![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I don't know if this will be helpful but I hope so.
The Rational Skepticism article in Wikipedia includes at the end of the 'Characteristics' section:
"By the principles of skepticism, the ideal case is that every individual could make his own mind up on the basis of the evidence rather than appealing to some authority, skeptical or otherwise."
The link from that paragraph to the Wikipedia article on evidence includes at the end of the 'Evidence in science' section
QuietReader ( talk) 08:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is my proposal for revising and rebuilding the article, UFO.
I. Introduction.
Tell what UFO is and what its about.
II. History of UFO
Blue Book, Grudge, the Hills other history.
III. Theories on what UFO are.
A. The Pro-UFO side B. The Skeptics Side C. Any other theories and ideals on what UFO may or may not be. D. Other Views on UFO E. The Religion Angle on UFO F. NASA Government Law Enforcement view on UFO
IV. Sightings
A. Famous Sightings B. Citizens Sightings C. Astronomer, NASA, Government, Law Enforcement sighting D. Trucker, Ship Crew, Etc Sightings. E. Abductions F. Other
V. Conclusion.
VI Sources and Web links.
Thank you Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 14:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
A UFO History before 1800AD B UFO History 1800-1900 AD 1. Era of the mysterious Airships. 2. Aurora "Incident" C UFO History 1900-2000 D. UFO History since 2000
Thank you Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 14:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I. Introduction. This tells what the UFO is, its an Unidentified device that seems to fly on its own power be that beating wings or Warp Drive. It is unidentified because we do not know what kind of machine or animal or energy source it is. Let alone where it comes from.
II. History. This is rather self explanatory. Would talk about the long history of Unknown flying Machines or Animals.
III Theory. There are a lot of ideals what the Unknown Flying Object is. The Skeptics say its Mass hysteria. The UFO Believers say they are from another planet. Others not related to Skeptics or Believers might say they are Natural occurring objects like Earthquake Lights, Or meteors falling into the atmosphere. Some Biologist might say they are an unknown natural life form like a bat or bird never seen before. The Military might say they are our black box projects, a new type of Fighter or even new type or space craft.
IV. The Sightings would just give first, famous sightings, then common everyday sightings with no explanation. More like a list or example. To get a good sample sightings from across the board would be listed
V. Conclusions would be just that a conclusion. As of now, not all Unknown Flying machines are identified. If the Air Force does indeed have an type of aircraft like Aurora they are not saying and thus if anyone actually saw this craft they would not know what it was because the Air Force refuses to say.
Thats a general summary of what I was trying to do. I am sure that even this will be attacked. Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 00:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No one is saying we shouldn't point out that UFOs are associated with the belief in ET visitations. What people are saying is that the mainstream explanations for these beliefs including mass hysteria, conspiracy theory fanaticism, and wishful thinking should be explained as the primary explanations. Since no one in the academic community takes seriously the idea that we're being visited by ETs, Wikipedia shouldn't either. That's the best way to write an unbiased article. The article has been given free reign for years now. It's time to prune. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am Atyndall and I have volunteered to help mediate the case that
Magnum Serpentine (
talk ·
contribs) opened at 21:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
here. I have had a fairly good look at your discussion above and would like to make a few things clearer,
WP:FRINGE states that all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominenceand that Therefore other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources which discuss the theory first are required so that Wikipedia is not the primary source for such claims . Meaning that if UFO sightings are discussed in
reliable sources, then we can mention them. This also means that you can talk about UFO sightings, but because theories must contain representation in proportion to their prominence and prominence is determined by reliable sources, the focus of the article should focus on the theory that is covered by the most reliable sources, which I think is the "we can't explain them, but we're pretty sure they're not alien space-ships". Also, whoever is striking out people's comments should read
WP:TALK, in italic text it says, very specifically Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission., so don't do it, it just annoys other editors.
{{
SPA}}
more appropriate?
