that over 2000 sightings in Scandinavia occurred in 1946. No source given.

-Author makes claims about supposed "ghost rockets" and German V1 and V2 rockets. No source given.

-The Mount Rainier sighting is unsourced.

-The description of the media reaction to the Mount Rainier sighting is unsourced.

-The two photographs of the Kenneth Arnold case are completely irrelevant.

-The author begins the "Other Sightings" section with the un-sourced opinion that his pet example is "perhaps the most significant." No source given.

-The author offers no sources for Ted Bloecher's opinion.

-"Debunkery" is not a word. On top of that, it is a loaded term.

-The phrase "This was more UFO reports for 1947 than most researchers ever suspected" is not only meaningless and unsourced, it indicates a glaring bias on the part of its author.

-The author decides that certain reports "made a persuasive case for a genuine mystery." No source given. No description of who decided these were "mysterious." No intellectual integrity whatsoever.

-The idea of "secretly beginning a formal investigation" is contradictory. No source is given for either of these.

-"Intelligence" is not a branch of the US Government. Generalization demonstrates obvious bias.

-Source given for subsequent quotes was not said by anything who actually studied the cases, as sourcing fraudulently suggests.

-End of article offers the false conclusion that two sightings in Canada were "unsolved;" rather, their own source indicates that this merely means there was no obvious explanation readily available. Author is lying on this count.

-No source is given for the supposedly "official" definition of UFOlogy.

-No source is given for the places and countries that have seriously studied UFOs.

-No source is given for the dates of the investigations.

-The entire "notable UFO-related sightings and events" section should be its own article.

-The fact that the author of the first paragraph of the next section bunches all of his sources together at the end, it is reasonable to infer that none of them actually cogently states what he says they do.

-"This is a photo taken at the press conference" is irrelevant and un-sourced.

-Who could possibly contend that no astronomer, ever, has ever reported seeing a UFO? No source given.

-Badly-formatted footnote to "5%" claim.

-It should be noted the poor framing of the question that produced the "5% claim" result.

-No source is given for either Clyde Tombaugh's or Donald Menzel's reports are given; author fails to mention that Menzel registered his sightings outside the context of them being UFOs and before much of his work. Author is lying on this point, essentially.

-The bullet list of studies (as well as the others jumbled poorly throughout this article) all need to be crammed into their own article.

-This entire bullet list is improperly sourced or not sourced at all.

-Olavo Fuentes's clearly nutjob claim is expressed uncritically as true, that everyone in every government everywhere is deliberately suppressing "the troof" about UFOs.

-Rense.com is NOT a reliable source.

-Most of the bullet point that starts with "The CIA started..." is tangential and irrelevant. Improperly sourced.

-Bullet immediately after that one is also not sourced correctly.

-The next bullet begins with a fragment, the word "defector" is used in a biased fashion and is incorrectly used aside from that, entire bullet is unsourced.

-Final bullet is also incorrectly sourced.

-No justification is given for the dissention from the Condon Report.

-The "physical evidence" section uselessly describes "physical interactions with the environment at close range," describing neither what makes for "close range" nor "physical interactions with the environment," which is a redundancy.

-It is the author's opinion that "sightings" that include "radar sightings" [sic] are "often considered among the best cases" and the author bases this on a fallacy via appeal to authority.

-The phrase "movie film" is hilarious.

-"Photographic evidence...in the infrared spectrum" is a contradiction. No source given.

AND THIS IS JUST THE FIRST 1/3 OF THE ARTICLE.

Any ONE of these points would warrant a makeover for this article. There are literally hundreds more of corrections that need to be made.

Explain to me why you are okay with the quality of this article, given what you have just seen above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlray (talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"LightAnkh," please be mindful of the hypocrisy of your comment - myself and others have made it abundantly clear that this article needs serious revisions, and our insight has been met only with invective and personal accusations. You made no noise over the absurd accusation that I am a clone of somebody else, and seem to be working simply to try to discredit anyone who wants to clean up this article rather than actually pursue everyone's mutual goal of a high-quality article.

"The Prophet Yhwh," a homeless person with mental delusions who claimed he could summon UFOs with his mind, is not a good source. Using the poll presented in a "Ufology" magazine as an accurate sample of what every American believes about UFOs is flagrantly dishonest. Never mind the hundreds of corrections that I have prepared and partially demonstrated. Now, please, answer the question posed to all UFO dogmatists who want to leave this page untouchable: given what you have seen above, what makes you think this article is in good shape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlray (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • "You made no noise over the absurd accusation that I am a clone of somebody else" That is because I do not participate in "witch hunts" I comment on the contribution not on the contributer. "and seem to be working simply to try to discredit anyone who wants to clean up this article rather than actually pursue everyone's mutual goal of a high-quality article." That's a untenable accusation which isn't constructive to the discussion. I'm not a "UFO dogmatist" nor anything else. I'm a editor who's concerned about this article ending up beeing rewritten in a manner which mainly favors one point of view. I have addressed a few concerns with my edits to this article. I'd appreciate it if you'd be a bit more civil and would assume good faith, your comments create an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Everyone can edit articles as long as the edits do not break Wikipedia's policies. LightAnkhC|MSG 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
people please there is no reason to argue. the etixistence of UFOs is unequestioned, since all it reayll means is that the re is something in the sky that is unkwnon to the observer. sometimes jets ad other ordianry vehicles in fligth can be called UFOs if the person who ntices them is unsure what it is. the only real sdebate should be about UFOs of alien origen since those are the ones that people who are soemtimes saying tha tthose are not do of the existence. Smith Jones (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • True, UFO (unidentified flying object) just means, that the observer can not identify the object he is seeing. "UFO" does not assert what the object's origin is. So in a nutshell: Unidentified flying objects do exist. As I see it: The article does not assert where UFOs are coming from or what they are; and is therefor perfectly NPOV. LightAnkhC|MSG 22:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you believe that the existence of "UFOs" is an unquestionable fact is obvious proof of the position that this article needs to be cleaned up. To refer to the normal phenomena that are responsible for such "sightings" as "UFOs" is to render the term empty and misleading. One thing that this article is sorely lacking in is a discussion of the plausibility of the existence of UFOs, a plausibility which given the laws of physics is nonexistent. This article asserts over and over again that UFOs are in fact alien vehicles and is riddled with opinions, hundreds of unsourced claims and unreliably-sourced claims being its hallmark.

You are both trying to dodge the facts of the matter. Neither of you have addressed the long list of glaring errors and possibly deliberate misrepresentations of facts that pollute this article and prevent it from being informative in any meaningful way. To the contrary, some here seem actively interested in discouraging anyone from noticing the fact that this article, on an important subject that needs to be covered, is a paranormalist's sick joke and little more.

If you can take a look at that long list of errors, multiply it by about five to get an idea of how many errors, unsourced claims, opinions, and fudges there are on this page, and then honestly tell me that everything is fine and that there's no problem here, do so. If not, I am going to act according to my duties as an editor of a page that hundreds of thousands of people rely on for information and give this article the intellectual soundness and informative neutrality that its subject matter demands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlray (talk • contribs) 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE fel fre eto make any edits you fele are necessary. every editor has every right to make any chagnes they want so long as they are not obvious vandalism. the whole point of this artencycleodpaid is suppor sed to be a colalboriateve effort, so you are perfectly find in going ahead to make edits without wiating for permission and comment from us. if we have any problems with anything youve done, we will discuss it with you on this talk page as necesar.y Smith Jones (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "The fact that you believe that the existence of "UFOs" is an unquestionable fact is obvious proof of the position that this article needs to be cleaned up." I disagree with that, the article is a cooperative work of many Wikipedia editors. Nobody holds any rights for the article. Furthermore, I'm not the original author of the article. It was created a long time before I joined Wikipedia. "This article asserts over and over again that UFOs are in fact alien vehicles and is riddled with opinions, hundreds of unsourced claims and unreliably-sourced claims being its hallmark." No it doesn't. It does not assert that unidentified flying objects are indeed some sort of alien spacecraft."You are both trying to dodge the facts of the matter.Neither of you have addressed the long list of glaring errors and possibly deliberate misrepresentations of facts that pollute this article and prevent it from being informative in any meaningful way." Not true, as already mentioned: I have edited the article to address a few concerns. You still do not assume good faith."To the contrary, some here seem actively interested in discouraging anyone from noticing the fact that this article, on an important subject that needs to be covered, is a paranormalist's sick joke and little more." A normal discussion with you is very hard to achieve, since you do not assume good faith and are very impolite and uncivil."If you can take a look at that long list of errors, multiply it by about five to get an idea of how many errors, unsourced claims, opinions, and fudges there are on this page, and then honestly tell me that everything is fine and that there's no problem here, do so." As for me: The article is fine. Editors can disagree with one another. Go ahead and edit, but if it breaks policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:CENSOR or the like, it is likely that another editor will revert it. LightAnkhC|MSG 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Nobody holds the rights to the article - you're trying to change my argument. Nobody beleives that it does and you are insulting me by pretending that I do. However, nobody has the rights to distort the truth, and that is what occurs on almost every line on this article.

2. So when an article is riddled with disingenuous language that states that cultures throughout history have observed UFOs (there is no evidence that they had), that there is recorded evidence of meetings with extraterrestrials (there is not), that UFOs are even possible or plausible (they are not), etc. how can you even pretend that it doesn't hold an obvious point of view? How many people have to write that the neutrality of this article is disputed before you believe it?

3. I have been assuming "good faith" with you this entire time, especially now that it has become abundantly clear that you genuinely do not understand that there is a problem here.

4. You did not address my point. By continuing to insult me you are only proving my point.

5. "As for me: The article is fine. Editors can disagree with one another. Go ahead and edit, but if it breaks policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:CENSOR or the like, it is likely that another editor will revert it." It is arrogant of you to pretend that anyone needs your permission to edit an article, and it is appalling that you don't think this article has any problems. With that, thank you, good bye.

Jlray (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)jlray

On a related note, I rewrote the "Baptism of Christ" caption. It's a little long, but I think it's simultaneously about as NPOV and informative as humanly possible.
Abyssal leviathin (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an unsourced argument that is based on absolutely nothing and is a misleading concept - you can't take the roughly five paintings on this website among the millions of paintings made throughout history as evidence against some sort of "grand coincidence." Jlray (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)jlray

It's not my argument. Check out any random UFO site on the net, and chances are they'll be advancing some version of the "weird flying disks in old paintings are proof that UFOs are an objective phenomenon and not a creation of the 21st century imagination" argument. My rewritten description is an NPOV, and accurate description of an argument advanced by many UFO believers. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to you presenting the idea, but I think that because this article shouldn't be used as a photo gallery for old paintings containing objects that Ufologists can retroactively imprint as UFOs, you should simply make a new article about UFO paraedolia. Jlray (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)jlray

  • I think if we just describe it as "Religious painting", we will probably have no problems. This description does not assert what the object actually is. It will be up to the reader on how to interpret the picture. That's NPOV. LightAnkhC|MSG 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
NPOV, yes, but it's also not very informative. Don't you think adding something like "UFO proponents have drawn comparisons between modern UFO reports and aerial objects depicted in historical art" would be an apropriate addition? Abyssal leviathin (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Too many Alien ships

Why is this article covered with 'suspected' Alien crafts images? UFO means 'unidentified flying object'- If I throw a pencil in the air & somebody saw if fling by and couldn't identify it, that's a UFO. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you know of any free images to use, go ahead and post them. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I ain't got any unfortunatley (in otherwords - I'm whiner not a provider). Hopefully anyone with images (and the ability to add them) will do so. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to get rid of the massive, congesting, seemingly-random lists of UFO sightings all over the place? Jlray (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)jlray

Once and for all

Will someone please remove the stupid frisbee picture from the article? Too long have we equated UFOs with Flying Saucers. Unidentified Flying Objects are no particular shape and not even commonly a particular shape. Can we please put an obligatory picture of a light in the sky as a picture on the article? Flying saucers are nothing more than an attempt to demonize and make as laughing stock out of eyewitnesses and the whole phenomenon. Seeing things in the sky does not make you crazy. Seeing lights in the sky makes you a person who sees lights in the sky. 70.135.74.224 (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Shreveport, Louisiana UFO

See www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?s=7700063. A woman shot a tape of a GIANT UFO. Barksdale AFB REFUSED to examine her tape. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is related to what has been going on in Stephenville, Texas, so we have a "Flap" going on in TX, LA, AR, OK RIGHT NOW !!!!. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The USAF does not officially investigate UFO claims (see Project Blue Book, so the non-examination isn't really newsworthy. — Lomn 16:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Fix that link, then play the tape on it. The UFO shown appears to be a cross between a cheveron and the B-2, 65.163.113.170 (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The newscaster, who is reporting the event is the one who said that Barksdale REFUSED to examine the tape. See the tape itself. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


UFO Classification split

There's a main article about close encounters in addition to the section of this page. Why not just make one article about all UFO classification systems? This article doesn't need to include the minutiae of the different classification schemes, it's cluttered enough as is. A single centralized article strikes me as being the most beneficial. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

History Section

I think this needs to be reworked. It covers the early years of UFO sightings in great, maybe even a bit excessive detail, then suddenly seems to cut off. The Roswell crash is mentioned only in passing and no mention at all is made of the closely related Alien Contactee and Alien Abduction phenomena. Neither are any sightings in recent times. What do you guys think? Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


I propose deleting this section, moving the link to the list of UFO sightings to the main heading, and merging the information of the french info release with the section about the press conference into a section that covers those kinds of topics generally. I think we can remove some names from that pointlessly big list about the press conference. We don't need to know everyone that was there. I think we should keep it down to the three or four most notable. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Astronomers and others

Seems like this section is a bit disjointed. I believe we should create a section about UFO witness in general, and put information about astronomers seeing UFOs in there. Then take the remaining info and make a section on major UFO studies and put them in there. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hoaxes

Not much to say, but I don't think this should be a sub-heading within UFOlogy, I think it would do well as its own heading. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

UFO researchers and Organizations

I think there should be some info under these headings. Like who researchers tend to be, how qualified they are, a few notable figures, etc. A brief summary of the major UFO orgs would be nice in the apropriate heading. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

More sections

Don't you think brief sections on abductions, contactees, and UFO crashes would be good additions to this article? Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Check out this artist I ebay item # 170290984509. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.24.104 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is it going to take ...

...for people to accept the FACT that we're NOT the only planet with life on it ? Independence Day (film) and/or a V (TV series) - like situation ? IF THAT happened, how will wikipedia handle that one ?! 65.173.105.118 (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We would start writing articles about the invading aliens. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
A lot of people accept that there are probably planets with life on them other then us. This includes many reputable scientists. What they don't accept is the idea that any of these lifeforms, even assuming they are intelligent, have or are likely to visit us any time soon. Assuming aliens are smart enough to somehow travel to earth to destroy it, but dumb enough to design a computer system which is remotely hackable by humans well I guess we don't have to worry... Nil Einne (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm going to start doing a massive cleanup of the article, as it definitely needs one. It is not NOPV in several places, some references need to be checked for accuracy, sections need to be deleted, etc. I'm going to begin editing the references to weed out the broken links, POV, and non-referencing links. Also, the pop-culture section should be definitely either shortened or deleted, as the pop-culture references have more to do about Flying saucers than UFOs. I hope to finish this overhaul in about 1-2 weeks. Dylanlip (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, the True Believers here are averse to almost any quality improvements on this site - see above... Jlray (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Jlray
Jlray, your recent edits removed a lot of content but you didn't explain your reasoning for any of it, so I've reverted them. If you wish to make large changes to an article, it's best to use edit summaries and even post here on the talk page to outline the reasons for your edits. --clpo13(talk) 04:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. A list of the attendees of a UFO conference in a section where absolutely none of the contents of that conference are discussed in any way is completely irrelevant. That particular section says absolutely nothing about the conference it is titled after and is just more of the endless clutter that has plagued this article since its inception. Or perhaps you didn't notice the ongoing clean-up requests for this article. Jlray (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
I'm also strongly in favor of getting rid of any and all "pop culture" sections. Anybody else with me on that? Jlray (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray
Also, I'm going to be that jerk who points out that a list of "UFO hoaxes" is redundant. Jlray (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Jlray

pilots call for reopening investigation

  • Here is some info about that, maybe this really important info should be included.

