Talk:Ufology/Archive 1

Archive 1

old talk

Need some help here. - Sigg3.net 19:42, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What sort? People will help if they can Moriori 21:54, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

This is a great field. Going to need some help. This sentence is wrong though: especially claims that some UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles manned by aliens, since UFO Norge are trying to get international approval as "real scientists" (if such things should exist), so they don't jump to any conclusions. Most of the cases they've handled (something that is incredibly normal) are observations of the moving moon when driving a car... But they've got observations of "saucers" that were confirmed by military radars as well. I changed especially to also. Thanks anyway. - Sigg3.net 23:10, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Changed no physical evidence to any conclusive evidence, since physical evidence HAS been found and published. - Sigg3.net 23:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'll try to make it clearer on the page. There IS evidence for UFOs, including film which I have seen, for flying objects that were and are unidentified. But, no-one has EVER produced physical evidence of any UFO of extraterrestrial origin. ( I'm talking physical evidence, not claims. If you think otherwise, then list the urls here please). If someone ever does, then Wikipedia will need a new page headed "ETs" {Extraterrestrial Vehicles, fancy that), because, being identified, they could no longer be UFOs. Moriori 00:02, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. Not all ufology are concentrated on ET's. UFO Norge has made research on magnetic disturbances etc. (See "The Hessdal Project"). But there are way too many loonies out there too... - Sigg3.net 22:39, 7 December 2003 (UTC)

No, I don't miss the point at all. I know ufology should not exclusively concentrate on ETs but the perception of the pubic is that it does. The problem is that if several people independently report a spectacular UFO sighting, the media will get some UFO proponent on camera who will say aha, it's a flying saucer with little green men from outer space. They won't get someone from CSICOP or UFO Norge who would say, aha, here we have reliable reports of a flying object which is unidentified, so we will try to find an explantion for it. Even if they did find an explanation, it would be a non story so it wouldn't get publicity, and there would be those who continued to tout it as ET. Moriori 23:17, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

You're quite right about that, but I don't see why this should change the article. When most people hear about astrology they think about witches with crystalballs, but this is also considered science (to a degree). - Sigg3.net 23:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

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

A lot could be said about the UFO subculture which could fall under Ufology... Dysprosia 11:56, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's the thing - they're not really separate subjects. A lot of the stuff and links in UFO are about the subculture. And is "ufology" a science, the UFO subculture or what? I'm strongly tempted to merge real soon - David Gerard 12:22, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

No, no, no and no. Have a look at UFO Norge's webpage, for instance. UFO-NORWAY is open to any and all hypothesis and theories which may represent possible solutions to the UFO enigma, and will not attribute unidentified reports to any particular theory. They're really trying to open the scientific society to the fact that UFOs are not a product of (crazy) peoples imagination, but measurable on radiation-instruments and viewable on radar, for instance. So, placing them under UFO subculture is wrong, hence Ufology must stand as an article of its own. - Sigg3.net 08:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In that case please separate them out a lot better. It's not in the least clear at the moment. - David Gerard 13:10, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. - Sigg3.net 13:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Isn't UFO an acronym for Unidentified Flying Object? Then why is this page advocating the word {You-eff-oh-olo-jist}? Should this article merge into maybe Xenology, which is currently a stub? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AQjosh (talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Help

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

Categorization?

Why can't Ufology be in Category:Pseudoscience? ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because pseudoscience is conducted in the name of UFOlogy, doesn't mean UFOlogy is necessarily pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.6.39 (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But it is though, I mean actual real science is based on fact and measurable evidence. There is no fact or measurable evidence for the existence of UFOs 82.46.47.172 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But i think you're wrong..there is a great deal about UFOs that has been measured and scientifically analyzed. I refer specifically to Paul R. Hill's book Unconventional flying objects. Hill was a leading Nasa scientist in the 40s to 70s..his book is clearly a math and science based analysis. Actually i'll make a request on this page to have info on it included either hereon the ufology page or on the ufo page. I really think you should read it, it's not your average ufo book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.68.86 (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Any scientific investigation undertaken that can't be proven or disproven by the Scientific Method is usually classed as a Pseudoscience, there's not much that is measurable in regards to UFO's, so I guess it would be reasonable to call it that. --Opacic (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul R. Hill's book Unconventional flying objects. Hill was a leading Nasa scientist in the 40s to 70s..his book is clearly a math and science based analysis. Actually i'll make a request on this page to have info on it included either hereon the ufology page or on the ufo page. I really think you should read it, it's not your average ufo book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.68.86 (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Well for the above skeptics who don't read wiki pages:

• "Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge."

Well it passes all these requirements. It would help if some of you read up about pseudoscience pay attention to the word UNIDENTIFIED and how these reports come about!Vufors (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

There are two main strands to whether Ufology is pseudoscience

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

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

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

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

On Pseudoscience & Neologisms

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

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

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

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

Furthermore being classed as a neologism has the effect of marginalization ( a typical tactic of biased skeptics ), and there is no citation in this article to any definition of ufology that uses the phrase "neologism". Just like the word "pseudoscience", it has just been thrown in there as if it were fact. If this article has been tainted by bias in any way, it has been at the hands of unconstructive skeptics, or those who fail to recognize their tactics for what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.83.184 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge UFO categorization

• Keep I dont see why this needs to be done unless we are trying to save space (shrink article size) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Popularity of UFOlogy?

Is it just me, or is UFOlogy considerably less popular in Western countries than it once was? When visiting a bookshop recently, I was struck by the fact that there were absolutely no UFO/alien books in the paranormal section at all, whereas there were countless books about ghosts, hauntings and the like. 217.155.20.163 12:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good thing. The fewer people that buy into this slop the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.203.205 (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Opacic (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be inactual as of circa 2008 Apr, now UFOlogy is on advance, whether we like it or not. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Is it pronounced you-eff-ology or you-fology? 74.106.20.73 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a proper pronunciation on the article seeing as the name is derived from an acronym. RooZ 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Ufology

This new article is unreferenced and poorly wikified, it may get deleted unless improved soon.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• New???? First edit/entry are listed as 2003 December 6. Vufors (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Nein! Look again. Twas created at the end of April 2008. And it is pretty crappy as pointed out above, but I doubt it will get deleted because it could be referenced, probably, unless you guys are insane about that, which, judging from the majority of the content around here, you aren't.208.82.225.232 (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not insane of course, it's just the world around us that doesn't understand our splendor! Said: Rursus ☻ 09:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Have another look! [[1]] Vufors (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Suspected hoax section

Some very small WP:fringe is trying to perpetuate the article Atmospheric beast, a concept seemingly invented by this WP:fringe, not by Sagan as alleged. The section Atmosphere beast hypothesis is a typical example of this atmospheric beast mad ramblings, possibly referring to unrelated articles of unreason. I'll take a look, and if it appears that Atmospheric beast is some kind of "WP:OR" of the hoax type, then it will be instantly killed, and the Sagan part moved to some scifi article to where that text belongs. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Do a search on Trever James Constable and critters. I'm surprised that's not in the Ab article. Doug Weller (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tested googling "Ivan T. Sanderson" and "Atmospheric beast" and got 7 bummer hits, either "info" copied from "Wikipedia" and list of "fortean" creatures where Ivan T. Sanderson was mentioned, but not connected with "Atmospheric beast" see Talk:Ivan T. Sanderson on why the Atmospheric beast has nothing to do with him. I'll take a look at that "Trevor James Constable" or variants. Said: Rursus ☻ 20:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The following guys does not exist: Trevor James Constable, Trevor Constable, Trevor James, Trevor J. Constable on WP. The following combinations of "Atmospheric beast" with "Trevor something" gives 2 or fewer google hits, all copies or inspirations from WP: "Trevor James Constable": 2; "Trevor Constable": 1; "Trevor James": 2; "Trevor J. Constable": 2. The case for hoax strengthens. Said: Rursus ☻ 20:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The following link support the sections' claims: UFOs OVER BURLINGTON WISCONSIN, but there are no Atmospheric beasts, the article I'm explicitly trying to kill. However: the link is from 2005. I'm going to track whether that WP section in question was written near in time to 2005. An ufologist named Trevor James Constable existed. Said: Rursus ☻ 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The section looked like this in 12 May 2006:

Sky Critter Hypothesis

The theory of Trevor James Contable (a.k.a. Trevor James) speculated that UFO sightings involve the sighting of exotic unknown life otherwise known as Sky Critters or Rods.

I'll restore it accordingly, removing later added desinformation and false links. The connexions alleged in Atmospheric beast, an invented name, don't exist. For now, and more after I've hunted down the beast! Said: Rursus ☻ 20:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! Removed HOAX template, one source exist, however fringy. Said: Rursus ☻ 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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

A very misleading phrase

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

Aliens eating people

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

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

Frederick C. Crews

If anyone is interested, Frederick C. Crews has published a series of reviews of books on ufos at The New York Review of Books - [2] not free unfortunately. There's also some back-and-forth that looks pretty juicy. [3]. I'm going to spam this to a couple other pages too. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Natural Explanation Found for UFOs

This site: [[4]] talks about a natural explanation found for UFOs.Agre22 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bogus Debunking

I think this article should somehow mention that the countering/debunking/rationalising of UFO reports can be very bogus. I mean, regardless of the actual case, media or even official explanations stretching to ridiculous extremities, on par with the worst believer nonsense : several hundred mph moving phenomem labeled "lenticular could", dozens of witnesses relegated to "stains in front of the eye", daylight close observations assimilated to "Venus mistaken" etc. Seems to me noticeable enough to be mentioned, but I just toss the idea here and let others do the confirm/refute/source work. Oh, and good luck on maintaining Wikipedia standards on such a hot topic. --Musaran (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's always interesting when speeds and distances are quoted for objects without any justification. Most people who think they've seen a UFO tend to misjudge both. There's no reason to believe the "measurements" they reported. By the way, Venus is bright enough to be seen in the daytime with the naked eye. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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

POV

At present, this article is written in a tone and in a way that mainly gives credence to the "UFOs are real' viewpoint. Large sections, including the intro, seem to simply be trying to advocate for the legitimacy of this viewpoint or of UFOlogy in general. The mainstream scientific viewpoints are relegated to a relatively small section. A more balanced view should be given throughout, particularly in the intro. I am therefore adding the point-of-view template.Locke9k (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is a total mess and needs a serious rewrite. It should be about ufology itself, and not go into excruciating details on alleged UFO cases and ET theories. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to help. It's been a mess for a while. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to translate the far superior German-language article. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the article is now slightly more readable 80.221.43.22 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit

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

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

If there are are any questions, visit my talk page; I'd be glad to help out. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancient origins

One might add that although there's 3 traceable origins to UFOs in recent history, Zecharia Sitchin argues that there are archeological records, and ancient paintings, that depict UFOs. Knights spoke of "Shields in the sky" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.46.103 (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this need re-editing

United Kingdom

The British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) is the largest and oldest of the active British UFO organizations. It traces its roots to the London UFO Research Association, founded in 1959, which merged with the British UFO Association (BUFOA) to form BUFORA in 1964.