Atyndall93 |
talk 02:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Alternate theories
Extra-terrestrial origin
Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here
Popular theories
Extra-terrestrial origin
Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here
Also, could other users please express their opinions on this? Atyndall93 | talk 11:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I would agree to that. Really the extra-terrestrial hypothesis is a valid and respectable scientific hypothesis, although the evidence to support it isn't good. I think the popular perceptions of UFOs as being of extraterrestrial origin, which probably go back to the Arnold sighting and beyond, should be treated with separately from extraterrestrials as a scientific hypothesis to explain the otherwise unexplained sightings. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Smith Jones, can you give a few examples of the "frontier scientific view" which you say is not adequately represented. Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I have just discovered this discussion, so bare with me because I don't know all it's ins and outs just yet. However, I feel that the balance of non-scientific views is far to much as it is. Yes Wikipedia says we should represent as many views as possible, but it says that the amount of article time we devote to them should be proportional to its prominence. See WP:UNDUE. It also says on WP:PSCI that "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." It also says, "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." I think we can agree that the UFOs as extraterrestrial is held by few (if any) scientists. It is therefore a minority view and can be termed pseudoscience. It follows the description given to astrology in that it is popular among those who aren't scientists but isn't in any way among scientists. These theories should get no more space at least on this page. In fact they get too much as can be seen by the size of sections based on sightings and conspiracies etc. The scientific viewpoint (apart from one sentence in the 1st paragraph) is consigned to the middle, where these scientists are denoted "skeptics". That to me is almost POV. Also, these "skeptics" theories aren't given any space to be talked about except on separate pages: that section has a list of extraterrestrial explanations and a list of "skeptics" explanations, which basically gives them equal time which as I have said, they do not deserve. Deamon138 ( talk) 00:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent) ok, I have to confess that I'm a little shocked by this conversation. let me point out something obvious: the word 'skepticism' has two very distinct meanings:
a scientist may not believe in the existence of earth-visiting ET's, but he is not going to reject the theory on scientific grounds because that would violate scientific skepticism. it is a GROSS misrepresentation to equate scientific skepticism with popular skepticism.
as I see it, this is a battle between two fringe groups - UFO believers on one hand, and hard-core skeptics on the other, with the scientific community cautiously averting its eyes and trying not to get involved in the squabble. therefore, equal weight should be given the the believers and the anti-believers, and scientific opinion should only enter into the matter as one side or the other uses or misuses scientific statements. -- Ludwigs2 01:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) There seems to be many different ideas being suggested here, so to get a clear picture on everyone's ideas, could they swing by Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-16 Unidentified flying object/Proposals and place their proposal there, being very careful not to sign their posts and to follow the instructions carefully. After that, I would like to get people to say which of the proposals they would agree with, and I will try and help everyone compromise (still following the policy of course). Atyndall93 | talk 11:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with treating the UFO phenomenon as primarily cultural, and laying out the background of serious scientific work (or lack of the same). However I think we ought to take into account the fact that there already exist articles on the subject that tackle it from much the same viewpoint ( Flying saucer is one good example). If we take this tack, it may make sense to merge this article and flying saucer into a single article primarily about the cultural phenomenon. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
i must say all this squabling on wikipedia is childish. you must treat every report, every piece of evidence, as an actual stated fact and decipher it from there. you may think what you want but i must say that very high officers and well respected people have told about their sightings on ufos. are those fake too? id beg to differ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.185.26 ( talk) 15:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
It is recorded in the Annals of Ulster, that in 749ad, “Ships with their crews were seen in the air above Cluain Moccu Nóis.” Clonmacnoise, County Offaly, Ireland. As stated in the plural, is this the first sighting of; “multiple UFO’s (space-ships)”, and especially the first sighting of; “multiple extra-terrestrial crews,” of these space-ships? Stephen2nd ( talk) 12:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I may have missed this in the article; but. The term UFO is usually misused, as many people equate the term with Alien spacecraft. This common mistake should be added. GoodDay ( talk) 01:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Its because of the Ufologists. Talk of Hybrids and what not. Watch the History Channel's UFO hunters if you want some good laughs. Its a common misconception, I agree. The leap is made by if its unidentified, it can't be from this world (Because we've built everything on it). So if we, the great inventors on this planet don't know what it is, it can't be ours. 99% of the time though, I have to go with the swamp gas reflecting of Jupiter's moon. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army ( talk)
This section contrasts Proponents' with Skeptics' hypotheses. But I don't understand what they are "proponents" or "skeptics" of exactly. It seems like it's just someone's lists of "explanations I find reasonable" versus "explanations that seem like foil hatter territory to me".