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=6849

    • yap deliberately.

84.177.221.90 (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed It was a blatant copyvio. --Elliskev 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please add following picture to the NTL press conference section:

or some other realated photo please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.227.181 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Russia military research

Russia held a 13 years sky observation study, using it's HUGE standing army, as part of regular orders for everybase they had. that's a huge land mass. and in those 13 years, the KGB who initated the study) di not find anything unexplainable. And without the CIA driven misinformation for covert crafts, the russian people never got the franzy of UFO sightings. Is this main hypothesis, and the mentioning of the russian research in the article? (It's just too convoluted for me..).--Procrastinating@talk2me 23:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Rebellion

Seen all material here, elsewhere. Will alien contact trigger a world wide rebellion ? 205.240.144.195 (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

IF you turned on the tele, got on the 'net, turned on the sqawk box, got the paper, etc., and saw UFOs all over the place, what would YOU do ? 205.240.144.195 (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This page really isn't for general discussion of the topic of UFOs. --clpo13(talk) 07:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Given the kind of shit going on here, IF there is contact, all hell will break loose. 205.240.144.226 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats just a stupid assumption.

If we had gotten cantact with intelegent life from other stars they would most likely do anything in their power not to cause more damage that there allready is. If they make contact, they will have a good reason for it, and a good intention. --Nabo0o (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So you are accepting that there hasn't been contact yet? Skeptic2 (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New entry in "Popular UFO Hypotheses" ?

I found this article:

Going Green: The Cryptobotanical Hypothesis

It is a little bit old (from January 2008) and it has been re-posted in other UFO blogs. So does it make it a candidate for a new entry in the "Popular UFO Hypotheses" section ?

Unforgiven666 (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


I find it odd and strange to believe that Gaia and mushrooms have much to do with UFO phenomena. I did a quick skim of the referenced article and do not believe mushrooms have much to do with UFOs, crop circles or cattle mutilations. Most reputable UFO sightings do not involve the use of mushrooms. Most UFO witnesses are every day folk who experienced something paranormal.

