Jump to content

Talk:Ufology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Clotten (talk | contribs)
215 edits
 
(360 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skip to TOC}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Controversial}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Paranormal|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=C|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=C|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Top}}
}}
}}
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}


== To be or not to be (science) that is the question ==
==Paul R. Hill's book ''Unconventional flying objects''==
It's a book which provides a math and science based analysis of various UFO cases. Hill was a leading Nasa scientist in the 40s to 70s..his book is clearly a math and science based analysis. I'm surprised there is very little info on this man and his book. I think that book is the gold standard of UFO case analysis because it doesn't go around day dreaming, but uses clear cut math and physics to dissect the cases.
I think there should be a paragraph dedicated to that book.
:There's already a section on this book in his biographical article and this article is so cluttered I don't think it's appropriate. That should definitely be considered for a reference though. [[User:Panyd|Panyd]]<sup>[[User talk:Panyd|The muffin is not subtle]]</sup> 00:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


I would like to have one or more references proving that ufologists consider their ufology to be a science. Of course, there are scientists among ufologists, just as there are scientists among debunkers, but I think it's abusive to consider, without further argument, that ufology is a science, and more, that it considers itself to be one. Where is this written? Who said it? <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> [[User:Mcorrlo|Mcorrlo]] ([[User talk:Mcorrlo|talk]]) 18:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
==Does this need re-editing==
:What you would like and what Wikipedia policy requires are two different things. A statement that 'ufology is generally regarded by skeptics and science educators as an example of pseudoscience' only needs sources concerning the opinions of said skeptics and science educators. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 18:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
'United Kingdom
::Good morning, AndyTheGrump. I understand your point of view. But the question remains. Do the so called ufologists consider themselves ufology a science? To be pseudoscience means that on the other side there are people who claim the status of science for ufology. Who are them? <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> [[User:Mcorrlo|Mcorrlo]] ([[User talk:Mcorrlo|talk]]) 07:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Who are them?}} I believe, Mcorrlo, that you might find some answers to this, and your other, questions in references 3 and 4 of the main article. [[User:JoJo Anthrax|JoJo Anthrax]] ([[User talk:JoJo Anthrax|talk]]) 13:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
::::Yup, we have sources stating that ufology is presented as science. Not that we need them for the statement that 'skeptics and science educators' consider it pseudoscience. To me, the biggest problem with that statement is its restrictiveness. The ''Science, Technology and Society'' source could in fact be cited for ufology being rejected as pseudoscience by mainstream science as a whole. Not just 'skeptics' (though science is built around scepticism) and educators.


::::Mcorrlo, you seem to be trying to argue that the sources we cite for ufology being pseudoscience are invalid, based on your own arguments concerning what can or cannot be described as pseudoscience. We don't do that. That isn't our job. The sources analyse. The sources describe. We report what they say. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 14:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) is the largest and oldest of the active British UFO organizations. It traces its roots to the London UFO Research Association, founded in 1959, which merged with the British UFO Association (BUFOA) to form BUFORA in 1964.''
:::::Indeed, the sources and the claims exist. We are not vouching for the truth of them, only asserting they are there. That is a fact. [[WP:Verifiability]] not [[WP:Truth]]. That there are critics doesn't make the purported controversy disappear. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&amp;6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&amp;6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 14:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::Let us be clear, of course I am not "trying to argue that the sources we cite for ufology being pseudoscience are invalid". Of course they are valid, I was just trying to find the other side.
:::::To me, certainly ufology is not a science, but investigations, reports, some times journalist investigation, and that is the opinion of some so called ufologists.See https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-breaking/2019/09/08/international-ufo-congress-holds-annual-conference-downtown-phoenix/2252176001/. And it can be just "fairy tales " for adults.But I think we may not put everything in the same bag. There is a great difference between Adamsky and Hynek for example. [[User:Mcorrlo|Mcorrlo]] ([[User talk:Mcorrlo|talk]]) 07:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
::::It was a bit difficult, but I found the article and the book for refs 3 and 4. The book is an encyclopaedia, it talks about ufology as a pseudoscience, nothing new. The article is by a professor named Joseph Blake, who nobody knows, and as with source https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-breaking/2019/09/08/international-ufo-congress-holds-annual-conference-downtown-phoenix/2252176001/ I can also say, quoting AndyTheGrump "No, you cannot cherry-pick (questionable) sources like this to make vague claims about what 'some' ufologists think." That is just my coment. [[User:Mcorrlo|Mcorrlo]] ([[User talk:Mcorrlo|talk]]) 07:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::Ok, at this point, I think we're done here. The English-language Wikipedia cites articles from ''[[The Sociological Review]]'' regardless of whether you have heard of the author. If you don't like this, feel free to start your own online encyclopaedia, where ignorance is a valid reason to exclude a source. Policy on sourcing has been explained to you, repeatedly, and it isn't open to negotiation here. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 08:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::Well, I hope you are not calling me ignorant...
::::::I can not cite Hynek, but you can cite Joseph Blake...and please, do not be kind of agressive. Greetings! Yes, as you say, weŕe done here. [[User:Mcorrlo|Mcorrlo]] ([[User talk:Mcorrlo|talk]]) 12:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


