Wikipedia

Talk:Politics of outer space/Archive 1

< Talk:Politics of outer space
(Redirected from Talk:Exopolitics/Archive2)
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Dchall1 in topic Exopolitics in it's new & old perpose
Archive 1

Vfd discussion

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Exopolitics was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to redirect

Exopolitics

Neologism, original research, dubious factuality, possible copyvio. - KeithTyler 20:50, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Resolved. I decimated, merged, and redirected to Extraterrestrial life, which I cleaned up and expanded a bit while there (so the merge wouldn't make it lopsided, which I hate). - KeithTyler 23:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Update: Given the amount of near-vandalism on this discussion, and the editing that is going on the article in the meantime, it's pretty clear that deletion will probably not work as an option, as the article will only be re-created. (I had no idea there were so many sock-covered hands watching this one. I won't speculate upon what metal they are wearing on their heads.) I will have to go ahead with some combination of decimate-merge-redirect, and then sit on this one, and look forward to a revert war. - KeithTyler 19:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Update 2: Can someone find a better place for a merge and redirect? Ufology is lacking, Extraterrestrial life also lacking, Astrosociobiology too focused to be appropriate. TIA - KeithTyler 19:28, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, "Exopolitics: A Decade of Contact" seems to say it all for me. -Vina 22:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep! - Its a real term, not neologism. -- Crevaner 23:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, then find me a dicdef at dictionary.com [1] or even Merriam-Webster [2]. Even WordSpy doesn't have it [3]. - KeithTyler 00:32, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Who boasts of an MEd? They come in the bottom of cereal boxes now. At any rate, when we get representation in the exoparliamentary bodies and can exoembargo the exostates, we will need to worry about exopolitics. For now, this is exorational. Geogre 00:21, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Good god, will we have to start worrying about losing our jobs to exoshoring? - KeithTyler
  • Keep, its a good article. Eventually more information will be added to make it better. -- Old Right 15:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The term does get over 4,000 Google hits, but the current content seems in need of, ummm, NPOVing? (Sigh) I'm trying not to mention tin-foil hats and I just failed. No vote at present. Andrewa 18:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Nearly all of those have to do with Michael Salla (who owns exopolitics.org), Alfred Webre (who wrote the book Exopolitics), Universe Books (who supposedly published the book), or are spams posted to mailing lists and forums. I dunno. Does two people, a website, and a book all on a dubiously factual and neological topic count as notable? Some of those links claim that exopolitics is just another word for ufology. - KeithTyler
      • Delete. Well put. Andrewa 07:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Semi-proprietary jargon. Jallan 16:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Beam it up, Scotty. - Tεxτurε 17:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • (Ineligible anon vote:) Keep! I just finished a course in Exopolitics. - Robert Colee - http://global33.com
  • Keep Exopolitics is a legitimate field of human knowledge and scholarly inquiry. There are many objective hallmarks of academic scholarhsip which demonstrate Exopolitic's legitimacy.

Exopolitics as a discipline is the study of politics, government and law in the Universe, and includes the politics of extraterrestrial contact by Off-Planet Cultures with Earth or with humans in space. As a science, Exopolitics derives its primary scientific data base via the scientific method from the following Categories of data: Category A – Voluntary Conscious Physical Contactees Category B – Involuntary Semi-Conscious Physical Contactees (Abductees) Category C – Voluntary Semi-Conscious Alter-physical Contactees (Star People) Category D – Voluntary Psychic Contactees (Channelers and Visionaries) Category E – Neutral Psychic Contactees (Remote Viewers and Shamans) Category F – Whistle-Blowers From Inside Secret Government Category G – Documentary Evidence From Government Category H- Superficial Excited Witnesses and Sightings Reports Category I – Astute Debriefers, Debunkers and Interpreters Category J – Alien Artifacts Category K – Independent Archeology Category L – Occult Societies Category M – Science Fiction Category N: Revelations authorized by Universe Governance Bodies. There has been, for example, an International Exopolitics Conference (http://www.paradigmclock.com/X-Conference/X-Conference.htm), held in Washington, DC in April 2004, at which many of the researchers writing in the field of Exopolitics participated. Alfred Lambremont Webre's book, Exopolitics: A Decade of Contact (http://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2004/07/exopolitics_a_d.html) (Universebooks, 2000; Brazil: EditoraMW, 2004), published in the year 2000, was the original book to define the formal field of Exopolitics (the study of law, governance and politics in the Universe)." Webre's first June 2000 book in the field of Exopolitics was followed two and one-half years later by Dr. Salla's initial January 20, 2003 article "Research Study #1 - January 20, 2003. "The Need for Exopolitics: Implications of the Extraterrestrial Conspiracy Theories for Policy Makers and Global Peace" (http://www.exopolitics.org/Study-Paper1.htm), which cited Webre's and many other scholar's prior work. Exopolitics7:29 PM, Sept 20, 2004 (UTC)

    • Sockpuppet, first/only edit is this discussion. - KeithTyler
  • Keep There is enough credible evidence pointing to the fact that we are not alone in the Universe. Former CIA remote viewers (http://www.courtneybrown.com/publications/cosmic.html / http://www.davidmorehouse.com & many more...), to former government/military whistleblowers (http://www.disclosureproject.org), to experiencers (http://www.centerchange.org/passport) to contactees (http://www.eceti.org) We need to evolve a potential political understanding of law in the Universe to better understand how we fit within its possible hierarchy of higher intelligence. Alfred Webre was the head investigator of President Carter's proposed ET/UFO investigation study in 1977 through Stanford Research Institute and has credentials. Our world is clearly being engaged by a higher intelligence and we need to find ways to establish diplomacy by first understanding how the Universe culture is organized. --Pierre2012 17:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

DELETE! It's Salla's proprietary term, mostly meaningless to other UFO researchers.