This is my first post here so I hope I did this right.

```` MDaisy —Preceding unsigned comment added by MDaisy (talk • contribs) 16:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

MDaisytalk —Preceding comment was added at 17:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, most hipotheses sound weird to me but it does not mean they should not be mentioned in the article.

(BTW MDaisy use four ~ insted of four ` - same key but with SHIFT pressed. Have a nice day)

Unforgiven666 (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding picture of the kenneth arnold sighting

How about you folks upload a picture of the kenneth arnold sighting?

And deleting all credible pictures for dubious reasons won't change the fact that it happened. Some of you guys behave like "deletion freaks". Wikipedia does NOT censor...now does it?! well...at least not officially.

Wikipedia becomes more and more a ridicolous "hardcore skeptic" encyclopedia. The point of view is not neutral anymore...rather biased. Some folks here always want to find reasons for deleting pictures and information...just to delete whole sections.

KEEP WIKI UNCENSORED!!!! 84.177.221.90 (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn right. It will NOT tolorate criticisim of SKEPTICS at all. See the UFO Watchdog controversy on the Paranormal Project's Talk Page, Philip Klass's talk page. The matter criticising the Holy Klass is on www.ufowatchdog.com, "Hall of Shame 1, 7th on the list. Ignore the joke there, click on the underlined links there. 205.240.144.198 (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The mystery airship photo

The caption for tho photo says "Photo of a purported UFO over New Hampshire in 1870; known as the mystery airship". Should the word "purported" be there - No one (to my knowledge) knows what is is, so it IS a UFO? It seems the phrase UFO is often confused to mean a spaceship. :) Fran (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Major changes

I made some major changes to this article. The biggest change was peeling off most of the 'Research' section and adding it to the Ufology article. I also placed some ugly, but needed {{prose}} tags throughout. --Elliskev 18:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • i see your so called "changes" rather as another try to censor the truth here. best example: the second try to censor the NTL press club story. it STAYS there.period. stop censoring the truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.246.166 (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Relax. I mentioned the removal of the NTL press club thing up above (#pilots call for reopening investigation). I removed it because it was a cut-and-paste from another source. That's plagiarism. Rewrite and cite it and I have no problem with it. --Elliskev 23:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
stop deleting every single useful and pro UFO information and links. you call that "useful" i call it CENSORING and BIASED! you can't be serious that the government or military is the "only serious source" for this topic here. to clarify: i'm also a little bit skeptic about this topic, but what you do here is clearly censoring. let the people decide for their OWN what to make of this information they find here. i want to keep this topic UNbiased...with pros and cons...and NOT only with cons. you DON'T decide what the people should believe and what not. you might be a "hardcore skeptic" but others might be a little bit more open. I would understand it, if you actually Rewrite the information given into a shorter version but still include all necessary information. but deleting whole pro ufo information sections and all pro ufo links is censoring and NOT cleaning up. m2c. 84.177.233.126 (talk)
i agree with you, looking at the history makes the actions of the above member appear a lil' suspicious. anyway, i think we can keep the current version as it is. all pros and cons are listed. same applies to the links: we have pro and con links...THIS is what _I_ call unbiased and uncensored. btw: we already had a major cleanup and trimming a few months ago when one looks at the history. so yes, the current version you rewrote a lil' is nice and unbiased. thank you for your efforts :-) . we need more people like you at wiki. 79.233.77.240 (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
79.233.77.240 was me...wasn't logged in. AnubisGodfatherT© 09:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Is Too Skeptical Considering the Evidence

Although it's obvious that hoaxes and explainations need to be mentioned, it's missing any mention of "official" UFO reports which even extreme skeptics can't deny. For example, the 1976 Tehran UFO Incident. This is one of several incidents in which the "object" apparently disabled some sort of electrical system (IE it's consistant with other reports). In this particular case, weapons were disabled right before they would have been fired. This is beyond even the type of technology we can currently imagine. Thus, unless you believe that even "official" military cases like this are completely made up (which would be extremely POV as it goes against strong evidence) then the ACTUAL EXISTENCE of these "things" as something beyond hoaxes and swamp gas NEEDS to be mentioned. To be specific, it should be mentioned that there are "official" cases of objects which, by our current standards, appear to be actual physical craft (not hoaxes or misidentification) yet defy all technological explaination. I think that's a fair description, and I don't think something this important should be buried in a giant article that only "UFO nuts" are going to read. The opening is currently quite "official policy" POV. It shouldn't be POV; it should be based on reality. There was also the "Disclousure Project", in which something like 400 FBI, NSA, CIA, NASA, high ranking military officals, pilots, radar operators, and other people "in the know" decided to have an "semi-official disclosure" on knowledge about UFOs not being terrestrial. The very fact that something this big didn't make front page news, even as "the largest hoax in history", essentially proves that there is some kind of repression. When does something become "official", or stop being a "conspiracy theory"? If you're living in China, the "Tiananmen Square" incident would be a conspiracy theory. Despite the previously mentioned "disclosure event" by MANY high ranking people in official government and military positions, UFOs are still thought of as something to mocked. This ain't right. 99.246.109.131 (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of China, I recently added the info on the 11th century Chinese official Shen Kuo and his recording of eyewitness accounts in several medieval Chinese cities of a questionable flying object.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Phoneix reports

I see that Drudgereport headlined the story after I reverted it. The fact remains the pictures linked to, mainstream as they are, are not in focus and are of camera motion. I have driven the deserts around Phoenix, and there is an airforce range there towards Organ Pipe Cactus national monument. If the air force were to say, fly a few planes with red lights and not tell anyone right away, why do we have to jump and put obvious nonsense into the encyclopaedia the same day? Wikipedia is to lean towards sane explanations, which in this case there are plenty possible, but none reported as of yet. We should just wait. Jok2000 (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

it's NOT "obvious nonsense" that's just your OWN point of view. the reader shall dicide by him or herself what to make outta' it. just because YOU think it's "nonsense" doesn't mean that it actually is. the military and government also claimed that the former phoenix lights were "nonsense"...yet, not everybody believes this. don't bring your own point of view in here. SomeUsr (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's no point of view. It is a scientific analysis of the photos presented. I would like to point out the WP:3RR to you, and I am performing my last for they day on your change. You appear to be a WP:SOCK and WP:SPA. Jok2000 (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

pls cite the source for your so called "scientific analysis". SomeUsr (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(above from SomeUsr, I think)

Here is the analysis of the 2 events in 1997: [4]

and here are the first cool-headed examinations of the most recent: [5]

Jok2000 (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

this source is NOT neutral, pls find a neutral, credible and serious source and not some kind of skeptic blog. additionally we're ONLY talking about the CURRENT event.

read here about blogs as "sources": WP:SPS SomeUsr (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus?

let's do it this way: if you find me a serious and unbiased source were it's proven that the latest phoenix light are "not clear (let's say it like this...)" then i'm willing to agree that we leave it out. and don't forget: no blogs...i won't use blogs either.

otherwise i suggest we take the current news link provided and leave it in the article. SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 22:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, i did my part on providing even more news sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352156,00.html

or here: http://news.ktar.com/index.php?nid=6&sid=814826

now it's up to you to at least find similar credible and unbiased sources who say it's "nonsense" so we can exclude it. let us both work towards a consensus. SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 08:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus reached: See Jok's talkpage SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what I believe to be road-flares on balloons, wrong as I may be, just don't excite me enough to argue about them. Jok2000 (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Renamed "modern reports" to "Pre modern reports"

...to prevent confusion. If these are seen as PRE modern reports we should rename that section properly to prevent confusion. SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 22:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. It should have been obvious, though, that a brand new case from 2008 (and uninvestigated at that) had no place in a section speaking strictly of cases before 1947. That's why I deleted it. Dr Fil (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Skeptic-pedia

I thought Wikipedia is neutral. The UFO article reads like it was complying with the Robertson Panel. Just read it. 205.240.144.226 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Those nuts need to be reigned in, or the sheeple will know that we've invited humanity over for dinner. 205.240.144.226 (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Love those "Mc-Human milk shakes" and those "nuts". 205.240.144.226 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Need some humor to lighten the mood HERE. 205.240.144.226 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome, please enjoy a nice journey on our planet :) I thought that you believe in both relativism and relativity -one non-neutral article doesn't mean the other 2 or 10 are the same.
If you know about the subject -and it's obvious that you do, please help us fix the problematic points you referred to. Make sure to not replace a potential POV (point of view) with another. Please note that some editors may disagree with your edits and that is why everyone can use this page to discuss every disputed change. Also, make sure your edits respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability and a few guidelines. Good luck. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

advocates

Too many ETH believers are cited with names and held positions. Almost no non-believers excluding Hawking are cited. This is not a neutral document. Most of the scientists are against this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.235.21 (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Include UFO in title

I don't see any reason why the title shouldn't be "Unidentified Flying Object (UFO)". Correct me if I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpc100 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

MoD secret files

I added this since this is a major and most notable aftermath of the conspiracy fights vs cover-up:1978 to 1987 eight secret files on UFO sightings were first released on May 14, 2008, to the National Archives' website by the Ministry of Defence. 200 files are set to be made public by 2012. The files are correspondence from the public sent to government officials, such as the MoD and Margaret Thatcher. The information can be downloaded[6]. The MoD released the files due to requests from UFO buffs and conspiracy theorists under the Freedom of Information Act.news.bbc.co.uk, Files released on UFO sightings The files included, inter alia, alien crafts flying over Liverpool and Waterloo Bridge in London.afp.google.com, The truth is out there: Britons 'spotted' UFOs, records say--Florentino floro (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

the language you used was quite "povish"..i corrected the problem and left ya a note. also pls see WP:NPOV SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 11:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your correction and amendment of my edit. I am new here, in Wikipedia, despite my some contributions. I stand corrected, since this article is non-legal (I am a lawyer, and I admit that this is not my excuse for not reading the report well); and UFO is really a very hard subject. Regards. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add these links to the articles, as the information provided by these sites are from government sources. Please also distinguish the links between private and goverment sectors in the section of External links

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos

http://www.foia.cia.gov/ufo.asp

http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/es/nm/ufo_1

http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/QuickLooks/ufoQL.html

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1269166 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.telefilm.gc.ca/data/production/prod_4462.asp?lang=en&cat=tv&g=doc&y=2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.sacentral.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=54&area=2&c=53339 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://protocat.nla.gov.au/Record/1497182 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.shorelibraries.govt.nz/TopPicks/NewReleases/book-review.php?dbcn=b21679009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please help to expand these topics related to UFOs

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=141139 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing do with UFOs. It's about natural disasters.Skeptic2 (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vQhpQZprDc0C&oi=fnd&pg=PT9&dq=unidentified+flying+objects+UFOs+diseases&ots=Yh0cHx0TcR&sig=SV9NkSjdvDavKM-WqgDjVfcG7WU

http://www.rense.com/general63/JBIS.pdf

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a749207970~db=all

Can't tell what this is about as there isn't an abstract.Skeptic2 (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,8;journal,4,38;linkingpublicationresults,1:103734,1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

https://dspace.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/397 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The abstract for this reads like one of those spoofs put together by computer from a set of jargon words to fool the unwary editors of social journals.Skeptic2 (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Social Stigmas/ Family Stigmas

See article the Alien Abduction article, Re.: Aftermath. Need to add this here. 65.173.105.197 (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

People report UFOs, even really famous cases, only to get ridiculed, as persuant to the Robertson Panel recomendations, such as being called "nuts", worse, such as being delared being mentally ill, also as persuant to the Robertson Panel guidelines to prevent people from reporting UFOs. 65.173.105.197 (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


Objection

I totally object to the template "WikiProject Rational Skepticism." being added to this article. If I had wanted to read about the skeptical viewpoint and see an article done in their style, I would had gone to the Skeptical Inquire. Wikipedia is not the Skeptical Inquire and also is not the playground of the Skeptics only, all are free to post articles here and they do not need to match the skeptics opinion of what an article on Paranormal should be, or the writing style that Rational Skepticism demands. I also feel that they need to get permission to add their banner before pasting it to all paranormal articles. thats my Opinion on the subject and this matter that I object to. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

From whom do you think a wikiproject should obtain permission to post a banner on this talk page? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not ask the paranormal project or the first person to write the article. And before you seek permission, ask yourself this question... Why are you putting the Skepticism banner on a project? Is it to change the article so that it lines up with the Skeptical world view? Many of the authors of these articles feels that their article are ok overall and expect the editing to be that of grammar, not content. Are you changing the article so it matches the skeptical inquirer world view? or are you changing some grammar? Magnum Serpentine (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Your response to my question seems to be "other wikiprojects must have the permission of one particular wikiproject to place a banner on this talk page; failing that they should have the permission of the person to write the first revision of the article." Do I have it right? If so, have you read the Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy, sometimes referred to as WP:OWN?
I would hope that we all strive to make our articles reflect the facts and all significant opinions. Membership of a WikiProject doesn't, or shouldn't, make any difference to that. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My opinion on this is that I am concerned that the Skeptics will re-write an article to where it matches their viewpoint and will either not allow other views in the article or ridicule other views in the article. As I said before, if I want to read what skeptics say about a certain item, I will go to the Skeptical Inquirer's website. When I come to Wikipedia, I do not expect to see articles present only one view and then written as to not allow other views. This is what I am concerned about. If you can make sure that the Skeptics view is presented as one of many views with all views receiving equal status in the article, then things will be ok. I only say that they need permission from the Original Author, because its my opinion that skeptics view things as UFO's in a negative prospective generally and I just want to make sure that all views are presented equally and fairly.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
So if the original author wrote about UFOs from a skeptical viewpoint, you'd have to ask their permission? No one owns an article, everyone must put up with the possiblity that their hard work will disappear. And all significant views from reliable sources should be presented in an article, please read the relevant policies and guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 June 2008
I sometimes wonder if Skeptics care that all viewpoints are present. Watching recent television shows about UFO's and other such things, I see only one viewpoint presented, the Skeptical Viewpoint. yet the show advertises that it is about the UFO phenomenon. I am concerned that this will happen to Wikipedia as well. Seeking permission from the original author would ensure that all viewpoints are presented, not just the Skeptical viewpoint.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Irrespective of whether your proposal would produce a desirable effect, the fact is that it would conflict the Ownership of articles policy. If you think you have evidence that this article has been distorted and does not portray the neutral point of view on the subject, make your argument and we'll seek consensus on whether there is a problem and, if so, how to remedy it while adhering to all of Wikipedia's policies. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should request that an outside arbitrator look at this article and check it for neutrality. We can drop the authorship of the article issue. I only stated the authorship suggestion because it was just one suggestion by me as a way to ensure all viewpoints are presented in a neutral and fair way. I am only concerned that this article and others that have received the WikiProject Rational Skepticism template are edited fairly, in a Neutral manor and also include all viewpoints Magnum Serpentine (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Also I mis-understood the authorship issue. I do not want to cause bad feelings or other issues and I think I have made my concerns known. I am only wanting to make sure all viewpoints are equally represented. Nothing more other than the neutrality issue of this article and if everyone is happy with the article as it is now, so am I Magnum Serpentine (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

UFO vs. IFO merge issue

We have two different articles about UFOs and IFOs. This is a self-serving distinction that isn't kept by reliable sources at this time. I propose merging the articles and using much of the text from the IFO article to indicate what UFOs normally are (aside from the silly and wishful reports). We need to inform readers about what UFOs really are (a social phenomenon, mass hysteria craze) and what they are not (visitors from another planet). The merge request is made and will be acted upon pending discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • VERY EXTREMELY MEGA strong super utter OPPOSE and KEEP AS: "we need to inform readers about what UFOs really are (a social phenomenon, mass hysteria craze) and what they are not (visitors from another planet)...quoting SA." doesn't anybody see how straight out POV this comment reflects.?! this user clearly has a agenda to censor and disinfo! i therefor agree with the other opposes: seems like pov pushing to me to fit issuers pers. views. UFO and IFO are two totally different things, to say that all UFOS are always IFO is just a bad thing. the whole drama here is actually totally unnecessary. why not keep the articles as they are...neutral? pushing pov and the official governmental opinion is not the way to write neutral articles in which pros and cons are presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Uhm - we are not saying that IFO and UFO are the same. The fact of the matter is that IFO is simply "a former UFO which has now been identified". This is a dictionary entry, not an article. What else could we put in an IFO article? Lundse (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)



  • Keep as both terms are completely different. It's like trying to merge apples with tomatoes. 74.220.207.67 (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • They are as different as a peeled apple and an apple. "A peeled apple is an apple which has been peeled" would be the entirety of the possible "peeled apple" article. Same with IFO "An IFO is a UFO which has been identified". How is the IFO/UFO case different? Lundse (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as according to your reasoning, you clearly show POV and want to push it through to get your will. therefor I oppose it. btw: don't forget that you've been blocked numerous times because of similar issues. if you continue like this i might bring this to a admins attention. I will not warn you at this point, but if you continue i will have to. here's your block log SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 15:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As - Comments like "self-serving" + "silly" + "wishful" + "craze" all tell me that you have another less than helpful agenda to play out. Not very Wiki to me? Vufors (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Strong Oppose: The term UFO and IFO exist to define two distinctly different classifications of object. While there may be some small overlap in that one "may" become the other, they should not be merged.
  • Merge: I can think of nothing which would fit into the IFO article which would not fit under UFO. The latter article should mention that there is a term for a now-identified UFO and there is really little else to add to a description of that term which is not directly relevant to UFOs (and no, this is not a claim that the two terms are the same thing, there exists both identified and unidentified flying objects - the former is just not very interesting except as related to the latter). Lundse (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Rename or keep aslooking over the IFO article, I see that people have added a lot of useful information there. While IFOs are derived entirely from UFOs, there is apparently a lot to be said about designation, statistics, etc. - and a lot more than would fit snugly in the UFO article. I think it is misleading to have two articles on the two different terms, however, as this implies that they are sufficiently different to warrant this. In my opinion, the IFO article should be renamed "Identification of UFOs" or similar, as the process, statistical work, etc. is what is interesting and warrants the article. This is nitpicking, though, and the important thing is that we not delete good information. Lundse (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The term IFO exists only within a formalized scientific framework, but the term UFO not only transcends this framework and crosses over to popular culture but it primarily exists in popular culture. To merge the two topics would be to create a conflagration of science and popular culture which would be harmful to both topics. Merging the entries would be like merging Christianity and Atheism. UFO and IFO are polar opposite terms and are incompatible. One is the antipathies of the other.