== Triangle photo at the top ==
Firstly the article claims that BUFORA is the ''oldest active Brisitsh UFO organisation'' but the [[Aetherius Society]] has also been dubbed by the media as the oldest UFO organisation in Great Britain, being founded in 1955 by George King. Sources for this can be provided if neccessary. [[User:Yogiadept|Yogiadept]] ([[User talk:Yogiadept|talk]]) 14:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


A user has noted that the lede image on this page states that it was "taken by Patrick Maréchal", but when you click on the image, it clearly states it was taken by "J.S. Henrardi".
==old talk==
Need some help here. - [[User:Sigg3.net|Sigg3.net]] 19:42, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


There are two cites in the caption, neither of which contains this photo. They contain a different photo which *is* claimed by Patrick Maréchal. The photo found here can be found online, always alluding to Henrardi.
:What sort? People will help if they can [[User:Moriori|Moriori]] 21:54, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)


So unless there is additional information to be presented, it appears this image is misattributed, and following the links leads only to questionable web pages.
::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. - [[User:Sigg3.net|Sigg3.net]] 23:10, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


[[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 19:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::Changed ''no physical evidence'' to ''any conclusive evidence'', since physical evidence HAS been found and published. - [[User:Sigg3.net|Sigg3.net]] 23:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
:The photo (the only one taken) was by Patrick Maréchal. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)


::This is not the image that PM took, as I explained. This one was taken by JHS, ''as it says on the Commons page''. If you have concerns that the attribution on the Commons is incorrect then you should look into that, but in any case, this is ''not'' the one that PM took, [[:File:Patrick Maréchal UFO photo uncropped.jpg|this is the image PM took]], which I have taken the time to upload and place. [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 17:07, 4 December 2024 (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. [[User:Moriori|Moriori]] 00:02, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
:::NO and it seems to me that it is very poorly sourced, so I have removed it. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I don't know what "no" means in this context, but I'm perfectly happy removing it. [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 17:14, 4 December 2024 (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... - [[User:Sigg3.net|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. [[User:Moriori|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). - [[User:Sigg3.net|Sigg3.net]] 23:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

----

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

: A lot could be said about the UFO subculture which could fall under Ufology... [[User:Dysprosia|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 - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 12:22, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

:::No, no, no and no. Have a look at [http://www.ufo.no 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. - [[User:Sigg3.net|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. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 13:10, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

::::I'll see what I can do. - [[User:Sigg3.net|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?

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

== The Bible talked about this ==
The demons from heaven to earth come and have relations with the women of men to produce the Giant race both before and after the flood. It also says that the last days will be similar to the time of Noah. Therefore I expect the "demons" will take on flesh and come to earth again. These so called Aliens are demons and their father is the father of lies. So I would not *talk* to them but pray to God. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.232.34.40|71.232.34.40]] ([[User talk:71.232.34.40|talk]]) 19:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== cats? ==

Why can't Ufology be in [[:Category:Pseudoscience]]? ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] <sup>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]])</sup> 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 [[Special:Contributions/82.46.47.172|82.46.47.172]] ([[User talk:82.46.47.172|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 15:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::But i think you're wrong..there is a great deal about UFOs that has been measured and scientifically analyzed. I refer specifically to Paul R. Hill's book '' Unconventional flying objects''. Hill was a leading Nasa scientist in the 40s to 70s..his book is clearly a math and science based analysis. Actually i'll make a request on this page to have info on it included either hereon the ufology page or on the ufo page. I really think you should read it, it's not your average ufo book.
::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. --[[User:Opacic|Opacic]] ([[User talk:Opacic|talk]]) 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::: Paul R. Hill's book Unconventional flying objects. Hill was a leading Nasa scientist in the 40s to 70s..his book is clearly a math and science based analysis. Actually i'll make a request on this page to have info on it included either hereon the ufology page or on the ufo page. I really think you should read it, it's not your average ufo book.


