Talk:Topics in ufology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paranormal Portal
This non-article page 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.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating.

Contents


[edit] What should be included here

In my opinion, only topics that are studied primarily by 'ufologists' should be included here. I have therefore removed such things as Fermi paradox, Time travel, and Faster-than-light, which are most definitely studied mainly outside the UFO community (to say nothing of alternative biochemistry). I also removed things that have either no significant following/research associated with them, or aren't relevant at all (such as Hollow earth and Transcendental meditation). All of these things may be studied by UFO enthusiats, but they are not 'topics in ufology', nor were they classed as such until Nima added them a day and a half ago. Michaelbusch 17:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

yah those topics are, hollow earth theory is big in the world of Ufology and exopolitics, so is transcendental meditation (steven greer is a good example showing how this connects with leaving your body and communicating with ET at a hihger level). aleternative biochemistry is about extraterrestrial life and is studied by ufologist and exopolitics to better understand the physical nature of ET. Time travel is aslo ET related b/c of the ability to time travel introduced by philip j. corso and his experience with the time machine (the guy was in the military as a reminder for those not familiar with the topics studied in ufology), and faster then light is studied towards UFO and their rate of travel. (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I conceed that the Hollow earth article does mention UFOs, but all the other articles I removed have nothing in them about UFOs, and it may be confidently stated that a 'ufologist' has never made any notable contribution to the subjects concerned, except perhaps the TM article, where the history is complicated and sordid. But if you are going to described TM as 'a good example showing how this connects with leaving your body and communicating with ET at a higher level', you have need to read my user page. Michaelbusch 17:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • These are specific topics studied in Ufology and exopolitics, and yes it is notable especially if they have been applied by well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 17:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Reliable_sources page says: "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves." I think it's safe to say that ufology is widely acknowledged as a fringe field. Also see the "sources of dubious reliability" section in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Based on this, I think it's clear that there should be no links to UFO stuff on pages about topics that are a subject of mainstream research, like time travel or faster-than-light travel; UFO links should only go on pages whose primary topic is one that is also "widely acknowledged as fringe", like the hollow earth theory. This doesn't necessarily preclude putting links to mainstream topics in "Topics in ufology", but you shouldn't put reciprocal links on the pages for the topics themselves. Hypnosifl 22:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • These are topics studied in Ufology and exopolitics and I am providing some good news sources (cnn, bbc,etc..) that show that these topics are studied in Ufology and this is not a promotional article nor is it on rumors or personal opinions and a great thing about this article is that it is specific on what are subjects that are studied, it does not just say the standard subjects such as history, math, physics, etc... but actually targest the specific topics studied (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't necessarily object to you putting links to those topics in the "Topics in ufology" page, but I object to your putting reciprocal links to UFO topics on those pages themselves, as you've done recently with the "Time travel" and "Faster than light" pages. Hypnosifl 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refernces

  • I will get the references later today when I go home to the books so I can cite these topics: (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 17:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Alternative biochemistry - done the article itself is about extraterrestrial life and aliens which is studied in the field of Ufology/exopolitics, "speculative biochemistry of alien life forms that differ radically from those on Earth."
  2. Anti-gravity - done
  3. Faster-than-light - done
  4. Fermi paradox - done the article itself is about extraterrestrial life and aliens which is studied in the field of Ufology/exopolitics, "is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence of contact with such civilizations."
  5. Perpetual motion (Over-unity) - done
  6. Kardashev scale - done the article itself provides three sources that show how this scale was used towards the study extraterrestrial life and aliens which is studied in the field of Ufology/exopolitics
  7. Telepathy - done
  8. Teleportation - done
  9. Transcendental Meditation - done
  10. Time travel - done
  11. Zero-point energy - done
  12. Zoo hypothesis - done the article itself is about extraterrestrial life and aliens which is studied in the field of Ufology/exopolitics, "aliens would generally avoid making their presence known to humanity, or avoid exerting an influence on human development, somewhat akin to zookeepers observing animals in a zoo."
  • done - reference is the article itself
  • done - outside references have now been cited

[edit] Nima's references

Do not justify the material's inclusion here. The problem is one of definition: Nima wants to include everything that has been invoked by 'ufologists'. That is cited. But there is a difference here: topics studied by ufologists and topics in ufology are two very different things. At make an analogy: the population of Caltech studies many forms of music, literature, and the liberal arts, but it is not reasonable to list these as areas of active Caltech research. Michaelbusch 00:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

These references are fine and so are the topics, these topics are invovled and studied in Ufology, I have provided you with references (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 02:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Read and understand what I wrote. Michaelbusch 02:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have and I have provided references to show that these topics are studied in Ufology and are Topics in ufology (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 02:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Referencing crackpots doesn't count. Someguy1221 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I didnt know that the washington post, Wired News, BBC News, San Francisco Chronicle, etc... did not count (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 05:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Mainstream news articles about fringe scientists and crackpots don't count either. Unless, of course, you were writing an article about said fringe scientists and crackpots, but that's not what you're doing here. Do not confuse a news agencies' reporting of a theory for verification of its scientific or factual accuracy. Someguy1221 05:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • its about subjects or topics studed in ufology and these articles are on ufologist and what they study (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 05:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The references are about crackpots, notable only for being particularly persuasive and/or criminal crackpots. Their ideas are not encyclopedic facts. It would be fine to mention such ideas in articles about said crackpots, but nothing more. Someguy1221 05:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong. Someguy1221 07:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Per the comment in the section below, perhaps. I fail to see what Nima is disagreeing with here. Do you not believe that the references are written by/written about crackpots and/or fringe scientists? Do you feel that writing a news agency publishing an article about a crackpot/fringe scientist makes his views notable and encyclopedic? Or perhaps you just see things completely differently. I simply fail to understand what and why you are disagreeing. Someguy1221 10:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a third opinion, just a note

What screams out to me most is that the editors opposing Nima have stopped assuming good faith. Comments like "You're wrong" are not conducive to a collaborative environment. I see that someone is trying to make good faith edits and working hard to try to improve an article. That is what is important. I can't help with the content dispute -I wouldn't know where to begin so I'm leaving the listing there so that someone else can try to help.

Seraphim Whipp 09:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the exception to WP:RS "Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves" applies here. This is a list of topics that a fringe group studies, so what they say they study or what secondary sources say they study, seems relevant. --agr 12:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
No, this should be a list of topics that mostly only fringe groups study (there are a handful of mainstream scientists studying ufology, but not many). The problem is that many of the articles Nima is trying to list are on topics that are very well studied by mainstream scientists. Someguy1221 22:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I'll give yet another opinion as to what this article should be (assuming that it should exist at all): a list of topics in the study of UFOs. But just because something like "antigravity" is mentioned, or even studied, by fringe groups that also study UFOs doesn't mean that it should be listed here; as an analogy, is group theory a topic in particle physics? --Philosophus T 05:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • These are topics studied by ufologist, and I have provided references to show it, "Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves" (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 22:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
A topic does not fall under ufology merely because a ufologist studies it, any more than group theory falls under particle physics merely because a physicist somewhere studies it, or calculus falls under Classical Mechanics because Newton studied it for that purpose (among others) -Philosophus T 07:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This is much the same analogy I made to start with. Michaelbusch 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Topics in ufology

This case has been opened, please see the case page at [1]. Thank you! JodyB 14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This case has been closed. I thank you all for your participation and your passion for wikipedia. JodyB talk 14:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)