As per the paranormal arbcom, all topics within the field of paranormal must be clearly and distinctly designated as such. By merging the terms UFO and IFO we would make such designations difficult at best, and risk violating terms of the arbcom at worst, by creating an entry that talks about science in one breath, myth in the next, and then fills the two in with supposition. For example how would you word an entry to make clear that IFOs exist only within a limited field and that everything in the entry about them is based on scientific observation, yet also make clear that only a proportion of the entry about UFOs is scientific while the rest is a mixture of urban legend, popular myth and fiction: ALA the X-Files, but also that IFOs were once UFOs and that there also exist UFOs which have been "identified" (labeled) through non-empirical means that don't count as IFOs because those identifying them don't have empirically evidence to back up the identification. The whole thing would be a mess (and an edit war) waiting happen.

Using IFO as the basis for a section of UFO as was suggested would devalue the scientific value of the IFO entry to the point where IFO would be irepererably subsumed. It would create a conflagration of the empirically back scientific determinations required for a UFO to be reclassified as an IFO, and the non-empirical Ockam's Razor determinations used to classify objects as being conventional in nature in Ufology. Equally, it is also not in the interest of readers for the page UFO to become about IFOs and for the existing content on UFOs in science and culture to be relegated to an "also ran", especially since the term UFO is the most notable, best sources, most debated, and most covered in popular culture.

On a related note, in aggreance with user Vufors the proposer's use of pejorative terminology when referring to the term UFO (Specifically: self-serving" + "silly" + "wishful" + "craze") lends weight to the suggestion that the proposer as an undeclared interest in this merger which may not be compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines. With this and the incongruities that exist between the terms UFO and IFO it is therefore this editors recommendation that this merger be taken off of the cards.

perfectblue (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these arguments use reliable sources from the scientific community nor do they rely on popular understanding of the term. All that's left is fringe definitions which we can mention but must not use as the main delineator per our policies of keeping Wikipedia a mainstream encyclopedia. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply: that's your PERSONAL point of view. please read my comment before making further WP:NPOV violations. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 15:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you disagreeing with the assertion that UFO and IFO are disambiguated only by UFO enthusiasts? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
A UFO is simply any flying object that has not been identified. In the literal sense of the term, they certainly do exist. There may not be any extraterrestrial crafts buzzing around, but there are things seen in the sky that haven't been conclusively explained. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
"Are you disagreeing with the assertion that UFO and IFO are disambiguated only by UFO enthusiasts?" A typical ignorant statement by the overtly biased and fanatical "Science"Apologist. Historically the terms were created by the USAF in the early 1950s, hardly "UFO enthusiasts". USAF Reg 200-2 from 1953 and 1954 (signed by the USAF Chief of Staff, not "UFO enthusiasts") further defined a "UFO" as an unknown object of technical and national defense interest (i.e., obviously referring to REAL flying objects) that clearly WASN'T a conventional aircraft or any sort of natural phenomena. In other words "UFO" was what was left after THEIR (not "UFO enthusiasts") investigations placed everything else into the "IFO" or "insufficient information" categories. They were very much interested in distinguishing between the mundane and harmless (the IFOs) and the true UFOs, which were of obvious military concern to them (as evidenced by the wording of the AFR 200-2 itself).
The "Identified flying object" article was created to expand on what sort of things and percentages make it into the "IFO" category according to various SCIENTIFIC studies (such as the French SEIPRA/CNES and USAF Battelle Memorial Institute studies), and also to clear up misinformation and POV being pushed by debunkers in the "UFO" article. E.g., debunker claims in the "UFO" article that large numbers of UFO sightings are nothing but hoaxes or created by psychologically deranged people is NOT born out by these studies. Typically the number is around 1% of all sightings. Likewise, a claim was made in the UFO article (citing a mere assertion by debunker astronomer Philip Plaitt which he apparently made up out of thin air) that a MAJORITY of sightings were caused by the planet Venus. Well, that's king of hard to support, when actual scientific studies cited in the IFO article place the number of sightings caused by bright stars/planets or astronomical phenomena of all types at between 20 to 40% (and maybe only half of these are thought to be identified to any certainty).
The "Identified flying object" article takes absolutely no position on what the remaining unidentifieds might be. It never remotely suggests that they are "alien spaceships". It merely points out that various studies (again, a number of these are SCIENTIFIC studies done by professional scientists, not "UFO enthusiasts") show that the percentages of UFOs typically lie between 10 and 30% after scientific investigation by qualified professionals and after all conceivable conventional explanations have been considered. (e.g., the percentage was 22% after a 3 years USAF study of 3200 USAF cases by four Battelle Memorial Institude SCIENTISTS; the percentage was 13% in the French space agency 30 year study of 6000+ cases). And it is THAT scientific conclusion which is what really sticks in "Science"Apologists craw and the real reason he wants to take the wrecking ball to the IFO article.
What's the problem with a spinoff articles going into details that the main article cannot because of space limitations? There are lots of UFO spinoff articles, such as "Ufology" or "Extraterrestrial hypothesis", created because the main article can't possibly deal with all the material. There's nothing wrong with it, that's what. Encyclopedias do that all the time with subject matter too great in extent to be shoehorned into any one article.
"Science"Apologist is just up to his usual article vandalism, attempting to justify mass CENSORSHIP of material which his blatant personal biases can't handle, for which Wikipedia has censored him in the past and temporarily revoked his editing rights. Wikipedia still hasn't learned their lesson with this guy. He's really no different than religious fanatics or terrorists who can't be reasoned with because they think they know all the answers and who have no interest in honest debate or compromise. He could care less about "consensus".
Leave the "IFO" article alone. Merging it into the "UFO" article is another obvious attempt by "Science"Apologist to destroy well-documented information he doesn't want readers to see.Dr Fil (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Dr Fil, you're misrepresenting the issue. SA has never, to my knowledge, been blocked for censorship, bias, or vandalism. He's been blocked for incivility, and whether he's diplomatic or a complete a*-hole has nothing to do with the quality of his edits. The fact that you would call someone a vandal, merely because you don't agree with him, suggests that you have no way of defending your opinions except through personal attacks. That's enough to make me dismissive about what you say.
I personally see no point in a separate IFO article, because the term is meaningless outside the concept of UFO. We don't, for example, have an article on non-poisonous animals, just one on poisonous animals. Nor do we have an article on identified animals alongside cryptozoology. We do, however, have a list of cryptids. I can see having a list of UFOs, or individual articles on famous UFOs, but IMO the process of making UFOs IFOs belongs in the UFO article, just as parallel concepts are part of the cryptozoology article. From your comments, Dr Fil, it would seem that you consider IFO to be a substitute UFO article, since you don't feel you're getting acceptable results in the UFO article itself. Splitting off IFO for space considerations is one thing, but splitting it off in order to counter what you perceive as POV in the main article is not encyclopedic. Together or separate, they need to share a common NPOV. kwami (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hold your fire! Just passing through here - I'm a newbie so I'm likely committing some egregious error, but just wanted to way that I find Kwamikagami's reasoning regarding the non-introduction of a separate IFO article well-reasoned and persuasive. Now I'll just duck out of the line of fire again. PS- the guy with the ray gun isn't fighting fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.131.81 (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record I will vote here to OPPOSE the merger. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Having done some searching, I think IFO should be merged here. It has no context outside of "UFO", and all of the studies being cited seem to be connected to this article's content anyway. That information should likely be kept, but it almost seems out of place in that article, since it only refers to "IFOs" in the context of "UFOs". Politely concur with merger proposal. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder: this is not a vote. This is consensus building. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the proposed merger. I think the division, which is somewhat artificial, is distorting the article. The distortion shows in a number of ways, but one of the major ones is the inordinate focus on fringe theories. In investigation, we try to generate, investigate and progressively eliminate plausible explanations for a sighting until we find one that fits. However it is not always possible to eliminate every plausible explanation, but at the same time not possible to definitively explain a sighting. This is to be expected.
Identifying a UFO is a process, and one that can continue indefinitely. To focus on the extraterrestrial hypothesis (or the multidimensional hypothesis, or the paranormal hypothesis) is to ignore that no UFO sighting has ever resulted in a conclusive identification of a flying object as a spaceship or other vehicle of extraterrestrial origin, there are no documented encounters between humans and aliens, and although statistically it seems very, very likely that intelligent life of a sort exists on more planets than earth, as yet we have no concrete evidence that it exists, and certainly no evidence that, if it exists, it is capable of visiting our planet and has done so. This article should be, substantially, about unidentified flying objects and the processes used to identify them, and having part of the process lumped off in a separate article is inappropriate. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


==== Suggestion ====

I just slightly changed the wording of the lead a bit to make it more neutral. I think we can keep it like that. FooWarrior (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: as I keep noting, the UFO concept is inextricably linked to to pseudoscientific extra-terrestrial theories, and the article should reflect that. IFO seems to be a basically (pseudo)scientific analysis of meteorological events. merging the articles would produce no effective benefits, and would only serve to overrun the subject of the UFO article. --Ludwigs2 21:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of unreliable sources

I have begun the process of removing citations to unreliable sources like MUFON, CUFON, ufoscience, rense.com, etc. Those are not reliable sources. Also, I removed pseudophysics. Not something we should have here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 15:27, 7 June 2008

again: that's YOUR PERSONAL POV. I therefor reverted it and warned you because of npov violation. if you continue i'll push for a indef block of your acc, as you've been BLOCKED MULTIPLE times for similar issuses...please see your block log which i posted on my oppose comment. (this is no threat, that's a try to make you adhere WP:NPOV and to prevent further vandalism from your side) . SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 15:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain why MUFON et.al. are considered reliable? I am asking out of curiosity. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply:At MUFON and other UFO reporting centers, people do and can make UFO reports. These are mostly serious and reliable people like pilots and others. They give the reader a glimpse at other peoples experiences with this phenomenon. Furthermore it's a violation of WP:NPOV to only have government and sketptical sources in a article and consider only these as "reliable". You skeptics steadily violate npov and get angry at people who blame and criticise you for doing so. wiki does NOT accept biased articles and sources as well as wiki does not accept only one point of view. the article , currently, is unbiased and shows our readers BOTH sides of the coin. if you hardcore skeptics are unwilling to accept that wiki is unbiased, uncensored and well as adheres NPOV, then i strongly suggest ending your wikiship and find a skepticism website which better fits your POVs. i furhermore suggest stopping to violate NPOV and to accept the unbiased version of articles. I for one am neutral to "paranormal" topics like these, but i won't accept your changing of articles to fit your hardcore skeptical POV...that's a nogo. sincere SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 20:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Why not?! Could you explain why you only consider official and government sources as reliable?! Sounds like POV to me...very biased. Why not leave the article the way it is?! Why you two trying to push your strong skeptical POV on the article?!!! As for me...the article fits the npov policy and sheds light on both sides (pros and cons) 79.233.92.242 (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No one has offered a coherent argument as to why these fringe websites are reliable. I suggest removing them and restoring this edit: [10]. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:SomeUsr, please be calm here. You are accusing me of violating NPOV, and I haven't even made an edit here.
Based on your description, someone calls MUFON, and files a report. You state that most of these reporters are reliable (pilots and such). I will buy that. Is there any evidence that these reports are real? (not real as in real alien spacecraft; real as in evidence to support what the reporters are claiming). For example, could I call and make a report, even though I have seen nothing? I'm not attacking the people making these reports. All I am saying is that a group that takes phone calls/e-mails, etc, and automatically assumes that every phone call is real, even if the reporter is a viable witness, does not mean that the method of reporting is reliable. That calls into question any information reported by this group based on these reports. If the system were more reliable, I would be more willing to accept that the source was reliable. User:ScienceApologist may be coming on strong, but he is correct: the reliability of these sources is being challenged, and there is no evidence being given to support their reliability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It is actually ScienceApologist who has failed to offer a "coherent argument" why these websites should be removed. It is his old debunking censorship game again. He asserts the website or source is "unreliable" (just because he says so). Then he uses this as a "rationale" to delete it, quickly followed by mass deletion of the cited material using the Catch-22 rationale that there are no "reliable" sources. By "unreliable" he really means he doesn't like what it has to say, no matter how scholarly or well-documented the material is.
Just one example: Over on Kenneth Arnold, I cited the website of Dr. Bruce Maccabee, a PhD optical physicist, who has presented a number of very reasoned, rational, well-argued, truly scientific counterarguments to the so-called "explanations" proposed by a number of debunkers (which are always at odds with basic accepted facts if not basic science). ScienceApologist not only deleted the references to Maccabee, but deleted the counterarguments as well, with his usual tripe that Maccabee wasn't a "reliable" source. So a PhD scientist isn't "reliable", but some inane debunking opinion made by a know-nothing non-scientist is somehow "reliable" and remains in the article because it supports his POV.
As to the reliability of investigations by civilian organizations like APRO, NICAP, MUFON, CUFOS, etc., they all had PhD scientists as founding members and/or consultants. (MUFON, e.g., has some 100 PhD advising scientists.) These organizations are/were generally very conservative in their interpretation of reports, stressing scientific evaluation, always looking for the conventional cause to get rid of what they considered to be the confusing noise, and often coming in with slightly lower numbers for what they considered to be true unidentifieds than some government-sponsored studies. (E.g., Allan Hendry's personal study for CUFOS came in with only 9% unidentified, NICAP considered 16% unidentified, whereas the early Project Blue Book had 27% unidentified, and even the debunking Condon Report still had around 30% unidentified. The long-running French GEIPAN under their space agency had 13% of cases they considered to be totally "inexplicable" (no possible conventional explanation), though the director said that was a conservative number, and the real number of unidentifieds ran closer to 25%. So who were the real "UFO enthusiasts"?)
No matter. Even when government, not private, studies are cited (like Project Blue Book Special Report #14 over on the Identifed flying object article), ScienceApologist wants to delete all the sources as "unreliable" unless it comes from fellow debunkers, like CSICOP, hardly the posture of somebody sincerely trying to maintain a NPOV attitude to the articles. Dr Fil (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
dr. fil, i have to agree with you. scienceapologist clearly has a agenda to turn this in some kind of skeptic government debunked article and nobody seems to be allowed to end this pov editing/push nor to criticize the skeptics and debunkers. people, who want a neutral article which has cons AND pros get attacked by bully behavior and ridiculed. this was once a pretty good a nd neutral article. now it's just a piece of skeptical and governmental sounding piece of useless junk. my idea: if it stays that way, delete this article. period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


"Mass edits by talk are not condusive to consensus. And indirect threats (bully tactics) placed on my talk page by these users is not very wiki at all? I agree that all referencing should be as tight as one can get, but the wholesale reduction is less than helpful to the wiki viewer. If you believe MUFON et al are poor source references then the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) would also fit your barrow. I hope admin are watch this game. Vufors (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)"

"Mass edits by SA are not condusive to consensus[...]but the wholesale reduction is less than helpful to the wiki viewer." correct, yet he's allowed to continue but others are not...it's getting obvious folks.

"I hope admin are watch this game" that will never happen since most admins here are also skeptics and debunkers (governmental paid too?) who support such bully tactics, censorship and debunking of such controversial topics. why? to simply fit their worldview/opinion and the opinion of the msm and governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Calling MUFON unreliable is unacceptable especially when many organizations not related to paranormal (Law Enforcement for example) use them and ask them for advise and other questions.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

we need consensus before making radical changes here

why do you people keep pushing your pov?! why can't you simply discuss and let us find consensus? it's becoming childish and ridiculouse. discuss before you chnage it. or for what else is the consensus tag placed onto the article...righ...to find consensus FIRST. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 23:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting refs that an editor believes are unreliable is hardly a "radical change"! kwami (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
but hey, i placed this tag because we need consensus here. so i think it's not good to remove material before this issue is setteled. you didn' only rmv refs, no, you deleted a whole bunch of material without even discussing it FIRST. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 23:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ok KIDS... i, as a grown up, defintelly got enough of wikipedia or skepticpedia...call it what you want. i won't spend anymore time here in this kindergarden. i feel that wikipedia is led and edited only by children and teenies who get angry if they don't get their will.

you're now free to POV this article or vandalize it or what so ever, all you want. be happy...you drove me off...i got way more important things to do in real life...like taking care of my kids and wife and earn some money to give em' a good livin'. bye. oh and: my vote still counts and stands. jfyi. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 00:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No one's "vote" on Wikipedia "stands" because Wikipedia is not a democracy. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • you don't decide wether or not my vote stands or not...KID. see how arrogant you are?! you just don't like my opinion and so you wanna supress it. childish behavior. SomeUsr 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You should not make statements that you are leaving Wikipedia only to stick around editing. It only serves to confuse matters. Also, your comment is a blatant personal attack and such behavior is inappropriate for Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia not being a democracy is a long-standing community understanding. Consensus does not mean majority rule: it means that the community decides based on an understanding and mutual respect. However, we are given explicit instructions to marginalize the disruption of problematic users. Thus far, this is the way you have been behaving and so your activities and attempts to make points will be treated according to the standard treatment the community affords the actions you are perpetrating. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