*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."

==============================
On Pseudoscience & Neologisms
==============================

With particular reference to the question of pseudoscience, it should first be noted that the word "pseudoscience" is simply a technocratic euphemism for "illegitimate" and as such is little more than part of the skeptic's name-calling vocabulary, especially when used in a derogatory fashion, which is usually the case. Therefore its use should be considered as bias, and given far less attention, not only here, but in other articles as well, with any details of such criticism being allocated to the Pseudoscience entry, rather than the topic being discussed.

However, even if we accept that the use of labels such as pseudoscience are a valid commentary, according to Wikipedia's own definition of pseudoscience, "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific ...", then those who are performing the alledged pseudoscience must first "present it as science". Yet I see no quotes or references in this article to ufologists who have made the claim that ufology is science, or any references to data that skeptics claim ( with evidence as opposed to opinion ) that qualifies as pseudoscience. It seems more evident that some skeptic has simply labeled it as pseudoscience and we are left to take their word for it.

I will also point the editor's attention to the definition of ufology by the Ufology Society International, a ufology interest group that has been in existence for over 20 years, It is simple and to the point: "Ufology is the study of the UFO phenomenon." There is no claim by USI that ufology is science. USI does go on to point out the following: "Ufology is in and of itself neither science nor pseudoscience. It is a pursuit to gather knowledge that will lead to a true and comprehensive understanding of the UFO phenomenon. Certainly when this pursuit is undertaken by scientists who examine the available evidence with scientific tools and methods, there is no doubt that science is taking place." How can this be disputed? Also, in its "What Is Ufology" segment, an even older UFO interest group MUFON, does not make any claim that ufology is a science. Again, this points to an excessive focus on ufology as a pseudoscience in this article. It would have be sufficient to have simply said, "Some skeptics ( with references and a link to the Skeptics entry ) have labeled ufology as a pseudoscience."

By the way, it cannot be claimed that the USI definition is unworthy of inclusion because it is biased. If Wikipedia were to disallow all content derived from studies by those who do the studies, there would be no content at all. The definition of ufology by USI is just as valid as the definition of astrobiology as endorsed by astrobiologists. In fact, when examined objectively, the topic of astrobiology is just as much a quagmire as ufology, with no conclusive proof and plenty of theories, yet nobody calls astrobiology a pseudoscience or a neologism, even though both words were introduced during the 1950s and have been in use for over half a century.

Furthermore being classed as a neologism has the effect of marginalization ( a typical tactic of biased skeptics ), and there is no citation in this article to any definition of ufology that uses the phrase "neologism". Just like the word "pseudoscience", it has just been thrown in there as if it were fact. If this article has been tainted by bias in any way, it has been at the hands of unconstructive skeptics, or those who fail to recognize their tactics for what they are.

==============================
End Pseudoscience & Neologisms
==============================

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![[User:Vufors|Vufors]] ([[User talk:Vufors|talk]]) 13:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

:: UFOlogy certainly does not pass the test of "correcting and integrating previous knowledge", I doubt that it passes the test of "acquiring new knowledge", and only rarely does it pass the test of "investigating phenomena", since most of UFOlogy consists of repeating unsubstantiated claims and adding more speculation to them. [[User:Skeptic2|Skeptic2]] ([[User talk:Skeptic2|talk]]) 12:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There are two main strands to whether Ufology is pseudoscience

1) It is logical to assume that "sentient life having evolved once in the universe" it will evolve elsewhere. The "issue" is whether such "sentients-not-from-Earth" would come here, and, if so, what they would do with the planet and its inhabitants.

2) There are many "strange phenomena" that are not explicable by the viewer/collective wisdom "in the skies" (intentionally ambiguous). A proportion can be resolved ([[ball lightning]], [[sun dogs]], and other atmospheric phenomena, military and other craft whose existence is not generally known), [[dirigible]]s seen at peculiar angles, and the descriptions of some phenomena will be in the language/symbology that the describer knows, and thus capable of later misinterpretation - [[Halley's Comet]] on the [[Bayeaux Tapestry]] etc.

