Talk:Condon Committee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics 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. |
I dont see anything about this article that is wildly anti-neutral?
- It's written as a condemnation. --InShaneee 15:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge article
- Merge The content of the Orthoteny Principle article is thin, and it is a great fit for the other article which is more fully developed. CRKingston 08:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- No Merge because the Orthoteny Principle was not developed by the Condon Committee, they only cited references in their publication (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 01:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Merge. The Orthoteny Principle is a distinct, stand-alone topic. The Principle had already been in existence for almost ten years when the Condon Report was issued. Besides the Condon Committee article is already too long. -- FormerNICAPmember 03:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Opening section
The opening seems overly long, and includes criticism of the report which really should go later in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.56.86.49 (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
I am the Gordon David Thayer mentioned in the article (one of the UFO Committee members in 1968). I agree that the opening section needs some rearranging, but aside from that, I don't believe it is too long. Gdthayer (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In my view this entry features *too* much use of Jerome Clark's work(s) - a UFO advocate and proponant of the ETH - as the main source of this article. It reads like an attack on the Condon Report by various UFO advocates (i.e. Clark, Sturrock, Swords, etc.)! Surely this entry could include a more supportive accounts by skeptics, by way of balance? Furthermore, the "comments by skeptics" section is smaller (and contains mitigating pro-UFO comments by Clark) than the section detailing attacks on it by UFO advocates. While Sullivan is branded an (anti UFO) "Partisan" - Clark, McDonald, Sturrock and Swords are not (even through they are/were well-known advocates of UFO reality and the ETH in particular). While the Condon Report is a flawed study (could it ever be anything else?), this entry should note it was a largely unique one - with no similar effort being conducted by any other country following its publication. The problem is that much of the source material comes from pro-UFO commentators; hence such an admission is never recognised as a consquence! One could also note that, if Condon's comments on UFOs were as worthless as this entry implies, why has NO progress/breakthroughs been made in the study of UFO's since 1969? Surely that fact supports Condon's conclusions, where he t predicted this very outcome! Lastly, some of the cases labled as "Unknowns" by the Condon Committee have also since been thrown into doubt - i.e. the recent re-investigation of the Lakenheath/Bentwaters Radar Visual report conducted by British UFO researchers Dr. David Clarke, et. al.). Another (negative) "development" obscured by the use of limited and biased source material used to "inform" this article.
Robert Moore email@deltapro.co.uk 62.64.200.234 18:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I never thought I'd see such a joke as this article or the entire section on UFOs. Wikipedia seems to attract the worst sort of crackpot. 68.221.104.4 07:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
As an original Committee member, I disagree with the last comment above. The article is not a joke, and the Condon Report, albeit controversial, is a serious attempt at some sort of solution to the UFO problem. That it did not arrive at a solution is a reflection of the nature of the problem, not the fault of those who worked on it. Gdthayer (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