Unfortunately, to be fair, also a sockpuppet (User:Luciuspym). - KeithTyler

KEEP--there is certainly a great deal of evidence, even physical, that we are not only not alone in the universe, but have been visited many times over the centuries. The US Govt and military know this very well! We need to have intelligent dialogue, not denial and cover-up! Acknowledgment of the existence of another is the first step toward communication, in all types of relationships. (User celestialleo)

  • KEEP!!! This is a new term that may have many uses in the future. I observe that there is much infighting among UFO researchers, but that is no reason to remove a perfectly logical word that exactly describes the subject matter. I note that most delete votes include comments that either ridicule or invoke 'the giggle factor', rather than valid reasons for deletion. In any event, it is a new term in use in our language, and should have a definition listed here for the curious. Our belief in extraterrestrial intelligence is NOT a prerequisite for their existence. I imagine we'll eventually need to use this term, whether we like it or not. -Marilyn, Sept. 21, 2004
Sockpuppet (User:Mrlynt1), who also for some reason edited some junk into my opening comment. - KeithTyler
  • Delete - Even ignoring possible copyright vios, it's impossible to have a political dialogue with species and civilizations that we cannot even prove exist. No "giggle factor", this just plain cannot exist. Maybe worth something if slashed to the bone and rewritten as a purely theoretical article (but even then, pretty much worthless and not very encyclopedic). Rewrite it when aliens visit the UN. ClockworkTroll 06:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If anything, decimate, merge, and redirect (to Ufology). - KeithTyler 06:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • In spite of my deepest respect for "UFO researchers", I'm afraid this is as obscure as it is speculative. I agree wholeheartedly with KeithTyler above. This isn't a repository for pseudoscience. Sorry, I meant to say "open-minded science". Binadot 14:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Harvard Medical School professor Dr.John Mack has done much research about alien/human encounters and has even met the Dalai Lama in this regard in 1999. --Pierre2012 18:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Second comment: Former Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, the 6th man to have walked on the moon, confirms the ET/UFO cover-up: http://www.soultravel.nu/2004/040813-Mitchell/ and http://www.sptimes.com/2004/02/18/Neighborhoodtimes/Astronaut__We_ve_had_.shtml Also, former astronautGordon Cooper also confirmsthe UFO cover-up. Indeed, this is not pseudoscience but a reality that we need to address and exopolitics will help humanity to better understand what all of this means. --Pierre2012 18:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's too bad he doesn't think to put any of this socially critical information on his webpage, else there's a glimmer of a chance that I might buy it. - KeithTyler

(Sockpuppet, first/only edit is this discussion:) KEEP:This is a subject that is not only important now but will be of more importance in the future.--Agondonter 21:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

(Sockpuppet, first/only edit is this discussion:) KEEP! Perhaps there is much to learn from the field of exopolitics that is broadly regarded as an erroneous measure of ultra-terrestrial dealings. As our civilization decays, why underestimate the countless witnesses and findings from credible sources within government bodies (re: http://www.disclosureproject.org/), these ones being human. What limits our understanding of higher intelligences is our stronghold on age-old beliefs that humans are and have always been in control of its evolution. If there has ever been a time where man needs assistance, I couldn't think of a better time than now. I, for one believe that the research in exopolitics will bring much truth to the upcoming space threat or space terrorism era that we are entering. "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).--Chameleon2012 21:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

delete posibly give it a passin mention on one of the UFO pagesGeni 21:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes but which one? - KeithTyler
    • Sockpuppet comment: I know it's hard to track, but if someone has just registered to wikipedia because of the threat of exopolitics being deleted from the encyclopedia, it doesn't make them a sockpuppet. For example, an accused suckpuppet called Marilyn is actually Dr. Marilyn Rossner of the International Institute of Integral Human Sciences, a non-governmental organization affiliated with the United Nations DPI, promoting educational programs for the 21st century. --Pierre2012 22:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Calling all of your friends over to vandalize this page with spew is hardly any different than sockpuppetry. Furthermore, Wikipedia Is Not A Megaphone. - KeithTyler 22:52, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

KEEP! What sort of totalitarian language fascists try to expunge a word from the English lexicon just because the people who normally use it are so much more intelligent than they are? That said, why should anyone care what the Neanderthal language police think about a subject they know absolutely nothing about? Exopolitics Researcher

People who registered after the creation of the Votes for deletion page are considered sock puppets and their votes are not counted. People who do not sign in with registered names are not counted. RickK 23:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete... it's a sock puppet party going on here! func(talk) 00:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alien sock puppets must die. FWIW, I have heard the term 'exopolitics' before, but its too obscure (non-notable) at this point to justify its own article. I am willing to admit that I'm wrong if I can be shown as such. Sadly, the alien sock puppet invasion force has made the case worse by providng nearly worthless citations. I may have a go at this when I have more time. --Viriditas 01:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, am I the only one now receiving hate mail from these people? - KeithTyler 03:37, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


Keep. "Exopolitics" is a viable study, a useable term concerning government ops and hidden knowledge, and something that your children will not believe you tried to squelch. User:marykmusic 18:27, Sept 22, 2004 (PDT)

KEEP this is the 21st century and only a mentally handicapped person or someone who is interested in fomenting trouble can argue against it. The following is just one example of something that provides solid scientific proof that craft from other worlds are visiting this planet.