Ufology is an attempt to interpret the "otherwise unexplained items" of (2) in terms of an extrapolation of (1) that cannot presently be justified; and, in the context of "ancient alien visitors" that persons of X thousand years ago were not as ingenious as we are (rather than having different priorities/timescales, not recording everything that they did). [[User:Jackiespeel|Jackiespeel]] ([[User talk:Jackiespeel|talk]]) 14:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Someone wrote "There is no fact or measurable evidence for the existence of UFOs." This is a rather ignorant statement. This is one of the difficulties that comes up when those who are not actually scientists start forming opinions about scientific topics. [[User:Gingermint|Gingermint]] ([[User talk:Gingermint|talk]]) 22:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

== Merge UFO categorization ==

*'''Keep''' I dont see why this needs to be done unless we are trying to save space (shrink article size) (:O) -[[User:Nima_Baghaei|Nima Baghaei]] <sup>[[User_talk:Nima_Baghaei|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Nima_Baghaei|cont]] · [[Special:Emailuser/Nima_Baghaei|email]]</sup> 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

== 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. [[User:217.155.20.163|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. --[[User:Opacic|Opacic]] ([[User talk:Opacic|talk]]) 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:Seems to be inactual as of circa 2008 Apr, now UFOlogy is on advance, whether we like it or not. ''<span style="color: #800000; background-color: #FFFFA0; padding: 1px 2px 3px 2px">Said: [[User:Rursus|<span style="color: blue">Rursus</span>]] [[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: #800000">☻</span>]]</span>'' 09:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

== Pronunciation? ==

Is it pronounced you-eff-ology or you-fology? [[User:74.106.20.73|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. [[User:RooZ|<font style="color: #4169e1; font-weight: bold;">R</font><font style="color: #123456; font-weight: bold;;">oo</font><font style="color: #4169e1; font-weight: bold;">Z</font>]] 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

==[[History of Ufology]]==
This new article is unreferenced and poorly wikified, it may get deleted unless improved soon.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 04:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
*New???? First edit/entry are listed as 2003 December 6. [[User:Vufors|Vufors]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/208.82.225.232|208.82.225.232]] ([[User talk:208.82.225.232|talk]]) 06:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
::We're not insane of course, it's just the world around us that doesn't understand our splendor! ''<span style="color: #800000; background-color: #FFFFA0; padding: 1px 2px 3px 2px">Said: [[User:Rursus|<span style="color: blue">Rursus</span>]] [[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: #800000">☻</span>]]</span>'' 09:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:**Have another look! [[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ufology&diff=217389314&oldid=1887683]] [[User:Vufors|Vufors]] ([[User talk:Vufors|talk]]) 03:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

==Suspected hoax section==
Some very small WP:fringe is trying to perpetuate the article [[Atmospheric beast]], a concept seemingly invented by this WP:fringe, not by Sagan as alleged. The section ''Atmosphere beast hypothesis'' is a typical example of this atmospheric beast mad ramblings, possibly referring to unrelated articles of unreason. I'll take a look, and if it appears that [[Atmospheric beast]] is some kind of "WP:OR" of the hoax type, then it will be instantly killed, and the Sagan part moved to some scifi article to where that text belongs. ''<span style="color: #800000; background-color: #FFFFA0; padding: 1px 2px 3px 2px">Said: [[User:Rursus|<span style="color: blue">Rursus</span>]] [[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: #800000">☻</span>]]</span>'' 09:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:Do a search on Trever James Constable and critters. I'm surprised that's not in the Ab article. [[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 15:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::I've tested googling "Ivan T. Sanderson" and "Atmospheric beast" and got 7 bummer hits, either "info" copied from "Wikipedia" and list of "fortean" creatures where Ivan T. Sanderson was mentioned, but not connected with "Atmospheric beast" see [[Talk:Ivan T. Sanderson]] on why the [[Atmospheric beast]] has nothing to do with him. I'll take a look at that "Trevor James Constable" or variants. ''<span style="color: #800000; background-color: #FFFFA0; padding: 1px 2px 3px 2px">Said: [[User:Rursus|<span style="color: blue">Rursus</span>]] [[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: #800000">☻</span>]]</span>'' 20:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::The following guys does not exist: [[Trevor James Constable]], [[Trevor Constable]], [[Trevor James]], [[Trevor J. Constable]] on WP. The following combinations of "Atmospheric beast" with "Trevor ''something''" gives 2 or fewer google hits, all copies or inspirations from WP: "Trevor James Constable": 2; "Trevor Constable": 1; "Trevor James": 2; "Trevor J. Constable": 2. The case for hoax strengthens. ''<span style="color: #800000; background-color: #FFFFA0; padding: 1px 2px 3px 2px">Said: [[User:Rursus|<span style="color: blue">Rursus</span>]] [[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: #800000">☻</span>]]</span>'' 20:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::The following link support the sections' claims: [http://www.burlingtonnews.net/ufooverburlington21.html UFOs OVER BURLINGTON WISCONSIN], but there are no [[Atmospheric beast]]s, the article I'm explicitly trying to kill. However: the link is from 2005. I'm going to track whether that WP section in question was written near in time to 2005. An ufologist named Trevor James Constable existed. ''<span style="color: #800000; background-color: #FFFFA0; padding: 1px 2px 3px 2px">Said: [[User:Rursus|<span style="color: blue">Rursus</span>]] [[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: #800000">☻</span>]]</span>'' 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:The section looked like this in [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ufology&diff=53150795&oldid=52794366 12 May 2006]:
::'''Sky Critter Hypothesis'''
::The theory of [[Trevor James Contable]] (a.k.a. Trevor James) speculated that UFO sightings involve the sighting of exotic unknown life otherwise known as '''[[Sky Critters]]''' or '''Rods'''.
:I'll restore it accordingly, removing later added desinformation and false links. The connexions alleged in [[Atmospheric beast]], an invented name, don't exist. For now, and more after I've hunted down the beast! ''<span style="color: #800000; background-color: #FFFFA0; padding: 1px 2px 3px 2px">Said: [[User:Rursus|<span style="color: blue">Rursus</span>]] [[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: #800000">☻</span>]]</span>'' 20:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::Done! Removed HOAX template, one source exist, however fringy. ''<span style="color: #800000; background-color: #FFFFA0; padding: 1px 2px 3px 2px">Said: [[User:Rursus|<span style="color: blue">Rursus</span>]] [[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: #800000">☻</span>]]</span>'' 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

