This article was nominated for deletion on 27 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy close. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Identification studies of UFOs article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
*Merge which is not the same as simply redirecting. The UFO article needs the explicit definition of IFO given here.
Dlabtot (
talk)
01:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to present various conjectures as fact. I've removed one example only to find that the article seems to be entirely written from a particular model of sightings (or more accurately, to refute a particular model). Neither is acceptable on Wikipedia. Moreover the sourcing is all to pot. This needs a lot of work. I've duly tagged it. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I have suspicions about this article and the motives of some of the people who want it kept separate. I see the lede which says This is in contrast to an Unidentified flying object, or UFO, which has not been identified following investigation and I think, "Aha, this was written by someone who wants an article about lights in the sky which are identified so there can be a separate article about lights in the sky which are not identified and might be LGMs or something really cool instead of boring old swamp gas." Personally, I think the UFO article should be about the phenomenon and cultural aspects of UFOs, including the fact that some can be identified and some can not be. Now, it may be that the identification material is too long and should be forked, but it can be forked in a more responsible manner. Changing the lede is critical, and the title is terrible too. Good forks explain in more detail some concept from the main article because there is too much info. So I'd put a paragraph in UFO summarizing the identifications studies and listing main article Identification studies of UFOs or something like that. Is that an acceptable compromise? Thatcher 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
As a general reminder to all editors here, edit-warring is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia, and if there are further revert wars on this article, some editors may find their account access blocked. Instead of edit-warring, please work things out through normal steps of dispute resolution instead, via polite discussion about what is best for this article, and what is best for Wikipedia. If there is disagreement on whether or not to perform a merge, consider filing a request for comment, or file the request at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. -- El on ka 02:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Though I started the deletion process, I wouldn't mind a redirect for the purpose of retaining GFDL. Redirect isn't bad in any sense and may even be helpful. Wandering Courier ( talk) 08:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Trimming it way down. This is the part that reads most like original research and speculation. And it doesn't need all the percentages which are also in the table. And the conclusions sections is gone. An encyclopedia article is not a class essay (which this reads like) or even a research paper. An encyclopedia article has a different format and conveys information differently. Thatcher 01:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the warning tags, which were many months old. If you feel there are still problems, please try and fix them. If you can't (or don't want to) you can re-tag but please leave a detailed reason on this talk page so someone else can work on it. Thanks. Thatcher 02:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I made a first pass through the article, removing all the original research and other problems. We still need a section on ball lightning, weather balloons, and will o' the wisps, but we're moving right along.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 02:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the "however" from the following sequence of sentences:
The result is:
The classification of cases in a UFO study depends on the criteria used. Tighten the criteria on the same data and you'll get different results. Using "however" here makes it sound unexpected but it's actually quite normal. -- TS 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote the "Venus" section to reflect what the statistics in the rest of the article actually prove. Venus DOES NOT make up a "majority" of UFO reports, as Phil Plaitt has CLAIMED (but can't substantiate with any UFO study that has ever been done). Hendry: bright stars and planets make up only 29% of cases (% Venus unspecified, but clearly less than 29% and not 50+%). Similarly, BBSR: 22% astronomical objects of ALL types, again % Venus unspecified, but again obviously less than 22%. In addition, BBSR was certain about only 12% being astronomical, the other 10% they themselves considered somewhat questionable identifications.
So I was doing what encyclopedias should do, namely stick to the FACTS. Plaitt makes an unsubstantiated claim; the actual studies, cited in the rest of the article, contradict him. End of story. Either delete Plaitt's nonfactual, ANECDOTAL claim or point out the contradiction.
So what does ScienceApologist do? His usual. Instant, total deletion--no discussion, no nothing. His "rationale"? "Original research" What's he talking about? Did I do the BBSR studies or Hendry studies, then write up my own results? What utter nonsense.
It's kind of funny, because ScienceApologist is supporting what he claims he is opposing, namely using appeals to authority instead of facts. Using astronomer Plaitt is an obvious appeal to authority, but no actual study backs him up. If there is one, let ScienceApolgist produce it.
The other modification I did was to point out that just claiming something is "Venus" doesn't necessarily make it so. The Portage County case, e.g., has a heavily disputed "Venus" explanation (and so does the Jimmy Carter sighting, BTW). Shouldn't this be mentioned for a balanced article balance POV? Dr Fil ( talk) 02:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the Phil Plait article? It's hard to assess the cite without a link. Searching I find:
"In fact, the vast majority of reported UFOs are mundane things in the sky. The planet Venus is incredibly bright; most people don’t believe me when I point it out to them. They think it’s a nearby airplane, or some other bright earthbound object.