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

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

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

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

Examples of deletions (selected):

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

Example of misrepresentations/misinformation/disinformation (selected):

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

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

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

Is there UFO Portal page? Would it be advisable?

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

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

Misty MH (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Very old thread but caught my eye and I see User:Misty MH is still active. There is a project called Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal that I would invite you to join if you are interested in this area. Very few people (or none) are following those pages and it appears their edits are often ridiculed and dismissed summarily. More editors needed! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Misty MH (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Brookings Report

Does it not belong here as it suggests that the gov't would be interested in a coverup? Brookings Report

While not specifically recommending a cover-up of evidence of extraterrestrial life, Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs does suggest that contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life (or strong evidence of its reality) could have a disruptive effect on human societies. Moreover, it does mention the possibility that leadership might wish to withhold evidence of extraterrestrial life from the public under some conditions...

Kortoso (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Academic ridicule

This section should be deleted. Pseudoscientists claiming mainstream scientists ridicules their pseudoscience is completely irrelevant. Of course their are ridiculed, it's an intrinsic property of pseudoscience as well as a result of it being such - not the other way around. 79.223.154.236 (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, with caveats. The information in that paragraph is not useless. I've merged it into the section "as a pseudoscience". The section heading "Academic Ridicule" Seemed, as you say, loaded with POV and un-encyclopedic. Please discuss if reverting, many thanks.Edaham (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

First use of term

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

"What we need, in fact, is the immediate establishment of a respectable new science named Ufology." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikspen (talk • contribs) 17:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Gesellschaft zur Erforschung des UFO-Phänomens e.V.

Hallo Alex

Please insert - thank you !

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

--Merlin1960 (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Got any good WP:FRIND sources that describe it? Alexbrn (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Paul R. Hill's book Unconventional flying objects

It's a book which provides a math and science based analysis of various UFO cases. Hill was a leading Nasa scientist in the 40s to 70s..his book is clearly a math and science based analysis. I'm surprised there is very little info on this man and his book. I think that book is the gold standard of UFO case analysis because it doesn't go around day dreaming, but uses clear cut math and physics to dissect the cases. I think there should be a paragraph dedicated to that book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.68.86 (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There's already a section on this book in his biographical article and this article is so cluttered I don't think it's appropriate. That should definitely be considered for a reference though. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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

NOMEMTION OF THE FAMED UFOLOGISTS, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST DR. R.LEO SPRINKLE.Dr.Sprnkle hyponitized the late betty Hill of the famous UFO abduction case of bettyy and Barney Hill of 1960s era! Dr. Sprinkles 85th Birthday will be Aug.30th ,2016, Thats the date for GlOBAL UFO FULL DISCLOOSURE DAY TOO! Thanks! Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC Founder Global Energy Indeppendence Day July.10th Nikola Teslas Birthday!104.34.181.144 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear -Roxy the dog™ bark 20:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ufology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107174305/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_18_2_teodorani.pdf to http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_18_2_teodorani.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107174305/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_18_2_teodorani.pdf to http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_18_2_teodorani.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107163656/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf to http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706035943/http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/COMETA_part1.pdf to http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/COMETA_part1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090716113351/http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/COMETA_part2.pdf to http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/COMETA_part2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015022239/http://www.acufos.asn.au/index.html to http://www.acufos.asn.au/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program

Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program has been excluded from this article [5] claiming WP:TOOSOON. The program has officially ended in 2012 and has been confirmed to be a legitimate US Govt program that studied UFOs/UAPs. It should definitely be included. Too soon states: If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered.. As an article exists and provides many sources this is an inappropriate application of TOOSOON which simply does not make sense applied here. @ජපස: please elaborate or restore. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON + WP:WEIGHT. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: I have disputed TOOSOON. I see you don't agree, but why? As for WP:WEIGHT I just don't see why it should be relevant. The existence of AATIP and its subject matter are a fact confirmed by all sources (see article). If TOOSOON applied we should delete that article. Also, this is not a "theory or opinion" that should be given "due weight". What is the contrary view that is not being represented here? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:IDHT. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:IDAWT --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Any other editors want to weigh in on this? AATIP is clearly an important US government program in the field of Ufology and I think it should be included in this list. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Coming to this issue cold, the problem appears to be that the AATIP has no independent academic or other wider cultural standing evidenced in RS, or at least not yet (hence TOOSOON). Sure it got some defence brass on board and spun off a private company, but for all that it is in reality no more than just another here-today-gone-tomorrow bunch of UFO spotters, and as such is not significant enough in the wider community to mention here. I do wonder if it might be appropriate to add it to the List of UFO organizations in the US defunct subsection? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey User:Steelpillow thanks for the comment. You are *misinterpreting what AATIP was*. It is not a private organisation (should not therefore be included in List of UFO organizations) but was (some sources say is) an *official U.S. government program (classified)* started by then Senate majority leader senator Harry Reid. It has been confirmed by the Pentagon as well as Senator Reid in multiple in depth investigative reports by the NY Times, Washington Post, Politico and many others (see reference list in the article) as an official classified project (such as Project Blue Book). Funding for the project was included in the federal budget and after disclosure of the program in 2016 there are congressional hearings continuing to this day regarding the subject (2020). The company spinoff you refer to To the Stars (company) has only hired one former director of the program but has no other relation to the program except the subject matter. Does this information change your opinion? Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I said it spun off a private company, not that it was one. All that you describe is true enough but it is not of wider academic or cultural significance. So I am sorry, my judgement remains that it will not be found acceptable here. At the very least we'd have to wait for those congressional hearings to drop a bombshell, unless and until then it is at best TOOSOON. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: thank you for your reply and for explaining your position clearly. However, I still disagree with the basis of your argument. This is an article about ufology. "Wider academic or cultural significance" is not really the standard for inclusion here IMHO. What matters is the impact/relevance on the field of ufology which is undoubtedly high. If that was the standard the article would be empty as this is clearly a fringe subject.

Also, consider several sources disagree with your assessment. A couple of direct examples (mostly direct quotes form the articles with emphasis mine):

1. "The Year of UFOs. In 2019, our eyes were on the skies." "UFOs are back. Or perhaps better put, interest in UFOs is again on the rise." "A handful of events helped drive the new interest." The first one mentioned is the disclosure of AATIP Airspacemag
2. President Trump has been asked about AATIP https://politi.co/2MPYsdx and made comments on national television. Doesn't get any wider cultural significance than when it reaches the president on national television. "When asked if he would know of any extraterrestrial life, Trump demurred: "I think our great pilots would know. And some of them see things a little bit different from the past. ... We’re watching, and you’ll be the first to know.""
3. "Elizondo and Puthoff were among the key voices quoted in the blockbuster front-page Times article that revealed the covert existence of the Pentagon’s UFO program. The story drew millions of readers online""the recent news coverage of the videos was “huge,” says Jan Harzan, director of the Mutual UFO Network, a group that investigates sightings."“Basically, it made UFOs go mainstream,” Mercury News
4. There are 47 references currently on the AATIP article on wikipedia. All from RS. A quick google search reveals 11’100’000 results for Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program and 93’000 results for AATIP
5. The disclosure of AATIP and subsequent events have prompted the US Navy to change its reporting guidelines for all aviators in order to encourage reports of intrusions. As far as I can tell this is the only program in the article that has generated such official acknowledgment and shift in procedure/policy. This is why it has been so widely reported.

I would also point out that, given the other items in the list, it seems like "Wider academic or cultural significance" is already not the current standard for inclusion in the article. This highly covered and official governmental program is definitely more relevant than several of the other items in the list such as (just a couple of examples):

1. Project Hessdalen / Project EMBLA (a very specific incident with almost no cultural significance)
2. "Disclosure Project" Press Conference (a presser that didn't manage to get any congressional hearing)
3. Fife Symington Press Conference (just another press conference)

All interesting and (probably, although we could argue about some of them) should be kept in the article but they are definitely of an inferior relevance and notability than AATIP.

