Talk:UFO sightings in outer space

Things to do

• Find a reference for the Gemini 7 bogey transcript. DONE— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.50.161 (talk)

• I have found a pdf of the original transcript and included it. Remember to sign your posts. Austinenator (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Add a section or a separate article for UFO Sightings on the Moon. There is an article that describes UFO sightings on the moon. There are 13 references at the end of this article that can be used to avoid depending on a single source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Obankston (talk • contribs)

• - Sidelight12 ^Talk 01:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

References

• We need to be selective about references. If a reference might be one that comes under attack, we need another reference that is undoubtedly reliable that mentions that reference for its content. They'll even test by trying to remove an undoubtedly good reference. This is not about what one thinks about UFOs, its about Buzz Aldrin's UFO sighting is well documented, and was even in grade-school textbooks. We can consider merging this into UFOs, if it can't be built up enough. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 01:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, however there are enough reliable sources (about 8) that warrant a separate article. My own research has seems to suggest that the Apollo 11 UFO sighting was a hoax. Do we have an RS stating otherwise? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/06/03/footage-in-sky-truth-behind-nasa-ufo-videos/ partially addresses the Apollo 11 sighting (from a source I don't like, but that doesn't matter). According to it, Buzz Aldrin claims his quotes were taken out of context. Unfortunately, no further details. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 02:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good source. Thanks, I was hoping to fix some issues with the last part of the article, it essentially approved for restore per DRV. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Bingo. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/4319637 exact, or nearly identical story. I can work with this. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 05:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments on the section: List of UFO sightings in outer space

Most of the descriptions in the section List of UFO sightings in outer space are poorly worded (reads like an automated translation), some have missing information, and most do not have references. The original source is needed to accurately clean up the wording and missing information. Since this article has already been up for deletion, this needs to be cleaned up to avoid being a target for another round of deletion discussion. Obankston (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

For date, I think the date of the sighting is better than date of the mission. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Some of the references used, someone will challenge them. Cufos is questionable, but it is mentioned here http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/614506/unidentified-flying-object-UFO. It doesn't necessarily need to be used. If you're serious about this, library microfiche (of reliable newspaper print) is one good way to go, since publications weren't digitized then. It will be (wrongly) challenged, because they will claim they don't have access to it as an excuse (but I like the idea of anyone accessing the source anyways). I don't know the copyright in-and-outs specifically, but its possible that some copyrights expired, and might be uploaded to commons with proper attribution. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 20:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, wishful thinking. Most likely they haven't expired. http://library.dts.edu/Pages/RM/Helps/copyright.shtml. a US publication would have to be before 1963 to have a chance (if it was not renewed). A work around would be to look up English print from other countries that have a lesser expiration duration. This is only to upload the source for the added benefit of allowing anyone to verify it, its not necessity in order to use its information. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 20:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping someone has access to Lexis Nexus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV violation

This is in violation of NPOV in that it is presenting fringe claims without the appropriate context of the mainstream views that the fringe claims and interpretations are complete baloney. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is set up poorly. It presents prosaic explanations on an equal footing with with Fringe sourced claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned out dubious original research connections, unreliable sources and speculative prose. If the article is kept, it would need renaming, integration of reliable sources (and removal of tabloid-ish sources like HuffPo) and further cleanup, particularly the redundant "list within a list" section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: You're doing a lot of good cleanup work. However, I think it would be more readable if you at least left in a description of what each astronaut saw. Otherwise, with statements like 'James Oberg, based on his trajectory analysis of the Gemini 7 mission, describes the astronauts' comments about a "bogey" ', we're left with the feeling that we missed the first half of a conversation. It's also o.k. to say a little about the fringe reaction, as long as the correct interpretation is clear. After all, VALID allows you to discuss a bogus view, as long as you don't take it seriously. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, referencing the bogus view is fine, as long as the bogus view is noted by a reliable source. WP:FRINGE and all that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

In at least one case (Gemini 4), you kept the interpretation, with Huffington Post as the source, but threw out the description (from the same source) of what the astronaut saw. I have added some material and a citation to that section, and it is now what I would consider a minimal description of the incident. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I did cleanup as one stage and assumed buildup by addition of reliable sources would be a later stage, so feel free to improve the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the big question is whether this should be a list or an article. I think if it were based on this source, it could be a decent article. Also, there are a few topics such as allegations of NASA coverups that would have no place in a list. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Might be a way to go, although TM:ONES could be an issue. Part of the problem is that pop culture sources like HuffPo and IBTimes habit of publishing UFO stories with a cheap sensational buzz tend to overwhelm scientific sources like Oberg. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know LuckyLouie, this article now has NPOV issues. My tone was neutral and look at both sides per Wikipedia and just about any encyclopedia. As an experience editor you can't possible believe these edits conform to policy. I feel you may have a bias against these types of articles. Plenty of reliable sources have been removed questioning the "official" explanation. You've added your own OR and the article states now that all claims are explained. That is just plain false. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What reliable sources question "the official explanation"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, I was talking about these sources, Fox News, and this Popular Mechanics. They both state the proponents views while agreeing with mainstream analysis (moreso Fox News). Also the interview with Gordon Cooper is a good firsthand account from a trained witness true or not. To be unbiased I feel we need to document both sides but give due weight where appropriate. Second issue I noticed this the tone of the opening paragraph is suggestive that these sighting are considered a hoax. That is not true, the question is their origin extraterrestrial or not. So those are the issues I am seeing. I think your cleaning of the article is excellent nonetheless. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BALASPS and WP:VALID we dont treat non-equally supported views as if they are equally supported in the academic community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said above, my cleanup of the article was partly intended to help evaluate if there was a structure worth building up. I pruned out all the obvious crap sources and non-incidents (like "small ice like particle objects" or "crew said they saw a flash") that aren't even acknowledged by reliable sources to have been mistaken for UFOs. Too soon to tell, so I'll hang back until the AfD resolves. If it is a Keep, I'll try to pitch in and help build up the article with reliable independent sources, and I'll save all the boring lectures about WP:FRIND, WP:REDFLAG and WP:GEVAL until then. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

