Talk:Australian ufology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Australian ufology is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}} |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 January 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 14 Feb 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
Australian ufology is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Australia To-do:
|
|||
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Notable Criteria
Some Wikipedians hold that articles need to be of sufficient importance to be included in Wikipedia.
An article is "Important or Notable" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:
- There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
- It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject.
- Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.
See: Wikipedia:Importance
[edit] Statistics
| Date | Citations | Images | Books | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 Jan 23 | 22 | 1 | 12 | 8 |
| 2006 Feb 10 | 73 | 3 | 30 | 10 |
| 2006 Feb 14 | 75 | 4 | 30 | 10 |
| 2006 Apr 29 | 78 | 4 | 30 | 11 |
[edit] Common Criteria For Limits
Too keep the page within a workable state, reflect only historical events, groups and people, the cut off should be equal to the current Australian Government Copyright (Template:PD-Australia) - expired rules of 25 years. This will remove and or stop the large amount of current events from swamping the page.
 |
This image was created in Australia and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired. According to the Australian Copyright Council (ACC), ACC Information Sheet G23 (Duration of copyright) (Sep 2005), generally copyright has expired as follows: |
 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| 1means the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work. eg. newsprint. 2owned means where a government is the copyright owner as well as would have owned copyright but reached some other agreement with the creator. |
||||||||||||||||||||
UFO Research New South Wales Stole my name.
Dec 8 1991
Please understand that I have nothing what so ever to do with the new UFO Research (NSW) I did not expect this new group, which had its inargural meeting in November, 1991, to take my group name!
[edit] Chalker - UFORNSW & UFOIC
This is a letter from the net on his so call above claim?
| Bill Chalker
I have been associated with UFO Research (NSW) since 1977 when I helped form it from the UFO Investigation Centre (UFOIC). During the latter part of the 1980s & up to now I have kept it going as its director on an intentionally low profile and informal networking basis, mainly because of the lack of keen workers and my distaste for UFO group politics. During that time I have preferred to network my group and my own research findings through other wider networking facilities such as the Australian Centre for UFO Studies (ACUFOS) and UFORA, rather than publish my own newsletter. I found this to be a good working arrangement and a great deal of useful information was circulated this way. Unfortunately UFO politics have taken a rather negative turn lately with a new style of ACUFOS which seems to prefer to promote the claims of Bieleck, Lear, Cooper etc. I have made my views clear to the current ACUFOS management (Martin Gottschall) and have completely dissociated myself from its activities. Perhaps related to this, the new ACUFOS set about trying to get a UFO group (of its persausion) going in New South Wales (NSW). Although I do not agree with much of what the new ACUFOS and UFO Research (Queensland) are doing, this is a democracy and new breakthroughs are possible through all sorts of avenues, no matter how bizarre. So I was not concerned about a new group in NSW - plenty of room for that. However I did not expect this new group, which had its inargural meeting in November, 1991, to take my group name! This is what they have done and they have registered it as a business name, something I found unnecessary to do since 1977! This leaves me with not much room to move re group names. A name change has been forced on my informal NSW network group. This message is designed to alert you to these confusing and rather disappointing developments. As of November, 1991, my UFO Research (NSW) group (formerly known as UFOIC), will be known as the UFO Investigation Centre (UFOIC), the ORIGINAL UFO RESEARCH (NSW). Please understand that I have nothing what so ever to do with the new UFO Research (NSW). My UFOR(NSW) activities span 1977 to 1991 and my UFOIC involvement goes back to 1969. UFOIC itself goes back to 1955, when it was reformed from theoriginal Australian group AFSB then run by Edgar Jarrold. Some of the principles of the NEW UFO Research (NSW) group are Bryan Dickeson, Moira McGhee and Paul Sowiak-Rudej. I repeat I have no connect with this group and they have no connection with my UFOR(NSW) (1977-91) activities, other than brief and limited involvement from some of their members. They did not maintain any involvement since the early 80s. I should point out that my group has close ties with the national network UFORA. I can be contacted via this folder, through my box address: P.O. Box W42, West Pennant Hills, NSW, 2125, AUSTRALIA Regards from Bill Chalker. |
[edit] Good Article nomination
The Good article nomination for Australian ufology has failed, for the following reason:
- I am failing the good article nomination for this article for a number of reasons.
- First it is not particularly well written or organized.