What do you think? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you should start a blog. Call it "UnNatural News." You'd be able to write anything you want without all these pesky policies getting in the way. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 07:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha and you should be a comedian. Really talented. I would not recommend a career in debating because having discussions and explaining your position doesn't seem like your strong suit. But "Comment on content, not on the contributor." remember that pesky policy? How about we avoid unrequested career advices and stick to the discussion at hand. Thanks. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wait, I'm being serious. None of your suggestions so far have gained any traction, and the prospects of any of them actually making it to the wikipedia page seem abysmally low, so you ought to consider writing somewhere people wont tell you your ideas are silly. (Emphasis entirely random) -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have made one suggestion. To add AATIP to the list of relevant studies. It's fine if you disagree. OK, thanks, bye. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my analysis of the Wikipedia community's position. Trump brushing the topic aside is not significant and however high you pile your mountain of arguments they will not ever become more cogent. For what it's worth, I have similar problems with one or two other fields blanket-classed as pseudoscience, I know how frustrating it is. But yes, you are enthusiastic and determined, even dedicated. The Internet is a vast place, Wikipedia is only a tiny corner of it. Roxy the dog is right, you can surely find more positive outlets for your energies elsewhere, and I would genuinely wish you the very best of good fortune there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Not frustrating at all User:Steelpillow. None of the above is my OR. It's fine to disagree. I've made my case. I don't always have to be right. The consensus between you and Roxy is therefore what exactly? I think we need to clean up the article if you want to raise the bar in terms of standards for inclusion here. The article is inconsistent at the moment. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

When I came here I had a quick read though and saw no obvious inconsistencies. That's not to say there are none. If you believe you see one, I'd recommend opening a new discussion topic below here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Steelpillow Sorry to pour more salt on the wound but I just read another source reporting The past few years have been something of a quiet golden age for UFO enthusiasts hoping to prove the validity of their interests. First, there was the Pentagon’s 2017 admission of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, a short-lived, $22 million scrap of the Defense budget that would investigate reports of “unexplained aerial phenomena.” [6].

I have also just noticed an incomplete/incorrect statement in the article: As the U.S. government ceased officially studying UFO sightings, the same became true for most governments of the world. this is clearly incorrect and unsourced (OR?). We need to correct this error and add ATIP here and in the list of programs. The article is currently gravely misleading and incomplete. All sources are clearly in support of this addition so I hope the other editors in this discussion will change their mind or I'll open an RfC. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 00:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

That would be a great piece to open your new blog with. But opening an RfC here on the basis of more hype to add to your pile? You will draw far more hardened sceptics than me down on top of you, I can assure you, and I would not rate your chances. Some might accuse you of persistence to the point of WP:DISRUPTION. I'd go open that blog if I were you, I really would. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Steelpillow I still haven't managed to get my point across apparently. If I've understood correctly the basis for the current consensus NOT to include AATIP was that in your opinion RS should report it had "significant cultural impact" (can you maybe confirm for clarity this is your argument? None of you have yet stated it clearly and explicitly). So here is another source doing exactly that. To me however this argument is irrelevant as I've said many times.

The basis of my argument for inclusion of AATIP in this article is the program has been officially confirmed by the US government, the US senate majority leader who started the program has confirmed and discussed it on the record, several RS have been covering it for several years with in depth investigative reports, congress has followed up on it, the NAVY changed its policies because of it, the president has commented on it. Not having AATIP in this article is clearly unjustifiable given those facts as it is very relevant to Ufology (what this article is about).

We have such different views I wonder if you have really taken the time to review the sources covering AATIP. I believe (just like you) the RfC will end in my favour. I've been editing for months those pages and created some of them so I believe my knowledge of the subject is very high. I recognise the local consensus between you and another user, but feel strongly more voices are needed outside of this small group which is now entrenched on an unsustainable position. I'll open the RfC as soon as I have time and that will be the end of this one way or the other. I'll maybe share the text with you to help me out creating a neutral request. If in the mean time you review the sources in this discussion and in the AATIP article page and change your mind please let me know and we'll avoid it. Also, just because we don't agree there is no need for veiled WP:PA. A lot of WP:LAWYERING in this discussion. Let's stick to the content. This is not about being right. It's about improving the article. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

That is very good of you to offer to share the draft text, thank you. I will do my best (such as it is) to ensure the RfC gets a fair hearing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It might take me some time as this is currently not very high in my priorities right now but I'll eventually get to it i promise! Cheers, -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Steelpillow do we still need this RfC after this? I think now it is just an utter waste of time. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/27/politics/pentagon-ufo-videos/index.html -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This was also given prime time yesterday by the BBC, the main UK national television channel.[7] I do think this overt and very public involvement of the Pentagon is a significant development in ufology. Although the AAITP is not mentioned by name, it is referenced directly in this context and I personally no longer see any need to wait for Congress to report. Clearly much care would be needed to maintain a balanced edit and not go too far. @Roxy the dog: may I ask what you think now, in the light of this Pentagon action and its global primetime publicity? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, AAITP is not mentioned. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Steelpillow thanks for reconsidering. Yes, all stories from yesterday's official release by the Pentagon mention AATIP (and To the stars even. I'm starting to think TTSA could be an official disinformation operation at this point. What a bizarre story). I think my original edit could be a starting point [8]. If you see any balance problems there we can fix them but most of the sources and text come from the Wiki article on AATIP. We should probably add a sentence to specify this additional disclosure with a couple of more recent sources since we are at it. Maybe I could do it once we restore that paragraph. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

OK I had a go at restoring something, but this is not the place for lengthy expositions so I put a much shorter mention in among the defunct US organizations. The rest is already in its main article I notice, so no harm if is is not here also. Let's see if this gets the balance acceptable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I've moved your edit to the "History" section since the "UFO Organisations" section isn't for governmental programs but private organisations. This also fixes the problem with the paragraph just above it being incorrect. It is now correct in context. The US had officially ceased researching UFOs until disclosure of AATIP when it was revealed that that was false.

I still think we are missing a clear criteria for inclusion in those lists below. We already have lists of List of investigations of UFOs by governments and Identification studies of UFOsand List of UFO organizations so I would close this discussion with the consensus "AATIP should be mentioned" (if you agree) and continue with the one below to clean up the rest of the article and fix/update the list articles (who are also in terrible shape). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent inclusion of Studies, panels, and conferences

If I've understood correctly the consensus among you and Roxy, we should include in the "Studies, panels, and conferences" section of the article only what has had "Wider academic or cultural significance". That would disqualify some of the voices in that list such as the ones I've reported above (and others). A quick list of items to be removed:

1. RAND Corporation paper (US, 1968)
2. Project Identification (US, 1973–1980)
3. Project Hessdalen / Project EMBLA
4. Sturrock Panel Report (US, 1997)
5. COMETA Report (France, 1999)
6. "Disclosure Project" Press Conference (US, 2001)
7. Fife Symington Press Conference

Maybe the section should then be renamed "Major studies, panels, and conferences" or something similar to reflect this. We already have several lists so this is probably just an unnecessary and cumbersome duplication (see List of UFO organizations Identification studies of UFOs and List of investigations of UFOs by governments. I would still argue AATIP should definitely be included even after this cut (maybe not as crucial as project Blue Book but pretty high up with a little recency bias). But I'm clearly in the minority on that. Let's first figure out a consistent basis for inclusion in this section and then we can see what that leaves us with. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the section on studies, panels, and conferences is OK in its basic format. I don't know much about the individual entries but the one for the Fife Symington Press Conference does look a bit dubious to me, because it does not address the impact of the conference - I would hazard because it had none. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies here, and the section could probably be winnowed to only those items with a lasting impact. I get the impression that the above is not so much about improving the article, but more about shoehorning in a mention of AATIP. I would err on the side of caution to avoid running afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, and try to keep obvious promotion and hype of everything connected with USS Nimitz UFO incident, USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents (and by extension, To The Stars Academy) at a minimum. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We can have different opinions without unfounded accusations of "obvious promotion". I think the sources clearly support the fact that it's a no-brainer to include AATIP. Others disagree. We have discussed this above. The discussion is closed with a clear local consensus. Comment there maybe if you wish to add something.

Here we are dealing with a very simple logical problem which stems from the above. We are trying to figure out the correct criteria for inclusion in the article. What should go here, and what should go in the many lists we already have. At the moment there are random conferences in the article which didn't have a lot of impact or coverage. Some of them are just specific indigents that have no general impact on the field. Some of them don't even reach the standard of notability to have their own Wikipedia page. The fact they are included, while other programs (such as a random one I happen to have been writing about recently by total coincidence [[File:|18px|link=]] ) isn't, is obviously an absurdity wouldn't you agree?

A IS notable enough to have an article. A IS NOT notable enough to be in the list. B IS NOT notable enough to have an article. Therefore B IS NOT notable enough to be in article.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. If this changes your mind about the criteria for inclusion you can propose a different one. I have already proposed that the criteria for inclusion should be "impact and relevancy within the field of ufology" but it didn't receive much support so far. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead Section

First sentence

@Roxy the dog: your revert [9] has an unintelligible edit description They could say, for instance, "What a load of nonsense. Who is "they"? And what is your issue with that edit and that source? Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There is only one antecedent in the sentence. jps (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? Which sentence? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Oops. You are talking about the edit summary and not the sentence in the article, I see. Let's just stick to the article sentence. jps (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

A source from 1979 should not be used to define this term. The authors are fairly clear about their intent with the paper and it's pretty clear that since then ufology has come to be associated with the definition we provide. It is so-much-so associated that Tom Delonge has insisted that his company is not doing ufology,e.g. I understand the concern over euphemism treadmills, but it would be irresponsible for us to claim that there was any serious investigations of UFOs going on. jps (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What does Tom Delonge have to do with this?!?!

My edit is the following: Ufology' (/juːˈfɒlədʒi/) is the investigation and study of reports, visual records, purported physical evidence, and other phenomena related to unidentified flying objects (UFOs).