The question of whether or not we are alone in the universe has been answered for many years. Unless you believe that we have the ability to put saucer shaped motherships the size of independence day craft up there, because that is what is on official NASA space shuttle mission videos that you can order at ufonasa.com The scientific proof of extraterrestrial vehicles in this size range has now been made available thanks to the near ultraviolet cameras that NASA took aboard the space shuttle during the tether experiment which was an experiment that involved the dragging of a 12 mile long tether of wire behind the space shuttle to see if it would generate electric current when moved through the earths magnetic field. It did and it broke away as a result and was glowing in the dark like a neon sign from up to 100 miles away. As the shuttle was looking back and recording it with a special camera that could see into the ultraviolet it picked up about 50 craft that had moved in to investigate what to them was a 12 mile long object that was glowing like a neon sign. As they traveled around and behind the now free tether we could still observe the tether as being in front of these objects.

This means that the objects were at least a hundred miles away and that they could be estimated to be at least 2 miles across if they were right up on the tether. If they were farther back then they could have been as large as 10 times or more that. The video does not lie and these were broadcast on CSPAN back years ago and then the objects were discovered well after this and then brought up to NASA's attention. They claimed the objects were dust that light was bouncing off of it near the shuttle but we know this is impossible since the objects passed behind the tether which was at least 100 miles away. When an object passes in front of an object you no longer can see the object in back. The tether was completely visible at all times indicating that the object as it passed by was in fact on the opposite side of the tether further out away from the shuttle.

So there you incompetent morons whose world will obviously come crashing down because the world is no longer FLAT like your head I dub thee el stupido. By the way its precisely because of this type of thing that they no longer show the space shuttle missions live on TV.


KEEP! The only ones that will be alone in the universe is those that do not believe. But it is no wonder they don't. It is hard to see anything with your head shoved down in the sand. It is even worse when people do this intentionally. Better to embrace new possibilities so as to lessen the reaction you could have when those new possibilities turn into fact and decide to embrace YOU!!!

--Anonymous visitor 03:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep It may mean nothing (to some people) now, but so have many things in & of their time in past decades.... Leave it alone & let it grow. If it has no substance it will decrease & eventually die of its own accord

--Praminasava 14:30, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Keep !! - This is a great word and should be used in speculative scientific discussions. It keeps the mind creative and thinking outside of earth's (let alone our own country's) limited political think-boxes.

Keep - Interesting stub that will probably become more relevant later on. For some reason, someone seems very keen on not allowing this to be here. I suppose I'll get accused of being a sock puppet now. Tohya 17:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

what a joke

This kind of page give wikipedia a bad name. I was reading the 'alien' page and noticed multiple reference to the 'emminent doctor Salla'. Under the guise of make-believe academic excellence, he (or one of his fans) are promoting a book on his website, which topic has very little to do with 'exopolitics' and much more with a tragi-comic version of the x-files (I quote: "overwhelming amount of evidence conclusively points to as an extraterrestrial presence on Earth that is known by clandestine government organizations who keep official knowledge of this presence secret from the general public and elected political officials.") DELETE! Adidas 6 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Deletion

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Better delete this artical. even if we do politics with ET. I think we will call it Interstellar politics or somting like that not Exopolitics.


Keep. If this page is still being nominated for deletion, I say to keep it. Although it's on a theoretical topic, that doesn't make it any less noteworthy. What would politics be like when dealing with an alien society? Maybe we should connect this to Outside Context Problem or Alien Invasion. The article does need to be cleaned up tho. Baiter 04:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Needs lot of work especially in External links. But worth it. Srinivasasha 10:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is not a deletion vote. - Keith D. Tyler 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

exopolitics

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An encyclopedic listing should inform. This is a complex concept which is emerging in real time. It has profound implications and people need to know about it. Every word in the current definition is accurate. There is information which people can use. Edits based upon informed understanding of this concept are, of course appropriate. Expansion of factual information is wonderful. Attempting to describe this concept in a few sentences unacceptable.

"The Civil War was a conflict between American states." is not an encyclopedic article.

One last point. There are people who know a great deal about exopolitics. It would be constructive if those who know next to nothing about the subject would defer to those who are devoting their working lives to the subject.

StephenBassett 10:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Date?

I didn't want to change anything because I don't really know anything about the subject, but isn't "September 2006" supposed to be 2005-- for the Canadian guy?

Wrong date.

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Yes indeed. Correction made. StephenBassett 09:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Debunkers, pelicanists, disinformationists, government ops boys and the just plain stupid

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Let me be clear. I will not allow the definition of this term to be debunked by people who know absolutely nothing about UFO/ET phenomena and exopolitics. Governments, particularly corrupt governments, thrive on people who can neither reason nor understand new ideas and who cannot and will not question the torrent of lies and propaganda which increasingly fill our lives. Such people are wasting their time on this article. Their ignorance and simple minded acceptance of government fabrications will not stand here. StephenBassett 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

First, please read this: WP:NPA. Save your personal attacks, in edit summaries, talk posts, and otherwise.
Let's assume for the sake of NPOV (read that too, WP:NPOV, if you haven't) that we ought to be agnositic regarding the "alien presence". We can't say things like "such phenomenon include"; that's a truth statement. I'm going to re-edit and I'd suggest you take a deep breath. Marskell 16:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Now we're making progress

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have read the WP:NPA and was returning to edit my comment in the History section. That said, this is an explosive topic; few in Wikipedia will prove more controversial when all is said and done.

