Talk:Unidentified flying object

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Unidentified flying object.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unidentified flying object article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] pilots call for reopening investigation

  • Here is some info about that, maybe this really important info should be included.

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=6849

    • yap deliberately.

84.177.221.90 (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed It was a blatant copyvio. --Elliskev 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please add following picture to the NTL press conference section:

or some other realated photo please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.227.181 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russia military research

Russia held a 13 years sky observation study, using it's HUGE standing army, as part of regular orders for everybase they had. that's a huge land mass. and in those 13 years, the KGB who initated the study) di not find anything unexplainable. And without the CIA driven misinformation for covert crafts, the russian people never got the franzy of UFO sightings. Is this main hypothesis, and the mentioning of the russian research in the article? (It's just too convoluted for me..).--Procrastinating@talk2me 23:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rebellion

Seen all material here, elsewhere. Will alien contact trigger a world wide rebellion ? 205.240.144.195 (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

IF you turned on the tele, got on the 'net, turned on the sqawk box, got the paper, etc., and saw UFOs all over the place, what would YOU do ? 205.240.144.195 (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This page really isn't for general discussion of the topic of UFOs. --clpo13(talk) 07:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Given the kind of shit going on here, IF there is contact, all hell will break loose. 205.240.144.226 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats just a stupid assumption.

If we had gotten cantact with intelegent life from other stars they would most likely do anything in their power not to cause more damage that there allready is. If they make contact, they will have a good reason for it, and a good intention. --Nabo0o (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So you are accepting that there hasn't been contact yet? Skeptic2 (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New entry in "Popular UFO Hypotheses" ?

I found this article:

Going Green: The Cryptobotanical Hypothesis

It is a little bit old (from January 2008) and it has been re-posted in other UFO blogs. So does it make it a candidate for a new entry in the "Popular UFO Hypotheses" section ?

Unforgiven666 (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


I find it odd and strange to believe that Gaia and mushrooms have much to do with UFO phenomena. I did a quick skim of the referenced article and do not believe mushrooms have much to do with UFOs, crop circles or cattle mutilations. Most reputable UFO sightings do not involve the use of mushrooms. Most UFO witnesses are every day folk who experienced something paranormal.