It doesn't claim anything. It just defines ufology in an understandable way. We can use the Merriam Webster definition if you prefer. Ufology: the study of unidentified flying objects [10]. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not what ufology is. Ufology is a term that UFO believers use to make themselves sound more serious. That's essentially all it is. It is questionable whether we need a second article, but I think it's okay since we can document the fringe science surrounding the topic. Also, we will not be linking to a 41 year old sociology paper to define this subject. Just no. jps (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The MW is inexact in the sense that it doesn't provide adequate context. WP:NOTDICDEF. Eg... jps (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not what ufology is. Ufology is a term that UFO believers use to make themselves sound more serious. Do you have a source for this statement from an academic peer reviewed journal? Ufology has been around for quite some time. Why should a paper be more recent than the one provided which directly focuses on the subject and has been published in a reputable academic journal and peer reviewed (The Sociological Review)? I would argue the contrary makes sense. The source should be from the incipit of ufology and not a modern interpretation. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:PARITY applies here. Ufology is so absolutely WP:FRINGE that asking for a peer reviewed paper about it is ridiculous. The paper you found from 1979 is a one-off study of the sociology of the subject as it stood in 1979. It does not stand as a documentation of the status quo today which is what we are tasked on doing. jps (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

ufology in American English (juˈfɑlədʒi) noun; the study of UFOs, esp. when regarded as spacecraft from another planet. [source:] Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.[11] — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Steelpillow, do you think the reverted edit [12] is appropriate? Would you change something? It is hard to argue for the reinterpretation of a word that has a clear meaning in English. Ufology is the study of Unidentified Flying Objects.

Ufology should be described accurately and clearly in the lead sentence. Not with an original and sloppy interpretation. We have the sentence after that gives context and states that it is regarded as pseudoscience and an entire section below dedicated to that debate (which is clearly not so black and white but more complex). I understand some have strong personal beliefs on this but that doesn't make the topic above Wikipedia's requirement for sources and does not allow WP:OR. The definition of ufology is clear as day and should be the initial sentence. I can also provide additional peer reviewed sources on Ufology if you wish. A more recent review if you are interested is here from the journal "Public Understanding of Science" in 2017. I recommend it: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963662515617706 -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Read it in the context of your own edsum just previously. and stop pinging me. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

OK how do RS define it (with of course cites)?Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:I'll summarise here what the sources reported above say:

• "ufology in American English (juˈfɑlədʒi) noun; the study of UFOs, esp. when regarded as spacecraft from another planet." [source:] Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.}}[13]
• Ufology: the study of unidentified flying objects Source: Merriam-Webster [14].
• Ufology: "the study of Unidentified Flying Objects as elements in an independent theoretical-conceptual scheme." Journal: The Sociological Review
• Ufology: is the study of unidentified flying objects source: "Science, technology, and society : an encyclopedia" Oxford university press [15] The whole section describing Ufology here is much more appropriate than what we have. We should use this as a model.

-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well I think that last two are OK , yet it is the "the study of Unidentified Flying Objects".Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

So are there any RS that dispute this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure we can trim it up. I simply kept what we already had in the article in this edit [16]. No problem just using "Ufology is the study of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)" with the sources above. Let's see if any other sources come up contrasting this. Although none have been presented so far. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That Webster's definition I gave was the tip of the iceberg, guys, it really was and is. Note the following peer-reviewed academic paper associating ufology with aliens and abductions as much as the actual UFOs. Heck, look at his choice of keywords. You can play wikilawyering and logic-chopping for as long as you want, but seriously, the skeptical majority here will lose patience with you an come down on your fun and games like a ton of bricks. If you take my advice you'll stop wasting time on a fool's errand and find something constructive to do.

• Greg Eghigian; "Making UFOs make sense: Ufology, science, and the history of their mutual mistrust", Public Understanding of Science, Volume 26, Issue 5, July 1, 2017. pages 612-626. First published online, December 6, 2015.[17]

Abstract
Reports of unidentified flying objects and alien encounters have sparked amateur research (ufology), government investigations, and popular interest in the subject. Historically, however, scientists have generally greeted the topic with skepticism, most often dismissing ufology as pseudoscience and believers in unidentified flying objects and aliens as irrational or abnormal. Believers, in turn, have expressed doubts about the accuracy of academic science. This study examines the historical sources of the mutual mistrust between ufologists and scientists. It demonstrates that any science doubt surrounding unidentified flying objects and aliens was not primarily due to the ignorance of ufologists about science, but rather a product of the respective research practices of and relations between ufology, the sciences, and government investigative bodies.

Keywords
aliens, debunkers, pseudoscience, public understanding of science, science doubt, ufology, unidentified flying objects

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "tip of the iceberg". But yes that's a great paper. I suggest full reading. I am the one that added it to this article. Alas it doesn't give a clear definition of Ufology (I looked there first but I guess it doesn't think it is needed) apart from that fleeting reference to "amateur research" in the abstract. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: Discussion continues below in a unified thread -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Fringe scientists

@ජපස: This diff [18] is ridiculous. I'll start this discussion since you have already reverted my edits several times and I do not wish to engage in an edit war. Please explain your POV clearly.

Problems I see:

• Carl Sagan, Peter A. Sturrock, J. Allen Hynek, Jacques F. Vallée, James E. McDonald are clearly NOT "fringe scientists"
• Some of those scientists are also ufologists so saying the have expressed "disdain" for the subject is an absurdity

-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This list of scientists who have commented on UFOs is not the same thing as a list of ufologists. The only scientists who self identify as ufologists are fringe scientists. This isn't even moderately controversial. jps (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologise. In the flurry of reverts I conflated the diffs. You have removed shown disdain in the UFO phenomenon which I absolutely agree with. You can ignore that second point completely.

With regards to the first item: The sentence starts with "although". So it is illogical to say although the subject has been studied by fringe scientists it is considered fringe. It doesn't mean anything. While saying although the subject has been studied by some (mainstream) scientists it is considered fringe/pseudoscience is now a sentence with a logical meaning. See my point? Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

In English, the word "although" does not set up a stark dichotomy. It can just be a simple comparison. jps (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Merriam Webster disagrees though: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/although The sentence does not make sense. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Um, I speak the language perfectly well. jps (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Who added the Ufology rebuttals in the “as a pseudoscience” section? Pseudoscientists on the fringe complaining about mainstream bias should only be included if it is commented on by WP:FRIND sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Fringe does not mean "not academic" or "not qualified".Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. But would you consider the list of names above fringe? A professor of Physics at Stanford is now considered fringe? Sagan is fringe? I think that is hard to argue so saying " a few/some scientist" is appropriate and a more accurate description. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Fringe does mean "a group with marginal or extremist views", so yes of they hold marginal views that are out of step with the scientific consensus, yes they would be on the fringes of conventional science.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If by marginal views you mean the Extraterrestrial hypothesis that is just one of the potential explanations to the "UFO problem". No claim is made about their beliefs in this section. Sagan for example was generally against the ETH. He participated in ufology(=the study of UFOs) though. Not sure about all the others but it is irrelevant. Also this is from a RS already in the article describing ufology we should use more extensively (we use it to justify the labelling of the subject as pseudoscience) Ufology is the study of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Mainstream scientists mostly reject the view that UFOs are manifestations of alien intelligence.... Although a few professionals are involved within ufology, the field is dominated by amateurs with a thriving community of magazines, meetings, and communication networks. Ufology is thus a facet of grassroots science that is stigmatized by mainstream science. source: Science, technology, and society : an encyclopedia, 2005 [19]

This is an accurate description. Not what we have. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

In case we need more RS on this: From the early-1950s through the 1970s, a number of academics took the study of UFOs seriously and regularly engaged with ufologists, including astronomers and astrophysicists William Hartmann, J. Allen Hynek, Donald Menzel, Carl Sagan, and William Powers, physicists James McDonald and Peter Sturrock, computer scientist Jacques Vallee, psychologist David Saunders, and sociologist Ron Westrum. [20] -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

There really are not professional ufologists. Your proposed wordings are much worse. jps (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

@Roxy the dog: I'll start this (umpteenth) discussion as the edit history of this page already has too many reverts and we have already added three additional ones [21][22][23]. As you can see above, the discussion over the lead is ongoing. I have also notified the discussion here: [24]. Please self revert and reinstate the NPOV tag. It should be removed only once the conditions for its removal are met. Hopefully soon, as progress is being made. You are also invited to participate in the process if you wish to. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The meaningful part of the discussion over the lead is not a PoV issue, as both sides have stated that the status as pseudoscience should not be challenged. Any remaining PoV issues after such exhaustive discussions are now purely WP:DISRUPTIVE and somebody is pretty soon going to get fed up with it all and take action. I am 100% with Roxy here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree. The discussion is ongoing. Normally the tag is added by the editor that raises the issue (me in this case) and removed once discussion is resolved, consensus is reached, and the article is edited (or not). However if I am the only one that thinks this very normal approach should be followed no problem.

I would however like to invite everyone to remain calm and patient. For some reason this seems to be a very personal issue for some (this baffles me honestly, it seems like a very unemotional topic. Is it some kind of religious connection that evokes such strong reactions?) No need to constantly make aspersions over other editor's intentions. Let's focus on the content remember to WP:AGF. Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thing is, a sole newbie setting a tag like that with no real justification, just pettiness as they aren't getting what they want, is going to get the tag removed for that pettiness every time. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 14:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

What an ironic comment. Answering is not worth my time. The issues will be resolved soon in any case. Have a good day. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Why ironic? I dont understand? -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 15:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Note being right is not a justification.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

What was the last stable version, that is the one we should return to.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Will let others judge what the last stable version was. If I may, I would propose once again the introduction of the NPOV tag as per discussion above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ufology#NPOV_Tag . I think it was a terrible mistake not to include it as editors continue editing the page rather than engaging in the discussion. With the results we are all witnessing. Unfortunately there was edit warring even on the introduction of that basic discussion aid. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

here. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 11:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Obviously some editors are still editing the lead and ignoring all discussions. We are discussing a potential RfC above and they are acting like they WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE. jps (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think an admin needs to step in reset the article and lock it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You can always propose that at WP:RFPP. Better to do it there then complain about it on the talkpage where there are no active, uninvolved admins. jps (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Done.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems that I picked a bad time to make an unrelated edit to the article. I don't believe I'm a participant in this dispute, but if there are any questions about that edit (the last one before the protection went through) then please ping me to get my attention. Sunrise (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

We went WAAY back. We lost over a month of edits here: [25] Nothing major but most were not contentious. The contention was only on the lead not the rest of the article.