There is room for compromise and the present edit is not unreasonable. The emphasis should be on adding new factual material, which I will be doing over the coming weeks.

This must be kept in mind: The truths behind exopolitics are being suppressed by government interference with the truth process itself. That makes this listing of a special kind.

The extraterrestrial presence has been proven, but due to extraordinary circumstances, formal acknowledgement of this fact is withheld. But that is not the fault of the reader or (likely) those who attempt to edit this article.

I will confine my arguments for the proof status of the key issues to the Discussion section and allow the use of "putative" and "alleged" while the process of disclosure continues.

I would suggest that before anyone starts tossing around phrases like "quack info" they need to have read a significant portion of the outstanding bibliography behind this subject matter. The largest bibliography in print is in the back of the The UFO Encyclopedia (2nd Edition) by Jerome Clark (approximately 5000 listings). The largest bibliography on line is at: http://www.paradigmclock.com/bibliography.html

It is estimated (by me) that the total bibliography for the field of UFO/ET phenomena and exopolitics is approximately 10,000 books, articles and papers. StephenBassett 19:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If the extraterrestrial presence has been proven I suggest you show us where, with a citable source. Otherwise, "putative" and "alleged" remain. Of your 10,000 articles, would a single one make it to the pages of Nature or Science? If not, I don't think we should use the figure (or any figure). Deardoroff, 2005, wound up on the British Interplanetary Society journal and we use it on the extraterrestrial life page. All well and good. But Michael Salla posting his own paper on exopolitics.org (his own site) is not "published" for the purposes of Wikipedia. Indeed, I hesitate to include Weber and Salla as they stand. Finally, I don't think the Hellyer paragraph is warranted. It's just an ex Can gov official without much profile. Marskell 22:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
1) I already agreed that "putative" and "alleged" would remain. Did you not read the section? 2) 10,000 is an estimate and therefore should be removed. I will come up with a better way of describing the available literature. 3) Those are published BOOKS by Salla and Webre, not papers, and they are essential to the HISTORY of exopolitics. 4) As for the matter of proof, let's just agree to keep that out of the article. But you are in for a very big surprise. 4) If you do not think that a former Minister of Defense and Deputy Prime Minister of a first world nation making such statements is not particularly relevant, you are living in a parallel universe of which I am not familiar. StephenBassett 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Hellyer was apparently deputy PM in Trudeau's first cabinet... It is a stretch to call it especially relevant. And at the end of the day, disclosing beliefs in ETs isn't particularly earth-shattering. We could include similar opinions from Jimmy Carter or Tom Cruise.
As for the available literature, a glance shows it be a mixed-bag (Flying Saucer Review alongside the New York Times) and it doesn't all appear to be exopolitical per se. Marskell 18:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The research into the UFO/ET question is the foundation for exopolitics. If there is not an extraterrestrial presence, then exopolitics would be a niche area with limited scope. Since the research has confirmed an ET presence, exopolitics is now emerging as a powerful new area of study. You are waiting for the government or CNN to tell you that an ET presence has been proven. I have reviewed the research and talked with hundreds of researchers and first-hand witnesses. I don't need to wait. The question you must ask yourself is this, what are the political implications if the U.S. government has indeed withheld this information from you and the rest of the public for 59 years? Big?
Ok, since you seem to have an interest in this subject, allow me to suggest you read the following three books: UFOs and the National Security State by Richard Dolan, Missing Times: News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-up by Terry Hansen and The Day After Roswell by Col. Philip Corso. It's just a taste, but it will get you to the heart of the matter pretty quickly. I have checked your user page. Your are clearly well read and intelligent. But you are not well read on this subject. Not yet. StephenBassett 19:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Exopolitics

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A tag has been placed on Exopolitics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

There's plenty of evidence that this term has frequently been used, but little evidence that it exists as a concept in political science. I'm not sure that we need an article about a vague political usage or derogatory term, and it seems unlikely - especially on the basis of the life of this article so far - that such an article would ever get to the point of being particularly informative, let alone reality-based, comprehensive, well-sourced and well-written or, in short, encyclopaedic. However, I must admit that we have plenty of other articles about equally indefinite concepts/usages.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Please re-read WP:CSD, the rationale given does not fit any CSD category. If you still believe that this article should be removed from Wikipedia please list it up on articles for deletion. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 02:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Updating

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion

Ok I am going to start updating this article today and tomorrow and for the rest of the week, if anyone would like to join me please do so (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · contributions 20:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • well i have updated the references a bit (i figured i couldn't wait tell tomorrow), but I will go ahead and clean up the references tomorrow using correct citation and improving on the article (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Information