See http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/11/25/aliens-yes-ufos-no/#.Vq4EnPmLSr0
That's a later article from 2011, but I expect he's saying the same thing as before, will assume that unless there is a cite to show otherwise. And anyway as most recent, it is more up to date.
That might seem to suggest that the vast majority of sightings are Venus, but read it carefully, it just says the vast majority are mundane things in the sky. Venus is an example only.
He is a careful science blogger and I don't think he would say that the vast majority of sightings are Venus without a cite to back that up. And then you could include that cite here.
I suggest we remove this sentence about vast majority of reported UFOs are Venus. Since this is an old conversation, I'll just "be bold" and remove it after a few days if there is no reply. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
How do people mistake VENUS for a UFO?! Venus doesn't move. UFOs do. What the heck. TrollGlaDOS ( talk) 04:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Identification studies of UFOs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Identification studies of UFOs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Another explanation for UFOs. Autostasis.[User:Chantern15|Chantern15]] ( talk) 17:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
These articles point at electronic warfare, such as "Plasma UFOs" in infrared sensors and RADAR spoofing giving the appearance of ufos. Admitting that adversaries of the US have developed technology and has outsmarted current counter-countermeasures, which are "confusing" US Airforce pilots and sensors would be very embarrassing for the intelligence agencies, so it would make sense for them to ask for help from the general public and science communities while accommodating the risk that it would fuel heightened ufo speculation. Chantern15 ( talk) 06:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
References
List mass hysteria as a cause for UFOs as well. The article on "lists of mass hysteria" lists as such as well. Chantern15 ( talk) 07:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15
It's not the right WP:TONE to have the text talk to the reader about what the source isn't saying, so I found another source that's more explicit and adds an academic perspective. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Project Sign lists at page 14 of this PDF (of Project Sign) that "in order to investigate the credibility of their existence the following factors must be considered in any technical analysis":
It lists:
Method of support (lift)
1. Wings 2. Fuselage Lift (Wingless) 3. Rotor 4. Vertical Jet 5. Magnus Effect 6. Aerostatic
Method of propulsion (thrust)
1. Propeller reciprocating engine combination jet 2. Rocket 3. Ramjet 4. Aerodynamic (Katzmayer effect)
Chantern15 ( talk) 12:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15
Black night 74.221.62.69 ( talk) 06:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy close. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Identification studies of UFOs article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
*Merge which is not the same as simply redirecting. The UFO article needs the explicit definition of IFO given here.
Dlabtot (
talk)
01:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to present various conjectures as fact. I've removed one example only to find that the article seems to be entirely written from a particular model of sightings (or more accurately, to refute a particular model). Neither is acceptable on Wikipedia. Moreover the sourcing is all to pot. This needs a lot of work. I've duly tagged it. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I have suspicions about this article and the motives of some of the people who want it kept separate. I see the lede which says This is in contrast to an Unidentified flying object, or UFO, which has not been identified following investigation and I think, "Aha, this was written by someone who wants an article about lights in the sky which are identified so there can be a separate article about lights in the sky which are not identified and might be LGMs or something really cool instead of boring old swamp gas." Personally, I think the UFO article should be about the phenomenon and cultural aspects of UFOs, including the fact that some can be identified and some can not be. Now, it may be that the identification material is too long and should be forked, but it can be forked in a more responsible manner. Changing the lede is critical, and the title is terrible too. Good forks explain in more detail some concept from the main article because there is too much info. So I'd put a paragraph in UFO summarizing the identifications studies and listing main article Identification studies of UFOs or something like that. Is that an acceptable compromise? Thatcher 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
As a general reminder to all editors here, edit-warring is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia, and if there are further revert wars on this article, some editors may find their account access blocked. Instead of edit-warring, please work things out through normal steps of dispute resolution instead, via polite discussion about what is best for this article, and what is best for Wikipedia. If there is disagreement on whether or not to perform a merge, consider filing a request for comment, or file the request at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. -- El on ka 02:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Though I started the deletion process, I wouldn't mind a redirect for the purpose of retaining GFDL. Redirect isn't bad in any sense and may even be helpful. Wandering Courier ( talk) 08:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Trimming it way down. This is the part that reads most like original research and speculation. And it doesn't need all the percentages which are also in the table. And the conclusions sections is gone. An encyclopedia article is not a class essay (which this reads like) or even a research paper. An encyclopedia article has a different format and conveys information differently. Thatcher 01:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the warning tags, which were many months old. If you feel there are still problems, please try and fix them. If you can't (or don't want to) you can re-tag but please leave a detailed reason on this talk page so someone else can work on it. Thanks. Thatcher 02:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I made a first pass through the article, removing all the original research and other problems. We still need a section on ball lightning, weather balloons, and will o' the wisps, but we're moving right along.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 02:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the "however" from the following sequence of sentences:
The result is:
The classification of cases in a UFO study depends on the criteria used. Tighten the criteria on the same data and you'll get different results. Using "however" here makes it sound unexpected but it's actually quite normal. -- TS 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote the "Venus" section to reflect what the statistics in the rest of the article actually prove. Venus DOES NOT make up a "majority" of UFO reports, as Phil Plaitt has CLAIMED (but can't substantiate with any UFO study that has ever been done). Hendry: bright stars and planets make up only 29% of cases (% Venus unspecified, but clearly less than 29% and not 50+%). Similarly, BBSR: 22% astronomical objects of ALL types, again % Venus unspecified, but again obviously less than 22%. In addition, BBSR was certain about only 12% being astronomical, the other 10% they themselves considered somewhat questionable identifications.