Look at the two lists. The thing that they are proponents or skeptics of cannot be:
1. That some UFOs are extraterrestrial visitors (since the Proponents list includes the secret military technology hypothesis)
2. That it's an external, objective phenomenon (since both lists include many explanations that suggest this)
3. That they are physical vehicles (since the Proponents list includes the supernatural hypothesis)
4. That the phenomenon requires new science. (both lists include hypotheses that require new science)
So what justifies the division into the two lists?
In fact, the whole idea of the lists is flawed. Virtually everyone would agree that there are multiple explanations for the phenomenon (e.g. Even someone who believes aliens are among us would concede that many UFO sightings are of planets, stars or aircraft).--
77.44.77.44 (
talk) 10:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Is mediation on this topic still required? as the mediation cabal template has been removed. —Atyndall citation needed 11:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I came to this article by typing "flying saucers", hoping to find an article on the (completely identifiable) flying saucers that are currently being developed. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm referring to an actual experimental transportation machine being developed by a private company. Now, as "flying saucer" refers to this sort of machine specifically, and not necessarily to an "unidentified flying object", does this not warrant a separate Flying Saucer article? Sorry if there already is an article for this, and I just missed it; please disregard this, if that is the case. -- Dark Green ( talk) 02:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
In the "History" section I read "Art historian Daniela Giordano...". But Daniela Giordano is not an art historian. She is a journalist who writes about UFO and paranormal, as stated in the short biography accompanying the article about UFO and art: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/16589 She was the director of "UFO express" magazine and received a journalist prize from the "Found for UFO Research". In another biography I read the same things, and also that she began her career as a model and actress: http://www.fromnorthtosouth.com/aboutherIt/aboutIt.htm For this reason, I think it is necessary to correct the page in this way: "Journalist Daniela Giordano..." . It is important to say also that her web article about UFO and Art cited in the note is simply a collection of news found in various other books and web sites. The most known writer about Art&UFO is Matthew Hurley, who wrote The Alien Chronicles, and the two pictures in Daniela Giordano article come from the Hurley web site: http://www.ufoartwork.com/ (see Ufo Artwork A.D. page 3) -- Milo Temesvar ( talk) 08:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
In the History of this page there is a debate about "a" or "an" before UFO. I made a google search and in "WordReference.com Language Forums" I found : "You don't use "a" before "hour" because the "h" is "hour" is always silent and so the word begins with a vowel sound (rather than just a vowel). Also, acronyms that begin with the letter U should be preceeded by "a" and not "an". This is because "u" is pronounced as "yu", so it's a consonant sound rather than a vowel sound. Examples: A UFO (OK) An UFO (NO) - A university (OK) An university (NO) - A unique person (OK) An unique person (NO) - " ( http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=270734)
Also: We say we saw a UFO because, although the abbreviation begins with a 'U," we pronounce the "U" as if it were spelled "yoo." http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/abbreviations.htm-- Milo Temesvar ( talk) 13:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Two things:
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:
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I support the merging of Identified flying object into this article. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 15:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2 things:
I object to the merge because there are quite a few books talking about IFO and not even mentioning UFO [2].
I oppose proposed structure of the article. More sense would make first having UFO section, and than IFO -- examples of UFO's that have become IFO's -- it matches more the reality -- UFO becomes IFO, not the opposite.
216.80.119.92 ( talk) 03:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the point of this section? Every UFO sighting is either deliberate attempt to spread hoax or misidentification of known objects. Is it possible to rename this section to "Special cases" or simply "Hoaxes" or something like that. What exactly the definition of controversy? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 17:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the objective of this article? Will it make people who have seen these things, aliens look like kooks, nuts, assholes, crazy, full of shit? What will it take? Can't say "A UFO lands on the White House lawn" because that nearly happened in 1952. People have seen them and they are sick and tired of other people trying to make them out to be kooks, assholes, crazy - and some are arming themselves for possible rebellion should there be alien contact in any shape, form, etc. at all. Damn near had one in 1997. I am not being abusive at all. I am not a troll either. I have seen these people and some are police officers and military personnel. 65.173.105.133 ( talk) 21:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
When I first visited this wiki page, it was for the purpose of seeing what the mainstream view was on UFOs. I mean alien space craft not unidentified flying objects. While UFO may mean unidentified flying object to someone in the air line industry, to most people UFO means alien space craft. Maybe this page should just have two links on it, one to unidentified flying objects and another to alien space craft. Systemsplanet ( talk) 05:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I would ask skeptics of the ETH to consider the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation and then read this book http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sf-flying-saucers-science. It amazes me that in a criminal trial the testimony of a police office can be used to put to someone to death without any physical evidence. But, when it comes to UFOs, it's not credible evidence. The absence of evidence (no UFO the White House lawn) is not evidence of absence. It's completely incorrect to state that there is no evidence. There is a mountain of physical evidence to support the ETH and one day it will be accepted as common knowledge. There is a disinformation campaign in the US because the gov't can't admit it cant defend against alien space craft.