I would say the current version of the lead is much better than what had been added and in line with what was being discussed above. What's next? I would restart the discussion from scratch below and close the ones above. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent improvement, a tiny way back to before the disruption. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 15:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Obviously, as it is almost exactly my proposal [26]. I don't think it requires any change at all. I would just add some of the sources we identified during the discussion to solidify this lead. I guess nobody has objections to this? I'll write an exact proposal as soon as I have time to collect all the bits. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 01:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

No changes to the lead which is totally fine and accurate. I would just add some sources to solidify it. See links below. I think this is not a contentious edit so if nobody has anything against this I will apply it. Ufology (/juːˈfɒlədʒi/) is the study of reports, visual records, purported physical evidence, and other phenomena related to unidentified flying objects (UFO).[27][28] UFO reports have been subject to various investigations over the years by governments, independent groups, and scientists. However, ufology as a field has not been embraced by academia and is considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community.[29][30] -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• No, not needed. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 19:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Why? Good sources is better than no sources right? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD for a hint about why an article lead section might not require citations. - 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly why citations are needed. Per MOS:CITELEAD The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. the edit war proves this is the case. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Only a 'True Belieber^TM' would question the lead for this article. We don't rerally need to worry about them. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 20:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Several editors have questioned this lead in the edit war above. They weren't "believers" (actually the opposite). So this has definitely been challenged and should have sources. Let's see what other uninvolved editors think. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be good practice to examine sources that an editor noted for UFOlogy advocacy is all fired up about inserting into the lead. So let’s give it a few days and see what consensus arises. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely not It's wrong and it is a POV-push. jps (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Other edits

As reported above [31] the "hard reset" applied after the edit war has resulted in several edits being caught in the crossfire (they were made before the edit war with only slight modifications). I've restored some of them and they have been (obviously) reverted with no clear explanation. [32]

@Roxy the dog: What are your problems exactly with those edits? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see Whats wrong the sources?Driverofknowledge (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

These edits are POV-pushing in favor of WP:FRINGE beliefs regarding UFOs. jps (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Be specific or ne may get the impression you haven't read the edit. That edit includes many different items that were in the page before the "reset". Such as the removal of a disambig to "UFO religion" which is nonsensical and the removal of a sentence stating that ufologists dispute pseudoscience status per WP:MRDA. I would like to point out. That most of those edits were not done by me but by other editors and were on the page before the edit war on the lead. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Reported at ANI

Reported at WP:ANI#Ufology sprawling edit war. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

C. G. Jung

C. G. Jung wrote this book about "flying saucers". I'm surprised it isn't mentioned here. Lou Sander (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It is, indeed, a famous work that connects the psychoanalysis community with these ideas. Not sure whether it is directly relevant to ufology, however. jps (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Good lede

Ufology (/juːˈfɒlədʒi/) is the investigation of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) by people who believe that they may be of alien origin (the extraterrestrial hypothesis). While there are instances of government, private, and fringe science investigations of UFOs, ufology is included on lists by skeptics and science educators as one of the canonical examples of pseudoscience.

I don't see the problem. Please let me know.

jps (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. It also aligns well with the folks that populate List of ufologists. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow I really get a sense of déjà-vu... [33]. We've discussed this at length so I won't repeat myself. But the sources don't support this wording. I would invite new editors to read that discussion first to avoid duplication. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Its time for an RFC, this is just a joke.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree. And once again: I agree that we need an RFC if someone wants to change the current lead. What a mess... -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"by people who believe that they may be of alien origin" is not generally true. Jacques Vallée, who is definitely a ufologist, believes it may be elves from another dimension or something, though he has also flirted with the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Interdimensional hypothesis is in the ufology category.

The foundation of ufology is the old argument from ignorance: "I do not know what this is, therefore I know it is X", but X is not necessarily aliens. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems that semantics and philosophy now enter the picture. (I know, just what this discussion needed, right?) I suggest that elves from another dimension, or as phrased on the Interdimensional hypothesis page, visitations from other "realities" or "dimensions," qualify such elves/visitors as "alien" and "extraterrestrial" with respect to our broadly-accepted notions of Reality and terrestrial physicality. Perhaps such folk can simultaneously be considered as extra-metaphysical-terrestrial? I do not know if being a Little Green Man conveys upon such elves/visitors any special status of extraterrestrial-ness, although I note that many elves are depicted in the literature as wearing green outfits (e.g., Peter Pan, or at least the Disneyfied version of the character) and sometimes possess green skin pigmentation, although, of course, such elves are not to be confused with Tolkien's Green Elves, for whom, never having personally visited Middle-earth, the garb and flesh pigmentation is unknown to me. And yes, I know that Peter Pan was not technically an elf, but he/it possessed the decidedly elvish qualities of flight and the ability to be repeatedly portrayed on stage by lithe women (i.e., Mary Martin, Sandy Duncan, Cathy Rigby, et alia).

My point being: potential exceptions such as Vallée are few and do not, in my opinion, detract significantly from the general perception that the typical UFOlogist embraces, as evidenced by their statements and activities, the concept that UFOs are of alien origin. Thus the basis of my support for the lede proposed by jps. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me, as I am new to the conversation and haven't yet made my way through the backlog, but why not simply omit the line about "alien origin" in the lead, and go in to more depth in the body of the article? So long as we retain the sentence about fringe/pseudoscience, it strikes me as good enough. I'm sure there's an answer, so I thought I would ask. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand your asking, but Alien nuttery is kinda central to the topic, wouldn't you say? -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 21:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose so, though in my less salubrious readings I have come across plenty of non-alien nuttery, and there are the vanishing few who at least claim to be agnostic on the subject. As I say, if we didn't immediately go on to say "this is pseudoscience," we would absolutely need something like that. Since we do, it strikes me as okay to cast a very broad net in the lead and specify more in the body. BUt reasonable minds may differ! Dumuzid (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Well I'm not gonna edit the lead. Today. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 21:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Heard and understood. Neither am I, for that matter! Honestly not trying to poke the beehive here, just trying to get the lay of the land a bit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Vallee's "rejection" of ETH was only to say that he thought that the "aliens" were supernatural. This is largely a distinction without a difference. The point is that those who are ufologists think that extravagant hypotheses need to be entertained. The null hypothesis that UFOs are all likely natural phenomena, human technology, delusions, and/or hoaxes (or a combination) is one that is firmly rejected by ufologists to a name. The point is that the WP:MAINSTREAM view is that the null hypothesis is alive and well. That's the fundamental disagreement between the fringe promoters and the mainstream. That's also the main demarcation for what makes a ufologist. Now, I don't care how we say this in the lede, but what we must not do is make it seem like people who preference the null hypothesis out of an abundance of caution are somehow "ufologists". We've already had people argue that Carl Sagan was a ufologist. He most definitely was not. jps (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

So, this is largely my point: ufologists all have unscienttific explanations of the phenomena, and I daresay "aliens" is far and away the largest explanation. But my point is simply that we need not draw distinctions between pseudosciences in the lead. Say it's a pseudoscientific endeavor, and leave it to the body to specify further. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is a bit overbroad and, thus, obscure for our purposes. As each pseudoscience is pseudoscientific in its own way, it leaves the reader scratching their head to simply identify it as such. Richard Feynman called such terminology "wakalixes": [34]. I think we can do better. jps (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I think that your edit was rather nicely in the correct direction: [35], however, while the adjective "supernatural" worked as the provenance of ufological claims, "pseudoscientific" does not as they do not claim that the origin is "psuedoscientific", but rather they try to support the hypotheses of which they are most fond with pseudoscientific rationales. I therefore tweaked the wording a bit to add extraordinary claims which I think gets at this null hypothesis business in a readable way. I also think it is vital that we link to extraterrestrial aliens (or some iteration of this idea) early on as this is the very typical association and we need to be up front about it). Good work! jps (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No you returned it to your preferred version that only mentions in the first line one of the many explanations as if its the only one. Which a number of users have objected to (not just those topic banned). Anyone coming here having heard of the various non extraterrestrial origin theories will read that first line and assume this is not about what they have heard. In a sense our lead is click bait designed to encourage the reader to read further, nit to make them thing "well this is obviously not about the hollow earth origin or the time traveller origin I will look elsewhere". So I ask the page is reset back to thew stable version until this is resolved.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I know you sometimes have had problems with reading comprehension and understanding in the past, so I encourage you to re-read my comment and the current lede. It's a bit odd to attack people who are giving you compliments. jps (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The current lead first sentence "Ufology (/juːˈfɒlədʒi/) is the investigation of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) by people who believe that they may be of extraordinary origins (most famously, extraterrestrial alien visitors)", any one not looking for that will read no further. The sentence before my edit "Ufology (/juːˈfɒlədʒi/) is the investigation of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) by people who believe that they may be of alien origin (the extraterrestrial hypothesis), all you did was to switch a couple of swords about, its not a new version. Which would also turn of any one not looking for the theories not about space aliens.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This was your edit. It is demonstrably incorrect as ufologists do not propose that UFOs originate from pseudoscience as your lede implies. So I switched "pseudoscience" for "extraordinary claims" with a wikilink. Please be more careful before you spout like this. jps (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ahhn sorry my mistake I saw extraterrestrial not extraordinary.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Just to reiterate, I thought your edit was a good one! It just required a slight rewording. I also think it better to make ETs parenthetical as this idea is a subset rather than an "either-or" comparison with pseudoscience/extraordinary claims. jps (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It is true its the main direction of UFOlogy (I blame Ed Straker), so no issue with mentioning it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