:::So how about [[Atmospheric beast]], AfD? [[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

== A very misleading phrase ==
"Even UFO cases that are exposed as hoaxes, delusions or misidentifications may still be worthy of serious study from a psychosocial point of view" -- This phrase is very misleading because it implies that the object of psychosocial research should be the "UFO cases" instead of the crazy people who talk about them. [[Special:Contributions/66.65.129.159|66.65.129.159]] ([[User talk:66.65.129.159|talk]]) 22:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

==Ancient origins==
One might add that although there's 3 traceable origins to UFOs in recent history, Zecharia Sitchin argues that there are archeological records, and ancient paintings, that depict UFOs. Knights spoke of "Shields in the sky" <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.84.46.103|24.84.46.103]] ([[User talk:24.84.46.103|talk]]) 19:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Aliens eating people==

Who says ''that''? http://www.maar.us and http://www.ufocasebook.com Re.: Search: Alien Races/ Alien Species, Re.: [[Reptoid]]s, and Re.: [[Greys]] claim that these aliens are known to these researchers to consume humans, and may explain why some people "go missing", "disappear". These should be placed in the category "Hostile aliens" in this article. [[User:Powerzilla|Powerzilla]] ([[User talk:Powerzilla|talk]]) 02:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

:Only pointing out who claimed that aliens do eat people, nothing more, nothing less. [[User:Powerzilla|Powerzilla]] ([[User talk:Powerzilla|talk]]) 02:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

== Frederick C. Crews ==

If anyone is interested, [[Frederick C. Crews]] has published a series of reviews of books on ufos at [[The New York Review of Books]] - [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=800] not free unfortunately. There's also some back-and-forth that looks pretty juicy. [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/724]. I'm going to spam this to a couple other pages too. [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 18:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

==Natural Explanation Found for UFOs ==

This site: [[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,499224,00.html]] talks about a natural explanation found for UFOs.[[User:Agre22|Agre22]] ([[User talk:Agre22|talk]]) 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)agre22

== Bogus Debunking ==
I think this article should somehow mention that the countering/debunking/rationalising of UFO reports can be very bogus. I mean, regardless of the actual case, media or even official explanations stretching to ridiculous extremities, on par with the worst believer nonsense : several hundred mph moving phenomem labeled "lenticular could", dozens of witnesses relegated to "stains in front of the eye", daylight close observations assimilated to "Venus mistaken" etc. Seems to me noticeable enough to be mentioned, but I just toss the idea here and let others do the confirm/refute/source work. Oh, and good luck on maintaining Wikipedia standards on such a hot topic. --[[User:Musaran|Musaran]] ([[User talk:Musaran|talk]]) 12:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:It's always interesting when speeds and distances are quoted for objects without any justification. Most people who think they've seen a UFO tend to misjudge both. There's no reason to believe the "measurements" they reported. By the way, Venus is bright enough to be seen in the daytime with the naked eye. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 14:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Very true - and as long as you know *PRECISELY* where to look ...and preferably have a set of binoculars. Just sayin'. [[User:Tonybaldacci|Tonybaldacci]] ([[User talk:Tonybaldacci|talk]]) 05:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