Spend some time, researching these links before you decide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Disclosure_Project http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk
France Cometa Report http://www.ufocasebook.com/cometamain.html http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/
Brazil "By doing this very important step, Brazilian Air Force (FAB) has placed Brazil in a very short list of countries whose militaries acknowledge the Ufology as a serious activity and significative effort to fully understand the nature and origin of UFOs." http://www.jerrypippin.com/UFO_Files_aj_gevaerd.htm
Is the beginning of the article OK? Right now it starts "Reports of unidentified 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..." I think it should start with a definition of UFO. ReluctantPhilosopher ( talk) 17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion here is not as active as it once once was, while I agree that the page could probably still use more work, does the discussion need a mediator to oversee it?
Cdmajava talk 21:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, editors. Just reading this article. 1st - the reference to Bob White goes to nowhere - I would remove it but I don't want to get shot at ;<} Not to mention he has a piece of aluminum slag. 2nd, this article is twice too long, IMO, and reads like it's trying to convince people of the existence of extraterrestrial spacecraft. I would think it should read, "This is what it means, these are some famous examples, out the door." Instead it's "Here's another example, and another, and another, how bout this one? With us yet? Believer?" I won't touch it, I'm no expert, but it's pretty bad.. IMO there's not a whole lot more to say than UFO means Unid. Flying Objects and some history. This is a chapter out of a UFO book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjdon ( talk • contribs)
Just in case someone thinks they can improve this article by selectively taking info from today's BBC story about documents released by the National Archives, make sure you consider this except from the BBC item as well, namely
The link from the word, "discoidal," goes to an article about the formation of eggs. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.52.58 ( talk) 23:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Can the psychology quote be moved to the "skeptical section", since it calls what people have seen and experienced as being "mythological" and possibly offensive and insulting? I'm referring to the Jung quote. Powerzilla ( talk) 00:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone care to comment on the AfD discussion regarding this related topic: List of alleged UFO-related entities ? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Something few people here might be interested in reading and possibly including in this article, I don't have the time to go through all this information but thought people here might be interested.
Files released on UFO sightings (BBC News report)
MoD releases UFO sighting files (BBC News report)
PatrickC ( talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Does this warrant a article? This is similar to what happened in Chicago, only there are pixes of this thing available. See video link on the link shown here. Powerzilla ( talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
When it says ,"All studies agree that only a tiny percentage of reported UFOs are actual hoaxes." that can be somewhat misleading since it can be misinterpreted as that only a small percent were not 'real'.
Also, the history and the incidents maybe should be put in a seperate article since, say, some casual browser comes in and he's just pounded with information, if you know what I mean. So maybe there should be one article for looking and another for research. Just a suggestion. I know a splitting of a somewhat major article like 'Unidentified Flying Object' could be disastrous but it's just a suggestion.
And I hope " Another reason why people see UFO's is beacause they smoke weed and see stuff" is a joke ('cause that would be really sad..). Either way, someone should try to find a verification for it. It was most probally made by someone who didn't have much expierence with Wikipedia, you can tell, since whoever made it internal linked the whole thing. Maybe vandalism. 7h3 3L173 ( talk) 05:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been doing some work adding sources to the List of UFO sightings article and could use some help. Anarwan ( talk) 14:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Our scientists recently found distant planets in our galaxy that have water, a sign of our life forms. Aliens don't need radio waves to detect carbon life forms. Our technology is only 100 years old. There are planets in our galaxy that are 1 billion years older than us. Consider our technology in 1 billion years from now. We will likely be able to travel to distant galaxies, faster than light (eg by bending space to form a worm hole), and detect the presence of life on other worlds using billions of robotic probes we send out. Systemsplanet ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.108.150 ( talk) 03:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I don't know if this will be helpful but I hope so.
