Talk:Timeline of UFOs

What is the criterion used to determine inclusion on this timeline?

Been watching the creation of this timeline with curiosity and not sure what criterion you are using User:VaudevillianScientist to place information in this timeline? I see in October 2024 you have included the first Global Disclosure Day event, which isn't notable, done by the New Paradigm Institute which also isn't notable. The citation you are using is from the website of the newparadigminstitute which isn't notable. So how are you determining what is notable and what is not? Another example, Feb 2023 you have noted that the Society of UAP Studies held its inaugural symposium ... and? The Society of UAP Studies is not notable. The citation you are using is from their own website. Nat Geo (which is notable) in January 2023 released the docseries "Investigating the Unknown" which isn't notable.

If we are allowed to personally decide what is notable on this timeline concerning UFO's then I have a pretty long list of additions that need to be added. ... In 1997 Prometheus Books released "The UFO Invasion" edited by Kendrick Frazier, Barry Karr and Joe Nickell can that book release be included? Let's not miss the Gulf Breeze UFO incident with the important date of June 10, 1990 when the model of the UFO that Ed Walters used to photograph when he hoaxed Gulf Breeze was discovered in the attic of a home.

I could go on with more examples, but really would be interested in your thoughts as you seem quite busy on increasing the length of this article. Sgerbic (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you folks for starting the conversation. Getting the criterion right will always be an iterative process. The timeline is not intended for a complete list of UFO sightings in different countries, which Wikipedia already have. For an UFO sighting to quality, they need to be historically unique (e.g. Roswell, Rendlesham, Phoenix Lights) or being of great national importance where it took place. They should be followed up with dedicated investigations by the governmental or private sectors along with media coverage. I'm not well-versed in the history of sightings, and there are clearly a number of misses for a growing timeline article. Please contribute as you see fit.

Regarding books, they need to be bestsellers (e.g. New York Times, etc) or contain unique scientific resources (e.g. Sagan and Page-edited book in 1973, Hynek's report, the first AARO report), including the first ones or the only one of its kind, the most widely read scholarly work. If there are multiple releases of the same type of documents, then only one entry is needed (e.g. UK National Archives document release). It is intended to steer away from the very fringy speculations but not excluding all speculative work, especially in the period from 2010s onwards. Similar criteria go to media entries such as documentaries.

Regarding your comment on The Society of UAP Studies, it is the first organization established in the modern era of scientific UAP studies (post 2010). Your comment on the New Paradigm Institute is fair, I replaced it with a different source. Feel free to remove that entry as you see necessary. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sgerbic, I can see you have been in this domain for quite some time. I can appreciate the difficulty in coming to a balanced viewpoint, especially in UAP studies. I have removed the new paradigm institute entry. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

A candidate for AfD?

Based upon the discussion here, this list has no apparent inclusion criteria and much of the content is non-notable and/or poorly sourced. Legitimate concerns have also been raised about this list being a pro-fringe fork for material available elsewhere (e.g., at List of reported UFO sightings). Why should this article not be submitted to AfD? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I was hoping my birthday might qualify. Seriously though, I just posted, tagging (did I do that right, gosh I can never remember) the main editor. I hope they respond for a discussion, possibly they have a vision different from what we are seeing now? Possibly there is an inclusion criteria that hasn't been revealed just yet ... any day now it might, so I'm okay waiting, they seem to be adding to the article every day. Sgerbic (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not meant to be a sightings-focused list. Arguably only <10% of List of reported UFO sightings or its countrywise breakdown lists qualify in the timeline article. There should be significant media coverage and it's era-defining. What's missing is an important entry for the black triangles in the timeline, because it defines an era. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not know what era-defining means, and within the context of the listed UFO-related phenomena I doubt that you, I, or any editor can provide any meaning for that term that is based upon reliable sources. Speaking of which, the pro-fringe, non-WP:FRIND sources that populate this article do not qualify as significant media coverage. Perhaps some additional editors can work on the article and improve it, but as it currently stands it seems unworthy of retention. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

VaudevillianScientist you didn't make clear. Are you planning on including everything that has a date that is UFO related? How do you define "era-defining"? What are you talking about when you say the "black triangles" what black triangles? Are they outside my window now? What are you talking about? If they define an era, then there should be significant media coverage, the lack of it just shows that they are not defining anything. Please answer these questions or I'm going to have to support JoJo's idea that this is just a list of random UFO events that are only important to you. You have given significant time to building this article, before you go further, please discuss our concerns. Sgerbic (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is the article was originally written to be a "Timeline of UFO investigations and public disclosure", so it's loaded with items that the author feels highlight the theme of "investigations" and "disclosure". Rather than WP:BLOWITUP and take on the huge time sink of rewriting it to the more general theme of "Timeline of UFOs", it's probably worthwhile to open up an AfD discussion and get opinions regarding if this "UFO timeline" article is actually needed, given that the content already lives in various UFO related summary articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @LuckyLouie for pointing out the history. It wasn't intended to include unfounded fringy topics, which would have been covered to a great extent by UFO conspiracy theories or other related pages. The focus here is primarily on legitimate scientific investigations and the implementations of (disclosure) policy frameworks as results, which have surely grow from the late 2010s onwards. To this end, I'm happy to work with other editors to reshape this Timeline, which I think is necessary given the pace of developments in UAP studies. Regarding the title, I'm all ears to what other editors want to suggest that fits best. In principle, I would be more inclined to use "Timeline of UFO investigations and public disclosure" or "Timeline of UAP studies" than the current one, which I didn't move into. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sgerbic, black triangles as first popularized by the events in the Belgian UFO wave. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not so sure which ones listed here are considered fringe theory. The timeline is focused on key events. I don't think the first classification of close encounters from Hynek or the extraterrestrial hypothesis from Vallee are considered fringe, given that they are so much built into the current vernacular and public consciousness nowadays. They are notable historic events and define subsequent narratives on the UFO/UAP topic. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Disclosure? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That section has some merit but lack significantly in describing any governmental proceeding (mostly France, US and UK to my knowledge). I don't think all these topics from the past decade or more would fit into an article named conspiracy theories, which inherently carry a negative meaning. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

In principle, I would be more inclined to use "Timeline of UFO investigations and public disclosure" What governmental proceedings fall under the category of "disclosure" as it relates to UFOs? What exactly would be "disclosed" by the government?Disclosure has negative connotations because it is a UFO conspiracy theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)