== POV ==

At present, this article is written in a tone and in a way that mainly gives credence to the "UFOs are real' viewpoint. Large sections, including the intro, seem to simply be trying to advocate for the legitimacy of this viewpoint or of UFOlogy in general. The mainstream scientific viewpoints are relegated to a relatively small section. A more balanced view should be given throughout, particularly in the intro. I am therefore adding the point-of-view template.[[User:Locke9k|Locke9k]] ([[User talk:Locke9k|talk]]) 05:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
:The article is a total mess and needs a serious rewrite. It should be about ufology itself, and not go into excruciating details on alleged UFO cases and ET theories. [[Special:Contributions/80.221.43.22|80.221.43.22]] ([[User talk:80.221.43.22|talk]]) 10:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
::Please feel free to help. It's been a mess for a while. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 14:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
:::I'll try to translate the far superior [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufologie German-language article]. [[Special:Contributions/80.221.43.22|80.221.43.22]] ([[User talk:80.221.43.22|talk]]) 16:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Hopefully the article is now slightly more readable [[Special:Contributions/80.221.43.22|80.221.43.22]] ([[User talk:80.221.43.22|talk]]) 15:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

==Copy edit==

I've just completed a copy edit and cleanup for this article. The current version of the article could definitely qualify as GA, and MAYBE FA (though it'll take more research) if someone were to do the following:

* Expand the lead section to accommodate the length of the article
* Tidy up the "Notable studies, panels and conferences in ufology"; maybe remove a few of the non-notable studies and publications, such as the RAND Corporation paper and maybe the two American press conferences, sort by decade or country instead of individual study or conference, or anything else.
* '''Consistency'''. References are not in a consistent format, dates in the article and references switch from MM-DD-YYYY to DD-MM-YYYY occasionally (I've tried to switch everything I could catch to month-day-year), and some titles of publications are italicized / in quotations, while some are not (see [[WP:ITALIC|here]] for the rules on italics, [[WP:ITALIC#When_not_to_use_italics|here]] for the rules on quotation marks).
* Reorganize the placement of references in the text; they should always be placed ''after'' a full-stop or after a comma. I also recommend you avoid placing them after a comma unless you really want to specify what text the reference is targeting, or if there are many references for one sentence (I mean, you don't want fifteen references side-to-side).
* Check out the [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style]] for a few more pointers to correct. There is also a nice [[User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet|checklist]] to help out.

If there are are any questions, visit my talk page; I'd be glad to help out. '''<sub><font color="#4B0000">Eric</font></sub><small><font color="#550000">Leb</font></small><sup><font color="#660000">01</font></sup> <small>([[User:Ericleb01|Page]] &#124; [[User talk:Ericleb01|Talk]])</small>''' 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

== Systematic deletion of pages related to UFOlogy, UFOs, "aliens", and interdimensional beings? Misrepresentations in articles? ==

I've been noticing some deletions and suggestions for deletions of various pages related to UFOlogy.

And just as we find during times of sightings, we might be seeing some examples of misrepresentations, misinformation, or disinformation. I find this disturbing, and would like investigators and students of UFOlogy/[[Ufology]] to keep watch. I suggest/propose that this be an organized watch.

'''Examples of deletions (selected)''':
* [[List of life forms]]. This was just deleted a few days ago. I requested that it be undeleted. It's back—for now. It may need some work.
* [[Non-physical entity]]. Being considered for deletion. Needs more citations, and some rewriting to keep it from being a "synth". There is even a Project Page and its own Talk page, related to discussions about deletion.
* [[Interdimensional being]]. Old deletion?
* [[Interdimensional travel]]. Old deletion?
* [[Missing time]]. Deletion proposed on the Talk page. There is NO WAY this should be deleted, but it is VERY sparse, and needs several citations to be added, as well as several more examples. (Currently, there is only 1 example listed, making the article seem "anecdotal". Not good.)
* Others.

'''Example of misrepresentations/misinformation/disinformation (selected)''':
* [[Phoenix Lights]]. I tried to make factual changes several months ago to this article, but my changes were Undone. I was ticked enough to go out and partially reread – and write notes in – the famous Dr. Kitei book, and watch a video about "The Phoenix Lights", just so that I could do two main things: '''1''') Fix confusing and false descriptions of various time orders of sightings. (The article made it seem like there were only two types of sightings to consider.) '''2''') Add citations regarding the CRAFT that people thought they saw. The article read like it was mostly if not ONLY lights, in spots in the article, which is simply not true. I found several pages in the book which refer to what was seen as "craft" (and even "crafts", lol).
* Others.