The Rational Skepticism article in Wikipedia includes at the end of the 'Characteristics' section:
"By the principles of skepticism, the ideal case is that every individual could make his own mind up on the basis of the evidence rather than appealing to some authority, skeptical or otherwise."
The link from that paragraph to the Wikipedia article on evidence includes at the end of the 'Evidence in science' section
QuietReader ( talk) 08:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is my proposal for revising and rebuilding the article, UFO.
I. Introduction.
Tell what UFO is and what its about.
II. History of UFO
Blue Book, Grudge, the Hills other history.
III. Theories on what UFO are.
A. The Pro-UFO side B. The Skeptics Side C. Any other theories and ideals on what UFO may or may not be. D. Other Views on UFO E. The Religion Angle on UFO F. NASA Government Law Enforcement view on UFO
IV. Sightings
A. Famous Sightings B. Citizens Sightings C. Astronomer, NASA, Government, Law Enforcement sighting D. Trucker, Ship Crew, Etc Sightings. E. Abductions F. Other
V. Conclusion.
VI Sources and Web links.
Thank you Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 14:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
A UFO History before 1800AD B UFO History 1800-1900 AD 1. Era of the mysterious Airships. 2. Aurora "Incident" C UFO History 1900-2000 D. UFO History since 2000
Thank you Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 14:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I. Introduction. This tells what the UFO is, its an Unidentified device that seems to fly on its own power be that beating wings or Warp Drive. It is unidentified because we do not know what kind of machine or animal or energy source it is. Let alone where it comes from.
II. History. This is rather self explanatory. Would talk about the long history of Unknown flying Machines or Animals.
III Theory. There are a lot of ideals what the Unknown Flying Object is. The Skeptics say its Mass hysteria. The UFO Believers say they are from another planet. Others not related to Skeptics or Believers might say they are Natural occurring objects like Earthquake Lights, Or meteors falling into the atmosphere. Some Biologist might say they are an unknown natural life form like a bat or bird never seen before. The Military might say they are our black box projects, a new type of Fighter or even new type or space craft.
IV. The Sightings would just give first, famous sightings, then common everyday sightings with no explanation. More like a list or example. To get a good sample sightings from across the board would be listed
V. Conclusions would be just that a conclusion. As of now, not all Unknown Flying machines are identified. If the Air Force does indeed have an type of aircraft like Aurora they are not saying and thus if anyone actually saw this craft they would not know what it was because the Air Force refuses to say.
Thats a general summary of what I was trying to do. I am sure that even this will be attacked. Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 00:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No one is saying we shouldn't point out that UFOs are associated with the belief in ET visitations. What people are saying is that the mainstream explanations for these beliefs including mass hysteria, conspiracy theory fanaticism, and wishful thinking should be explained as the primary explanations. Since no one in the academic community takes seriously the idea that we're being visited by ETs, Wikipedia shouldn't either. That's the best way to write an unbiased article. The article has been given free reign for years now. It's time to prune. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am Atyndall and I have volunteered to help mediate the case that
Magnum Serpentine (
talk ·
contribs) opened at 21:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
here. I have had a fairly good look at your discussion above and would like to make a few things clearer,
WP:FRINGE states that all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominenceand that Therefore other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources which discuss the theory first are required so that Wikipedia is not the primary source for such claims . Meaning that if UFO sightings are discussed in
reliable sources, then we can mention them. This also means that you can talk about UFO sightings, but because theories must contain representation in proportion to their prominence and prominence is determined by reliable sources, the focus of the article should focus on the theory that is covered by the most reliable sources, which I think is the "we can't explain them, but we're pretty sure they're not alien space-ships". Also, whoever is striking out people's comments should read
WP:TALK, in italic text it says, very specifically Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission., so don't do it, it just annoys other editors.
{{
SPA}}
more appropriate?