So I was doing what encyclopedias should do, namely stick to the FACTS. Plaitt makes an unsubstantiated claim; the actual studies, cited in the rest of the article, contradict him. End of story. Either delete Plaitt's nonfactual, ANECDOTAL claim or point out the contradiction.
So what does ScienceApologist do? His usual. Instant, total deletion--no discussion, no nothing. His "rationale"? "Original research" What's he talking about? Did I do the BBSR studies or Hendry studies, then write up my own results? What utter nonsense.
It's kind of funny, because ScienceApologist is supporting what he claims he is opposing, namely using appeals to authority instead of facts. Using astronomer Plaitt is an obvious appeal to authority, but no actual study backs him up. If there is one, let ScienceApolgist produce it.
The other modification I did was to point out that just claiming something is "Venus" doesn't necessarily make it so. The Portage County case, e.g., has a heavily disputed "Venus" explanation (and so does the Jimmy Carter sighting, BTW). Shouldn't this be mentioned for a balanced article balance POV? Dr Fil ( talk) 02:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the Phil Plait article? It's hard to assess the cite without a link. Searching I find:
"In fact, the vast majority of reported UFOs are mundane things in the sky. The planet Venus is incredibly bright; most people don’t believe me when I point it out to them. They think it’s a nearby airplane, or some other bright earthbound object.
See http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/11/25/aliens-yes-ufos-no/#.Vq4EnPmLSr0
That's a later article from 2011, but I expect he's saying the same thing as before, will assume that unless there is a cite to show otherwise. And anyway as most recent, it is more up to date.
That might seem to suggest that the vast majority of sightings are Venus, but read it carefully, it just says the vast majority are mundane things in the sky. Venus is an example only.
He is a careful science blogger and I don't think he would say that the vast majority of sightings are Venus without a cite to back that up. And then you could include that cite here.
I suggest we remove this sentence about vast majority of reported UFOs are Venus. Since this is an old conversation, I'll just "be bold" and remove it after a few days if there is no reply. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
How do people mistake VENUS for a UFO?! Venus doesn't move. UFOs do. What the heck. TrollGlaDOS ( talk) 04:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Identification studies of UFOs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Identification studies of UFOs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Another explanation for UFOs. Autostasis.[User:Chantern15|Chantern15]] ( talk) 17:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
These articles point at electronic warfare, such as "Plasma UFOs" in infrared sensors and RADAR spoofing giving the appearance of ufos. Admitting that adversaries of the US have developed technology and has outsmarted current counter-countermeasures, which are "confusing" US Airforce pilots and sensors would be very embarrassing for the intelligence agencies, so it would make sense for them to ask for help from the general public and science communities while accommodating the risk that it would fuel heightened ufo speculation. Chantern15 ( talk) 06:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
References
List mass hysteria as a cause for UFOs as well. The article on "lists of mass hysteria" lists as such as well. Chantern15 ( talk) 07:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15
It's not the right WP:TONE to have the text talk to the reader about what the source isn't saying, so I found another source that's more explicit and adds an academic perspective. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Project Sign lists at page 14 of this PDF (of Project Sign) that "in order to investigate the credibility of their existence the following factors must be considered in any technical analysis":
It lists:
Method of support (lift)
1. Wings 2. Fuselage Lift (Wingless) 3. Rotor 4. Vertical Jet 5. Magnus Effect 6. Aerostatic
Method of propulsion (thrust)
1. Propeller reciprocating engine combination jet 2. Rocket 3. Ramjet 4. Aerodynamic (Katzmayer effect)
Chantern15 ( talk) 12:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15
Black night 74.221.62.69 ( talk) 06:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)