This is my first post here so I hope I did this right.

```` MDaisy —Preceding unsigned comment added by MDaisy (talk • contribs) 16:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

MDaisytalk —Preceding comment was added at 17:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, most hipotheses sound weird to me but it does not mean they should not be mentioned in the article.

(BTW MDaisy use four ~ insted of four ` - same key but with SHIFT pressed. Have a nice day)

Unforgiven666 (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding picture of the kenneth arnold sighting

How about you folks upload a picture of the kenneth arnold sighting?

And deleting all credible pictures for dubious reasons won't change the fact that it happened. Some of you guys behave like "deletion freaks". Wikipedia does NOT censor...now does it?! well...at least not officially.

Wikipedia becomes more and more a ridicolous "hardcore skeptic" encyclopedia. The point of view is not neutral anymore...rather biased. Some folks here always want to find reasons for deleting pictures and information...just to delete whole sections.

KEEP WIKI UNCENSORED!!!! 84.177.221.90 (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn right. It will NOT tolorate criticisim of SKEPTICS at all. See the UFO Watchdog controversy on the Paranormal Project's Talk Page, Philip Klass's talk page. The matter criticising the Holy Klass is on www.ufowatchdog.com, "Hall of Shame 1, 7th on the list. Ignore the joke there, click on the underlined links there. 205.240.144.198 (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The mystery airship photo

The caption for tho photo says "Photo of a purported UFO over New Hampshire in 1870; known as the mystery airship". Should the word "purported" be there - No one (to my knowledge) knows what is is, so it IS a UFO? It seems the phrase UFO is often confused to mean a spaceship. :) Fran (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major changes

I made some major changes to this article. The biggest change was peeling off most of the 'Research' section and adding it to the Ufology article. I also placed some ugly, but needed {{prose}} tags throughout. --Elliskev 18:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • i see your so called "changes" rather as another try to censor the truth here. best example: the second try to censor the NTL press club story. it STAYS there.period. stop censoring the truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.246.166 (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Relax. I mentioned the removal of the NTL press club thing up above (#pilots call for reopening investigation). I removed it because it was a cut-and-paste from another source. That's plagiarism. Rewrite and cite it and I have no problem with it. --Elliskev 23:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
stop deleting every single useful and pro UFO information and links. you call that "useful" i call it CENSORING and BIASED! you can't be serious that the government or military is the "only serious source" for this topic here. to clarify: i'm also a little bit skeptic about this topic, but what you do here is clearly censoring. let the people decide for their OWN what to make of this information they find here. i want to keep this topic UNbiased...with pros and cons...and NOT only with cons. you DON'T decide what the people should believe and what not. you might be a "hardcore skeptic" but others might be a little bit more open. I would understand it, if you actually Rewrite the information given into a shorter version but still include all necessary information. but deleting whole pro ufo information sections and all pro ufo links is censoring and NOT cleaning up. m2c. 84.177.233.126 (talk)
i agree with you, looking at the history makes the actions of the above member appear a lil' suspicious. anyway, i think we can keep the current version as it is. all pros and cons are listed. same applies to the links: we have pro and con links...THIS is what _I_ call unbiased and uncensored. btw: we already had a major cleanup and trimming a few months ago when one looks at the history. so yes, the current version you rewrote a lil' is nice and unbiased. thank you for your efforts :-) . we need more people like you at wiki. 79.233.77.240 (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
79.233.77.240 was me...wasn't logged in. AnubisGodfatherT© 09:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Paragraph Is Too Skeptical Considering the Evidence

Although it's obvious that hoaxes and explainations need to be mentioned, it's missing any mention of "official" UFO reports which even extreme skeptics can't deny. For example, the 1976 Tehran UFO Incident. This is one of several incidents in which the "object" apparently disabled some sort of electrical system (IE it's consistant with other reports). In this particular case, weapons were disabled right before they would have been fired. This is beyond even the type of technology we can currently imagine. Thus, unless you believe that even "official" military cases like this are completely made up (which would be extremely POV as it goes against strong evidence) then the ACTUAL EXISTENCE of these "things" as something beyond hoaxes and swamp gas NEEDS to be mentioned. To be specific, it should be mentioned that there are "official" cases of objects which, by our current standards, appear to be actual physical craft (not hoaxes or misidentification) yet defy all technological explaination. I think that's a fair description, and I don't think something this important should be buried in a giant article that only "UFO nuts" are going to read. The opening is currently quite "official policy" POV. It shouldn't be POV; it should be based on reality. There was also the "Disclousure Project", in which something like 400 FBI, NSA, CIA, NASA, high ranking military officals, pilots, radar operators, and other people "in the know" decided to have an "semi-official disclosure" on knowledge about UFOs not being terrestrial. The very fact that something this big didn't make front page news, even as "the largest hoax in history", essentially proves that there is some kind of repression. When does something become "official", or stop being a "conspiracy theory"? If you're living in China, the "Tiananmen Square" incident would be a conspiracy theory. Despite the previously mentioned "disclosure event" by MANY high ranking people in official government and military positions, UFOs are still thought of as something to mocked. This ain't right. 99.246.109.131 (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of China, I recently added the info on the 11th century Chinese official Shen Kuo and his recording of eyewitness accounts in several medieval Chinese cities of a questionable flying object.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phoneix reports

I see that Drudgereport headlined the story after I reverted it. The fact remains the pictures linked to, mainstream as they are, are not in focus and are of camera motion. I have driven the deserts around Phoenix, and there is an airforce range there towards Organ Pipe Cactus national monument. If the air force were to say, fly a few planes with red lights and not tell anyone right away, why do we have to jump and put obvious nonsense into the encyclopaedia the same day? Wikipedia is to lean towards sane explanations, which in this case there are plenty possible, but none reported as of yet. We should just wait. Jok2000 (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

it's NOT "obvious nonsense" that's just your OWN point of view. the reader shall dicide by him or herself what to make outta' it. just because YOU think it's "nonsense" doesn't mean that it actually is. the military and government also claimed that the former phoenix lights were "nonsense"...yet, not everybody believes this. don't bring your own point of view in here. SomeUsr (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's no point of view. It is a scientific analysis of the photos presented. I would like to point out the WP:3RR to you, and I am performing my last for they day on your change. You appear to be a WP:SOCK and WP:SPA. Jok2000 (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