About making statements that you are leaving... "I am retired.... Please delete all my associated user pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)" Sound familiar? How many times have you "retired", and by what standard do you preach about such things? Ecoyote (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • i really don't care about a childs threat. i'm about to leave and waitin' for my user space to get protected. so yes, i don't care about ANYTHING you say kid. this was my final post, and now keep on crying. SomeUsr 01:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I submit that since this user has now left Wikipedia with the problematic history that he has made, it is appropriate for us to move on and discount the drama that ensued today. I suggest archiving these last few sections and beginning a new discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Based on SomeUsr's behavior, I don't see any point in keeping those comments, but I don't know about the earlier stuff. I also don't see any point in keeping IFO as a separate article, as it's meaningless outside the concept of a UFO. We don't oppose cryptozoology with an article on "identified animals", do we? Or "non-venomous animals" to oppose Venomous animals. This has nothing to do with what we believe UFOs are. kwami (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This use to be a good article.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Mass edits by talk are not condusive to consensus. And indirect threats (bully tactics) placed on my talk page by these users is not very wiki at all? I agree that all referencing should be as tight as one can get, but the wholesale reduction is less than helpful to the wiki viewer. If you believe MUFON et al are poor source references then the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) would also fit your barrow. I hope admin are watch this game. Vufors (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We're also missing the primary definition of the term UFO in the intro. In common usage, "UFO" does not mean an unidentified flying object, but an extraterrestrial spacecraft/flying saucer. When the sources cited in the article mention "possible UFOs" and the like, they would seem to be assuming the latter reading. kwami (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I missed nothing. There we go folk, distractions using tricks and way off arguments. Oh Dear! Vufors (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Are you responding to me? kwami (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Vufors, I don't think I have ever been made to feel more unwelcome. I showed up here asking some questions about the reliability of a source that looked like it might not be on the level. I asked for some information so that its reliability could be checked. Not only have I not gotten this information, but I have been subjected to being lumped together with other editors. All I have stated is that based on what has been described above, MUFON does not appear to be a reliable source. I have asked for evidence to the contrary. You're response has been to counter If you believe MUFON et al are poor source references then the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) would also fit your barrow. Can you explain what you mean here? You sound like someone under attack, but I cannot determine what I have done that constitutes an attack. Please clarify your position. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi User :LonelyBeacon, Ignorance is a self imposed blinker. You posed the question and seem to be in doubt about the “reliability of a source”. Wiki is not a research forum, thus if you don’t know then you need to do some research? Why not join MUFON? Go to this http://www.mufon.com/research.htm and come back to the wiki folk and show that the listed MUFON folk are unreliable or reliable sources and your “evidence” for your decision. MUFON and CSICOP structures. Best regards to you. Vufors (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No, Vufors, it's up to the people who make assertions to demonstrate them, not for anyone else to disprove them. If someone asks about the reliability of a ref, this is not "research", it's challenging the legitimacy of the article. It is then up to the people who rely on that reference to show why it is reliable. kwami (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello User:Kwamikagami, Mmmmmmm..interesting take. So what’s is exactly wrong then? What did you find that was unrealiable? Or is this a private challange or a belief you have? Happy to help if I can. Best Regards Vufors (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say I find it unreliable; I haven't raised any objections about the sources (except for the lead image, below). I'm merely stating that the burden of proof of reliability is on the person who supplies the references. I've used unreliable sources in articles myself (again, I'm not the one raising doubts about the sources here), and have had to justify why I would do that. (In my case, because there was little else available, but then the article makes that plain.) In many instances, of course, it is possible to demonstrate that a source is considered unreliable, fringe, etc., but often it is not. kwami (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • User:Vufors, I must say that you are acting in a highly unorthodox manner. The challenge to a source such as MUFON came from another editor. After reading what I saw here, I asked for a description above that they took sightings by telephone (I'm assuming e-mail too), and that this is the basis of their reporting information. I asked a question; this is a form of research, but your response is to call me ignorant, and then fail to provide any answer that supports these sources. Then you suggest that as research that I join the organization? I have asked what I consider relevant and valid questions about the reliability of a source which was challenged by another editor. I never attacked it, and I never even came out and said that it wasn't a reliable source (just that I had doubts based on what I have seen described here). And the only answer I get is "You're ignorant" ... its up to you to prove this source is invalid". Since I have twice asked for a clarification on how these sources might be reliable, and I have gotten zero responses (and one insult), what am I left to conclude? I find your attacks, which are now getting personal, out of place, and I must ask that they cease immediately.

Since I have been attacked, permit me to defend myself, quoting from WP:QS:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

I am not labeling MUFON as "extremist" or "promotional", but I was curious as to how much they relied on personal opinion (from reporters), and how often they actually have third party investigators fact-check on these reports. If they do, then I would acquiesce that there is a legitimacy to the source. If not, I strongly question them as a reliable source. Further, from WP:REDFLAG:

claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, <sic>. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

I am trying to be understanding here, but would this or part of this description apply to MUFON? I am asking as someone unsure, not as a accuser.

I restate my question to any editor: can anyone provide information that establishes the reliability of MUFON's techniques for gathering information that would make them a reliable source? LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

" can anyone provide information that establishes the reliability of MUFON's techniques for gathering information that would make them a reliable source?" for your information mr. debunker: it's NOT up to the people, who think mufon and all the others are reliable, tp provide evidence that these organizations are REALLY reliable. it's up to YOU SKEPTICS and debunkers to provide some evidence that they are NOT. after all it was YOU who suggested that these sources are more or less rubbish...so then YOU should be the one to put forward some evidence. mufon and others just provide REPORTS from OTHERS, they DO NOT claim whether these reported ufos exist or are just some sort of...well...what ever. again: provide some hard evidence for your claims that these sources are not reliable. don't just delete and whine...no, do something.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello User talk:LonelyBeacon, Very complex question (is this wiki?) but, I fully support your thrust towards openness and enlightenment. I would (conversely) like to add to your very important and probing inquiry by making the very same appeal to all editors to provide information that establishes the reliability of say (for balance), CSICOP's techniques for gathering information that would make them a reliable source? This would be a valuable exercise in establishing a measured standard. Highly unorthodox and I don't see why wiki would need this type of data.. but?. Best regards to you sir. Vufors (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • this article has become bad and tends towards the support of skeptics. we have way too many debunkers deleting sources and a load of important informations just to fit their views and to support the official government stand on this topic. it really used to be a very good articles, now it's laughable as it gives readers the impression that ufos can ALWAYS be identified one way or another. it simply lacks of neutrality. of course nobody does something against this censoring and debunking...i think we all know the reason why. wikipedia once was all good and fair, now it only consists of POV pushers and censors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

lead image

The link for the lead image ("A picture taken by J.S. Henrardi on 1990 June 15 during the Belgian UFO wave") was bad, but what it used to say did not support the photograph. It was a collection of hundreds of UFO photos, but there was only one photo from the "Belgian UFO wave", and that was of poorer quality than the one we have here. The fact that a dedicated UFO documentation site doesn't have our photo, or anything else of this quality (at least from Europe), makes me suspicious that our photo was manufactured for Wikipedia, and should therefore be deleted. At the least, we shouldn't word the caption as if it were confirmed. kwami (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Liar liar pants on fire!! http://www.abduct-anon.com/images/AUTHEN5.jpg http://www.abduct-anon.com/AUTHENTIC%20PHOTOS.htm ... i got this from the image summary of that photo...what's your point dude? ah i see...you just want to get rid of the evidence under invalid claims! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Then you should have provided that to begin with. Incompetence on your part does not constitute conspiracy on mine. When I tried the link that was provided, http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/belgium.htm, I got an http error. Then I tried the most recent Wayback record of what had been on the site, and the image wasn't there. I then went to the organization's current web address, and checked their image gallery, and it wasn't there either. kwami (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL just LOL! Talking about incompetence....*rolleyes* anonymous IP users can't upload anything at all...you should know that (the uploader is also mentioned on the image page...and it's not a IP...impossible anyway as already stated...). The source and rationale was given from the beginning by the uploader. How about reading the image summary first and then post :) *chuckle* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
All right, that was really sloppy of me. But the fact that you haven't signed in hardly means that you're unable to upload images when you do sign in. kwami (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ummmmmm....no. If i go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload I get "You must be logged in to upload files.

Return to Main Page." (as a anonymous IP of course...)... and no...i don't have an registered account and don't want one anyway. Too much drama and pov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

I am going to request those editing the article to make sure that all viewpoints are represented. I have been seeing one group edit articles under paranormal to where they fit their POV. Please, Please, Please edit in good faith Magnum Serpentine (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

if I may chip in, with reference to the rather testy exchanges above concerning POV and alleged censorship, let us remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, hence it deals in facts and well-referenced statements. As we all know, too many statements in UFOlogy are unsourced, unfounded, or demonstrably untrue. Asking that contributors stick with reliable sources rather than anecdote, whether it be from MUFON or CSICOP, is not censorship, it is simply asking for adherence to the same standards that would apply to a peer-reviewed journal. Skeptic2 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello User talk:Skeptic2, In your comments you state "As we all know", so for clarity who/whom are exactly "we"? Or is that a subset view. I did note that you also used an open and unspecified adjective "many" Thus editors should also note in contrast, this is also true that "Many statements in UFOlogy are sourced, founded, or demonstrably true".It all sounds very POV pushing to me? Best regards. Vufors (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with VUFORS. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
And I with Skeptic2. If we don't all know this, then some of us need a basic review of what a reference is. UFOs attract a lot more crackpots than, say, botany. But the same's true for particle physics and cosmology. Anything this controversial, whether it's UFOs or the latest "Theory of Everything"—requires that we pay extra attention to the reliability of our sources. kwami (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Most interesting User talk:Kwamikagami so "UFOs attract a lot more crackpots than, say, botany", could you give me a reliable paper, journal, periodical or university study (the science stuff) that measures that observation, so wiki editors can read up. That's what you and I are all about, yes (?), real reference and not private subsets. Regards Vufors (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't be dishonest. Are you really telling us that UFOs are uncontroversial? kwami (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
?? - You made a statment that needs some science, or is this your belief? Regards Vufors (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Redundant Duplication aka NPOV

Issue moved over to this discussion page for clarification & consensus.

"In the popular imagination, however, a UFO is not simply an unidentified object without further implications, but a likely extraterrestrial spacecraft."

Hello User:Kwamikagami, in respect to your edit, your being too specific with just one postulate when there is approximately 12 listed in the “Popular UFO hypotheses” section. By focusing on just one you are slanting the Alien/ETH postulate, thus to his end slanting the whole page to the alien/ETH view. ETH is just one idea in a raft of ideas in the public domain. Thus it is now a NPOV problem. You may also like to expand on the "popular imagination" evidence? Best regards Vufors (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In the popular imagination, ETH is the first thing that comes to mind when someone says "UFO". They don't think "unidentified flying object", and they don't think of dimensional portals, they think of flying saucers. It would be irresponsible to leave that out of the intro. kwami (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, since you insist on edit warring, I will remove all redundant material from the introduction. Anything less would bias the article. kwami (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The OED defines UFO as:
  • An unidentified flying object; a 'flying saucer'.
Their supporting citations include:
UFO is the official term that I created to replace the words 'flying saucers'.
Flying saucers or Ufos ... continue. They are now seen in all parts of the world and in increasing numbers.
We found no extraterrestrial artifacts. Nothing the least bit UFO-ish.
This is clearly the primary meaning of the term, as it is used in English. The literal meaning of the acronym is secondary.
kwami (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Fine. My point was to show why claiming something is "redundant" is not reason to remove it from the introduction. Normal discussion didn't seem to be getting that across. kwami (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stay on topic and less "tit for tat" childish stuff, discuss the edit. Regards Vufors (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Childish, okay. But on topic.
Back to "popular imagination" wording. I'm sure there are variant wordings that would work just as well, mentioning the other hypotheses that are beyond current knowledge. However, eliminating the primary definition of a term from the intro in favor of a secondary (even if literal) reading is highly biased. For most people, UFO = flying saucer. Even if most Ufologists don't buy that, or think it's simplistic, it deserves mention. kwami (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back User:Kwamikagami, now again the word "most" is nasty unscientific adjective, not very define. So that we can keep the science can you give us all a reliable paper, journal, periodical or university study that shows "most people, UFO = flying saucer" or is this you belief? PS: and your info on what "popular imagination" is and its link to UFOs. Regards Vufors (talk)12:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want my cooperation, stop being obtuse. Even the OED defines UFO as 'flying saucer'. That's good enough. If you wish to change the wording to be more inclusive, fine. But the common meaning of "UFO" needs to be in the intro. I'm putting it back. kwami (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
So the OED states that in some form that "In the popular imagination, however, a UFO is not simply an unidentified object without further implications, but a likely extraterrestrial spacecraft."?. All that popular imagination is ETH stuff? Vufors (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "In the popular imagination, however, a UFO is not simply an unidentified object without further implications, but a likely extraterrestrial spacecraft." I demand a reliable source/citation fro that strong POVish statement. If none is available it shold be removed from the article! You guys demand reliable sources for other content in the article?! Fine I demand reliable sources for this very statement! and...ummm...someone should add the fact tag.
Good grief. If you are denying that statement then you are denying over half a century of UFO belief - see any newspaper article, book, TV programme, film or UFO website. I would have thought that statement was one of the least controversial things you could say about UFOs. Why try so hard to deny it? Skeptic2 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not really denying; rather stating that the reader would assume that UFO always means ET. Which is not the case. It's just one explanation. I think that statement does not need to be at the beginning of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. As for assuming good faith, that's rather difficult in this instance.
Here's Random House: UFO: any unexplained moving object observed in the sky, esp. one assumed by some observers to be of extraterrestrial origin. ... Compare FLYING SAUCER.
Kernerman: This is a sloppy definition, but does capture the popular image: Unidentified Flying Object: a spacecraft that is believed to come from other planets
American Heritage ND of Cultural Literacy: Again, AH isn't a very good dictionary, but these are still revealing (from the sections on idioms and phys. sci.): An abbreviation for “Unidentified Flying Object.” Often described as “flying saucers,” some UFOs are believed to come from other planets or galaxies and thus support the idea that human beings are not the only form of intelligent life in the universe. Few scientists agree.
The abbreviation for unidentified flying object. Sometimes referred to colloquially as “flying saucers.” Most UFO sightings have prosaic explanations; there is no hard evidence that extraterrestrial beings are visiting Earth.
The fact that all of these dictionaries, which are based on English usage, equate UFO with ETH easily demonstrates that this is a common usage of the term. kwami (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, you've violated 3RR, which is a blockable offense. Please revert the violating edit. [Never mind. I used my 3rd revert for that.] kwami (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And come on, the lead image is supposed to be a spacecraft. Or should we delete that for bias too? kwami (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Now wait a second...you threatening to block that guy?! I don't know what ya up to...but it sure sounds very ill faithed to me?! to be fair: You're also violating that rule. There's not really an agreement among users for your povish statement. It would violate WP:NPOV...and so it can be removed when there's no reliable source (like you guys do it on pro ufo content). If there's a reliable source -> Cite it and write it in a way which does not assert POV and does not assert that this is the only explanation out there...it's just one explanation. Concerning the picture -> leave it alone already! There's no reason what so ever to delete it! why do you assume bad faith?! Damn son! Take the chill pill and a break or something and calm down already! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I would not block him, because I'm involved in the dispute. By my count, I reverted 3 times. I also restored it once when he said to go ahead and do so, but that isn't edit warring. As for sources, what do you call all the stuff I cited? We're discussing the definition of a word; dictionaries are of course the first place to look for that. kwami (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello User talk:Kwamikagami, well I read the OED entry and there is no evidence for the statment "popular imagination" as per original edit. After all this time, you seem unable to justify your entry with any reliable paper, journal, periodical or university study. Thus there is only one conclusion, its a belief you have and thus, this edit is simply a POV push exercise. Slanting the entry towards a POV. This practice is not wiki. Do not threaten & Please stop. Regards Vufors (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you please read what I wrote? If you don't like the wording, change it. But your objection doesn't seem to be about the wording; rather, you object to including the definition of the word. How do you justify that? How is defining a word according to basic dictionaries "POV pushing"? It's difficult to take you seriously. Since you've grossly violated 3RR, I expect you to restore the normal English definition of the word. If you insist on claiming that basic dictionary definitions are somehow POV (a Conspiracy, maybe?), then there's not much hope of constructive engagement here. kwami (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

ETH in the definition

I think Kwamikagami has an excellent point regarding the conception of UFOs as ET spacecraft. However, the issue is that this association is hard to word properly. While certainly most people who first hear the term "UFO" think of aliens and Area 51 and little green men, etc.... the definition of a UFO is much more mundane. What we need is to acknowledge in the lead paragraph that UFOs have been conflated with extraterrestrials, but we should do this not with "popular conception" phrasing but with a matter-of-fact statement about how the sources do it. Maybe something like this:

  • If at all...I'd say we restore this version until the issue is setteled: version but add the triangle UFO to the lead section.
Most discussions of UFOs focus extensively on the belief that they are actually spacecraft of extraterrestrials. There is no scientific evidence supporting this belief.

This is easily sourced to any number of standard astronomy texts. The Cosmic Perspective by Bennett et al. is one good one we can use, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. One other thing, though: What is the history of the word? A definition is more than the literal reading of an acronym; it's what the word is used to signify. When "UFO" was coined as an alternative to "flying saucer", was it because not all ETs were saucers, or was it intended to include weather balloons and hoaxes? kwami (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Good rewording. From memory, the term UFO was coined as a neutral alternative to "flying saucers" but inevitably it soon became synonymous. No other theory has come close to the ETH in terms of popularity or acceptance and it's pointless to pretend otherwise. One criticism of the term "UFO" is that it embodies the assumption the things are (a) flying and (b) objects. In other words the very term "UFO" is not neutral POV. In the UK the term UAP, for unidentified aerial phenomena, is sometimes used as a more neutral alternative. The opening para on this page sums it up for me: http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/ufoindex.htm Skeptic2 (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • dear admin, SA seems to be a WP:SOCK of you as you seem to always agree with one another, support one another and always seem to protect each other. maybe someone should call a neutral admin and let him check you both. but that's not the point here. the point is that admin is using his elevated right to push the POV of SA and himself. stop that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure there can't be more than one person in the world who would disagree with you. kwami (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
From what I understand, the UFO monicker is a holdover (resurrection?) from the civilian air patrol of WWII era when people were monitoring the skies for enemy aircraft. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If we can substantiate, that would be interesting to include. The OED only traces it back to 1953, though the quote is consistent with what you suggest. ("The UFO was estimated to be between 12,000 and 20,000 feet above the jets", in Air Line Pilot magazine.) The claim by Ruppelt that he created the term wasn't until 1956. kwami (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I asked for help here. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