Atyndall93 |
talk 02:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Alternate theories
Extra-terrestrial origin
Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here
Popular theories
Extra-terrestrial origin
Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here Stuff goes here
Also, could other users please express their opinions on this? Atyndall93 | talk 11:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I would agree to that. Really the extra-terrestrial hypothesis is a valid and respectable scientific hypothesis, although the evidence to support it isn't good. I think the popular perceptions of UFOs as being of extraterrestrial origin, which probably go back to the Arnold sighting and beyond, should be treated with separately from extraterrestrials as a scientific hypothesis to explain the otherwise unexplained sightings. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Smith Jones, can you give a few examples of the "frontier scientific view" which you say is not adequately represented. Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I have just discovered this discussion, so bare with me because I don't know all it's ins and outs just yet. However, I feel that the balance of non-scientific views is far to much as it is. Yes Wikipedia says we should represent as many views as possible, but it says that the amount of article time we devote to them should be proportional to its prominence. See WP:UNDUE. It also says on WP:PSCI that "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." It also says, "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." I think we can agree that the UFOs as extraterrestrial is held by few (if any) scientists. It is therefore a minority view and can be termed pseudoscience. It follows the description given to astrology in that it is popular among those who aren't scientists but isn't in any way among scientists. These theories should get no more space at least on this page. In fact they get too much as can be seen by the size of sections based on sightings and conspiracies etc. The scientific viewpoint (apart from one sentence in the 1st paragraph) is consigned to the middle, where these scientists are denoted "skeptics". That to me is almost POV. Also, these "skeptics" theories aren't given any space to be talked about except on separate pages: that section has a list of extraterrestrial explanations and a list of "skeptics" explanations, which basically gives them equal time which as I have said, they do not deserve. Deamon138 ( talk) 00:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent) ok, I have to confess that I'm a little shocked by this conversation. let me point out something obvious: the word 'skepticism' has two very distinct meanings:
a scientist may not believe in the existence of earth-visiting ET's, but he is not going to reject the theory on scientific grounds because that would violate scientific skepticism. it is a GROSS misrepresentation to equate scientific skepticism with popular skepticism.
as I see it, this is a battle between two fringe groups - UFO believers on one hand, and hard-core skeptics on the other, with the scientific community cautiously averting its eyes and trying not to get involved in the squabble. therefore, equal weight should be given the the believers and the anti-believers, and scientific opinion should only enter into the matter as one side or the other uses or misuses scientific statements. -- Ludwigs2 01:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) There seems to be many different ideas being suggested here, so to get a clear picture on everyone's ideas, could they swing by Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-16 Unidentified flying object/Proposals and place their proposal there, being very careful not to sign their posts and to follow the instructions carefully. After that, I would like to get people to say which of the proposals they would agree with, and I will try and help everyone compromise (still following the policy of course). Atyndall93 | talk 11:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with treating the UFO phenomenon as primarily cultural, and laying out the background of serious scientific work (or lack of the same). However I think we ought to take into account the fact that there already exist articles on the subject that tackle it from much the same viewpoint ( Flying saucer is one good example). If we take this tack, it may make sense to merge this article and flying saucer into a single article primarily about the cultural phenomenon. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
i must say all this squabling on wikipedia is childish. you must treat every report, every piece of evidence, as an actual stated fact and decipher it from there. you may think what you want but i must say that very high officers and well respected people have told about their sightings on ufos. are those fake too? id beg to differ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.185.26 ( talk) 15:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
It is recorded in the Annals of Ulster, that in 749ad, “Ships with their crews were seen in the air above Cluain Moccu Nóis.” Clonmacnoise, County Offaly, Ireland. As stated in the plural, is this the first sighting of; “multiple UFO’s (space-ships)”, and especially the first sighting of; “multiple extra-terrestrial crews,” of these space-ships? Stephen2nd ( talk) 12:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I may have missed this in the article; but. The term UFO is usually misused, as many people equate the term with Alien spacecraft. This common mistake should be added. GoodDay ( talk) 01:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Its because of the Ufologists. Talk of Hybrids and what not. Watch the History Channel's UFO hunters if you want some good laughs. Its a common misconception, I agree. The leap is made by if its unidentified, it can't be from this world (Because we've built everything on it). So if we, the great inventors on this planet don't know what it is, it can't be ours. 99% of the time though, I have to go with the swamp gas reflecting of Jupiter's moon. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army ( talk)
This section contrasts Proponents' with Skeptics' hypotheses. But I don't understand what they are "proponents" or "skeptics" of exactly. It seems like it's just someone's lists of "explanations I find reasonable" versus "explanations that seem like foil hatter territory to me".