With images of Straker's purple-haired moon-base honeys now in my mind - thanks for that, by the way - might I suggest a slight modification to the lede, replacing "one of the canonical examples" with the briefer "a canonical example?" I would ordinarily just make the change, but the recent hullabaloo makes me sensitive to consensus. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. jps (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Final sentence of lede

I restored my preferred version not because I think the wording is awesome but because it looked to me like User:HAL333, the user who "reverted", was doing so to get rid of the sources that identified ufology as a pseudoscience. I am more than happy to workshop wording changes, but it is not okay to first ask for a bunch of sources and then, when they are provided, summarily delete them. jps (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I saw that, and was about to restore the previous version when you beat me to it. Wordsmithing is always welcome, however the problem with HAL333's edit was that it removed a needed clarification of *which* scientists have studied UFOs — and all the sources that such clarification was cited to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You realize that the lede I added was the former lede and that it labelled Ufology a pseudoscience. I asked you clarify, not to add a dozen sources. Per MOS:CITELEAD, we don't need to clog up the lede, especially since there is a whole section dedicated to it being a pseudoscience later. Your version of the lede is awkwardly written and contradictory. You say that ufology is included on lists. What does that even mean? I can't think of any notable lists of this sort. You mention skeptics and science educators ( Who? Neil deGrasse Tyson?), the old lede's mention of academia is much better. It can be said to encompass skeptics and science educators. If you're really trying to make ufology seem invalid, I think readers would respect academic ethos rather than some skeptic in his basement or some TV actor. You also mention "fringe science investigations" as if that gives it validity. Your use of "however" suggests that this is in opposition to it being a pseudoscience, which doesn't make any sense. The old lede is much simpler, clear, direct, and just better. (Also, just to clarify, I don't believe in Aliens) ~ HAL333 18:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we not have another edit war?Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

HAL333, your most recent revert merely restored the problems I described above. If you are in agreement with the content of the lead but feel the language is clumsy, how about putting a draft of your proposed lead here on the Talk page to discuss. If you have some problem with content, specify which content it is, and we can discuss. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's a lot of argument. Shall we take each in turn?

• I asked you to clarify, not to add a dozen sources. Per MOS:CITELEAD, we don't need to clog up the lede, especially since there is a whole section dedicated to it being a pseudoscience later. Mmmhmm. You didn't ask me. You tagged a sentence with general questions that the sources answer. I'm happy to workshop a change to the whole section below... but that doesn't seem to be on your plate. We can put the sources down there, but you didn't do that either. I'm very happy to remove sources from the lede and put them down there, but to remove them outright seems peculiar at least.
• You say that ufology is included on lists. What does that even mean? I can't think of any notable lists of this sort. Did you read the sources that include ufology on lists of pseudosciences?
• You mention skeptics and science educators ( Who? Neil deGrasse Tyson?) Again, you can see in the sources you removed.
• the old lede's mention of academia is much better. I don't think it is better as it is incorrect. Academia ignores ufology except to study it as a little oddity of human ignorance or a social phenomena. No academic bothers with the claims made by ufologists.
• It can be said to encompass skeptics and science educators. Not really. Many in the skeptic movement are amateurs. Many science educators are not academics in a proper sense. If you're curious about this, feel free to read the linked articles.
• If you're really trying to make ufology seem invalid, I think readers would respect academic ethos rather than some skeptic in his basement or some TV actor. Huh? The goal is not to make ufology seem invalid. The goal is to outline what the best understanding of this subject is according to the reliable sources that discuss it. That's our entire goal.
• You also mention "fringe science investigations" as if that gives it validity. If you think "fringe science investigations" give ufology validity, I'm not sure what to say. Maybe you meant to write "invalidity"? But we aren't interested in whether ufology is "valid or invalid". See above.
• Your use of "however" suggests that this is in opposition to it being a pseudoscience, which doesn't make any sense. The only instance of the word "however" being used is in the version you keep reverting to. [36]
• The old lede is much simpler, clear, direct, and just better. (Also, just to clarify, I don't believe in Aliens) So... hmm... I don't think you've made your case.

jps (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll respond to that one by one.

• You didn't ask me I used the word "ask" to describe my action as that is exactly how you used it when we began this disscussion.
• lists The usage of that word just seems very strange to me. In the lede of Al Qaeda, you wouldn't say "it's on the list of terrorists", or on the Transamerica Pyramid, you wouldn't say "it's on ths list of buildings in San Fransisco." Just say it how it is. Don't bring up random lists. Are these lists so heavily represented in the body of the paragraph that they deserve mention in the lede?
• The fact that you tacked on sources doesn't make the prose anymore clear.
• What about Carl Sagan? He was a ufologist, science educator, and academic at Cornell.
• however My bad. I meant "while" (I'm multitasking at the moment)
• Besides Scientific American and the final book, most of those sources are not of high quality.

I'll create a new discussion to create a revised lede in a bit. ~ HAL333 19:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This is incoherent grandstanding and as it seems you cannot engage substantively, I think we'll just ignore you until you aren't multitasking. WP:CIR. jps (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You may be aware that the purpose of the lead, per WP:LEAD, is to be a summary of what's contained in the article. At the moment, the sentences in question directly summarize what is contained in the Ufology#Pseudoscience section. There's some good work being done by JoJo Anthrax, and no doubt the lead will eventually be expanded to summarize the major sections of the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that the pseudoscience section does not mention any lists, amateurs, or science educators. But it does mention academia. I hope Jo Jo does a good job. ~ HAL333 19:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

So do I. This is a difficult task, however, and before getting to the lede I first wish to float a proposal (immediately below) that I know some of you might not like, but would in my opinion appropriately condense this article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the "Studies, panels, and conferences" and "UFO Organizations" sections

Both of these sections are quite long, and each include topical subsections for which Main Articles already exist. Regarding the Studies subsection, 11 of the 17 listings link to a Main Article, and the subsection itself provides two "Further information" links. Regarding UFO Organizations, enWiki already has a Main Article on the subject (explicitly linked in this subsection) that pretty much replicates the current content. In the interest of simultaneously retaining relevant information and avoiding undue replication - and by so doing avoiding potential content conflicts/errors/omissions that could easily arise in the future if one page, but not the other, is modified - I propose the following two changes to this article: (1) Remove all subsections already extant on enWiki, but explicitly include a link to each in the "See also" section; (2) retain the "Further information" links for each section. Please let me know what you all think. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I think you've got a great thing going here. jps (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• You have touched on one of the major flaws of this article: it's essentially one big list. I would support removing the subsections and combining them into a few paragraphs. For example all the US government projects would be explained chronologically and how one led to the next and how it influenced it. We could group Euro ones in another, etc. Government investigations into UFO is a major part of ufology and shouldn't just be removed. That would also be one massive See Also. ~ HAL333 21:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support I believe what Jojo is proposing is replacing a lot of detailed subsections with paragraph summaries that have overarching "Further information" links leading to the appropriate main articles. Which would be a real improvement, IMO. And AFAIK, there aren't any History of Ufology texts written by independent sources that can provide a chronological overview of how various investigations influenced each other within the context of Ufology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll start on the task. It will likely take some time, several edits, a dinner break, a scotch break...the usual. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And I'm now done with the major edits. I need to go back and fix my habit of writing "UFology" rather than "Ufology," but it's time for that scotch break, and that means Good Night Everybody! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the work, but I don't think it's much of an improvement. It's still a list. It should really be 2-3 cohesive paragraphs. ~ HAL333 17:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't need me to say, "Go right ahead," but I will. Go right ahead. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

...and absent you going ahead with your desired format, and because I am unable to convert that list into a coherent 2-3 paragraph structure without violating WP:Citation overkill, I am now inclined to simply move the "Further information" links to the preceding section and remove this entire section. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean you are unable to write 2-3 paragraphs? What is it that you do here exactly? And WP:Citation overkill is an essay, not a guideline so feel free to violate it. ~ HAL333 15:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Does academia regard anything as a pseudoscience?

[37]

I don't see any sources which indicate this. We have sources for skeptics and science educators. Academia essentially ignores it. I made this point above, but it seems others just don't believe me. I'm happy to be shown sources to this effect.

jps (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The canard that biased, closed-minded "academia" is preventing talented researchers from work that could reveal The Truth is a common theme of conspiracy ufologist writers like Michael Swords [38]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If it is a conspiracy to ignore, I guess that's one thing. But there's really not a lot of "THIS IS PSEUDOSCIENCE" complaining going around, right? jps (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If RS don't say it we cant either really.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That's what I thought. There is a discussion of this that was recently archived by the user who inserted the word. We've got RSes that identify ufology as such who are science educators, skeptics, and, yes, some of those people are in academia, but some are not. jps (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Then its a bit tough, technically policy says RS have to say it. But a also we do have to use common sense. If RS say Dr Whatt has said this and Dr Whatt is an academic than an academic has said it. I think a better way of putting it is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think "scholars" may be the word you're looking for, i.e. an expert, a specialist in a branch of study. Ufologists are similar to parapsychologists and conspiracy theorists in the sense that some hold advanced degrees and may have had teaching jobs in the past, so they are tied in some way to academia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we still have the same issue, do RS say it. We do not need a new word, but a new way of phrasing it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we could say "academics", but we shouldn't say "academia". It may feel like parsing words, but it is an important distinction. But really I just don't see why it is beneficial to the reader to mention academics in this fashion when all the people who have labeled ufology as a pseudoscience have done so in the context of either science education or skeptical debunking. The academic work on ufology is all in the realm of sociology and, while it mentions the status, doesn't explain or declare why it is so identified because it is typically beyond the scope of the academic studies of the social phenomenon. jps (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, I think its not needed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Take it out, then. Ufology's relationship to academia is reported in the body text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done jps (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

By that same standard, could you show me some reliable sources which say science educators say it is pseudoscience? ~ HAL333 17:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Also just found a few sources on who calls ufology a pseudoscience.