UFO is probably more of an Army Air Force term than a Civil Air Patrol term. To date I have not heard any accounts of Civil Air Patrol encounters with UFOs during World War II, while there are many accounts of AAF encounters, such as the foo fighters you mentioned. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks as though routine use of the term UFO dates from 1949. The report of the USAF Project Sign in February 1949 was titled "Unidentified aerial objects" but Project Grudge, which reported later that same year, refers to "unidentified flying objects". Skeptic2 (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Further to the above, I've just been leafing through a book by Frank Scully called Behind the Flying Saucers, published in 1950. He includes a batch of news clips published up to May 1950. These all refer to saucers or disks. Not one uses the term UFO. So it seems that the term "UFO" must have entered general currency at least a year after the USAF first began to use it. Skeptic2 (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I imagine what happened was that "UFO" was a military acronym with the literal meaning of an unidentified object, whether an enemy plane or a flock of seagulls. "Flying saucer" was an object of the little-green-men variety. In about 1956, Ruppelt appropriated the former to replace the latter, I would guess to give it the air of more legitimacy. kwami (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit to lead

I've made this edit to remove overemphasis of the ETH. Details of the change are as follows:

  • The literal meaning of an Unidentified Flying Object, or UFO, is any apparently flying object that cannot be identified by the observer. -> An Unidentified Flying Object, or UFO, is any apparently flying object that cannot be identified by the observer.
  • Therefore, some stricter definitions have reserved the label "UFO" for only those instances where the objects remain unexplained after a proper investigation, though such investigations rarely happen any more. -> The term "UFO" applies to those instances where the objects remain unexplained after a proper investigation.
  • In the popular imagination, however, a UFO is not simply an unidentified object without further implications, but a likely extraterrestrial spacecraft. -> The term is also used as a synonym for an unidentified object without further implications, or even as a synonym for an extraterrestrial spacecraft.
  • UFOs in the literal sense of the term have been spotted in many different places around the world. -> UFOs have been spotted in many different places around the world.

There seemed to be a certain amount of possibly innocent confusion in the lead over whether the term UFO means "Unidentified Flying Object" or something completely different. The former is the case. Some popular uses of the term "UFO" refer simply to "lights in the sky" that the observer cannot identify, and some, particular science fiction such as the TV series UFO, have appropriated the term solely to pertain to extraterrestrial spacecraft. However the term "Unidentified flying object" refers quite prosaically to an apparently flying object that, upon investigation, cannot yet be explained with complete confidence. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just one definition of the term. Words mean what people use them to mean, and in this case all three are proper definitions of UFO. kwami (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, on page 14 of his book The UFO Verdict (essential reading, BTW), Robert Sheaffer notes: "The notion of UFOs as ETI is firmly implanted in the public mind. Indeed, as is evident to anyone who deals with the public on this subject, the question of UFOs is inseparable from the question of extraterrestrial life by the public at large." Skeptic2 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a good reference! ScienceApologist (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I really like this version of the opening paragraph:
An Unidentified Flying Object, or UFO, is any apparently flying object that cannot be identified. Various studies show that after investigation, the majority of UFOs are usually identified (see Identified flying object). The most recent statistical study of UFOs estimated that 98.5% of all UFOs were identifiable and attributable to known artificial objects and natural phenomena. Nevertheless, most discussions of UFOs focus on the belief that they are extraterrestrial spacecraft. There is no scientific evidence supporting this belief.
I do think it's important that we get basic things like this right. We shouldn't be writing an encyclopedia as if Men in Black was a documentary, or as if decades of unsupported anecdotes constituted scientific evidence. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

UPI says UFO Attacked a Romanian Jet Fighter

See this link. It says that UFOs have attacked a Romanian military fighter plane. I can't add this, since this article is "Protected", indicated by a View Source icon in place of the "Edit" button. 65.173.104.109 (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone place this in the right article(s). This is all over the place. 65.173.104.109 (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I've even had to get help on this, because of these articles being protected. 65.173.104.109 (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It is being published under "Odd News" ... usually reserved for your "man bites dog" stories. I'm not claiming that this is an out-and-out lie, but its a short article devoid of details. If you can find something that has more details, then maybe there's something to this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC) It would seem to me if there was more to this, it would be more of a lead story.
Also, I am curious as to why it took so much time to report ... the incident occurred in 2007. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The Romanian govt. is NOT like the one over here. Explains a LOT of things. 65.173.104.109 (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Where is "here"? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The US of A. 65.173.104.109 (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:TriangleBelgium1990.jpg

I'm a little concerned about the use of this particular image to illustrate the lead section of the article. We should really have a picture that all parties can agree is an actual photograph of an apparently flying object viewed by multiple witnesses and subsequently investigated. This one seems to be something from a website called "abduct-anon", purportedly taken by one J.S. Henrardi, and shows no detail or anything to distinguish it from something you could knock up in Photoshop. Moreover the official Belgian Air Force report (according to this English translation) specifically says that "Because of lack of appropriate material, the ground observers could not make any photo or film of the phenomenon." In short, this doesn't seem to be a certifiable picture of an actual aerial phenomenon according to any reliable source and the only thing resembling a reliable source that I have seen seems to say that the ground observers were unable to produce any such photographs.

Surely, some sixty years since the Arnold sighting, and now with millions of ordinary people possessing sophisticated cameras incorporated in their mobile telephones, we can come up with a better, more credible photograph of an unidentified flying object. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah right...if you dislike the picture...denounce it and call it a hoax (or delete it all together..you seem desperatley to delete it). Of course...without having any evidence for your claim. The new picture is more of a hoax than the old one. Billy Meier style. even a two year old could do better. Pretty lame. 220.232.237.46 (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I hesitated to remove it altogether, settling for deleting the factual-sounding attribution. But it sure looks fake to me, and as you say, it doesn't match the reports from its alleged time & place. kwami (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't mind leaving it there until we have a better one, but I think we should try for something that we can all agree is a real photograph of an investigated UFO sighting. I think it would set our article apart from the speculative items written on various websites and in many sensationalist books, and also (obviously) using only reliable sources is a site policy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Most of the other language articles use the 1952 pie tin that we have on our flying saucer page. kwami (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we can do better than that. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On further reviewing the photograph, I'm not so sure I want to keep it in the meantime. Besides being even less convincing than those fifties "hubcap" pictures, this photograph attributed to Henrardi didn't show up until 2003 or 2004. We have no real knowledge of the provenance (this Henrardi fellow could well be just as fake as the photo), and the time lapse of thirteen years or more makes it smell extremely strange. I would like to propose that we ditch it--there is probably even a case for deleting the wretched thing. It's an embarrassingly poor picture and we've no idea where it came from or what conditions it was taken in, at what scale, where or by whom. . --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. kwami (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I subbed a pic from Commons that a wikipedia editor snapped and posted. It looks like a genuine airborn object that is unidentified. kwami (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw the picture and, I don't know, I tought it was a bird at first. In my opinion, it takes away some credibility from the article. Bijobini (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the last one looked fake, which undermined it even more. Do you know of a better image? All I can find (that are public domain) are little flecks in the distance that could be absolutely anything. kwami (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the Pheonix Lights would be the best choice but after seeing the debate over this topic I think we'll stay with your picture Bijobini (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What do others think? Here are the Phoenix Lights: Image:Phoenix lights 1.jpg

Since it has a dedicated article, we might need to keep it up to snuff as well, so that silliness eliminated from here doesn't just migrate over there. This isn't just an unidentified flying object like the present pic, but a promoted UFO = ET. There's a lot of promotionalism, with the photographer of this picture founding organizations, making movies, selling DVDs, etc. kwami (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Phoenix Lights were quite soon identified to the satisfaction of all but a hard core who believe that almost any unexplained lights in the sky must be due to extra-terrestrials, and that any explanation that involves military aircraft must be a cover-up. The bird-like photo isn't satisfactory either--we don't know the provenance any more than we know that of the alleged Henrardi photo. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. The 'bird' pic isn't great, but at least it doesn't look like a plane, hubcap, or Photoshop. kwami (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like that is also unacceptable. The triangle was restored, so I eliminated the photo altogether. Unless we want the lede photo to be a hoax/farce? kwami (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Subbed the USSR postage stamp, which at least has some cultural/historical value. kwami (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be such a pain about this, but I looked at the Soviet postage stamp myself yesterday with a view to adding it, but decided against because the theme seems to be unambiguously space science fiction, not unidentified flying objects. The uploader's comment is as follows (first in English, then the same in Russian):
16 kopeks stamp. Space science fiction. Satellite of extraterrestrial civilization. (Русский) Марка, Советский Союз, 16 копеек, 1967. Космическая фантастика. Спут) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
No no, you're right. My apologies. I didn't bother to read it. As "space fantasy" (космическая фантастика) it's inappropriate. kwami (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

U.S. government and UFOs && other sections missing references

This section should have more references. For example:

The research was “being conducted with the thought that the flying objects might be a celestial phenomenon,” or that “they might be a foreign body mechanically devised and controlled.” Three weeks later they concluded that, “This ‘flying saucer’ situation is not all imaginary or seeing too much in some natural phenomenon. Something is really flying around.” (U.S. government and UFOs)

And:

In 1958, Brazil's main UFO investigator, Dr. Olavo T. Fuentes wrote a letter to the American UFO group APRO summarizing a briefing he had received from two Brazilian Naval intelligence officers. Fuentes said he was told that every government and military on Earth was aware that UFOs were extraterrestrial craft and there was absolute proof of this in the form of several crashed craft. The subject was classified Top Secret by the world's militaries. The objects were deemed dangerous and hostile when attacked, many planes had been lost, and it was generally believed that Earth was undergoing an invasion of some type, perhaps a police action to keep us confined to the planet. This information had to be withheld from the public by any means necessary because of the likelihood of widespread panic and social breakdown. (Astronomers and other scientists)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.251 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 12 June 2008

The first two quotes were easy enough to identify (Schulgen and Garrett, in the investigations that led to Project SIGN), but the latter one about Fuentes looks very well like it could have been made up or poorly sourced. I've added references for the top ones and removed the bottom one pending corroboration. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews on UPI's UFO attack story

Wikinews has dug up more info about the UFO attack on a Romanian fighter plane. Here it is:Wikinews: UFO attacks Romanian Fighter jet. Now, can this be placed?! I can't, article is protected from editing. 65.173.104.109 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the first reported incident of a UFO attack since the Captain Mantell incident in which Captain Mantell was attacked and killed by a UFO. The pilot survived, and more than likely engaged the hostile in combat, since they don't like unauthorized craft in their airspace. 65.173.104.109 (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Romanian State Security was reported to be handling the investigations. 65.173.104.109 (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


I wonder if it was some frozen excrement routinely dumped by an airliner at high altitude. Strikes of that nature may be rare but they can happen. The reports don't say at what altitude the MiG 21 was flying. If the cockpit camera footage is released and yields usable stills we should consider them for the article lead. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The wikinews article cites the original UPI story, and doesn't appear to offer substantive new details. There is no indication of an "attack". There is also not a strong indication that the object in question was flying. I would still caution a hold on this, though I would encourage keeping an eye on this to see what develops over time from the European Air Forces. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Attack" suggests an intentional enemy, presumably ET. Somehow I think if anything that could travel here from elsewhere wanted to attack, they'd done worse than break a window. However, if this is news, it would be interesting to cover the results of the investigation, as a current example of what happens with substantiated and investigated UFO reports. kwami (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
YouTube, seen in the WikiNews Commentary section, has a tape of this incident. Since Wikipedia does NOT allow YouTube links, I can't place it here. Go to the WikiNews article, See the "Commentary/Opinions" tag. Tape is there, but it is in Romanian. 65.173.104.109 (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Statistical Sources and Status

The most recent statistical study of UFO reports determined that upwards of 98.5% of all UFOs were identifiable and attributable to known artificial objects and natural phenomena.

[1].Allan Hendry, The UFO Handbook: A Guide to Investigating, Evaluating, and Reporting UFO Sightings, 1979, Doubleday & Co., ISBN 0-385-14348-6


I have some reliability and accuracy issues with is edit.

  1. 1979 is not a recent or most recent study.
  2. Who/Whom did the stats? The statement or reference does not indicate the original source for the stats. Sample size? This is just a book reference.
  3. It is from a book and a page ref is not listed.
  4. This page is about the Unidentified and not the Identified they have their own page see Identified flying object.


Replace with:

The 1968 Dr Edward Condon report (see Condon Committee) and the U.S. Air Force Project Blue Book reported 5.6% as being unidentified and this define the principal nature of the postulates.

[1].US Archives: The U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet Concerning UFO's and Project BLUE BOOK<US National Archives http://www.archives.gov/foia/ufos.html#usafac

[2].Edward W. Condon, Director, and Daniel S Gillmor, Editor; Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects; Bantam Books, 1968 p521-522


Reasons:

  1. It is dated – 1968.
  2. Weight: Conducted by the University of Colorado Under contract No. 44620-67-C-0035 With the United States Air Force.
  3. Page location Condon Report p521-522.
  4. The USAF data base is the most comprehension listing of reports.
  5. It has a sample size, 12618 samples.
  6. It is an official government source US Archives.
  7. It has the stats in table form, by the original researchers and printed in a report for the USAF.
  8. It is available to all editor and wiki folk at the U.S. National Archives. See [11] and [12] and copy of the report/book [13].
  9. It is on topic it stats the unidentified values that pertain and reflect the page title.

Regards Vufors (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, 1979 is the most recent statistical study ever conducted if we go be reliable sources. This study is more in-line with the sense of the current undertsanding of UFOs. We also will be merging the IFO and UFO articles soon. The Condon report was a good first attempt, but it was done at a time when UFOs were considered differently than they are today. In 1979 UFOs basically were considered as they are considered today: mass hysteria. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello User talk:ScienceApologist In fact, 1979 is the most recent statistical study ever conducted if we go be reliable sources. I may support you if you produced some fact, those things that you hold so high over the rest... Now who did this study? Vufors (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry SA but there will be no merger of the two articles. There are far more people voting to keep the articles as they are or voting to oppose the merger than there are to merge. Look at the talk pages for IFO site. If you continue with your plan to merge I will file an objection. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"Far more"? Not counting anon IPs and one alleged sockpuppeteer who's now left, the vote stands at 2–3 with my abstention. My single vote could make it a tie. But these things really aren't supposed to be decided by tallies of votes, but by discussion. Conceptually, IFO belongs here, as it's only an ex-UFO. The only reason I see for splitting it off is space considerations. If SA can integrate them well, then I'd support merger. kwami (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah...just like in Florida and Michigan. Simply don't count the votes you dislike and make claims to make a point not to count the anon votes. 220.232.237.46 (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
In Florida and Michigan, you have to show ID to vote, to prove you're not voting multiple times. That's basic to any democracy. It's the same here, even though this is not a democracy. kwami (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
to prove you're not voting multiple times mh...the ridiculous and unprofound "sock puppet" claim again just to not count opposes and anon votes. i see what you got in mind my friend. btw: i just voted oppose on both articles... SUVx (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • sigh* Doesn't matter. You've demonstrated that you aren't thinking about this, so why would anyone take your opinion seriously? This isn't about voting, it's about convincing others that you're right. kwami (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* not that i know what you are talking about... i JUST registered a account to start participating on wikipedia. want to denounce me also?! man what's your problem SUVx (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
With a statement like "the ridiculous and unprofound "sock puppet" claim again just to not count opposes and anon votes", it sounds like you've been here for some time. And you claim you don't know the difference between a discussion and a vote? kwami (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
i will only say this ONCE. stop accusing me and others of things which we haven't done nor for which you got any evidence, otherwise expect to be not taken seriously. you make numerous accusations against every body who disagrees with you and the other skeptic, and all that just to denounce the opposition and to make a point where there is none. i also easily could accuse you of the same shit...but i don't since it would be uncivil. just because i agree with the others, you accuse me of some bullshit! ohhhh suuuureee!!! it's all just a big bad "conspiracy" against you...uhhhhuuuuuuuu! SUVx (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Merger tag

Since the vote was a strong no to merger, I will be removing the tag in a day or two. I would like the opinion of the paranormal project on this. If any Wiki Administrators or the Wiki Paranormal project feels I should keep the tag up I will, but remember the vote is taken and the vote was no. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The vote is a near tie. kwami (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I commend holding off on removing the tag until there is some more input from the Wiki Paranormal project. However, is there a reason why the other project this article falls under is not being consulted? LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have become convinced that the merger will go through per the policies of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. Remember WP:CONEXCEPT. We cannot flout Wikipedia policy just to satisfy people who disagree with it. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You and your minions just lay out wiki policy as you like and as it fits your needs. The people obviously don't want it; yet you and your clowns desperatley searching for a reason to push it thru. What you and your minions did to the Ufo article is called censoring. It used to be a good article; now it gives readers the impression that UFOs are just bullshit; but hey thats exactly what you clowns wanted. I'm sure it will go thru...you have a admin on your side...he'll find a way to push your POV thru. 220.232.237.46 (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
We cannot flout Wikipedia policy Words from the master flouter. Vufors (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
On the IFO page its running 9 against merger to 1 for and on the UFO its about 6 oppose to 0 for merger. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
On IFO, it's SA, Antelan, and possibly me for, yourself, Vufors, and Skeptic2 against (plus SomeUsr, who's no longer participating). I don't see how you get 9-to-1 from that. On UFO, I don't see any vote at all. But again, Wikipedia is not a democracy. "Its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and will not necessarily be treated as binding."[14] "Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons." "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority."[15] kwami (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

At the moment I would be against merging the articles. My main reason is that the subject of UFOs is so massive that it just seems obvious there will be a need for various subsidiary articles in addition to this main one. IFOs seems an obvious candidate for one such article. On the other hand, various policies have been cited above and while at this time I see nothing in those policies which suggests the need for a merger, I would be interested to hear why other editors feel they do. I have to say that the main reason offered so far (that IFOs solely relate to the topic of UFOs) is not very convincing. Gollum, Frodo Baggins and Gandalf all relate solely to the world of the Lord of the Rings yet there are subsidiary articles about all three. This seems to me to establish a clear enough precedent, but I am willing to be convinced that there is some intrinsic difference here.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the merged article would be unduly long, we'd only need to split something else off. For me, it would depend one what SA is considering for the result. But your example of Gollum &c. is more like splitting off the Belgian UFO wave, Roswell, or the Phoenix Lights. IFO is a little different: Whereas Roswell means something to people as a topic of its own, IFO does not. It's rather like having an article on "identified animals" as opposed to cryptids. —kwami (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I take your points but what you say suggests there are no principled or policy reasons for not having the separate article. If that is so then any decision would be on a case by case basis. In this case I think an in-depth look at the solution to some UFO sightings, the categories of identified cases, and the statistics on identification all make for a reasonable article. I therefore still support keeping things as they are.