Please LIST other examples in your comments just below this. Thanks.

I want to see the facts and various hypotheses kept intact!

Is there UFO Portal page? Would it be advisable?

How can people organize a watch by students and investigators of these phenomena, rather than seeing skeptics and "debunkers" pick off or diminish articles one by one? If they do so, it would typically and likely be done quietly/silently. Therefore, there MUST be a watch kept. (If I had more time, and more experience here, I might spearhead it.)

Please don't edit my comments above. Please comment below this. Thanks!

[[User:Misty MH|Misty MH]] ([[User talk:Misty MH|talk]]) 03:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


: Please comment here. :) [[User:Misty MH|Misty MH]] ([[User talk:Misty MH|talk]]) 21:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

== Brookings Report ==

Does it not belong here as it suggests that the gov't would be interested in a coverup?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Report
<blockquote>While not specifically recommending a cover-up of evidence of extraterrestrial life, Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs does suggest that contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life (or strong evidence of its reality) could have a disruptive effect on human societies. Moreover, it does mention the possibility that leadership might wish to withhold evidence of extraterrestrial life from the public under some conditions...</blockquote>
[[User:Kortoso|Kortoso]] ([[User talk:Kortoso|talk]]) 19:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

==Academic ridicule==
This section should be deleted. Pseudoscientists claiming mainstream scientists ridicules their pseudoscience is completely irrelevant. Of course their are ridiculed, it's an intrinsic property of pseudoscience as well as a result of it being such - not the other way around. [[Special:Contributions/79.223.154.236|79.223.154.236]] ([[User talk:79.223.154.236|talk]]) 03:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
: Agreed, with caveats. The information in that paragraph is not useless. I've merged it into the section "as a pseudoscience". The section heading "Academic Ridicule" Seemed, as you say, loaded with POV and un-encyclopedic. Please discuss if reverting, many thanks.[[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 05:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

== First use of term ==

Earlier first-use than cited: "An Introduction to Ufology" by Ivan T. Sanderson, Feb. 1957 issue of Fantastic Universe, in which, he concludes:

"What we need, in fact, is the immediate establishment of a respectable new science named Ufology." <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Erikspen|Erikspen]] ([[User talk:Erikspen|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erikspen|contribs]]) 17:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== ''Gesellschaft zur Erforschung des UFO-Phänomens e.V.'' ==

Hallo Alex

Please insert - thank you !

The german society ''Gesellschaft zur Erforschung des UFO-Phänomens e.V.'' (Society for the Exploration of the UFO phenomenon) was foundet 1972 in Lüdenscheid. Chairman and founder is Hans-Werner Peiniger. There is a regularly published magazine for members in german, the name is ''Journal für UFO-Forschung'' (Journal for UFO research).

--[[User:Merlin1960|Merlin1960]] ([[User talk:Merlin1960|talk]]) 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
:Got any good [[WP:FRIND]] sources that describe it? [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 10:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

== MENTION DR. R.LEO SPRINKLE PHD,FAMED UFOLOGIST! ==

NOMEMTION OF THE FAMED UFOLOGISTS, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST DR. R.LEO SPRINKLE.Dr.Sprnkle hyponitized the late betty Hill of the famous UFO abduction case of bettyy and Barney Hill of 1960s era! Dr. Sprinkles 85th Birthday will be Aug.30th ,2016, Thats the date for GlOBAL UFO FULL DISCLOOSURE DAY TOO! Thanks! Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC Founder Global Energy Indeppendence Day July.10th Nikola Teslas Birthday![[Special:Contributions/104.34.181.144|104.34.181.144]] ([[User talk:104.34.181.144|talk]]) 19:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
:[http://americanloons.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/1168-r-leo-sprinkle.html Oh dear] -[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog™]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|bark]] 20:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


:This is why we can't have nice things. With all due respect to Dr. Sprinkle, the article is "Ufology", not "Ufologists", and there is no real reason to include him. You know, if you post here, please: a. DON'T SHOUT, and b. Please ''proofread your post'', and use a dictionary if you're not sure about spelling. Merci beaucoup. --[[User:Tonybaldacci|Tonybaldacci]] ([[User talk:Tonybaldacci|talk]]) 05:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

== Rampant Bias by Wiki editors re: UFOs ==

Discuss and link to specific examples here. Removing "Science in Default" as an introductory citation is #ignorant. The citation I offered literally is a lecture @ the AAAS introduced by Carl Sagan. It is unquestionably relevant for all time. Anyone who disagrees is ignorant about science, philosophy, and UFOs.