pls cite the source for your so called "scientific analysis". SomeUsr (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(above from SomeUsr, I think)

Here is the analysis of the 2 events in 1997: [1]

and here are the first cool-headed examinations of the most recent: [2]

Jok2000 (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

this source is NOT neutral, pls find a neutral, credible and serious source and not some kind of skeptic blog. additionally we're ONLY talking about the CURRENT event.

read here about blogs as "sources": WP:SPS SomeUsr (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus?

let's do it this way: if you find me a serious and unbiased source were it's proven that the latest phoenix light are "not clear (let's say it like this...)" then i'm willing to agree that we leave it out. and don't forget: no blogs...i won't use blogs either.

otherwise i suggest we take the current news link provided and leave it in the article. SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 22:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, i did my part on providing even more news sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352156,00.html

or here: http://news.ktar.com/index.php?nid=6&sid=814826

now it's up to you to at least find similar credible and unbiased sources who say it's "nonsense" so we can exclude it. let us both work towards a consensus. SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 08:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus reached: See Jok's talkpage SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what I believe to be road-flares on balloons, wrong as I may be, just don't excite me enough to argue about them. Jok2000 (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renamed "modern reports" to "Pre modern reports"

...to prevent confusion. If these are seen as PRE modern reports we should rename that section properly to prevent confusion. SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 22:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. It should have been obvious, though, that a brand new case from 2008 (and uninvestigated at that) had no place in a section speaking strictly of cases before 1947. That's why I deleted it. Dr Fil (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptic-pedia

I thought Wikipedia is neutral. The UFO article reads like it was complying with the Robertson Panel. Just read it. 205.240.144.226 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Those nuts need to be reigned in, or the sheeple will know that we've invited humanity over for dinner. 205.240.144.226 (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Love those "Mc-Human milk shakes" and those "nuts". 205.240.144.226 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Need some humor to lighten the mood HERE. 205.240.144.226 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome, please enjoy a nice journey on our planet :) I thought that you believe in both relativism and relativity -one non-neutral article doesn't mean the other 2 or 10 are the same.
If you know about the subject -and it's obvious that you do, please help us fix the problematic points you referred to. Make sure to not replace a potential POV (point of view) with another. Please note that some editors may disagree with your edits and that is why everyone can use this page to discuss every disputed change. Also, make sure your edits respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability and a few guidelines. Good luck. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] advocates

Too many ETH believers are cited with names and held positions. Almost no non-believers excluding Hawking are cited. This is not a neutral document. Most of the scientists are against this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.235.21 (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Include UFO in title

I don't see any reason why the title shouldn't be "Unidentified Flying Object (UFO)". Correct me if I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpc100 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MoD secret files

I added this since this is a major and most notable aftermath of the conspiracy fights vs cover-up:1978 to 1987 eight secret files on UFO sightings were first released on May 14, 2008, to the National Archives' website by the Ministry of Defence. 200 files are set to be made public by 2012. The files are correspondence from the public sent to government officials, such as the MoD and Margaret Thatcher. The information can be downloaded[3]. The MoD released the files due to requests from UFO buffs and conspiracy theorists under the Freedom of Information Act.news.bbc.co.uk, Files released on UFO sightings The files included, inter alia, alien crafts flying over Liverpool and Waterloo Bridge in London.afp.google.com, The truth is out there: Britons 'spotted' UFOs, records say--Florentino floro (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

the language you used was quite "povish"..i corrected the problem and left ya a note. also pls see WP:NPOV SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 11:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your correction and amendment of my edit. I am new here, in Wikipedia, despite my some contributions. I stand corrected, since this article is non-legal (I am a lawyer, and I admit that this is not my excuse for not reading the report well); and UFO is really a very hard subject. Regards. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • a'right, no problem. btw: i didn't notice you're really "new" here to wiki...well then: welcome :-) SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 12:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Government website links

Please add these links to the articles, as the information provided by these sites are from government sources. Please also distinguish the links between private and goverment sectors in the section of External links

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos

http://www.foia.cia.gov/ufo.asp

http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/es/nm/ufo_1

http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/QuickLooks/ufoQL.html

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1269166 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.telefilm.gc.ca/data/production/prod_4462.asp?lang=en&cat=tv&g=doc&y=2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.sacentral.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=54&area=2&c=53339 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://protocat.nla.gov.au/Record/1497182 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.shorelibraries.govt.nz/TopPicks/NewReleases/book-review.php?dbcn=b21679009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFO related diseases and economic disasters or cures

Please help to expand these topics related to UFOs

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=141139 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing do with UFOs. It's about natural disasters.Skeptic2 (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vQhpQZprDc0C&oi=fnd&pg=PT9&dq=unidentified+flying+objects+UFOs+diseases&ots=Yh0cHx0TcR&sig=SV9NkSjdvDavKM-WqgDjVfcG7WU

http://www.rense.com/general63/JBIS.pdf

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a749207970~db=all

Can't tell what this is about as there isn't an abstract.Skeptic2 (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,8;journal,4,38;linkingpublicationresults,1:103734,1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

https://dspace.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/397 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The abstract for this reads like one of those spoofs put together by computer from a set of jargon words to fool the unwary editors of social journals.Skeptic2 (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Social Stigmas/ Family Stigmas

See article the Alien Abduction article, Re.: Aftermath. Need to add this here. 65.173.105.197 (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

People report UFOs, even really famous cases, only to get ridiculed, as persuant to the Robertson Panel recomendations, such as being called "nuts", worse, such as being delared being mentally ill, also as persuant to the Robertson Panel guidelines to prevent people from reporting UFOs. 65.173.105.197 (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Objection