One side point about statistics. In the IFO article Allan Hendry is reported as saying that "8.6% were unknowns (UFOs)" and that of these Hendry "thought that 7.1%, might still have a prosaic explanation while 1.5% had no possible plausible explanation" at all. In this article it says that according to Hendry "98.5% of all UFOs were identifiable and attributable to known artificial objects and natural phenomena". This is a very different take on the same set of figures. In this article the 7.1% of the UFOs that Hendry though might have a prosaic explanation have been included alongside the identified and attributed cases.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but if Allan Hendry (wiki entry) said the (above) then whats with the 1.5%? The Condon Reports was mess but even that debunker got 5.6%. Then we have the other oddity that the books is by CUFOS , yet some on this discussion think MUFON is unreliable, work that one out? Obvious to the blind, a setup for something’s in a future edit...yes? Best regards. Vufors (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I had a look round some websites and Hendry is always talked about in terms of the 8.6% that remained unidentified (UFOs) after investigation. I think the 1.5% quoted here is probably just a misreading of the further categories Hendry uses for that 8.6%. If no objections we can change the article to reflect that. WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I had another look and the 8.6% is everywhere, in contrast to the 1.5% which is never singled out in the way it is here. I have changed the article to reflect this.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
And by "everywhere" what exactly do you mean? Hendry is a biased source who wanted there to be evidence for UFOs. Even so, he could only muster 1.5% of the cases investigated as "hardcore cases": that is cases that he believed contained solid enough data to warrant further examination as being "unexplained". The 8.6% figure is one that is touted by UFO-believers and websites and nary a non-believer would accept the criteria that Hendry used to determine those (basically, these contain a lot of cases that have no hard evidence at all but just "seem" implausible to Hendry -- who is obviously biased). I am pleased we can use a UFO-believer as a source for our statistics, but we need to be careful how precisely we demarcate what constitutes something that is truly unidentified and what constitutes something that is not. 8.6% is simply a percentage accepted by people who want to believe (as they say in the X-Files). That's not encyclopedic at all. I have reverted. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Eh? If Hendry is the source being used then we should use Hendry's stats, and his stats are everywhere discussed in terms of the 8.6% (UFOs) rather than the 1.5% (sub-category of UFOs). If nary a believer would accept Hendry's criteria as reliable then what's he doing in the lead in the first place. We are not free to interpret sources in line with what we think they would say if they were reliable. That's really not on.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hendry's stats clearly indicate that 1.5% are the hardcore "What's going on here?" cases. The other 7.1% of cases are simply ones Hendry seems interested in but can find no corroborating evidence for. Read his book. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you added the text (marked in bold) "The most recent statistical study of UFO reports by a believer hoping to find evidence for extraterrestrial contact...". This makes the whole sentence false because there have been countless statistical studies done by "believers" since 1979, therefore Hendry's study is by no means the latest (some Canadian UFO group does one every year I believe). While in a previous edit summary you said, as justification for using Hendry rather than the later studies, "1979 is the most recent since reliable sourcing of reports has essentially disappeared since then". So which is it? Is Hendry reliable or unreliable? Are we using believers' studies or not? If Hendry is just another believer then get rid of him and use the much more recent Canadian stats. WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Though there may have been later studies, none of them are as reliable has Hendry's. Hendry was the last study that was reliably vetted (for example, by being published by a reputable publisher rather than a POV-press). See WP:RS. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

proposal to restore to the consensus previous version

i suggest that we restore to this consensus version as the current one is totally disputed, censored and certainly violates WP:NPOV. i furthermore suggest keeping the belgian UFO picture as it is no hoax nor does it violate any wikipedia policies. and claims are just claims as long as nobody can prove that it really is a hoax. SUVx (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. Very strong support see proposal. SUVx (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Not consensus, previous version violated NPOV. Omitted the basic meaning of "UFO", which for some unfathomable reason several editors oppose including. And the image is an obvious fake. kwami (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
show us some HARD evidence to support your hoax claim. otherwise it's just a try to get rid of a good photo! oh yeah and if you think it violated npov then it was a bad idea to replace one pov with another...YOURS! replacing one pov with another pov is NOT neutral nor consensus! SUVx (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. SupportMagnum Serpentine (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Strong support. The page is about the unexplained the 5%-10%, to follow just one theory (Biased) and loading the page with the obvious (Balloons, birds, gas, aircraft etc)is POV pushing. Vufors (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. The previous version had a lot of things wrong with it. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
what EXACTLY was wrong with it...other than the fact that it didn't fit your personal pov?! SUVx (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The article should be neutral and not reflect anybody's point of view, so either you include the skeptics POV or you don't talk about unsupported theories... Bijobini (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. The previous version comes across with a very tailored definition that, IMO, does not fit what most people would consider a UFO to be, and lacking that it is a poor definition, it should be included. I am also concerned about The page is about the unexplained the 5%-10% ... Was there some decision made in the past that this article would be restricted to only showing this viewpoint, or is this decision being made by a few individuals? This could (emphasis: could) be construed as an article ownership issue by trying to lockout what some might see as a mainstream view point. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replacing one pov with another is not neutral nor consensus. SUVx (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Support FooWarrior (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Support seems like most people don't like the current one. Biobeeing (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: SUVx, FooWarrior, and Biobeeing are all accounts created today to vote on here and on the merge proposal. The first two also demonstrate a level of hostility that suggests they aren't actually newbies. kwami (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  • enough now! i'm fed up with these accusations! what's that here? kindergarden?! we all have our own opinions. you don't like it? fine! got evidence for your accusations? no? fine! then leave us alone! welcoming is something else! hostile? yep, what else you expect if you attack someone?! Biobeeing (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Strike that. All three show a remarkable level of hostility. Is it worth the effort of running a sockpuppet check, or should we just ignore them? kwami (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  • yeah, do what ever "check" you like. it will only show how WRONG you are! the only one who started the hostilties is YOU! right from the beginning! and why...so WHY do you do this?! right! to drive of the ones who disagree with you! leave me alone already! troll! SUVx (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
a netstalker. how cute! somebody seems to see things. paranoia eh?! mh, whatever so called check you want to do, do it already and then stop your hostilities! FooWarrior (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. objection Claiming someone made an account just to vote today is an opinion and does not belong here. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Objection overruled. All three were just blocked, but an outside admin and at no request of mine, as sockpuppets created to influence this debate. Such behaviour has no place here. kwami (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't have the authority to overrule my Objection. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization suggestion

I have tagged the article with appropriate tags and begun the task of thinking about how to best reorganize this article. I think the following organization scheme might be good:

  1. History
  2. Evidence (or lack thereof)
  3. Explanations
    1. IFOs
    2. ETH/other hypotheses
    3. Of Truth and Theories (extraordinary claims, etc.)
  4. Government reports
    1. US
    2. UK
    3. France
    4. Others
  5. Ufology
    1. Prominent believers
    2. UFO categorization
    3. Fringe physics/reverse engineering
    4. Conspiracy theories
  6. List of UFO sightings
  7. Popular culture

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What advantages do you feel this offers over the current structure? I am also a little confused over the "Of Truth and Theories (extraordinary claims, etc.)" section: are you suggesting a general digression into non-UFO territory right in the middle of the article? And if so, to what end? WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
If I may suggest two minor points:
Under government reports, I would include a separate heading for "Brazil" or "South America". As I recall, there are a great many reports that come from that area.
Also, under UFology, it seems on the surface that "prominent believers" should be last in that sublist (just an opinion). Also, should (or should not) a nowiki note be left under "prominent believers" regarding celebrities who otherwise have no connection to this? LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
You made these plans with-out asking the others on this site. You started a revision with-out discussion first as to if this article needs revision. For that I have requested that this page be protected.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This is hardly the kind of thing that needs protection! If SA disagrees with the new stats, he can show how they're justified by his sources. kwami (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Magnum Serpentine, people can make plans without consultation, and I think that ScienceApologist is now posting his ideas to get others' thoughts. I just checked the article, and no one has begun massive revision based on this plan yet. I think you might need a cup of tea.
The way I read it, SA is saying to blazes with all of us, he is going on his own to revise the article. thats how I see it. If thats not it then SA needs to work on his wording and include that his was just a suggestion.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
OK ... I hear your concern. What SA just did amounts to a proposal. Now, had we shown up tomorrow to a whole new article without a chance for input .... then that would be the time for a protection and such.
My two bits: I think emotions are running high and I think we all need to make sure we are watching the tone of what we are saying. I know we've got some people here with different views, but it has been difficult at times to even get a feel for who is calling for what, when, and where. I showed up to drop a couple of pennies, and all of a sudden, I was getting labeled and attacked from some anonymous IPs.
SA has made a proposal. If there are some concerns about it, let's hear them. Be as specific as possible. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Please make sure that the article uses all points of view not just the Skeptics. Please keep the spirit of the article as it is but making revisions is ok as long as the spirit of the article is preserved. And please remember that no one has dis-proved anything. Maybe a great many objects have been dis-proven but not all. You can explain a incident but by explaining a single incident you are not explaining them all. Also its not ethical to use one case to explain all cases. Each case is different and therefore please have this article keep that spirit as well. I will make further suggestions as I see the articles improvements. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Proof and disproof are not scientific concepts, so the fact that ETH has not been "disproved" is irrelevant. All that matters is that it has no evidence and is considered implausible. Also, we don't represent all points of view on Wikipedia. Normally fringe views are ignored completely. However, since this is a fringe topic, and culturally important, we need to include the major fringe views (not necessarily all of them), but be clear that they are fringe. kwami (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Magnum,
I want to address something you have brought up, and then segue into something Kwami brought up.
First, you bring up all points of view. You know that may not be possible as there could be (in any article) infinitely fine points of view. Having said that, I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but I am also going to be naively honest: I really don't. I am still a little confused on all of the potential points of view that have been flying around here. Could you be more specific: are you talking about the POV that UFOs are in act alien spacecraft? the POV which believes that UFOs are experimental aerospace craft? Is there something else, or is it all of the above? My feeling is that all of these will be mentioned. I agree that one case cannot necessarily stand in for all cases (the part representing the whole), but please understand that it may be impossible to represent each and every case that remains in that minority of "unexplained" cases.
Let me take this into something that Kwami brought up .... according to WP:Fringe (please note, I am not trying to label anyone's beliefs here), the mainstream scientific viewpoint is going to be carrying some undue weight. That is, this article should likely take on a more (not exclusive, as Kwami stated) scientific slant. A few people here seem to call this the "Skeptic POV". Nonetheless, Wikipedia's guidelines on this state that the scientific mainstream in such an article needs to be the arrow to follow. Kwami is absolutely correct: just because a belief has not been disproven does not mean that that particular belief is automatically valid for equal weighted inclusion in any article. To take a slight detour: no one has disproven the existence of Atlantis, but that doesn't mean that it deserves equal (or any) inclusion on a page related to ancient Greco-Roman civilization. To take a more scientific detour, the geocentric theory was never disproven. The heliocentric model simply fit observation better.
As the article is edited, I agree that it needs to be watched to make sure that one point of view isn't being trampled, though please understand that by trampled, I mean that the wording still needs to be as neutral as possible, but please understand that some of the various points of view noted above may not be given so wide a latitude for expression, because it starts drifting into the realm of not being supportable by neutral, verifiable sources.
If you have not, I strongly urge you to read WP:Fringe (again, please do not misconstrue this as an attack or an insult). While it may sound insulting, it is simply a guideline for editors to use when editors in the sciences (among others) are in conflict with views that are not supported by mainstream scientific observation and experiment.
I am a bit tired ..... bedtime in the Midwest. We should all talk a little more later. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not like the term Fringe. Its a Weasel word designed to attack people who feel that something is true. In fact, I do not remember WP Fringe being a category or policy until the Skeptics arrived here on Wikipedia. Fringe is an opinion. As such, just because you cannot prove something does not mean its the so-called "Fringe". Not being able to prove Atlantis did not exist just means you cannot prove it and nothing more (may also mean researchers need to try harder maybe?). To me, this seems like you are saying, we tried to disprove Atlantis because its silly, but because we cannot disprove it, we are going to declare it silly and Fringe anyway and pretend like we did find evidence and treat everyone who happens to believe anything about Atlantis (Even that it was referring to the Minoan civilization) is a Quack and that the theory does not belong in Wikipedia because its Quack and Fringe. Fair is fair. Allowing all viewpoints is fair and gives the citizens who read Wikipedia a wide range of choices. Wanting to keep certain viewpoints off Wikipedia could cause some to feel that censureship is being used on Wikipedia. If I had to choose a Astronomy book for my class, I would make sure ALL theories and Ideals are presented not just the ones I favor . I would want full articles on Flat Earth, that the Earth was the center of the Universe and the acceptable theory that the Earth is just on the edge of the Galaxy (Or should I say the fact that the Earth is on the edge...) I would want all these in a Astronomy text book because I want my class exposed to all ideals that have been presented in the past, just merely because it informs the class. Every time I see someone call someone else's Ideals a Quack or a Fringe my blood pressure boils and I get extremely Angry. Do I believe all the ideals presented? Of course not. But I do believe everyone has a right to their opinion, that all opinions are equal and that its up to the person reading the opinion to decide what they feel about it.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well .... I guess that's about all I can do. I was going to try and see that some form of balance existed, but I see that this is not going to the case. I will tell you right now: Wikipedia policy is very much on the side of the people you are labeling as "Skeptics". Since edit warring has clearly begun here, in the end, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE are going to come down clearly on the side of supporting the mainstream scientific viewpoint. This is an encyclopedia, not an op-ed page where everyone gets equal weight to what they believe. Amazingly, last night I noted that if we all woke up this morning and saw that SA had made massive edits to the page without consulting the talk page, that would be trouble. Instead I find out that an editor from the Paranormal project came in and did just that, and didn't bother discussing it. Small edits are one thing, but there were a sign of editing in bad faith. Good luck to you all! LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If this was an paper encyclopedia with 22 volumes I would agree with you. However Wikipedia is a on line experience which all citizens of all nations can edit. Therefore because all can edit I say all viewpoints must be presented. As for editing this one article, I have not done any such edits I have instead asked the opinion of others weather or not that this article needed revisions. I wonder if the citizens said we like an article this way, would you say thats the opinion of the citizens but we are doing it this way. The consensus states do what the people want. I am very concerned that the average citizen is being written off by such statements that articles must be scientific and binding to a Scientific view (WOW how does that relate to history articles?). I have read in various parts of this experience called Wikipedia that average people are leaving because they write nice articles that are well researched only to have groups like the Skeptics or Science Groups totally re-edit their articles to where they no longer have any resemblance to the original article. I don't think its right for Wikipedia to say, "prepare to have your article totally taken apart." No one thinks about how that will effect people. So now we see people leaving Wikipedia hurt by their experiences and hurt by all the people who want things to dove tail with the establishment. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"Because all can edit I say all viewpoints must be presented" is a misrepresentation of our neutral point of view policy. All significant viewpoints should be misrepresented, but undue weight should not be given to uninformed and unsupported or marginal views. The article should certainly be well researched, which is why we will tend to give a strong emphasis to the findings of scientific investigations and little or no emphasis to uninformed speculation and the like. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


Oh. So what the citizens think, unless its backed up by Science, is Uninformed eh? When I wrote what I did up there, I was not just taking about the article UFO. I was talking about all of Wikipedia. People are leaving Wikipedia because they feel railroaded and completely pushed out of the process. They see their articles stripped and ripped apart in ways that they had not thought of when they wrote their articles on painting, or World Wars or even Playing Checkers. ( I would love to see how science would re-write a checker article. I bet they would do it) Here is a little news for you. Not all articles are in the realm of Science. Do you have a formula for calculating Washington crossing the Delaware River? Or for describing a list of Presidents of the United States? I didn't think so. Because this Wikipedia experience is edited by everyone, and not just College professors or Scientist, all Viewpoints must be represented. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have a clear (if somewhat jaundiced) view of the facts of the matter. Uninformed opinions are not as important as informed opinions. Science isn't a democracy, and facts aren't up for vote. If General Washington was present on one side of the Delaware at one point in time, and on the other side at another point in time, we can say with a fair degree of confidence (allowing for the possibility of a sea voyage or a journey to the source of the river) that he has crossed the river. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe every citizens opinion is very important. And not all articles apply to science. Since this is Wikipedia, which is edited by everyone, Science will have to get use to the Citizens being able to edit any article in Wikipedia. I have an very good ideal. Why not go make your own scientific Wikipedia and let the citizens have this one. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • i have to agree with magnum, science does not apply to everything there is. i would love to see these science freaks aka hardcore skeptics edit religious belief articles like christianity or budhism. there, science has NO place sicne it's a religious believe...but i'm sure they already tried or would love to try to totally rewrite these things. and as magnum already said: if you want to add more science to wikipedia, simply write new articles which apply to science and where you can insert your self claimed wannabe knowledge. additionally, you self claimed wannabe scientists should never forget that it's always a give and take and that you therefor can not always have it completely your way. we have to accept your opinions and insertions and you have accept our opinions and insertions...and there's always a good middle way to let both sides appear in a article. if you're unwilling to accept that, then you guys will, logically, be blamed for this mess. SUVx (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