unsourced content and coatracking / original research

Users cannot reinsert unsourced content that has been challenged. WP:BURDEN The article cannot contain or present content as "unidentified" when the reliable sources actually "identify" the objects. WP:COATRACK / WP:OR -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A UFO sighting only has to be unidentified at the time of the sighting (and I suppose someone needs to make some outlandish claim about it). Most UFO sightings get a scientific explanation eventually. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting discussion for consensus before revert

I am reverting back to the version which has survived the AfD as that is the version which is accepted by consensus. It is cleaner and wikified by format. I am requesting a discussion for consensus as to which version is more suitable for Wikipedia. I was hoping editors User:RockMagnetist, User:LuckyLouie, and User:Bali88 can make a decision after we have reviewed the sources in the further reading. I am a bit uncomfortable with edits from TRPoD, due to his remarks in the AfD. Regardless, I assume good faith.

We version do we support, The current version or Version 2 found here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I support the move. Bali88 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

An AfD merely determines whether or not the subject meets the requirements for a stand alone article, it does not validate or freeze editing or content. The question here should be "is there a consensus that the article at the time of the AfD is appropriate?" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TheRedPenOfDoom that the AfD discussion should have no bearing on editing the content. Also, the AfD discussion was closed without reaching a consensus. Also, the article was substantially different when most or all of the AfD comments were made, as opposed to when the discussion was closed.

On the question of which version, I prefer what you call Version 2, the main difference seeming to be that it breaks the article into an introductory paragraph and an "alleged incidents" section, with a one-sentence introduction to the section. I am guessing the crux of the dispute is over the term "alleged", not about organizing the incidents into a section. If so, figure out a word both sides can live with. Note that the section currently includes well-established UFO sightings according to the article's definition (e.g., the 2013 antenna cover), reports of lights which may or may not have been from objects, and information on possibly fabricated transcripts between Glenn and NASA on Apollo 11. Agyle (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The current version seems as good a place as any to start from. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"not one shred of evidence"

The following sentence from the header:

UFO proponents see comments by astronauts or photos processed by NASA as one of the "strongest bodies of evidence" because they are considered to be of high trustworthiness, but from this group of claims there is "not one shred of evidence ... for the existence of extra terrestrial spacecraft." Reference: http://www.jamesoberg.com/77Feb-SW-astro-UFO.PDF

I felt the quote needed to be attributed, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but found that the quote does not exist in the source. It doesn't seem like the quote was a product of invention, so I didn't want to remove it, but it appears to be unsourced. Can anyone find the source of this quote for attribution? If it can't be attributed, it should probably be removed. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, done. The quote is on Page 28, paragraph two of the cited source. [1] - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for finding it. I think the issue was that the PDF did not parse that sentence correctly. Searches for "shred", "not one", etc did not to mesh with he document's "not I slrred of evid.n(c". Attribution added.63.149.124.133 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I just realized that you had already attributed it. Oberg was quoting Robert F. Allnut, so I've updated it to reflect the source. I'm tempted to learn towards WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT in this case, but I think that applies to the citation itself and not to the attribution. Not picky either way. 63.149.124.133 (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Look close at the source. Allnut seems to be quoted for a single sentence. Then a new paragraph begins without quotation marks, indicating it's Oberg writing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Real Title Should Be

"Debunked UFO sightings in outer space" because every supposed sighting mentioned in this article is accompanied by a debunking. What is the point of the existence of this page? It offers zero substance. Jyg (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It offers zero substance That is only true if you define "substance" as "stuff that confirms the beliefs of UFO nuts".

For someone who wants to know whether there is something to a specific UFO claim, the article is useful. If you do not want to know, do not read the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You're reacting emotionally. My recommendation has nothing to do with what anyone wants to read or what anyone feels or believes about the topic. It's simple: why would we call this article "UFO sightings in outer space" if the article does not have content regarding any such sightings? The article has no records, references, information, description, discussion, etc. and so on of any UFO sightings. It just has stories, not factual reports, as all therein have been debunked. The name of an article should be based upon its contents, not how anyone feels about the topic. Jyg (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

What is the point of the existence of this page? It offers zero substance ...was not exactly a Spock-like analysis devoid of emotion. The article lists unidentified objects reported by astronauts while in space that they could not explain at the time. Granted, they were subsequently explained, although I don't think "debunked" is the right term, but I'm not sure what is. BTW, List of unexplained sounds has a similar issue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)