I totally object to the template "WikiProject Rational Skepticism." being added to this article. If I had wanted to read about the skeptical viewpoint and see an article done in their style, I would had gone to the Skeptical Inquire. Wikipedia is not the Skeptical Inquire and also is not the playground of the Skeptics only, all are free to post articles here and they do not need to match the skeptics opinion of what an article on Paranormal should be, or the writing style that Rational Skepticism demands. I also feel that they need to get permission to add their banner before pasting it to all paranormal articles. thats my Opinion on the subject and this matter that I object to. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

From whom do you think a wikiproject should obtain permission to post a banner on this talk page? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not ask the paranormal project or the first person to write the article. And before you seek permission, ask yourself this question... Why are you putting the Skepticism banner on a project? Is it to change the article so that it lines up with the Skeptical world view? Many of the authors of these articles feels that their article are ok overall and expect the editing to be that of grammar, not content. Are you changing the article so it matches the skeptical inquirer world view? or are you changing some grammar? Magnum Serpentine (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Your response to my question seems to be "other wikiprojects must have the permission of one particular wikiproject to place a banner on this talk page; failing that they should have the permission of the person to write the first revision of the article." Do I have it right? If so, have you read the Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy, sometimes referred to as WP:OWN?
I would hope that we all strive to make our articles reflect the facts and all significant opinions. Membership of a WikiProject doesn't, or shouldn't, make any difference to that. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My opinion on this is that I am concerned that the Skeptics will re-write an article to where it matches their viewpoint and will either not allow other views in the article or ridicule other views in the article. As I said before, if I want to read what skeptics say about a certain item, I will go to the Skeptical Inquirer's website. When I come to Wikipedia, I do not expect to see articles present only one view and then written as to not allow other views. This is what I am concerned about. If you can make sure that the Skeptics view is presented as one of many views with all views receiving equal status in the article, then things will be ok. I only say that they need permission from the Original Author, because its my opinion that skeptics view things as UFO's in a negative prospective generally and I just want to make sure that all views are presented equally and fairly.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
So if the original author wrote about UFOs from a skeptical viewpoint, you'd have to ask their permission? No one owns an article, everyone must put up with the possiblity that their hard work will disappear. And all significant views from reliable sources should be presented in an article, please read the relevant policies and guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 June 2008
I sometimes wonder if Skeptics care that all viewpoints are present. Watching recent television shows about UFO's and other such things, I see only one viewpoint presented, the Skeptical Viewpoint. yet the show advertises that it is about the UFO phenomenon. I am concerned that this will happen to Wikipedia as well. Seeking permission from the original author would ensure that all viewpoints are presented, not just the Skeptical viewpoint.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Irrespective of whether your proposal would produce a desirable effect, the fact is that it would conflict the Ownership of articles policy. If you think you have evidence that this article has been distorted and does not portray the neutral point of view on the subject, make your argument and we'll seek consensus on whether there is a problem and, if so, how to remedy it while adhering to all of Wikipedia's policies. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should request that an outside arbitrator look at this article and check it for neutrality. We can drop the authorship of the article issue. I only stated the authorship suggestion because it was just one suggestion by me as a way to ensure all viewpoints are presented in a neutral and fair way. I am only concerned that this article and others that have received the WikiProject Rational Skepticism template are edited fairly, in a Neutral manor and also include all viewpoints Magnum Serpentine (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Also I mis-understood the authorship issue. I do not want to cause bad feelings or other issues and I think I have made my concerns known. I am only wanting to make sure all viewpoints are equally represented. Nothing more other than the neutrality issue of this article and if everyone is happy with the article as it is now, so am I Magnum Serpentine (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFO vs. IFO merge issue

We have two different articles about UFOs and IFOs. This is a self-serving distinction that isn't kept by reliable sources at this time. I propose merging the articles and using much of the text from the IFO article to indicate what UFOs normally are (aside from the silly and wishful reports). We need to inform readers about what UFOs really are (a social phenomenon, mass hysteria craze) and what they are not (visitors from another planet). The merge request is made and will be acted upon pending discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • VERY EXTREMELY MEGA strong super utter OPPOSE and KEEP AS: "we need to inform readers about what UFOs really are (a social phenomenon, mass hysteria craze) and what they are not (visitors from another planet)...quoting SA." doesn't anybody see how straight out POV this comment reflects.?! this user clearly has a agenda to censor and disinfo! i therefor agree with the other opposes: seems like pov pushing to me to fit issuers pers. views. UFO and IFO are two totally different things, to say that all UFOS are always IFO is just a bad thing. the whole drama here is actually totally unnecessary. why not keep the articles as they are...neutral? pushing pov and the official governmental opinion is not the way to write neutral articles in which pros and cons are presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as according to your reasoning, you clearly show POV and want to push it through to get your will. therefor I oppose it. btw: don't forget that you've been blocked numerous times because of similar issues. if you continue like this i might bring this to a admins attention. I will not warn you at this point, but if you continue i will have to. here's your block log SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 15:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As - Comments like "self-serving" + "silly" + "wishful" + "craze" all tell me that you have another less than helpful agenda to play out. Not very Wiki to me? Vufors (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: The term UFO and IFO exist to define two distinctly different classifications of object. While there may be some small overlap in that one "may" become the other, they should not be merged.

The term IFO exists only within a formalized scientific framework, but the term UFO not only transcends this framework and crosses over to popular culture but it primarily exists in popular culture. To merge the two topics would be to create a conflagration of science and popular culture which would be harmful to both topics. Merging the entries would be like merging Christianity and Atheism. UFO and IFO are polar opposite terms and are incompatible. One is the antipathies of the other.

