This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
UFO sightings in outer space 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 |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Most of the descriptions in the section List of UFO sightings in outer space are poorly worded (reads like an automated translation), some have missing information, and most do not have references. The original source is needed to accurately clean up the wording and missing information. Since this article has already been up for deletion, this needs to be cleaned up to avoid being a target for another round of deletion discussion. Obankston ( talk) 19:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
For date, I think the date of the sighting is better than date of the mission. -
Sidelight
12
Talk 00:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Some of the references used, someone will challenge them. Cufos is questionable, but it is mentioned here http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/614506/unidentified-flying-object-UFO. It doesn't necessarily need to be used. If you're serious about this, library microfiche (of reliable newspaper print) is one good way to go, since publications weren't digitized then. It will be (wrongly) challenged, because they will claim they don't have access to it as an excuse (but I like the idea of anyone accessing the source anyways). I don't know the copyright in-and-outs specifically, but its possible that some copyrights expired, and might be uploaded to commons with proper attribution. - Sidelight 12 Talk 20:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
This is in violation of NPOV in that it is presenting fringe claims without the appropriate context of the mainstream views that the fringe claims and interpretations are complete baloney. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Like I said above, my cleanup of the article was partly intended to help evaluate if there was a structure worth building up. I pruned out all the obvious crap sources and non-incidents (like "small ice like particle objects" or "crew said they saw a flash") that aren't even acknowledged by reliable sources to have been mistaken for UFOs. Too soon to tell, so I'll hang back until the AfD resolves. If it is a Keep, I'll try to pitch in and help build up the article with reliable independent sources, and I'll save all the boring lectures about WP:FRIND, WP:REDFLAG and WP:GEVAL until then. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Users cannot reinsert unsourced content that has been challenged. WP:BURDEN The article cannot contain or present content as "unidentified" when the reliable sources actually "identify" the objects. WP:COATRACK / WP:OR -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I am reverting back to the version which has survived the AfD as that is the version which is accepted by consensus. It is cleaner and wikified by format. I am requesting a discussion for consensus as to which version is more suitable for Wikipedia. I was hoping editors User:RockMagnetist, User:LuckyLouie, and User:Bali88 can make a decision after we have reviewed the sources in the further reading. I am a bit uncomfortable with edits from TRPoD, due to his remarks in the AfD. Regardless, I assume good faith.
We version do we support, The current version or Version 2 found here. Valoem talk contrib 21:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The following sentence from the header:
UFO proponents see comments by astronauts or photos processed by NASA as one of the "strongest bodies of evidence" because they are considered to be of high trustworthiness, but from this group of claims there is "not one shred of evidence ... for the existence of extra terrestrial spacecraft." Reference: http://www.jamesoberg.com/77Feb-SW-astro-UFO.PDF
I felt the quote needed to be attributed, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but found that the quote does not exist in the source. It doesn't seem like the quote was a product of invention, so I didn't want to remove it, but it appears to be unsourced. Can anyone find the source of this quote for attribution? If it can't be attributed, it should probably be removed. Scoundr3l ( talk) 16:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
"Debunked UFO sightings in outer space" because every supposed sighting mentioned in this article is accompanied by a debunking. What is the point of the existence of this page? It offers zero substance. Jyg ( talk) 06:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It offers zero substanceThat is only true if you define "substance" as "stuff that confirms the beliefs of UFO nuts".
What is the point of the existence of this page? It offers zero substance...was not exactly a Spock-like analysis devoid of emotion. The article lists unidentified objects reported by astronauts while in space that they could not explain at the time. Granted, they were subsequently explained, although I don't think "debunked" is the right term, but I'm not sure what is. BTW, List of unexplained sounds has a similar issue. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
UFO sightings in outer space 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 |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Most of the descriptions in the section List of UFO sightings in outer space are poorly worded (reads like an automated translation), some have missing information, and most do not have references. The original source is needed to accurately clean up the wording and missing information. Since this article has already been up for deletion, this needs to be cleaned up to avoid being a target for another round of deletion discussion. Obankston ( talk) 19:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
For date, I think the date of the sighting is better than date of the mission. -
Sidelight
12
Talk 00:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Some of the references used, someone will challenge them. Cufos is questionable, but it is mentioned here http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/614506/unidentified-flying-object-UFO. It doesn't necessarily need to be used. If you're serious about this, library microfiche (of reliable newspaper print) is one good way to go, since publications weren't digitized then. It will be (wrongly) challenged, because they will claim they don't have access to it as an excuse (but I like the idea of anyone accessing the source anyways). I don't know the copyright in-and-outs specifically, but its possible that some copyrights expired, and might be uploaded to commons with proper attribution. - Sidelight 12 Talk 20:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
This is in violation of NPOV in that it is presenting fringe claims without the appropriate context of the mainstream views that the fringe claims and interpretations are complete baloney. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Like I said above, my cleanup of the article was partly intended to help evaluate if there was a structure worth building up. I pruned out all the obvious crap sources and non-incidents (like "small ice like particle objects" or "crew said they saw a flash") that aren't even acknowledged by reliable sources to have been mistaken for UFOs. Too soon to tell, so I'll hang back until the AfD resolves. If it is a Keep, I'll try to pitch in and help build up the article with reliable independent sources, and I'll save all the boring lectures about WP:FRIND, WP:REDFLAG and WP:GEVAL until then. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Users cannot reinsert unsourced content that has been challenged. WP:BURDEN The article cannot contain or present content as "unidentified" when the reliable sources actually "identify" the objects. WP:COATRACK / WP:OR -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I am reverting back to the version which has survived the AfD as that is the version which is accepted by consensus. It is cleaner and wikified by format. I am requesting a discussion for consensus as to which version is more suitable for Wikipedia. I was hoping editors User:RockMagnetist, User:LuckyLouie, and User:Bali88 can make a decision after we have reviewed the sources in the further reading. I am a bit uncomfortable with edits from TRPoD, due to his remarks in the AfD. Regardless, I assume good faith.
We version do we support, The current version or Version 2 found here. Valoem talk contrib 21:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The following sentence from the header:
UFO proponents see comments by astronauts or photos processed by NASA as one of the "strongest bodies of evidence" because they are considered to be of high trustworthiness, but from this group of claims there is "not one shred of evidence ... for the existence of extra terrestrial spacecraft." Reference: http://www.jamesoberg.com/77Feb-SW-astro-UFO.PDF
I felt the quote needed to be attributed, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but found that the quote does not exist in the source. It doesn't seem like the quote was a product of invention, so I didn't want to remove it, but it appears to be unsourced. Can anyone find the source of this quote for attribution? If it can't be attributed, it should probably be removed. Scoundr3l ( talk) 16:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
"Debunked UFO sightings in outer space" because every supposed sighting mentioned in this article is accompanied by a debunking. What is the point of the existence of this page? It offers zero substance. Jyg ( talk) 06:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It offers zero substanceThat is only true if you define "substance" as "stuff that confirms the beliefs of UFO nuts".
What is the point of the existence of this page? It offers zero substance...was not exactly a Spock-like analysis devoid of emotion. The article lists unidentified objects reported by astronauts while in space that they could not explain at the time. Granted, they were subsequently explained, although I don't think "debunked" is the right term, but I'm not sure what is. BTW, List of unexplained sounds has a similar issue. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)