Talk:Ufology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ufology article.
Article policies
Paranormal Portal
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.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth.

Contents

[edit] old talk

Need some help here. - Sigg3.net 19:42, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What sort? People will help if they can Moriori 21:54, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
This is a great field. Going to need some help. This sentence is wrong though: especially claims that some UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles manned by aliens, since UFO Norge are trying to get international approval as "real scientists" (if such things should exist), so they don't jump to any conclusions. Most of the cases they've handled (something that is incredibly normal) are observations of the moving moon when driving a car... But they've got observations of "saucers" that were confirmed by military radars as well. I changed especially to also. Thanks anyway. - Sigg3.net 23:10, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Changed no physical evidence to any conclusive evidence, since physical evidence HAS been found and published. - Sigg3.net 23:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'll try to make it clearer on the page. There IS evidence for UFOs, including film which I have seen, for flying objects that were and are unidentified. But, no-one has EVER produced physical evidence of any UFO of extraterrestrial origin. ( I'm talking physical evidence, not claims. If you think otherwise, then list the urls here please). If someone ever does, then Wikipedia will need a new page headed "ETs" {Extraterrestrial Vehicles, fancy that), because, being identified, they could no longer be UFOs. Moriori 00:02, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
I think you miss the point. Not all ufology are concentrated on ET's. UFO Norge has made research on magnetic disturbances etc. (See "The Hessdal Project"). But there are way too many loonies out there too... - Sigg3.net
No, I don't miss the point at all. I know ufology should not exclusively concentrate on ETs but the perception of the pubic is that it does. The problem is that if several people independently report a spectacular UFO sighting, the media will get some UFO proponent on camera who will say aha, it's a flying saucer with little green men from outer space. They won't get someone from CSICOP or UFO Norge who would say, aha, here we have reliable reports of a flying object which is unidentified, so we will try to find an explantion for it. Even if they did find an explanation, it would be a non story so it wouldn't get publicity, and there would be those who continued to tout it as ET. Moriori 23:17, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
You're quite right about that, but I don't see why this should change the article. When most people hear about astrology they think about witches with crystalballs, but this is also considered science (to a degree). - Sigg3.net 23:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is there any good reason this article shouldn't become a section of UFO? - David Gerard 11:55, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

A lot could be said about the UFO subculture which could fall under Ufology... Dysprosia 11:56, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's the thing - they're not really separate subjects. A lot of the stuff and links in UFO are about the subculture. And is "ufology" a science, the UFO subculture or what? I'm strongly tempted to merge real soon - David Gerard 12:22, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
No, no, no and no. Have a look at UFO Norge's webpage, for instance. UFO-NORWAY is open to any and all hypothesis and theories which may represent possible solutions to the UFO enigma, and will not attribute unidentified reports to any particular theory. They're really trying to open the scientific society to the fact that UFOs are not a product of (crazy) peoples imagination, but measurable on radiation-instruments and viewable on radar, for instance. So, placing them under UFO subculture is wrong, hence Ufology must stand as an article of its own. - Sigg3.net 08:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In that case please separate them out a lot better. It's not in the least clear at the moment. - David Gerard 13:10, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. - Sigg3.net 13:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Isn't UFO an acronym for Unidentified Flying Object? Then why is this page advocating the word {You-eff-oh-olo-jist}? Should this article merge into maybe Xenology, which is currently a stub?

[edit] Help

Hi guys. I could use some help with this: The Disclosure Project NPC Conference--Striver 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cats?

Why can't Ufology be in Category:Pseudoscience? ---J.S (T/C) 18:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because pseudoscience is conducted in the name of UFOlogy, doesn't mean UFOlogy is necessarily pseudoscience.
But it is though, I mean actual real science is based on fact and measurable evidence. There is no fact or measurable evidence for the existence of UFOs 82.46.47.172 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Any scientific investigation undertaken that can't be proven or disproven by the Scientific Method is usually classed as a Pseudoscience, there's not much that is measurable in regards to UFO's, so I guess it would be reasonable to call it that. --Opacic (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well for the above skeptics who don't read wiki pages:

"Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge." Well it passes all these requirements. It would help if some of you read up about pseudoscience pay attention to the word UNIDENTIFIED and how these reports come about!Vufors (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge UFO categorization

  • Keep I dont see why this needs to be done unless we are trying to save space (shrink article size) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity of UFOlogy?

Is it just me, or is UFOlogy considerably less popular in Western countries than it once was? When visiting a bookshop recently, I was struck by the fact that there were absolutely no UFO/alien books in the paranormal section at all, whereas there were countless books about ghosts, hauntings and the like. 217.155.20.163 12:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


That's a good thing. The fewer people that buy into this slop the better.
Agreed. --Opacic (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation?

Is it pronounced you-eff-ology or you-fology? 74.106.20.73 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a proper pronunciation on the article seeing as the name is derived from an acronym. RooZ 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Ufology

This new article is unreferenced and poorly wikified, it may get deleted unless improved soon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • New???? First edit/entry are listed as 2003 December 6. Vufors (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Nein! Look again. Twas created at the end of April 2008. And it is pretty crappy as pointed out above, but I doubt it will get deleted because it could be referenced, probably, unless you guys are insane about that, which, judging from the majority of the content around here, you aren't.208.82.225.232 (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Have another look! [[1]] Vufors (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)