Talk:Identification studies of UFOs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Changes to lead

I've changed the lead as follows.

Before:

An Identified Flying Object, or IFO, is any unusual or puzzling object or optical phenomenon observed in the sky which can be identified as a known or conventional phenomenon after being investigated by qualified persons. This is in contrast to an Unidentified flying object, or UFO, which cannot be identified following investigation.

After:

An Identified Flying Object, or IFO, is any unusual or puzzling object or optical phenomenon observed in the sky which has been identified as a known or conventional phenomenon after being investigated by qualified persons. This is in contrast to an Unidentified flying object, or UFO, which has not been identified following investigation.

The changes are noted in bold in the "After" version above.

The reason for this change is a simple epistemological problem. Investigation of historical events is an open-ended process, and what is not known today may be known with a high degree of confidence tomorrow in the light of newly acquired information. Therefore the use of the categorical term "cannot" is incorrect. Assignment of the category "of unknown cause" (UFO) to an event is provisional, and may be replaced by "of known cause" (IFO) in future. We are unable to predict which of the sightings presently classed as UFOs will one day be classed as IFOs. Conversely knowledge is imperfect and it is quite possible that some of today's IFOs might, upon arrival of new data that cannot be satisfactorily integrated into the existing explanation, be redesignated as a UFO. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal by User:ScienceApologist

Stricken comments were made by subsequently banned socks

• VERY EXTREMELY MEGA strong super utter OPPOSE and KEEP AS: i agree with the other opposes: seems like pov pushing to me to fit issuers pers. views. UFO and IFO are two totally different things, to say that all UFOS are always IFO is just a bad thing. the whole drama here is actually totally unnecessary. why not keep the articles as they are...neutral? pushing pov and the official governmental opinion is not the way to write neutral articles in which pros and cons are presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  This IP has made no significant edits outside this talk page, and only one edit prior to a group of edits focussed on this page starting at 1312, 9th June. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as FooWarrior (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  This user has made only three edits: at 1650, 1651 and 1652 today: all of them to this talk page. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  is it normal that you guys want to kick out new users which you don't like?! and what's that crappy message i've just received?! i mean...WTF?! FooWarrior (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  This user has now been blocked as a sock puppet. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as: see my reasoning on UFO talk. and ´the suggestion to simply not count opposes just because they're ips doesn't hold water...in fact the proposer of this suggestion even made unprofound claims of sock puppeterry just to have those opposing votes out. SUVx (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  This user has made no edits prior to 1336, June 14, 2008. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  so what?! i'm a new user here and am interested in the paranormal...so don't expect me to make mass edits. SUVx (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  This user has now been blocked as a sock puppet. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as I oppose the proposal. User wants to push his strong POV on both; the UFO and the IFO article. Furthermore; UFO and IFO are completely different....with different meanings As another user already said on the ufo talk "Merging the entries would be like merging Christianity and Atheism. UFO and IFO are polar opposite terms and are incompatible. One is the antipathies of the other." 79.233.92.242 (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: From edit history, this appears to be an IP under the control of of SomeUsr (the commenter immediately below this). Antelan^talk 15:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as: i strongly oppose this proposal. user does not even try to find consensus and clearly wants to push his/her pov. user was blocked multiple times for similar issues and for violating numerous other wiki policies. see the UFO talk for further info. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 21:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: The above user has already commented as an IP-user, above, and has also left Wikipedia. Antelan^talk 15:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Keep as Looks like POV pushing 220.232.237.46 (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: why? Biobeeing (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  This editor has made three edits, all three to this page, at 1732, 1734, and 1735 today. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  • since when are new users are not allowed to vote? or do you just search for a reason to not count my vot. your "argument" is the following: "this users vote does not count because she's new and has very few edits and opposes the proposal". what's that good for? right, nothing. you don't like me? fine, i don't like you either, now leave me alone! that's not very welcoming to a new user like me. Biobeeing (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  This user has now been blocked as a sock puppet. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per WP:V and WP:RS. There are no reliable sources documenting that there are entities in the popular or academic literature known as "IFOs". This is only relevant in the context of UFOs, and to that article should go this material. Antelan^talk 15:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as both terms are completely different. It's like trying to merge apples with tomatoes. 74.220.207.67 (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I object to moving this article on the grounds that the move might be a bad faith move. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you have any reason related to the subject matter itself to oppose the merge? Antelan^talk 01:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, Dipole subjects with their own referenced history. Oh, Philip Plait (Bad Astronomy) and Carl Sagan & Thornton Page think they are different.Vufors (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose the merger proposal. Since the vast majority of UFO reports become IFOs on investigation, the UFO entry would be completely swamped if it included IFOs as well. In fact, the UFO entry already needs much sharper focus as it is. Skeptic2 (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The only reason to keep these separate is for space considerations. Despite the vociferous claims to the contrary, they are essentially the same topic: As the lede makes clear, an IFO is an ex-UFO; it is only defined in terms of UFO.

These are discussions, not votes. But if we're going to tally votes, then ignoring the anon IPs and sockpuppetry above, the vote stands 2–3 with my abstention. kwami (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

lol...what crap...i'm sure if the anon ips would support the proposal their votes would indeed count. go figure. anons can vote as well 220.232.237.46 (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• rmv tag per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BOLD FooWarrior (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)