• "academic researchers have dismissed the study of UFOs as pseudoscience" [39]
• "scientists have generally greeted the topic with skepticism, most often dismissing ufology as pseudoscience" [40]
• "The media, broadly, and many scientists tend to call those espousing pseudoscience ideas or conspiracy theories “anti-science” or “science deniers.” [41]

Most other sources I found were crap. ~ HAL333 17:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The sources are already in the article. On the other hand, I think the sources you are posing here would make an argument for "academics" or "scientists" but not "academia". jps (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Fine by me. ~ HAL333 18:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Just my two cents, I think the article does a good job of fence sitting on this one. Either ufology is a study of factual objects or not, but the article doesn't touch that ground, only giving information about the various party's perspectives. However I do have one major criticism in that no article on Wikipedia should employ the use of weasel words or generalizations so broad as to be incorrect. In this case it would be 'academia and science communicators' consider ufology to be pseudoscience which is plainly not true, certainly there are SOME that have probably considered it pseudoscience but who? is there a name or a face or an article or a reason? I know of UFOs and their study by academics such as myself is important if unfruitful. In fact the article directly contradicts itself, saying academia rejects ufology only then to go on to discuss the various projects of advanced aerial phenomena study in which very dedicated academics have been personally and physically involved. Such is the danger of overgeneralizing. --81.109.120.75 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We have something like 10 sources in that section, 5 just for the use of pseudoscience. So do you have an example of any skeptics or science educators who do not consider it one?Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation of ufology

I can see no reason to capitalize this word, it's not a proper noun, nor based on one. I suggest it is changed to normal text, I may do so myself. if there no claim of a compelling reason not to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC).

I agree, that's a good idea. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose [[42]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good enough reason for us to adopt a crazy style; that dictionary says "often" some will write "UFOlogy" (which we've never used) but they don't even give any examples; their page is filled with "ufology". The only guideline we have for eccentric capitalization styles I believe applies to trademarks (or artists such as "ee cummings"), which this word is not. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

And auntie Beeb [[43]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I would support such a change. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I was curious how high quality scholarly sources treated it, and found (so far) three instances of lowercase "ufology" from Oxford University Press [44], [45], [46]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Article Watch: Systematic editing and deletion of articles related to UFOlogy, UFOs, "aliens", and interdimensional beings? Misrepresentations in articles?

In 2012, I noticed some deletions – and suggestions for deletions – of various pages related to UFOlogy, and was concerned. This revisits these topics (mostly unedited here).

And just as we find during times of sightings, we might also be seeing some examples of misrepresentations, misinformation, or disinformation. I find this disturbing if it is being done on Wikipedia, and would like investigators and students of UFOlogy/Ufology to keep watch. I suggest/propose that this be an organized watch.

Examples of deletions (selected):

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

Example of misrepresentations/misinformation/disinformation (selected):

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

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

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

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

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

Please comment here. :) (Reviving this topic from 22 July 2012.) Misty MH (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Revert of addition of content to section Research

My recent edit was reverted by User:Slatersteven with the explanation "Unsure about some of those sources, I think you need to make a case at talk.".

The concern is understandable. However, I would have preferred if you either directly tagged (or even removed) the sources you're unsure about in particular or at least listed them here at the talk page. Could you please name which you were referring to? Most sources are highly reliable WP:RS and/or scientific studies. There are a few sources some may be concerned about, but I think they were only used to support sources of the former kind. These would probably (be or) include:

• Knuth, Kevin H. (20 May 2022). "Mitigating Biases and Naiveté in UAP Studies". Medium. Retrieved 4 July 2022.

Please list the sources here so we can discuss e.g. which / how to exclude these references / respective contents or so that I can maybe make a case for them.

For the one case above: that was unique explanatory writing about UAPx by one of its members, the PhD&Ex-Nasa scientist Kevin Knuth, and was only used as addition to another reference (so that it's not the only reference and so that the reader can find a little more information about it). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem was the sheer volume of added content I would have had to wade through, much of it (maybe all of it) poorly sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I readded just a (revised) part of it now. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Knuth

See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_85#Various_journal_cites_RS?. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a good/due (notable, sufficient-quality, news-media covered) study, a WP:RS that is sufficient for the brief text in specific. I don't agree with this revert. Waiting for more comments. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope. See LuckylouiesLink at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_85#Various_journal_cites_RS?. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 08:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and also the article Entropy (journal). Not a sufficient reason to remove this though. It may warrant changes to the text to clarify this (and/or to make the study sound less credible than the current text may make it seem) or adding a {{Unreliable source?}} tag or adding additional references covering the paper.

I'd opt for none of those or only the latter. The RS news outlet sources covering the papers / Knuth-led research include: [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]. There probably is at least one additional source and other coverage like [52] [53] to use but one or more of those should suffice already. With only a brief text, it's very notable and due there. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the content revert. For starters, for any of that content to be restored all of the primary sources must be removed, per WP:PST. That includes the primary sources authored by Knuth, who can fairly be described as a ufologist. Furthermore, the otherwise reliable sources you list (specifically, this, this, this, and this), do not critically cover or evaluate Knuth's activities per se, but rather present Knuth's personal opinions, hopes, speculations, and predictions, none of which pass, at a minimum, WP:TOOSOON, and all of which seem to fail WP:N and WP:SENSATIONAL. For completeness I believe this source is weak and credulous. Lastly, note also the comments of Jo-Jo Eumerus and MrOllie at the above-linked WP:FTN discussion, which suggest that publications with the MDPI imprint are of dubious quality; explicit, reliable citations supporting that view are available at MDPI. Only sources that pass WP:FRIND and which present the desired content in a dispassionate, critical manner should, in my opinion, be used here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Good points, but when some of the above linked sources are added the content passes these policies, especially or mostly included in WP:FRIND. The papers themselves don't need to be removed but "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources". Short quotes from the paper are fine. I don't think that adding a {{Unreliable source?}} tag next to the MDPI ref is needed because that "Unreliable" would be relative to the prior text – a ref to primary study X is sufficient for text that says that primary study X was done and the text only stated what Knuth's – unique and notable, whatever the currently ascribed credibility – research suggests as covered by WP:RS. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned by JoJo Anthrax, the combination of citations to primary sources and uncritical mentions in media are not enough base a "Flight characteristics" section on - which, in my opinion was misleadingly presented as if this were some kind of notable scientific conclusion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Why? I addressed the points (as far as possible). They are not "uncritical" or that's an imagined ideal not required by any policy. To explain: there is no "topics which I'd like to discard and/or dislike should only be criticized by the sources (or approached from a critical rather than simply relatively neutral stance)"-policy.

From The Guardian source:

A paper Knuth co-authored in 2019 focuses on well-documented sightings of “unidentified aerial vehicles” that display “technical capabilities far exceeding those of our fastest aircraft and spacecraft”.
Knuth’s calculations of speed and acceleration are also good high school physics problems, said Berkil Alexander, who teaches at Kennesaw Mountain high school, outside Atlanta.

From the Vice source:

Knuth presented a lecture at the Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods in Science and Engineering Workshop at the Max Planck Institute for Plasmaphysics in Garching Germany on determining the flight characteristics of unidentified anomalous vehicles in July 2019. His paper, which is currently waiting to be peer-reviewed, can be found online.

From the Texas Public Radio source:

Knuth authored a paper titled Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles. It included case studies from 1951 to present day, which included sightings of objects near the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier in 2004.
All the reports consist of reliable eyewitness testimony and, more importantly, corroborating radar data. In the Nimitz case, objects were tracked on radar several times, descending from 28,000 feet, which is about five miles up, down to sea level in about .7 seconds. How fast is that? Knuth did the math.

From this source:

To that end, in August, Knuth was the lead author of a paper that examines "a handful of well-documented encounters, including the 2004 encounters with the Nimitz Carrier Group off the coast of California." In the paper, Knuth and his fellow authors look at the flight patterns of these UAP sightings and determine that the "observed flight characteristics of these craft are consistent with the flight characteristics required for interstellar travel. That is, if these observed accelerations were sustainable in space, then these craft could easily reach relativistic speeds within a matter of minutes to hours and cover interstellar distances in a matter of days to weeks, proper time."

From this source:

Kopparapu was followed by Dr. Knuth, whose talk covered the potential real-world physics behind the unusual flight characteristics described by UAP observers dating back to the 1940s. Knuth’s talk mirrored many of the points made in his 2019 paper on the same subject, including a lengthy analysis of past and present cases.

There may be good reasons to change how it's included (like stating that otherwise scientific studies seem to be missing which is also one reason why the particular study/ies are notable) but there are no sufficient ones to just keep this out entirely. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

If calling sightings of “unidentified aerial vehicles” that display “technical capabilities far exceeding those of our fastest aircraft and spacecraft” "well-documented" and identifying things people see as "unidentified anomalous vehicles", is not uncritical, what is? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering this, perhaps Knuth's ideas are best covered in UFO_conspiracy_theories#Allegations_of_evidence_suppression? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Knuth, etc.