Latest comment: 17 years ago29 comments3 people in discussion

Please stop removing Webre's informatoin and source, he is very famous in the exopolitics and Ufology community and his works is very well known and was one of the first (if not first) major papers published on exopolitics (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 22:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly care if he's well-known in the "exopolitics community." We source information to reliable sources on Wikipedia. His e-book is not a reliable source. Marskell 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I also don't care about whether he was the first to talk about it. It's an e-book. My kid brother can put out an e-book. It's not reliable. Read WP:RS or WP:ATT or WP:NPOV. Marskell 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please stop, it is a well-known document and well cited document in the field of exopolitics, look i am not sure why you keep removing it if your not familiar with the Ufology and exopolitics scenario (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
"It's a primary source." Thank you for making my point. Wikipedia relies on secondary, not primary, sources. It's an e-book. It is not reliable and you have not made an argument otherwise. It's fringe pseudoscience. Read NPOV—pseudoscience gets put in its place here. Marskell 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope, it is also a Secondary source from a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It does not go against NPOV, it just states that he is a key figure and published a famous work in the exopolitical and ufology community and given that he is a big player in the community it counts as a well esteablished seconday souce (well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise)(:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 22:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is a big work in the community b/c of his experience in the space-political arena in the United States and Canada and given his position at the time he helped initiate a formal exopolitical movement (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
First, I'm sorry, but I have to ask: please stop placing idiotic emoticons on my talk.
No, it is not a secondary source. As near as I can tell, it's a self-published manifesto from a pseudoscientist. I will continue to revert it. Marskell 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • yup it is a secondary source, and I have given why it counts as an exception to a secondary source (well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise) given that he took all his experience in the political and space field and also it is a primary source b/c of his first hand experience in the field, and he didnt just make this up out of know where, it was a publication that occurred with occurred before to his famous book Exopolitics: Politics, Government, and Law in the Universe, and he is Michael Salla's coworker (did you not read into their profiles?) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is a self-published source of dubious reliability. Policy allows us to use such sources on articles about the authors but not elsewhere. Reliable sources have editorial oversight, fact-checking, and so on. The exception is for well known "professional researchers". Neither Salla or Webre are professionals because a) Exopolitics is not a profession b) they are both "researching" privately. These works are not published through a university, major news organization, publishing house etc. You have produced a Washington Post article making this very point about Salla. The entire page should be gutted and rebuilt. Webre and Salla do not belong on it except in the context of reliable third parties talking about them. Marskell 06:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me put this to you another way. I believe you wrote the following about Salla:
"His unconventional views have made his work the subject of considerable controversy and criticism within both the ufological and [mainstream academic] communities. Much of the testimony he uses to support his position is controversial due to a lack of empirical evidence to substantiate many of the claims. While many of Salla's sources are considered to be credible by adherents to the UFO Disclosure movement, critics argue these sources have been discredited for a variety of reasons, among these the dissemination of patent falsehoods in the content of claims made, and the misrepresentation of credentials."
This is wordy and needs editing, but is an attempt at NPOV, which I applaud you for. Given that you'r willing to admit Salla has been criticized for "the dissemination of patent falsehoods," how can we use him as a reliable source outside of his own page? See what I'm saying? It doesn't matter that he and Webre are famous or first or anything. They are not fundamentally reliable. Their exopolitics stuff should be used nowhere but on their own pages. Marskell 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Summary: Alfred Webre should be included, but not this book.

Analysis:

  • Some want to include a reference to an e-book by Alfred Webre into the article, citing notability to the subject.
  • Some want to remove it, citing that it is a primary source and pseudoscience.
  • Alfred Webre is a respected person in the area this article belongs to: politics in space. (Note that "politics in space" is far from pseudoscience - see also Space law)
  • The source cited in the article is added to Wikisource by User:Nima Baghaei, does not cite the source where it is drawn from, does not establish any authenticity, and can be edited by anyone. This is about as bad as citing another Wikipedia article as a reference.

I suggest that something is written on Alfred Webre in this article, at the very least a see also link to the Wikipedia article. I would suggest noting the existence of one of his other books which seems to be about exopolitics too.

Also, this article needs expansion. There are numerous articles about this subject already (Planetary defense e.a.), and there is a huge subculture on exopolitics (Star Trek anyone?). Some reliable newspapers must have written something on that. Start by making a category and catagorizing all articles related to this topic in it. Category:Space_law is of interest too. --User:Krator (t c) 12:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear about one thing, I do not dispute that the broad area has a valid scientific base. And I do not have a problem per se with claiming that the zoo hypothesis is plausible. It's the "extraterrestrial presence" as formulated by these people that I'm calling fringe and pseudoscientific (Salla's seventeen extraterrestrial races etc., Eisenhower's telepathic communication with ETs, etc.). Words like "formalized approach" and "conventional political science methodologies" do not belong. They imply that the work was done in the academy when it was not. Actually, on balance it's Salla rather than Webre that should probably go. But most definitely, the e-book as cited now does not belong in the article. Marskell 13:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "formalized approach" and "conventional political science methodologies" ==> there is nothing with this, both men are both educated and have both received multiple degrees and sala worked at auniversity and alfred worked for jimmy carter administration and for one of former president ford's organizations, and actually they do not have to imply the work was done in an academy, instead they imply they were done by former or current academics (it takes a person's experience into consideration) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • and no his article should not go b/c that was a formalized paper that alfred wrote in order to start exopolotics as a accepted topic, definition, etc... and is based on his past experience while working for Jimmy Carter's administration and coincides while the Space Preservation Treaty was being developed by him (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 18:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions Australian state university. We can start with that if someone has a link to a program. Marskell 13:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Nima, you're not getting me. Salla has formal degrees in political science, not in "alien presence" or "disclosure science". You're argument amounts to saying that because they've published credible work once, all of their work is credible. This is completely off-base. Marskell 18:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not just once but multiple times they have published work on exopolitics, dont forget that salla and alfred have worked and do work in the space arena, and don't forget that both hold positions on exopolitical study groups and don't forget that alfred was part of the Jimmy Carter white house study group Extraterrestrial Communications Study and was the co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty and Space Preservation Act and is cofounder of the Institute for Cooperation in Space which has many key figured in the science and space community as directors and advisor's such as Astronaut Edgar D. Mitchell link ... from my perspective, that is very formal background ... their experiences gave them the understanding to develop the data they have published (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 19:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, you're still not getting me. To have published credible work does not make all of your work credible. If Stephen Hawking self-published a theory that Eisenhower visited with alien ambassadors in 1954 we would not be in a position to post it anywhere but on the page for Hawking. The research of Webre and Salla that you're citing is not reliable. This is private research. It does not come from a reliable publisher. There is no indication that credible peer review occurred. In Salla's case it was private research that had him dismissed from his academic position. I'm removing it pending suggestions of alternate wording. Marskell 19:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is based on their experiences: well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise (WP:RS), and Salla's organization is made up of figures within the space community (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh for Christ's sake: Salla himself admitted it was private research. Exopolitics is not a profession. This work was not published by reliable publishers. Marskell 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And these two figures helped develop and introduce exopolitics formally into the mainstream given their experiences with the education and governmental authorities before their work was published (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"Helped develop and introduce exopolitics formally into the mainstream..." Right Nima. That's why Salla was dismissed from his last academic position. Marskell 20:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Updating