Look at the two lists. The thing that they are proponents or skeptics of cannot be:
1. That some UFOs are extraterrestrial visitors (since the Proponents list includes the secret military technology hypothesis)
2. That it's an external, objective phenomenon (since both lists include many explanations that suggest this)
3. That they are physical vehicles (since the Proponents list includes the supernatural hypothesis)
4. That the phenomenon requires new science. (both lists include hypotheses that require new science)
So what justifies the division into the two lists?
In fact, the whole idea of the lists is flawed. Virtually everyone would agree that there are multiple explanations for the phenomenon (e.g. Even someone who believes aliens are among us would concede that many UFO sightings are of planets, stars or aircraft).--
77.44.77.44 (
talk) 10:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Is mediation on this topic still required? as the mediation cabal template has been removed. —Atyndall citation needed 11:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I came to this article by typing "flying saucers", hoping to find an article on the (completely identifiable) flying saucers that are currently being developed. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm referring to an actual experimental transportation machine being developed by a private company. Now, as "flying saucer" refers to this sort of machine specifically, and not necessarily to an "unidentified flying object", does this not warrant a separate Flying Saucer article? Sorry if there already is an article for this, and I just missed it; please disregard this, if that is the case. -- Dark Green ( talk) 02:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
In the "History" section I read "Art historian Daniela Giordano...". But Daniela Giordano is not an art historian. She is a journalist who writes about UFO and paranormal, as stated in the short biography accompanying the article about UFO and art: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/16589 She was the director of "UFO express" magazine and received a journalist prize from the "Found for UFO Research". In another biography I read the same things, and also that she began her career as a model and actress: http://www.fromnorthtosouth.com/aboutherIt/aboutIt.htm For this reason, I think it is necessary to correct the page in this way: "Journalist Daniela Giordano..." . It is important to say also that her web article about UFO and Art cited in the note is simply a collection of news found in various other books and web sites. The most known writer about Art&UFO is Matthew Hurley, who wrote The Alien Chronicles, and the two pictures in Daniela Giordano article come from the Hurley web site: http://www.ufoartwork.com/ (see Ufo Artwork A.D. page 3) -- Milo Temesvar ( talk) 08:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
In the History of this page there is a debate about "a" or "an" before UFO. I made a google search and in "WordReference.com Language Forums" I found : "You don't use "a" before "hour" because the "h" is "hour" is always silent and so the word begins with a vowel sound (rather than just a vowel). Also, acronyms that begin with the letter U should be preceeded by "a" and not "an". This is because "u" is pronounced as "yu", so it's a consonant sound rather than a vowel sound. Examples: A UFO (OK) An UFO (NO) - A university (OK) An university (NO) - A unique person (OK) An unique person (NO) - " ( http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=270734)
Also: We say we saw a UFO because, although the abbreviation begins with a 'U," we pronounce the "U" as if it were spelled "yoo." http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/abbreviations.htm-- Milo Temesvar ( talk) 13:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Two things:
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:
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I support the merging of Identified flying object into this article. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 15:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2 things:
I object to the merge because there are quite a few books talking about IFO and not even mentioning UFO [2].
I oppose proposed structure of the article. More sense would make first having UFO section, and than IFO -- examples of UFO's that have become IFO's -- it matches more the reality -- UFO becomes IFO, not the opposite.
216.80.119.92 ( talk) 03:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the point of this section? Every UFO sighting is either deliberate attempt to spread hoax or misidentification of known objects. Is it possible to rename this section to "Special cases" or simply "Hoaxes" or something like that. What exactly the definition of controversy? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 17:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the objective of this article? Will it make people who have seen these things, aliens look like kooks, nuts, assholes, crazy, full of shit? What will it take? Can't say "A UFO lands on the White House lawn" because that nearly happened in 1952. People have seen them and they are sick and tired of other people trying to make them out to be kooks, assholes, crazy - and some are arming themselves for possible rebellion should there be alien contact in any shape, form, etc. at all. Damn near had one in 1997. I am not being abusive at all. I am not a troll either. I have seen these people and some are police officers and military personnel. 65.173.105.133 ( talk) 21:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
When I first visited this wiki page, it was for the purpose of seeing what the mainstream view was on UFOs. I mean alien space craft not unidentified flying objects. While UFO may mean unidentified flying object to someone in the air line industry, to most people UFO means alien space craft. Maybe this page should just have two links on it, one to unidentified flying objects and another to alien space craft. Systemsplanet ( talk) 05:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I would ask skeptics of the ETH to consider the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation and then read this book http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sf-flying-saucers-science. It amazes me that in a criminal trial the testimony of a police office can be used to put to someone to death without any physical evidence. But, when it comes to UFOs, it's not credible evidence. The absence of evidence (no UFO the White House lawn) is not evidence of absence. It's completely incorrect to state that there is no evidence. There is a mountain of physical evidence to support the ETH and one day it will be accepted as common knowledge. There is a disinformation campaign in the US because the gov't can't admit it cant defend against alien space craft.