Latest revision as of 17:14, 4 December 2024

To be or not to be (science) that is the question

[edit]

I would like to have one or more references proving that ufologists consider their ufology to be a science. Of course, there are scientists among ufologists, just as there are scientists among debunkers, but I think it's abusive to consider, without further argument, that ufology is a science, and more, that it considers itself to be one. Where is this written? Who said it? ~~~~ Mcorrlo (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you would like and what Wikipedia policy requires are two different things. A statement that 'ufology is generally regarded by skeptics and science educators as an example of pseudoscience' only needs sources concerning the opinions of said skeptics and science educators. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, AndyTheGrump. I understand your point of view. But the question remains. Do the so called ufologists consider themselves ufology a science? To be pseudoscience means that on the other side there are people who claim the status of science for ufology. Who are them? ~~~~ Mcorrlo (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are them? I believe, Mcorrlo, that you might find some answers to this, and your other, questions in references 3 and 4 of the main article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, we have sources stating that ufology is presented as science. Not that we need them for the statement that 'skeptics and science educators' consider it pseudoscience. To me, the biggest problem with that statement is its restrictiveness. The Science, Technology and Society source could in fact be cited for ufology being rejected as pseudoscience by mainstream science as a whole. Not just 'skeptics' (though science is built around scepticism) and educators.
Mcorrlo, you seem to be trying to argue that the sources we cite for ufology being pseudoscience are invalid, based on your own arguments concerning what can or cannot be described as pseudoscience. We don't do that. That isn't our job. The sources analyse. The sources describe. We report what they say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the sources and the claims exist. We are not vouching for the truth of them, only asserting they are there. That is a fact. WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. That there are critics doesn't make the purported controversy disappear. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let us be clear, of course I am not "trying to argue that the sources we cite for ufology being pseudoscience are invalid". Of course they are valid, I was just trying to find the other side.
To me, certainly ufology is not a science, but investigations, reports, some times journalist investigation, and that is the opinion of some so called ufologists.See https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-breaking/2019/09/08/international-ufo-congress-holds-annual-conference-downtown-phoenix/2252176001/. And it can be just "fairy tales " for adults.But I think we may not put everything in the same bag. There is a great difference between Adamsky and Hynek for example. Mcorrlo (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a bit difficult, but I found the article and the book for refs 3 and 4. The book is an encyclopaedia, it talks about ufology as a pseudoscience, nothing new. The article is by a professor named Joseph Blake, who nobody knows, and as with source https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-breaking/2019/09/08/international-ufo-congress-holds-annual-conference-downtown-phoenix/2252176001/ I can also say, quoting AndyTheGrump "No, you cannot cherry-pick (questionable) sources like this to make vague claims about what 'some' ufologists think." That is just my coment. Mcorrlo (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, at this point, I think we're done here. The English-language Wikipedia cites articles from The Sociological Review regardless of whether you have heard of the author. If you don't like this, feel free to start your own online encyclopaedia, where ignorance is a valid reason to exclude a source. Policy on sourcing has been explained to you, repeatedly, and it isn't open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope you are not calling me ignorant...
I can not cite Hynek, but you can cite Joseph Blake...and please, do not be kind of agressive. Greetings! Yes, as you say, weŕe done here. Mcorrlo (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle photo at the top

[edit]

A user has noted that the lede image on this page states that it was "taken by Patrick Maréchal", but when you click on the image, it clearly states it was taken by "J.S. Henrardi".

There are two cites in the caption, neither of which contains this photo. They contain a different photo which *is* claimed by Patrick Maréchal. The photo found here can be found online, always alluding to Henrardi.

So unless there is additional information to be presented, it appears this image is misattributed, and following the links leads only to questionable web pages.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo (the only one taken) was by Patrick Maréchal. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the image that PM took, as I explained. This one was taken by JHS, as it says on the Commons page. If you have concerns that the attribution on the Commons is incorrect then you should look into that, but in any case, this is not the one that PM took, this is the image PM took, which I have taken the time to upload and place. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NO and it seems to me that it is very poorly sourced, so I have removed it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "no" means in this context, but I'm perfectly happy removing it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ufology&oldid=1261169748"