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion

Ok I am going to start updating this article today and tomorrow and for the rest of the week, if anyone would like to join me please do so (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · contributions 20:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • well i have updated the references a bit (i figured i couldn't wait tell tomorrow), but I will go ahead and clean up the references tomorrow using correct citation and improving on the article (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Information

Latest comment: 17 years ago31 comments3 people in discussion

Please stop removing Webre's informatoin and source, he is very famous in the exopolitics and Ufology community and his works is very well known and was one of the first (if not first) major papers published on exopolitics (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 22:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly care if he's well-known in the "exopolitics community." We source information to reliable sources on Wikipedia. His e-book is not a reliable source. Marskell 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I also don't care about whether he was the first to talk about it. It's an e-book. My kid brother can put out an e-book. It's not reliable. Read WP:RS or WP:ATT or WP:NPOV. Marskell 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please stop, it is a well-known document and well cited document in the field of exopolitics, look i am not sure why you keep removing it if your not familiar with the Ufology and exopolitics scenario (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
"It's a primary source." Thank you for making my point. Wikipedia relies on secondary, not primary, sources. It's an e-book. It is not reliable and you have not made an argument otherwise. It's fringe pseudoscience. Read NPOV—pseudoscience gets put in its place here. Marskell 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope, it is also a Secondary source from a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It does not go against NPOV, it just states that he is a key figure and published a famous work in the exopolitical and ufology community and given that he is a big player in the community it counts as a well esteablished seconday souce (well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise)(:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 22:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is a big work in the community b/c of his experience in the space-political arena in the United States and Canada and given his position at the time he helped initiate a formal exopolitical movement (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
First, I'm sorry, but I have to ask: please stop placing idiotic emoticons on my talk.
No, it is not a secondary source. As near as I can tell, it's a self-published manifesto from a pseudoscientist. I will continue to revert it. Marskell 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • yup it is a secondary source, and I have given why it counts as an exception to a secondary source (well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise) given that he took all his experience in the political and space field and also it is a primary source b/c of his first hand experience in the field, and he didnt just make this up out of know where, it was a publication that occurred with occurred before to his famous book Exopolitics: Politics, Government, and Law in the Universe, and he is Michael Salla's coworker (did you not read into their profiles?) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is a self-published source of dubious reliability. Policy allows us to use such sources on articles about the authors but not elsewhere. Reliable sources have editorial oversight, fact-checking, and so on. The exception is for well known "professional researchers". Neither Salla or Webre are professionals because a) Exopolitics is not a profession b) they are both "researching" privately. These works are not published through a university, major news organization, publishing house etc. You have produced a Washington Post article making this very point about Salla. The entire page should be gutted and rebuilt. Webre and Salla do not belong on it except in the context of reliable third parties talking about them. Marskell 06:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me put this to you another way. I believe you wrote the following about Salla:
"His unconventional views have made his work the subject of considerable controversy and criticism within both the ufological and [mainstream academic] communities. Much of the testimony he uses to support his position is controversial due to a lack of empirical evidence to substantiate many of the claims. While many of Salla's sources are considered to be credible by adherents to the UFO Disclosure movement, critics argue these sources have been discredited for a variety of reasons, among these the dissemination of patent falsehoods in the content of claims made, and the misrepresentation of credentials."
This is wordy and needs editing, but is an attempt at NPOV, which I applaud you for. Given that you'r willing to admit Salla has been criticized for "the dissemination of patent falsehoods," how can we use him as a reliable source outside of his own page? See what I'm saying? It doesn't matter that he and Webre are famous or first or anything. They are not fundamentally reliable. Their exopolitics stuff should be used nowhere but on their own pages. Marskell 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Summary: Alfred Webre should be included, but not this book.

Analysis:

  • Some want to include a reference to an e-book by Alfred Webre into the article, citing notability to the subject.
  • Some want to remove it, citing that it is a primary source and pseudoscience.
  • Alfred Webre is a respected person in the area this article belongs to: politics in space. (Note that "politics in space" is far from pseudoscience - see also Space law)
  • The source cited in the article is added to Wikisource by User:Nima Baghaei, does not cite the source where it is drawn from, does not establish any authenticity, and can be edited by anyone. This is about as bad as citing another Wikipedia article as a reference.