As per the paranormal arbcom, all topics within the field of paranormal must be clearly and distinctly designated as such. By merging the terms UFO and IFO we would make such designations difficult at best, and risk violating terms of the arbcom at worst, by creating an entry that talks about science in one breath, myth in the next, and then fills the two in with supposition. For example how would you word an entry to make clear that IFOs exist only within a limited field and that everything in the entry about them is based on scientific observation, yet also make clear that only a proportion of the entry about UFOs is scientific while the rest is a mixture of urban legend, popular myth and fiction: ALA the X-Files, but also that IFOs were once UFOs and that there also exist UFOs which have been "identified" (labeled) through non-empirical means that don't count as IFOs because those identifying them don't have empirically evidence to back up the identification. The whole thing would be a mess (and an edit war) waiting happen.

Using IFO as the basis for a section of UFO as was suggested would devalue the scientific value of the IFO entry to the point where IFO would be irepererably subsumed. It would create a conflagration of the empirically back scientific determinations required for a UFO to be reclassified as an IFO, and the non-empirical Ockam's Razor determinations used to classify objects as being conventional in nature in Ufology. Equally, it is also not in the interest of readers for the page UFO to become about IFOs and for the existing content on UFOs in science and culture to be relegated to an "also ran", especially since the term UFO is the most notable, best sources, most debated, and most covered in popular culture.

On a related note, in aggreance with user Vufors the proposer's use of pejorative terminology when referring to the term UFO (Specifically: self-serving" + "silly" + "wishful" + "craze") lends weight to the suggestion that the proposer as an undeclared interest in this merger which may not be compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines. With this and the incongruities that exist between the terms UFO and IFO it is therefore this editors recommendation that this merger be taken off of the cards.

perfectblue (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these arguments use reliable sources from the scientific community nor do they rely on popular understanding of the term. All that's left is fringe definitions which we can mention but must not use as the main delineator per our policies of keeping Wikipedia a mainstream encyclopedia. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply: that's your PERSONAL point of view. please read my comment before making further WP:NPOV violations. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 15:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you disagreeing with the assertion that UFO and IFO are disambiguated only by UFO enthusiasts? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
A UFO is simply any flying object that has not been identified. In the literal sense of the term, they certainly do exist. There may not be any extraterrestrial crafts buzzing around, but there are things seen in the sky that haven't been conclusively explained. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
"Are you disagreeing with the assertion that UFO and IFO are disambiguated only by UFO enthusiasts?" A typical ignorant statement by the overtly biased and fanatical "Science"Apologist. Historically the terms were created by the USAF in the early 1950s, hardly "UFO enthusiasts". USAF Reg 200-2 from 1953 and 1954 (signed by the USAF Chief of Staff, not "UFO enthusiasts") further defined a "UFO" as an unknown object of technical and national defense interest (i.e., obviously referring to REAL flying objects) that clearly WASN'T a conventional aircraft or any sort of natural phenomena. In other words "UFO" was what was left after THEIR (not "UFO enthusiasts") investigations placed everything else into the "IFO" or "insufficient information" categories. They were very much interested in distinguishing between the mundane and harmless (the IFOs) and the true UFOs, which were of obvious military concern to them (as evidenced by the wording of the AFR 200-2 itself).
The "Identified flying object" article was created to expand on what sort of things and percentages make it into the "IFO" category according to various SCIENTIFIC studies (such as the French SEIPRA/CNES and USAF Battelle Memorial Institute studies), and also to clear up misinformation and POV being pushed by debunkers in the "UFO" article. E.g., debunker claims in the "UFO" article that large numbers of UFO sightings are nothing but hoaxes or created by psychologically deranged people is NOT born out by these studies. Typically the number is around 1% of all sightings. Likewise, a claim was made in the UFO article (citing a mere assertion by debunker astronomer Philip Plaitt which he apparently made up out of thin air) that a MAJORITY of sightings were caused by the planet Venus. Well, that's king of hard to support, when actual scientific studies cited in the IFO article place the number of sightings caused by bright stars/planets or astronomical phenomena of all types at between 20 to 40% (and maybe only half of these are thought to be identified to any certainty).
The "Identified flying object" article takes absolutely no position on what the remaining unidentifieds might be. It never remotely suggests that they are "alien spaceships". It merely points out that various studies (again, a number of these are SCIENTIFIC studies done by professional scientists, not "UFO enthusiasts") show that the percentages of UFOs typically lie between 10 and 30% after scientific investigation by qualified professionals and after all conceivable conventional explanations have been considered. (e.g., the percentage was 22% after a 3 years USAF study of 3200 USAF cases by four Battelle Memorial Institude SCIENTISTS; the percentage was 13% in the French space agency 30 year study of 6000+ cases). And it is THAT scientific conclusion which is what really sticks in "Science"Apologists craw and the real reason he wants to take the wrecking ball to the IFO article.
What's the problem with a spinoff articles going into details that the main article cannot because of space limitations? There are lots of UFO spinoff articles, such as "Ufology" or "Extraterrestrial hypothesis", created because the main article can't possibly deal with all the material. There's nothing wrong with it, that's what. Encyclopedias do that all the time with subject matter too great in extent to be shoehorned into any one article.
"Science"Apologist is just up to his usual article vandalism, attempting to justify mass CENSORSHIP of material which his blatant personal biases can't handle, for which Wikipedia has censored him in the past and temporarily revoked his editing rights. Wikipedia still hasn't learned their lesson with this guy. He's really no different than religious fanatics or terrorists who can't be reasoned with because they think they know all the answers and who have no interest in honest debate or compromise. He could care less about "consensus".
Leave the "IFO" article alone. Merging it into the "UFO" article is another obvious attempt by "Science"Apologist to destroy well-documented information he doesn't want readers to see.Dr Fil (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Dr Fil, you're misrepresenting the issue. SA has never, to my knowledge, been blocked for censorship, bias, or vandalism. He's been blocked for incivility, and whether he's diplomatic or a complete a*-hole has nothing to do with the quality of his edits. The fact that you would call someone a vandal, merely because you don't agree with him, suggests that you have no way of defending your opinions except through personal attacks. That's enough to make me dismissive about what you say.
I personally see no point in a separate IFO article, because the term is meaningless outside the concept of UFO. We don't, for example, have an article on non-poisonous animals, just one on poisonous animals. Nor do we have an article on identified animals alongside cryptozoology. We do, however, have a list of cryptids. I can see having a list of UFOs, or individual articles on famous UFOs, but IMO the process of making UFOs IFOs belongs in the UFO article, just as parallel concepts are part of the cryptozoology article. From your comments, Dr Fil, it would seem that you consider IFO to be a substitute UFO article, since you don't feel you're getting acceptable results in the UFO article itself. Splitting off IFO for space considerations is one thing, but splitting it off in order to counter what you perceive as POV in the main article is not encyclopedic. Together or separate, they need to share a common NPOV. kwami (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of unreliable sources