- It is in violation of WP:POV. Sentences like "The strange twist to this event was the person who should have had the chance to see all the files, the past President of CAPIO & VUFORS, Mr Peter Norris, had departed ufology just under 17 months prior to the changes in policy." or "The subject came under attack by bureaucrats in an attempt to stifle the Australian public debate. " (among others) are clearly pushing an underlying conspiracy theory hypothesis.
- I am concerned about the fact that very few users are contributing to the page. Vufors (talk • contribs) probably has half the edits. This is not a healthy way to build an article and I think explains the POV problems. It also makes the whole article look like a violation of WP:NOR.
- The depiction of the agencies is dubious to say the least.
- A number of urls are dead. A bunch of references are dubious. I don't think that any book entitled "Awakening: How Extraterrestrial Contact Can Transform Your Life," can pass as a reliable source.
- The talk page has been moved to Vufors (talk • contribs) talk page but concerns about his management of the article have been erased by the user himself.
- Not only is this as clear-cut a failure for GA-status as can be but it's also clear that it should not have been nominated in the first place: surely a page that has been nominated twice for AfD in its six-month existence (with a non-consensus the first time around) should not be nominated so soon. As the nominator Vufors most certainly knows this page has a long history of edit wars. I am tempted to view the nomination as a disingenuous attempt to provide an undeserved credibility to the article.
[[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson] 03:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- You may try and use this form of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php citation with the government documents. I thing it would cleanup the text and make it less clutted. I found this type of NOTE reference as a good way of doing this.Many pagers at Wiki have this proble, when trying to cite a lot of pages. 220.240.249.134 07:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is a particularly well written and organized article. But may need some time. 220.240.249.134 07:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- The book entitled "Awakening: How Extraterrestrial Contact Can Transform Your Life," is not in the "reliable source" cat of the page its in the listed Books that one can read, thats for Wiki readers to judge.220.240.249.134 07:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Pascal.Tesson seems to have picked up on the problems with this article. My own concerns with this article were raised in a detailed article published in the "Australian Ufologist" magazine. It has been placed on the web at: www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_38.htm Make you own mind up, but I see the "Australian Ufology" article as a poor example of the objectives of Wikipedia. Given the games "vufors" has played with "controlling" edits on this article, few serious researchers would bother with trying to add or correct content. Any attempts to do so usually get edited out, so why bother.Regards, Bill Chalker
[edit] The UFO Encyclopedia
Readers should also reference the whole story with all its flavoures... try The UFO Encyclopedia : The Phenomenon from the Beginning (2 Volume Set) by Jerome Clark.
Hardcover: 1178 pages
Publisher: Omnigraphics; 2nd edition (June 1998)
ISBN: 0780800974
"Quite simply, this is THE book to buy if you're interested in learning about the UFO phenomenon. Unlike many UFO books, which are written by true believers with dubious credentials and which have little or no research, Jerome Clark, a respected UFO historian, has packed this encyclopedia with a massive amount of research and plenty of references to back up his arguments. And this is a true encyclopedia - the 273 essays cover, alphabetically, almost every major UFO sighting since the 1890's, as well as the major theories which are used to explain UFO sightings, and biographies of almost every major ufologist and skeptic in the field. Although Clark is a "believer" and tends to side with those who believe that UFOs represent something real and extraordinary, he is fair to the skeptics and debunkers and does include their explanations for each sighting, even though he often disagrees with it. If you want a handy reference book that will answer almost any question you have about UFOs, then this is the only book you'll ever need. And, as a rebuttal to those who believe that UFOs are "nonsense" and not to be taken seriously, Clark's "UFO Encyclopedia" presents a mighty challenge. If you could only buy just one UFO book for your personal library, then the "UFO Encyclopedia" is by far the best choice - I have no doubt that it will be the standard reference book for years, if not decades, to come." Amazon Reviewer.
"This is a landmark book and a remarkable achievement. The entries are very detailed, balanced and extremely well-referenced. Many of Clark's entries are worth the equivalent of an entire book boiled down to a few pages. I have suggested to several sociology colleagues that they get their libraries to order it. When a case is in doubt, Clark tends to land on the side of possible ET visitation. While I disagree such interpretations and assessments (because I require absolute proof), Clark is certainly within his rights to do so because he bases his views on evidence, and he backs up his argument with quality references and lucid reasoning. No matter where one stands on the UFO debate (and I am a sympathetic skeptic), this 2 volume set clearly stands as the most thorough ever written for the 273 entries covered. Jerome Clark should be congratulated for an almost superhuman effort." Amazon Reviewer.