I suggest that something is written on Alfred Webre in this article, at the very least a see also link to the Wikipedia article. I would suggest noting the existence of one of his other books which seems to be about exopolitics too.

Also, this article needs expansion. There are numerous articles about this subject already (Planetary defense e.a.), and there is a huge subculture on exopolitics (Star Trek anyone?). Some reliable newspapers must have written something on that. Start by making a category and catagorizing all articles related to this topic in it. Category:Space_law is of interest too. --User:Krator (t c) 12:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear about one thing, I do not dispute that the broad area has a valid scientific base. And I do not have a problem per se with claiming that the zoo hypothesis is plausible. It's the "extraterrestrial presence" as formulated by these people that I'm calling fringe and pseudoscientific (Salla's seventeen extraterrestrial races etc., Eisenhower's telepathic communication with ETs, etc.). Words like "formalized approach" and "conventional political science methodologies" do not belong. They imply that the work was done in the academy when it was not. Actually, on balance it's Salla rather than Webre that should probably go. But most definitely, the e-book as cited now does not belong in the article. Marskell 13:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "formalized approach" and "conventional political science methodologies" ==> there is nothing with this, both men are both educated and have both received multiple degrees and sala worked at auniversity and alfred worked for jimmy carter administration and for one of former president ford's organizations, and actually they do not have to imply the work was done in an academy, instead they imply they were done by former or current academics (it takes a person's experience into consideration) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • and no his article should not go b/c that was a formalized paper that alfred wrote in order to start exopolotics as a accepted topic, definition, etc... and is based on his past experience while working for Jimmy Carter's administration and coincides while the Space Preservation Treaty was being developed by him (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 18:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions Australian state university. We can start with that if someone has a link to a program. Marskell 13:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Nima, you're not getting me. Salla has formal degrees in political science, not in "alien presence" or "disclosure science". You're argument amounts to saying that because they've published credible work once, all of their work is credible. This is completely off-base. Marskell 18:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not just once but multiple times they have published work on exopolitics, dont forget that salla and alfred have worked and do work in the space arena, and don't forget that both hold positions on exopolitical study groups and don't forget that alfred was part of the Jimmy Carter white house study group Extraterrestrial Communications Study and was the co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty and Space Preservation Act and is cofounder of the Institute for Cooperation in Space which has many key figured in the science and space community as directors and advisor's such as Astronaut Edgar D. Mitchell link ... from my perspective, that is very formal background ... their experiences gave them the understanding to develop the data they have published (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 19:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, you're still not getting me. To have published credible work does not make all of your work credible. If Stephen Hawking self-published a theory that Eisenhower visited with alien ambassadors in 1954 we would not be in a position to post it anywhere but on the page for Hawking. The research of Webre and Salla that you're citing is not reliable. This is private research. It does not come from a reliable publisher. There is no indication that credible peer review occurred. In Salla's case it was private research that had him dismissed from his academic position. I'm removing it pending suggestions of alternate wording. Marskell 19:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is based on their experiences: well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise (WP:RS), and Salla's organization is made up of figures within the space community (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh for Christ's sake: Salla himself admitted it was private research. Exopolitics is not a profession. This work was not published by reliable publishers. Marskell 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And these two figures helped develop and introduce exopolitics formally into the mainstream given their experiences with the education and governmental authorities before their work was published (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"Helped develop and introduce exopolitics formally into the mainstream..." Right Nima. That's why Salla was dismissed from his last academic position. Marskell 20:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved?

Not a problem so much; it should just be left up a little longer than two days for others who might want to come and comment (e.g. Krator). Marskell 08:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Australian University

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
  • found the location where this was insereted in the articles history, but the user who put it in was a IP and not logged in if they have (had) an account ... so I am gonna ask some people in the space community if they know anything about this and I will also try to check some search engines, if anyone else wants to help that would be great! (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 21:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Exopolitics was not a mainstream academic discipline though the underlying questions involved are of legitimate scientific and philosophical interest and have now began to be viewed in accepted interest by mainstream academic science (Australian state university).[citation needed]"

  • I moved it here b/c from what I getting from my searches, it seems someone may have just simply made this up, but lets keep this here in just as a backup copy in case we can find a reference, is that ok with everyone? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 02:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

POV?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This whole article seems extremely biased in favor of the existence of extraterrestrial life. Something for which there is no real evidence of. It seems like a bunch of made-up nonsense to me. 75.72.177.85 (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to the POV authors bias that there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life, just the opposite is true. The author has not looked in the right direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikejbird (talk • contribs) 02:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the people who are reediting this section don't know what they are doing. The present description is far too constricted. As someone who has been involved with the development of "exopolitics" from its beginnings, I have tried to write an appropriate listing only to be reedited again and again by individuals who know next to nothing about the use, history and context for this subject. Case in point, the statements above reflect little more than sheer ignorance. Wikipedia needs to be careful when dealing with new concepts. If you don't allow the experts in emerging fields to shape the sections relevant to those fields, you end up with at best a consensus of the uninformed and at worst a salad composed of ignorance and bias.Steve (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Education

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

why was the education removed? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 23:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