That would create a wiki where every crackpot in creation (excuse the pun) would advance his/her pet theory without question. People are already fed enough BS in this world. Imagine if no-one had questioned the Cottingley Fairies, or the Hitler diaries, Piltdown Man, Alien autopsy film or the flying Bigfoot. They'd be gospel (again, excuse the pun) in your wiki. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Magnum, SUVx, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Wikipedia does not give every view equal exposure. If that's hardcore skepticism, then Wikipedia is intended to be hardcore skeptical. That's not SA's or my POV, that's the decision of the governing board. Sorry, that's just how it is here. If you can back your views with reliable references, fine. Otherwise they have no place here, regardless of whether you believe them to be the truth. In fact, we're explicitly instructed not to write the "truth", for exactly this reason. This argument has been made many times on many articles, and the result is always the same: Reliably sourced, or out it goes. kwami (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
since i also agree with magnum and suvx, i have to tell you that you simply accept no given sources which are pro. also you folks seem to completely want to have it your silly ways without making deals or willing to find this "middle way" which has been suggested by suvx. i for one think that the current version is OK. and not giving all views equal "exposure" is not what a laymen understands under neutral viewpoint in which all viewpoints are presented. i have no problems with making deals and commitments, but you other folks should do the same then. you otherwise, will be possibly seen as stubborn, childish and be blamed for this crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FooWarrior (talk • contribs) 09:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
That's because AFAIK there are no reliable sources which are pro. That's why UFOs (as in ET) are considered pseudo-science. You don't find a "middle way" between a well-referenced article and a blog, you stick to a well-referenced article. That's what Wikipedia demands. It's like "intelligent design" as a middle ground between natural selection and Creationism. Even the courts have thrown that out. In an article on ID, we show how it is not only completely unsupported, but at odds with what we do know. The same holds with any topic, including UFOs. We can present UFOs as a belief, but we cannot write the article as if there were any reason for believing they are real. In fact, since some people do believe they are real, it is incumbent on us to show how that is contrary to all the evidence. That's what an encyclopedia does: it's a compendium of knowledge, not of speculation. kwami (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
your comment, again, is nonsense and only reflects your personal opinion and bias. what people like you call rubbish sources, others call reasonable sources. the thing is that you people are simply UNWILLING to accept ANY pro sources because it does not fit your viewpoint. and i wonder what would happen if we pro folks would also start calling YOUR con sources unreliable and rubbish and the simply would remove them. yeah, you would complain like hell and also would scream "pov pov pov!"Biobeeing (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia advertises that anyone can edit it. Not just scientist. Yet the Skeptical inquirer Skeptics claim that only professionals should edit Wikipedia and that not all peoples opinions or views count. I would say thats very sad.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, anyone can edit it, because anyone can make quality edits. However, if they are not well referenced quality edits, even if a professional writes them, they get deleted. Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. kwami (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all, no one put you in charge of this article, second, who gave you the authority to strike out others responses. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for full protection

I have nominated this page for full protection against unfaithful revisions and mergers. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection was rejected and suggested that I start the dispute processMagnum Serpentine (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
below I have requested an RFC in Science I did not see what I felt was the right listing for UFO so I choose ScienceMagnum Serpentine (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Does UFO need assistance and a total re-work?

{{RFCsci | section=RfC: Does UFO need assistance and a total re-work? !! reason=Does UFO need assistance and a total re-work !! time=21:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)}}

Seen all of those templates in the article. Does this mean that the article will be compliant to guidelines set by the Robertson Panel and Operation Mockingbird ? I have read this thing. Does this mean that when people see a UFO, a alien that they're loonytoons, an ass because they reported a UFO, a alien ? Does this mean that IF there is alien contact, the planet will erupt into rebellion ? Should not the reader decide if UFOs are real, not the editors ? 65.173.105.243 (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what I'm referring to:
  • UFO - Impossible, because our current science does not allow FTL, other means of travel.
  • UFO witness - Crazy as hell
  • Alien witness - Also crazy as hell
All to discourage UFO reports and related matters. This shit went on in the 1950s-1990s, and from what is planned for the article, this shit will continue to go on, and that makes people wonder why there may be rebellion should there be alien contact. 65.173.105.243 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yo, 65.173.105.243,
Are these claims (calling UFO witnesses "crazy as hell" or Alien witnesses the same) somewhere in the article? Are they part of the proposal that I am missing. If they are, alert me, because that would certainly be not NPOV, and needs to be eliminated. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Assuming typos happened in the commentary, I had to fix this commentary for you. LonelyBeacon (talk). This fix was not intended to be any vandalism, violations at all. 65.173.105.243 (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Is that really planned for the UFO article ? To ridicule people ? 65.173.105.243 (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, seen your criteria. Hope you NEVER see a UFO, because if you do, it will literally change your life BIG TIME. I have seen a Condon related toon that had a skeptic being abducted by aliens, and his colleagues told him that he was seeing swamp gas and that the aliens are'nt real. That toon was funny as hell. 65.173.105.243 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 65.173.105.243 i understand your concerns and want you to make a short statement what you think about the curent version dated " 08:15, 16 June 2008 ". i think we're good to go right now as it type this. if you still have concerns, please let us know or make the changes yourself, they always can be reverted if something goes wrong. SUVx (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A revert of a change to the lead

User:WakeUpPoindexter has made a number of good changes to the article. I've reverted one change to the lead because I think the change of emphasis is inappropriate.

The change I reverted was as follows:

Before his edit:

Nevertheless, most discussions of UFOs focus on the small percentage of unexplained cases and the belief that some arec extraterrestrial spacecraft

After his edit:

Nevertheless, most discussions of UFOs focus on the small percentage of unexplained cases and the possibility that some might be extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Decades of experience has shown us the sheer prevalence and tenacity of the belief that almost anything unexplained in the sky must be due to space ships brought here by intelligent beings from somewhere else. Of those people who are interested in explaining unidentified flying objects, by far the most numerous and the most motivated are those who are convinced that these constitute strong evidence in themselves for the existence of extraterrestrials. The term UFO is indeed often used colloquially to mean "vehicle flown by an intelligent extraterrestial." I've reverted the change because I think it results in a gross understatement of the situation. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This change should not be there. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Lead

There are currently two version of the lead. One that focuses on statistics of explained cases and one that focuses on a definition of the term UFO. I have mainly been editing the statistics one because I don't think it was very accurate, but I actually think the definition one is a better introduction to this article. This is made worse when the article flips between the two since many edits are then down the drain. Is it possible to put a hold on things and try to get some agreement here about what the introduction should say. It is quite important because all the rest of the article will follow that lead. As I said, I favor the definition version added yesterday by PerfectBlue as a base to work from.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

We're getting bogged down in detail in the lead, and losing NPOV as a result. For instance, a recent version of the lead that I viewed (it's been changing fast so I didn't see how long it lasted in that form) put inappropriate emphasis on the findings of Hendry. I propose that we go back to something more of a summary and put any detail where it belongs, in the main body. Here's my suggestion to start off the debate on wording:
An unidentified flying object, or UFO, is any apparently flying object that cannot be identified. Various studies show that after investigation, the majority of UFOs are usually identified (see identified flying object). Nevertheless, most discussions of UFOs focus on the small percentage of unexplained cases and the belief that some are extraterrestrial spacecraft. There is no scientific evidence supporting this belief.
--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good. Perhaps it is a good idea to keep the stats out of the lede, so that edits to them don't mess up the rest. What about the following paragraph on the history of the concept, which I feel also belongs in the lede in some form?
Reports of unusual aerial phenomena date back to ancient times, but modern reports and the first official investigations began during World War II with sightings of so-called foo fighters by Allied airplane crews and in 1946 with widespread sightings of European "ghost rockets". UFO reports became even more common after the first widely publicized United States UFO sighting, by private pilot Kenneth Arnold in the summer of 1947. Tens of thousands of UFO reports have since been made worldwide.
Maybe some mention that these were assumed to be experimental Nazi or Soviet craft? Or that the CIA considered the remote possibility of ET craft as a necessary precaution, but later abandoned that stance due to lack of evidence? Roswell is also so embedded into the American psyche that I think it should also be mentioned. kwami (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The early assumptions of the USAAF, etc, are certainly relevant to the history, but I'm not sure that should be mentioned in the lead because such assumptions did not last long. I think your wording is fine as it is, for what it's worth. I wouldn't go near the Roswell thing with a barge pole; that whole end of the thing is a freak show and brings the subject into disrepute. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
i find the word belief very problematic since it more or less suggests that ufos is more or less like a religion, which is not the case. also "There is no scientific evidence supporting this belief." is very problematic since it's, in reality, just "some"sources which suggest this. but it recently was changed anyway to reflect a more neutral and accurate standpoint..and i'm fine with that. SUVx (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You say: "i find the word belief very problematic since it more or less suggests that ufos is more or less like a religion, which is not the case.". But it is the case, which is why we are having such difficulty with the wording. Also, you say you have a problem with the wording "There is no scientific evidence supporting this belief". But if there were any such evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion. Skeptic2 (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
No, UFOs are not a religion. They are flying objects in the sky which can't be identified. An example for a religion and belief would be Christianity or Buddhism. Nowhere are UFOs recognized or described as a religion. Objects can't be religions or beliefs...they are just well... objects...like a airplane...a airplane is not a religion or a belief either. The ET explanation is a common and often used one. Some sources say that there is no scientific evidence for this explanation (note: I use "explanation" not "belief"). But it shouldn't sound like it is completely ruled out. I, by the way, see the word "belief" and "religion" to describe UFOs, as nonsense and a personal opinion...not as a fact. To be clear: I respect and accept the given source, but I disagree with the old and smearing wording. SUVx (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
To quote you: "They are flying objects in the sky". So you are saying they are indeed objects. If so, where do you think they are from? Skeptic2 (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be fine to substitute the word "hypothesis" for "belief".
If there is indeed any scientific evidence linking any unidentified object sighting to the extra-terrestrial hypothesis, it should be possible to cite that scientific evidence. If it isn't, then "some sources say there is no evidence", or words to that effect, would be misleading. To my knowledge there is no reliable source for the statement that such evidence has been procured and, upon examination by the scientific community, been found to be credible. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree we should use the word "hypothesis". "Focus on the belief..." makes it sound like most discussions of UFOs are by sociologists looking at the belief itself rather than on the implications or truth of the belief. "Hypothesis" also ties in well with the title of the Wikipedia article Extraterrestrial hypothesis. WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not really a "hypothesis" any more than the "flat earth" is a hypothesis. I understand your point about the "belief", though. Perhaps we can say "proposal"? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
How about "idea"? WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
"Hypothesis" fits. A hypothesis is an explanation to fit a set of facts. The ETH has always had plausibility problems and these only increase as the decades pass without scientific evidence, but it still fits the facts of a small number of unsolved cases. Just because an explanation fits the facts, doesn't mean it's the correct one. I never found the keys I lost in 1974, but that doesn't mean little green men from Betelgeuse stole them. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I think "idea" is fine, though I don't see any religious connotations to "belief". My problem with belief is that the word was just used in the previous sentence. "Hypothesis" is a technical term, and we're not being technical here. kwami (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, the "explanation" that s.o. changed it to is fine too. kwami (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
"idea" is also fine with me and i implemented it now. i've also added "to date," since we don't know if there will be some change to this in the future. let's keep open for future possibilties. SUVx (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
good good. i agree that something like your "to date" should be there. we don't have a crystal ball in which we can wath the future so we should include something like this. FooWarrior (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Silly idea really. You are correct in that we don't have a crystal ball, so let's not allude to one. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
what you call silly, others call reasonable. since when can some of you stubborns see into the future and therefor completely rule out the possibilty that there might be some evidence in the future. you seem unable to accept the rule of give and take and want it to have it your ways like little children. yes, that's childish and stubborn. you can not expect us to take you seriously if you only ant the others to make commitments and blidnly accept your stubborn changes. THAT is what I call silly! Biobeeing (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You said "you stubborns see into the future and therefor completely rule out the possibilty that there might be some evidence in the future.". So are you agreeing that the past half century of UFO reports has produced no tangible evidence? If so, why suppose another 50 years might? Skeptic2 (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • oh, meanwhile it was ereverted AGAIN! it's totally useless to talk to stubborn little children like you. you're like little crybabies who cry for their mom and scream like hell if they can't have it THEIR way. Biobeeing (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell if you even disagree. "There is no scientific evidence for this idea" is correct. Adding "to date" adds nothing, because every such statement is "to date". "There is no life on the Moon ... to date." Why bother adding that at all, except to try to suggest that we expect such evidence is coming? That is clearly POV—it is not up to us to suggest what may occur. kwami (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

UFOs in art history

Hello, I would like to know why this article in Skeptic magazine No.1 2004 http://www.diegocuoghi.com/SKEPTIC_CUOGHI_ARTUFO_complete.pdf was defined as "unreliable and biased source", and the edit of the page cancelled: 20:30, 15 June 2008 SUVx That article contains explanations about the alleged "UFOs in art", written by a scholar in art and architecture history who published works about the renaissance painter Nicolo dell'Abate, XVII century architect Giovan Battista Aleotti, Leonardo da Vinci... (see his main website). Daniela Giordano cited in the page as "art historian" is not an art historian, read her biography in the article liked in the Wikipedia page --Milo Temesvar (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a very funny satirical piece. I'm glad I saw it, but as this is an encyclopedia really we're looking for facts rather than statements of opinion, however funny. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I can say the same thing about the work of "art historian" Daniela Giordano (she is not an art historian, she is a free-lance writer. He wrote that there is an UFO in "La Tebaide", a painting of Paolo Uccello. But it is the red hat of Saint Jerome. This is a fact, the other is a very ridiculous opinion.

Removal of a paragraph, and proposal for rewriting a section

I've removed [16] the following paragraph:

Despite the remaining unexplained cases in the cited scientific studies above, many skeptics still argue that the general opinion of the mainstream scientific community is that all UFO sightings could ultimately be explained by prosaic explanations such as misidentification of natural and man-made phenomena (either known or still unknown), hoaxes, and psychological phenomena such as optical illusions or dreaming/sleep paralysis (often given as an explanation for accounts of alien abductions).

It seems to be implying that the existence of unexplained UFO sightings in itself implies the correctness of the extra-terrestrial hypothesis. This is obviously absurd, and I'm sure nobody seriously argues that.

The section from which I removed it is titled "UFO hypotheses" and frankly it's a bit of a mess.

Here's what it looks like now:

There are different opinions about the UFO phenomenon. To account for unsolved UFO cases, several hypotheses have been proposed by both proponents and skeptics; a few examples are given below:
Among proponents, some of the more common explanations for UFOs are:
Similarly, skeptics usually propose one of the following explanations:
Other skeptical arguments against UFOs include:
Most UFO sightings are transitory events and there is usually no opportunity for the repeat testing called for by the scientific method.[citation needed]
  • Occam's razor of hypothesis testing, since it is considered less incredible for the explanations to be the result of known scientifically verified phenomena rather than resulting from novel mechanisms (e.g. the extraterrestrial hypothesis).

This is an extraordinary way of putting it for several reasons. The main one seems to be the lumping together of some hypotheses as those of "proponents" and others as those of "skeptics". Obviously there are degrees of adherence and skepticism on all the possible explanations, and some of those attributed to skeptics may well be as difficult to credit as those listed under "proponents". I would, for instance, extend a lot of skepticism towards someone proposing that all unexplained UFOs are due to a single cause.

In general, skeptics are those who are prepared to say "we don't know" and "this may merit further examination". Someone who is going to leap to the conclusion that there exist alien beings who have flown their vehicles unimaginably long distances into our atmosphere, simply to tie up some loose ends in observations of aerial phenomena, can fairly be described as a "believer" rather than an investigator.

So hypotheses shouldn't be treated as proposals having properties associated with those who propose them, but rather with how much evidence is known to exist to support them. I think if we start from there we're more likely to arrive at a good summary of the various hypotheses. Just because lots of people believe something, does not make it more important than others explanations. Equally, just because lots of people believe something without considering the alternatives, doesn't mean that it's invalid. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What is with the strike-trough's of people's comments?

I would like to know who struck through the comments above and who authorized it.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to know. The article can't be fair if we can't even discuss it freely... Bijobini (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
i abhor cenosrhip, you al should be ashamed of YOUrselves Smith Jones (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE do not srike through other peoples comments without their permission unles theire is some sort of polciy violation. doing that without a dmaned good reason is a ofrm of censorship. Smith Jones (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what else to do so I have asked for help as you can see by the banner above. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I just want to say one more thing. If you are using alternate identities to try to influence views on this talk page then you are also causing harm to me. I am trying to make this a article that is neutral. I am trying to make a good faith attempt to save the article and make it an enjoyable article to read. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Those comments were done by sockpuppet accounts of a banned editor (notice it's a banned editor, not a blocked one), see Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And they were done by Kwamikagami, not ScienceApologist. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what is going on, but the strike through looks to me like someone is trying to influence a vote on merger and censureship in my opinion. I also do not feel that everyone here is in agreement per Ban Enforcement. You may feel someone should be banned but until there is an agreement over this, I would not strike comments. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The comments were struck out because a user who is already banned made them. 65.173.105.243 is stirring up trouble against ScienceApologist for no good reason. Removing comments from editors who are banned is normal. Nothing to see here, relax. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, I removed some personal attacks [17]. Notice that the edit summary does not make sense because that links goes to 2 different diffs put together, and the system only displays the edit summary of the last diff. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Magnum Serpentine makes a good point: By being associated, even unwillingly, with this sockpuppetry, there is a chance other editors won't take him seriously. By striking out the puppetry, I've made the opposition of legitimate editors like Magnum Serpentine easier for other readers to follow, and implicitly absolved him of any association with the puppetry.
Note also I didn't remove the material; it is still there for anyone who wants to read it. Any legitimate user here is of course free to pick up points made by the puppets. kwami (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I don't see why my comment was labeled as a puppet's comment but no offense is taken since it's still there. Have a good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.217.183 (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I must continue to register my stern oppostion to the hostility towards a certain class of users depicted on this tlakpage. Smith Jones (talk)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unidentified_flying_object/Archive_5&oldid=1136226309"