Spend some time, researching these links before you decide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Disclosure_Project http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk
France Cometa Report http://www.ufocasebook.com/cometamain.html http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/
Brazil "By doing this very important step, Brazilian Air Force (FAB) has placed Brazil in a very short list of countries whose militaries acknowledge the Ufology as a serious activity and significative effort to fully understand the nature and origin of UFOs." http://www.jerrypippin.com/UFO_Files_aj_gevaerd.htm
Is the beginning of the article OK? Right now it starts "Reports of unidentified 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..." I think it should start with a definition of UFO. ReluctantPhilosopher ( talk) 17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion here is not as active as it once once was, while I agree that the page could probably still use more work, does the discussion need a mediator to oversee it?
Cdmajava talk 21:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, editors. Just reading this article. 1st - the reference to Bob White goes to nowhere - I would remove it but I don't want to get shot at ;<} Not to mention he has a piece of aluminum slag. 2nd, this article is twice too long, IMO, and reads like it's trying to convince people of the existence of extraterrestrial spacecraft. I would think it should read, "This is what it means, these are some famous examples, out the door." Instead it's "Here's another example, and another, and another, how bout this one? With us yet? Believer?" I won't touch it, I'm no expert, but it's pretty bad.. IMO there's not a whole lot more to say than UFO means Unid. Flying Objects and some history. This is a chapter out of a UFO book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjdon ( talk • contribs)
Just in case someone thinks they can improve this article by selectively taking info from today's BBC story about documents released by the National Archives, make sure you consider this except from the BBC item as well, namely
The link from the word, "discoidal," goes to an article about the formation of eggs. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.52.58 ( talk) 23:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Can the psychology quote be moved to the "skeptical section", since it calls what people have seen and experienced as being "mythological" and possibly offensive and insulting? I'm referring to the Jung quote. Powerzilla ( talk) 00:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone care to comment on the AfD discussion regarding this related topic: List of alleged UFO-related entities ? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Something few people here might be interested in reading and possibly including in this article, I don't have the time to go through all this information but thought people here might be interested.
Files released on UFO sightings (BBC News report)
MoD releases UFO sighting files (BBC News report)
PatrickC ( talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Does this warrant a article? This is similar to what happened in Chicago, only there are pixes of this thing available. See video link on the link shown here. Powerzilla ( talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
When it says ,"All studies agree that only a tiny percentage of reported UFOs are actual hoaxes." that can be somewhat misleading since it can be misinterpreted as that only a small percent were not 'real'.
Also, the history and the incidents maybe should be put in a seperate article since, say, some casual browser comes in and he's just pounded with information, if you know what I mean. So maybe there should be one article for looking and another for research. Just a suggestion. I know a splitting of a somewhat major article like 'Unidentified Flying Object' could be disastrous but it's just a suggestion.
And I hope " Another reason why people see UFO's is beacause they smoke weed and see stuff" is a joke ('cause that would be really sad..). Either way, someone should try to find a verification for it. It was most probally made by someone who didn't have much expierence with Wikipedia, you can tell, since whoever made it internal linked the whole thing. Maybe vandalism. 7h3 3L173 ( talk) 05:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been doing some work adding sources to the List of UFO sightings article and could use some help. Anarwan ( talk) 14:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Our scientists recently found distant planets in our galaxy that have water, a sign of our life forms. Aliens don't need radio waves to detect carbon life forms. Our technology is only 100 years old. There are planets in our galaxy that are 1 billion years older than us. Consider our technology in 1 billion years from now. We will likely be able to travel to distant galaxies, faster than light (eg by bending space to form a worm hole), and detect the presence of life on other worlds using billions of robotic probes we send out. Systemsplanet ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.108.150 ( talk) 03:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)