=== Education ===
In 2005, Rebecca Hardcastle taught a non-credit exopolitical class at Scottsdale Community College called Extraterrestrial Reality.[1][2]
  1. ^ Pela, Robrt L. (January 13, 2005). "Space Crash Course". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved 2007-04-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Davis, Scott (January 21, 2005). "Passion for the paranormal? Take a UFO class". Fox 11 AZ. Retrieved 2007-04-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Somebody teaching a non-credit course at a community college is non-notable (barring some extraordinary circumstances). Sorry, but "exopolitics" is patent nonsense from the tinfoil hat crowd. Eleland 23:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY does not list every possible example of a non-notable fact, and asking for this seems petulant and childish. It's a trivial fact. It doesn't matter. There are community college courses on all kinds of things.
As a side note, the term "Exopolitics" does not occur in either of those two linked articles, so I would say it's factually inaccurate as well as irrelevant.
Eleland 02:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • exopolitics is the study of the interaction between humans and extraterrestrials, which is what the course was on, so yes it does count ... anyways lets wait for more opinions on the matter (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 02:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The notability of the course in itself is irrelevant, it could be a night class at the Y for all that it matters. Rebecca Hardcastle is a notable individual in this field therefore the existence of the course can be included based solely in the grounds that she is the one teaching it. - perfectblue 10:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Saw this at Wikipedia:Third opinion. My impression is, as a piece of data on its own, this could stand because the source is independent and adequate. However, what does this matter to the subject of Exopolitics? It sounds extremely minor. If the article is to include this, it must have some explanation why anyone would care... and THAT is what will be inadequately sourceable. In other words, to attribute importance to this without a source would be WP:OR, and to include it without attributing importance to it would not make sense. Mangojuicetalk 11:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


I also saw this at Wikipedia:Third opinion. I think the notability of the subject as a whole is dubious, possible neologism, though I notice it survived a delete debate over a year ago. With regards to the source, having read the article, it is clear that the woman is not talking about this subject, but rather aiming to 'study' or 'teach' some paranormal/spiritual/UFO type beliefs (she does not use the word 'exopolitics' once). It is also clear she believes in the paranormal so I do not think much credence should be given to her as an encyclopedia (factual) source. For these reasons I do not think the source should be included in this article (and I think there would be a good case for deleting the whole thing). Clavecin 12:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • exopolitics is the study of the interaction between humand and extraterrestrials which is what the course was on; they do not need to specify the word expolitics in the article, the course was on the subject (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 16:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that you might have misunderstood the topic. Exopolitics is exactly "some paranormal/spiritual/UFO type belief" as you so elequantly put it. It's basically an iteration of "talking to little green men".
"I do not think much credence should be given to her as an encyclopedia (factual) source.", actually, in this case, she is a source to prove that the topic exists, not to prove the credibility of the topic in itself. This is perfectly in line with Wiki-regs and is done all the time in regard to the belief in conspiracies or urban myths where you need to prove that the myth is real (that it was not made up by an editor), not that it is an accurate reflection of events in the real world.
perfectblue 15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it is significant she doesn't mention the word 'exopolitics'. It is clearly described on the page as the study of theoretical political contact with extraterrestrials, whereas (whatever her beliefs) she seems to look at the whole question of extraterrestrials as a 'spiritual' phenomenon: "I'm teaching about the possibility of life in another dimension, one that becomes apparent to us once we begin to live in that other dimension. It may be wired into our psyche, or it might be a spiritual phenomenon, or a psychological one." She's studying the existence of UFOs, not the politics of it (at best, the domestic politics of a supposed 'cover up'.)
On further reading, the 'exopolitics' article turns out to be a collection of references to people's belief in extraterrestrial life and so on, along with a couple of assertions that the word exists. There is nothing of substance explaining the usage, history of significance of the word or the supposed subject it describes. It's a pretty poor article and I would be surprised if it isn't deleted sooner or later. Clavecin 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
A source doesn't have to use the same terminology to cover the same topic. - perfectblue 06:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They already talked about deleting this article but smarter heads prevailed and it wasn't. It'd be wrong to do that just because some clueless "scientific" types who I hope really aren't teaching it anywhere want to push their illogical beliefs on us.

Rewrite the first line

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone rewrite the following sentence in a better way.

Exopolitics is the theoretical study of hypothetical political relations between humanity and extraterrestrial civilizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivasasha (talk • contribs) 08:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Exopolitics in it's new & old perpose

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Exopolitics is a modern term for an ancient trait, so I am exited about this very much. I really like Exopolitics and understand it, this is all about manifesting civilization in a way which is morally-correct.

Respect is one of the key issues.

Sincerely, Phalanx Pursos —Preceding comment was added at 00:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You do know that to date no extraterrestrial civilizations have been discovered that would require any kind of diplomacy, so how you understand it beyond the definition of the term, that is beyond my grasp. 208.82.225.232 (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I've made several changes to the article that I'd like to discuss.
  1. Most importantly, I clarified that this is a theoretical field of study, since nobody has ever actually conducted diplomatic negotiations with extraterrestrials (at least not that any reliable sources have shown).
  2. Then, I removed the section on ancient exopolitics. There's nothing in this section that relates to exopolitics specifically, rather than UFOs in general. Moreover, there are no sources attached to this section, and I don't see what Hyades and Pleiades have to do with anything.
  3. I also removed the Modern section - again, everything here relates to UFOs generally. Also, we can't cite a geocities site as evidence that we have made radio contact with alien civilizations.
  4. Finally, I trimmed the external links to a reasonable level. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 19:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politics_of_outer_space/Archive_1&oldid=1156575957#Speedy_deletion_of_Exopolitics"