I have begun the process of removing citations to unreliable sources like MUFON, CUFON, ufoscience, rense.com, etc. Those are not reliable sources. Also, I removed pseudophysics. Not something we should have here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 15:27, 7 June 2008

again: that's YOUR PERSONAL POV. I therefor reverted it and warned you because of npov violation. if you continue i'll push for a indef block of your acc, as you've been BLOCKED MULTIPLE times for similar issuses...please see your block log which i posted on my oppose comment. (this is no threat, that's a try to make you adhere WP:NPOV and to prevent further vandalism from your side) . SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 15:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain why MUFON et.al. are considered reliable? I am asking out of curiosity. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply:At MUFON and other UFO reporting centers, people do and can make UFO reports. These are mostly serious and reliable people like pilots and others. They give the reader a glimpse at other peoples experiences with this phenomenon. Furthermore it's a violation of WP:NPOV to only have government and sketptical sources in a article and consider only these as "reliable". You skeptics steadily violate npov and get angry at people who blame and criticise you for doing so. wiki does NOT accept biased articles and sources as well as wiki does not accept only one point of view. the article , currently, is unbiased and shows our readers BOTH sides of the coin. if you hardcore skeptics are unwilling to accept that wiki is unbiased, uncensored and well as adheres NPOV, then i strongly suggest ending your wikiship and find a skepticism website which better fits your POVs. i furhermore suggest stopping to violate NPOV and to accept the unbiased version of articles. I for one am neutral to "paranormal" topics like these, but i won't accept your changing of articles to fit your hardcore skeptical POV...that's a nogo. sincere SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 20:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Why not?! Could you explain why you only consider official and government sources as reliable?! Sounds like POV to me...very biased. Why not leave the article the way it is?! Why you two trying to push your strong skeptical POV on the article?!!! As for me...the article fits the npov policy and sheds light on both sides (pros and cons) 79.233.92.242 (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No one has offered a coherent argument as to why these fringe websites are reliable. I suggest removing them and restoring this edit: [4]. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:SomeUsr, please be calm here. You are accusing me of violating NPOV, and I haven't even made an edit here.
Based on your description, someone calls MUFON, and files a report. You state that most of these reporters are reliable (pilots and such). I will buy that. Is there any evidence that these reports are real? (not real as in real alien spacecraft; real as in evidence to support what the reporters are claiming). For example, could I call and make a report, even though I have seen nothing? I'm not attacking the people making these reports. All I am saying is that a group that takes phone calls/e-mails, etc, and automatically assumes that every phone call is real, even if the reporter is a viable witness, does not mean that the method of reporting is reliable. That calls into question any information reported by this group based on these reports. If the system were more reliable, I would be more willing to accept that the source was reliable. User:ScienceApologist may be coming on strong, but he is correct: the reliability of these sources is being challenged, and there is no evidence being given to support their reliability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It is actually ScienceApologist who has failed to offer a "coherent argument" why these websites should be removed. It is his old debunking censorship game again. He asserts the website or source is "unreliable" (just because he says so). Then he uses this as a "rationale" to delete it, quickly followed by mass deletion of the cited material using the Catch-22 rationale that there are no "reliable" sources. By "unreliable" he really means he doesn't like what it has to say, no matter how scholarly or well-documented the material is.
Just one example: Over on Kenneth Arnold, I cited the website of Dr. Bruce Maccabee, a PhD optical physicist, who has presented a number of very reasoned, rational, well-argued, truly scientific counterarguments to the so-called "explanations" proposed by a number of debunkers (which are always at odds with basic accepted facts if not basic science). ScienceApologist not only deleted the references to Maccabee, but deleted the counterarguments as well, with his usual tripe that Maccabee wasn't a "reliable" source. So a PhD scientist isn't "reliable", but some inane debunking opinion made by a know-nothing non-scientist is somehow "reliable" and remains in the article because it supports his POV.
As to the reliability of investigations by civilian organizations like APRO, NICAP, MUFON, CUFOS, etc., they all had PhD scientists as founding members and/or consultants. (MUFON, e.g., has some 100 PhD advising scientists.) These organizations are/were generally very conservative in their interpretation of reports, stressing scientific evaluation, always looking for the conventional cause to get rid of what they considered to be the confusing noise, and often coming in with slightly lower numbers for what they considered to be true unidentifieds than some government-sponsored studies. (E.g., Allan Hendry's personal study for CUFOS came in with only 9% unidentified, NICAP considered 16% unidentified, whereas the early Project Blue Book had 27% unidentified, and even the debunking Condon Report still had around 30% unidentified. The long-running French GEIPAN under their space agency had 13% of cases they considered to be totally "inexplicable" (no possible conventional explanation), though the director said that was a conservative number, and the real number of unidentifieds ran closer to 25%. So who were the real "UFO enthusiasts"?)
No matter. Even when government, not private, studies are cited (like Project Blue Book Special Report #14 over on the Identifed flying object article), ScienceApologist wants to delete all the sources as "unreliable" unless it comes from fellow debunkers, like CSICOP, hardly the posture of somebody sincerely trying to maintain a NPOV attitude to the articles. Dr Fil (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
dr. fil, i have to agree with you. scienceapologist clearly has a agenda to turn this in some kind of skeptic government debunked article and nobody seems to be allowed to end this pov editing/push nor to criticize the skeptics and debunkers. people, who want a neutral article which has cons AND pros get attacked by bully behavior and ridiculed. this was once a pretty good a nd neutral article. now it's just a piece of skeptical and governmental sounding piece of useless junk. my idea: if it stays that way, delete this article. period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


"Mass edits by talk are not condusive to consensus. And indirect threats (bully tactics) placed on my talk page by these users is not very wiki at all? I agree that all referencing should be as tight as one can get, but the wholesale reduction is less than helpful to the wiki viewer. If you believe MUFON et al are poor source references then the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) would also fit your barrow. I hope admin are watch this game. Vufors (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)"

"Mass edits by SA are not condusive to consensus[...]but the wholesale reduction is less than helpful to the wiki viewer." correct, yet he's allowed to continue but others are not...it's getting obvious folks.

"I hope admin are watch this game" that will never happen since most admins here are also skeptics and debunkers (governmental paid too?) who support such bully tactics, censorship and debunking of such controversial topics. why? to simply fit their worldview/opinion and the opinion of the msm and governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Calling MUFON unreliable is unacceptable especially when many organizations not related to paranormal (Law Enforcement for example) use them and ask them for advise and other questions.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] we need consensus before making radical changes here

why do you people keep pushing your pov?! why can't you simply discuss and let us find consensus? it's becoming childish and ridiculouse. discuss before you chnage it. or for what else is the consensus tag placed onto the article...righ...to find consensus FIRST. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 23:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting refs that an editor believes are unreliable is hardly a "radical change"! kwami (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
but hey, i placed this tag because we need consensus here. so i think it's not good to remove material before this issue is setteled. you didn' only rmv refs, no, you deleted a whole bunch of material without even discussing it FIRST. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 23:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ok KIDS... i, as a grown up, defintelly got enough of wikipedia or skepticpedia...call it what you want. i won't spend anymore time here in this kindergarden. i feel that wikipedia is led and edited only by children and teenies who get angry if they don't get their will.

you're now free to POV this article or vandalize it or what so ever, all you want. be happy...you drove me off...i got way more important things to do in real life...like taking care of my kids and wife and earn some money to give em' a good livin'. bye. oh and: my vote still counts and stands. jfyi. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 00:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No one's "vote" on Wikipedia "stands" because Wikipedia is not a democracy. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • you don't decide wether or not my vote stands or not...KID. see how arrogant you are?! you just don't like my opinion and so you wanna supress it. childish behavior. SomeUsr 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You should not make statements that you are leaving Wikipedia only to stick around editing. It only serves to confuse matters. Also, your comment is a blatant personal attack and such behavior is inappropriate for Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia not being a democracy is a long-standing community understanding. Consensus does not mean majority rule: it means that the community decides based on an understanding and mutual respect. However, we are given explicit instructions to marginalize the disruption of problematic users. Thus far, this is the way you have been behaving and so your activities and attempts to make points will be treated according to the standard treatment the community affords the actions you are perpetrating. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
About making statements that you are leaving... "I am retired.... Please delete all my associated user pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)" Sound familiar? How many times have you "retired", and by what standard do you preach about such things? Ecoyote (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • i really don't care about a childs threat. i'm about to leave and waitin' for my user space to get protected. so yes, i don't care about ANYTHING you say kid. this was my final post, and now keep on crying. SomeUsr 01:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I submit that since this user has now left Wikipedia with the problematic history that he has made, it is appropriate for us to move on and discount the drama that ensued today. I suggest archiving these last few sections and beginning a new discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Based on SomeUsr's behavior, I don't see any point in keeping those comments, but I don't know about the earlier stuff. I also don't see any point in keeping IFO as a separate article, as it's meaningless outside the concept of a UFO. We don't oppose cryptozoology with an article on "identified animals", do we? Or "non-venomous animals" to oppose Venomous animals. This has nothing to do with what we believe UFOs are. kwami (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This use to be a good article.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Mass edits by talk are not condusive to consensus. And indirect threats (bully tactics) placed on my talk page by these users is not very wiki at all? I agree that all referencing should be as tight as one can get, but the wholesale reduction is less than helpful to the wiki viewer. If you believe MUFON et al are poor source references then the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) would also fit your barrow. I hope admin are watch this game. Vufors (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We're also missing the primary definition of the term UFO in the intro. In common usage, "UFO" does not mean an unidentified flying object, but an extraterrestrial spacecraft/flying saucer. When the sources cited in the article mention "possible UFOs" and the like, they would seem to be assuming the latter reading. kwami (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I missed nothing. There we go folk, distractions using tricks and way off arguments. Oh Dear! Vufors (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Are you responding to me? kwami (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Vufors, I don't think I have ever been made to feel more unwelcome. I showed up here asking some questions about the reliability of a source that looked like it might not be on the level. I asked for some information so that its reliability could be checked. Not only have I not gotten this information, but I have been subjected to being lumped together with other editors. All I have stated is that based on what has been described above, MUFON does not appear to be a reliable source. I have asked for evidence to the contrary. You're response has been to counter If you believe MUFON et al are poor source references then the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) would also fit your barrow. Can you explain what you mean here? You sound like someone under attack, but I cannot determine what I have done that constitutes an attack. Please clarify your position. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi User :LonelyBeacon, Ignorance is a self imposed blinker. You posed the question and seem to be in doubt about the “reliability of a source”. Wiki is not a research forum, thus if you don’t know then you need to do some research? Why not join MUFON? Go to this http://www.mufon.com/research.htm and come back to the wiki folk and show that the listed MUFON folk are unreliable or reliable sources and your “evidence” for your decision. MUFON and CSICOP structures. Best regards to you. Vufors (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No, Vufors, it's up to the people who make assertions to demonstrate them, not for anyone else to disprove them. If someone asks about the reliability of a ref, this is not "research", it's challenging the legitimacy of the article. It is then up to the people who rely on that reference to show why it is reliable. kwami (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello User:Kwamikagami, Mmmmmmm..interesting take. So what’s is exactly wrong then? What did you find that was unrealiable? Or is this a private challange or a belief you have? Happy to help if I can. Best Regards Vufors (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say I find it unreliable; I haven't raised any objections about the sources (except for the lead image, below). I'm merely stating that the burden of proof of reliability is on the person who supplies the references. I've used unreliable sources in articles myself (again, I'm not the one raising doubts about the sources here), and have had to justify why I would do that. (In my case, because there was little else available, but then the article makes that plain.) In many instances, of course, it is possible to demonstrate that a source is considered unreliable, fringe, etc., but often it is not. kwami (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • User:Vufors, I must say that you are acting in a highly unorthodox manner. The challenge to a source such as MUFON came from another editor. After reading what I saw here, I asked for a description above that they took sightings by telephone (I'm assuming e-mail too), and that this is the basis of their reporting information. I asked a question; this is a form of research, but your response is to call me ignorant, and then fail to provide any answer that supports these sources. Then you suggest that as research that I join the organization? I have asked what I consider relevant and valid questions about the reliability of a source which was challenged by another editor. I never attacked it, and I never even came out and said that it wasn't a reliable source (just that I had doubts based on what I have seen described here). And the only answer I get is "You're ignorant" ... its up to you to prove this source is invalid". Since I have twice asked for a clarification on how these sources might be reliable, and I have gotten zero responses (and one insult), what am I left to conclude? I find your attacks, which are now getting personal, out of place, and I must ask that they cease immediately.

Since I have been attacked, permit me to defend myself, quoting from WP:QS:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

I am not labeling MUFON as "extremist" or "promotional", but I was curious as to how much they relied on personal opinion (from reporters), and how often they actually have third party investigators fact-check on these reports. If they do, then I would acquiesce that there is a legitimacy to the source. If not, I strongly question them as a reliable source. Further, from WP:REDFLAG:

claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, <sic>. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

I am trying to be understanding here, but would this or part of this description apply to MUFON? I am asking as someone unsure, not as a accuser.

I restate my question to any editor: can anyone provide information that establishes the reliability of MUFON's techniques for gathering information that would make them a reliable source? LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

" can anyone provide information that establishes the reliability of MUFON's techniques for gathering information that would make them a reliable source?" for your information mr. debunker: it's NOT up to the people, who think mufon and all the others are reliable, tp provide evidence that these organizations are REALLY reliable. it's up to YOU SKEPTICS and debunkers to provide some evidence that they are NOT. after all it was YOU who suggested that these sources are more or less rubbish...so then YOU should be the one to put forward some evidence. mufon and others just provide REPORTS from OTHERS, they DO NOT claim whether these reported ufos exist or are just some sort of...well...what ever. again: provide some hard evidence for your claims that these sources are not reliable. don't just delete and whine...no, do something.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello User talk:LonelyBeacon, Very complex question (is this wiki?) but, I fully support your thrust towards openness and enlightenment. I would (conversely) like to add to your very important and probing inquiry by making the very same appeal to all editors to provide information that establishes the reliability of say (for balance), CSICOP's techniques for gathering information that would make them a reliable source? This would be a valuable exercise in establishing a measured standard. Highly unorthodox and I don't see why wiki would need this type of data.. but?. Best regards to you sir. Vufors (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • this article has become bad and tends towards the support of skeptics. we have way too many debunkers deleting sources and a load of important informations just to fit their views and to support the official government stand on this topic. it really used to be a very good articles, now it's laughable as it gives readers the impression that ufos can ALWAYS be identified one way or another. it simply lacks of neutrality. of course nobody does something against this censoring and debunking...i think we all know the reason why. wikipedia once was all good and fair, now it only consists of POV pushers and censors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lead image

The link for the lead image ("A picture taken by J.S. Henrardi on 1990 June 15 during the Belgian UFO wave") was bad, but what it used to say did not support the photograph. It was a collection of hundreds of UFO photos, but there was only one photo from the "Belgian UFO wave", and that was of poorer quality than the one we have here. The fact that a dedicated UFO documentation site doesn't have our photo, or anything else of this quality (at least from Europe), makes me suspicious that our photo was manufactured for Wikipedia, and should therefore be deleted. At the least, we shouldn't word the caption as if it were confirmed. kwami (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Liar liar pants on fire!! http://www.abduct-anon.com/images/AUTHEN5.jpg http://www.abduct-anon.com/AUTHENTIC%20PHOTOS.htm ... i got this from the image summary of that photo...what's your point dude? ah i see...you just want to get rid of the evidence under invalid claims! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Then you should have provided that to begin with. Incompetence on your part does not constitute conspiracy on mine. When I tried the link that was provided, http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/belgium.htm, I got an http error. Then I tried the most recent Wayback record of what had been on the site, and the image wasn't there. I then went to the organization's current web address, and checked their image gallery, and it wasn't there either. kwami (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL just LOL! Talking about incompetence....*rolleyes* anonymous IP users can't upload anything at all...you should know that (the uploader is also mentioned on the image page...and it's not a IP...impossible anyway as already stated...). The source and rationale was given from the beginning by the uploader. How about reading the image summary first and then post :) *chuckle* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
All right, that was really sloppy of me. But the fact that you haven't signed in hardly means that you're unable to upload images when you do sign in. kwami (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ummmmmm....no. If i go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload I get "You must be logged in to upload files.

Return to Main Page." (as a anonymous IP of course...)... and no...i don't have an registered account and don't want one anyway. Too much drama and pov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I am going to request those editing the article to make sure that all viewpoints are represented. I have been seeing one group edit articles under paranormal to where they fit their POV. Please, Please, Please edit in good faith Magnum Serpentine (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

if I may chip in, with reference to the rather testy exchanges above concerning POV and alleged censorship, let us remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, hence it deals in facts and well-referenced statements. As we all know, too many statements in UFOlogy are unsourced, unfounded, or demonstrably untrue. Asking that contributors stick with reliable sources rather than anecdote, whether it be from MUFON or CSICOP, is not censorship, it is simply asking for adherence to the same standards that would apply to a peer-reviewed journal. Skeptic2 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)