Arguments already addressed, edit warring has ceased, ending discussion before it becomes a policy vio. Happy (Slap me) 15:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I restored it now but added WP:RS and removed parts of the content. I don't think metro.co.uk is reliable and whether his statements regarding "Allegations of evidence suppression" are notable there is an issue for that article (and its talk page), and not relevant here. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC) Nor is many of the "RS" you added. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Which in specific? The changes were reverted with the rationale of WP:ONUS which says: Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Here we discussed the contents and it has stalled now after I conceded that some content should be removed due to lack of WP:RS and some content needs to get additional RS sources which I added. If you feel like the content is inappropriate you must explain why that is with reasons because Wikipedia content is not decided based on voting - WP:NODEMOCRACY. Please elaborate your reverts, I'd like to restore the due, highly relevant, appropriate, sufficiently-sourced, notable, brief content. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC) It was not just me, but I am unsure that https://www.uapexpedition.org/ is an RS, or https://thedebrief.org/ or any number of others, the problem (as I said a whole ago) is you are adding too much in one hit. So you need to make a case for what you want to add "https://thedebrief.org/ for one, you have added a lot of sources, many of which look dodgy, it is down to you to convince us they are not, case but cazse. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Then remove these in specific. The UapExpedition source wasn't used initially but I replaced another source with it and it's only there as an additional source for the part "Non-profit" [groups]. It can be removed without a change in the text content. I already drastically reduced the amount added. Why not reduce the amount removed? Moreover, there's no policy saying this should be done and Wikipedia would go and have gone nowhere if people were only allowed to make tiny edits. The TheDebrief source can be removed. I also already thought this was probably one of the or the weakest of the used sources, not because it's unreliable but because afaik it's fairly new (and allows contributions by diverse authors). Just remove this source in particular (or leave it out) as it was only an additional source next to probably better ones. For me to be able to do so, you should list or remove the sources that "look dodgy" to you. Surely, if there was a Washington Post article instead of let's say "The Maritime Executive" then I would have used that. Often there are multiple sources for the contents and even The Maritime Executive is reliable and good enough. Sources like TWP and The New York Times, despite early 2017 coverage of the latter, should receive more criticism for a lack of in-depth reports about this I guess. It's irrelevant whether the potentially "best" sources cover the contents in particular (i.e. rather than the UFO topic in general) when there are WP:RS. Again, you#d need to list or remove the sources in specific. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Its time for others to chip in, I am unsure this content adds anything, and is poorly sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC) I think the article as is looks reliable and is backed up by higher-quality sources than before I took a machete to the situation. I understand that UFO enthusiasts are desperately trying to move the needle on scientific studies that extend beyond the social science side of things, but given that there is essentially no notice in the relevant epistemic fields for the claims that were made (those fields being the natural sciences, engineering, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, surveillance and military studies), we are going to have to wait until those blockbuster papers are written, reviewed, and cited by the communities. Sorry. jps (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC) You didn't address any of the points. Instead you called me an UFO enthusiast which wouldn't consider an accurate description (if you look at my contribution history) and basically accused me of "desperately trying to move the needle on scientific studies that extend beyond the social science side of things" instead of trying to extend the article with notable, important, due, sufficiently-sourced info. This kind of name-calling and accusations aren't points in and of themselves and didn't address mine. I don't know what you mean with "essentially no notice in the relevant epistemic fields for the claims that were made" and how it's relevant here. With "we are going to have to wait until those blockbuster papers are written, reviewed, and cited by the communities" are you saying we should wait for the studies you personally like and/or which are picked up in-depth by many news outlets that are as large as the NYT? That's inappropriate, undue, unjustified and not in line with other articles and with WP:RS which doesn't have the requirement of papers being "blockbuster papers" to be included if notable and relevant. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC) WP:ECREE. If you think you have some amazing new developments, you need to get them published so that the experts (not the readers of newspapers) can evaluate them. Until then, Wikipedia is charged with avoiding WP:SENSATIONalism and staying well behind the curve of "cutting edge". jps (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Agree but that isn't relevant to the respective content or the points I made. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC) It is relevant. The sourcing you were relying upon was very problematic from exactly the perspective I outline. jps (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC) The “flight characteristics” section drew on selectively chosen bits from a mix of sensational media coverage and fringe sources to showcase: capabilities are beyond any known technology…with our current technology, it is impossible to replicate all the characteristics of UFOs…striking physical characteristics and my favorite, five observables — as if these are all scientifically replicable observations. One would naturally assume whoever constructed this section had some affinity for the fringe position being advanced by it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC) In your opinion it's sensational. I don't know what you mean to say with "as if these are all scientifically replicable observations" – what's your criticism here. The content is not written in a misleading way. Your assumptions are not reasons, again per WP:NODEMOCRACY, decisions aren't based on what a number of people's subjective unfounded opinion on a topic is, but by valid reasonable points etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC) No, this isn't an opinion-based argument. This is a source-based argument. If you can't find better sources, then I'm afraid that the content does not belong here. jps (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC) I think the point they are making is it may violate wp:undue and wp:fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC) I don't believe that Ufologists are a reliable source for making statements about "UFO flight characteristics", especially since many purported UFOs have been shown to be (and many more may turn out to be) optical phenomenon, which don't have 'flight characteristics' at all. Happy (Slap me) 15:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC) It's an opinion-based argument. Those sources weren't sensational, it's only your opinion that they are. They are good, sufficient WP:RS, you can't remove this content based on your criticism of the sources as those were sufficient and comply with policies. Concerning Undue and Fringe, which, at least mostly unlike RS, are valid as points against the content, relevant parts of these policies seem to be: avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects and We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. and The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I don't think the included content gave a too-detailed description. This is simply scientific and/or academic ufology, the remaining article is mostly about meta-aspects and things that are anything but academic and/or scientific. Those contents were overly detailed, while the actual thing itself was underrepresented. If it was too detailed you could have shortened without removing any major parts / topics. The mainstream view of scientific ufology seems to be that the nature of UFOs are either unknown or most plausibly of extraterrestrial nature (often or even usually they don't speculate about their nature but only show that they likely aren't human-made; I don't think the pre-human Earth-based civilization, the interdimensional or the time-traveller hypotheses are mainstream within the field or more plausible/robust than ET theories). Moreover, it's also a mainstream view now: source – I don't think this survey is sufficient but I think it's sufficient to say that it's a mainstream view. According to it, currently ~40% of U.S. adults think (believe is the wrong term here btw) UFOs are probably ETs. The sources used were non-primary. This issue was partly improved after the talk page discussion before the second removal. It got significant coverage, the study that didn't receive such was removed after this talk page discussion before the removal. @HappyMcSlappy See 3rd point above: it's using non-primary WP:RS. If you call everybody who studies and is interested in scientific study of UFOs an ufologist and discard their results just based on that, you get a free ticket to believing anything you want to believe, not what the data tells you or what is likely, and disattaching from reality. You can discard any results based on that, for example by calling everybody interested in dinosaurs dinosaur-fankids and discarding results from researchers who are both interested in and study dinosaurs. The "flight characteristics" are referring to those characteristics of a specific type of UFOs – maybe that should be clarified (possibly in the section title). It's of peculiar UFOs or "anomalous aerial vehicles" (AAV) as Knuth called them or unexplained, peculiar UFOs that remain candidates for nonhuman aircraft. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC) This is simply scientific and/or academic ufology I see no evidence that any independent sources acknowledge that such a thing exists and certainly not the sort of high-level, established kinds that would qualify as the kind of extraordinary ones we would need to modify the standard explanations that are seen in sources that date back decades. This is something you have to establish before you start to detail research projects that claim to be engaged in such, and you have not done so. By the way, it doesn't matter what "many Americans think". It matters what the relevant epistemic fields are paying attention to. Most of the world likely disbelieves in common descent. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia considers that denial "mainstream". It's the experts that matter, not the general population. jps (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC) You mostly didn't really address my points. It's largely irrelevant whether or not it's "simply scientific and/or academic ufology" for this article / my point above concerning this article. This is something you have to establish before you start to detail research projects that claim to be engaged in such is false. And I wasn't suggesting that 'what "most Americans think"' matters, only that this is a mainstream view to support my point that the level of detail is due. The content was about studies from scientific fields. And "experts" in this case are ufologists, which doesn't mean they're right or wrong but according to these experts (the topic has sufficient/high notability without mundane explanations and) this level of detail is due. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC) You can't cite an interview with a ufologist in a third-party source to then present said ufologist's claims as if they were fact. We don't know that UFOs have any flight characteristics at all, to speculate on what those characteristics are is just that: speculation. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The entire "flight characteristics" subsection needs to go. None of that stuff is remotely encyclopedic the way it's written in the version you were reverting to. It might be possible to re-write it in a way that's acceptable. Happy (Slap me) 14:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC) If the problems with your comments that I identified are "largely irrelevant", then you shouldn't have included them. You still seem to have missed what WP:MAINSTREAM means in the context of Wikipedia. It does not mean that we use opinion polls to figure out what a "mainstream view to support... that the level of detail is due" might be. The "experts" in this case cannot be "ufologists" because, by definition, ufologists are WP:FRINGE sources. What you need to find are people who are not ufologists favorably reviewing the claims the ufologists are making that their research projects are somehow now rehabilitated. This is what you have failed to do. jps (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC) No, I have added sufficient secondary non-ufologist WP:RS. Also WP:MAINSTREAM is not a policy. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC) Claiming that you have done so does not make it so. Why don't you share the one source you believe does this the best and we can proceed from there? jps (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC) Already done so: see my above comment starting with "From The Guardian source:". Moreover, I asked for which sources you object to in specific. @HappyMcSlappy I didn't just cite an interview and I didn't present such claims "as if they were fact". (And the rest of your comment is also wrong and without anything to back it up but I'll keep it short.) Prototyperspective (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC) Already done so: see my above comment starting with "From The Guardian source: If I take The Guardian article to be what you consider as the best, I have to say you have not provided a good enough source. WP:SENSATION is, in particular, violated substantially by that article which is a reprint from an article published in The 74 million. The article may be reliable for documenting how certain teachers are using the current UFO craze to attract students to science through the backdoor, but there is no indication that the author has evaluated the seriousness of UFOlogy as a scientific endeavor and no indication whatsoever that relevant experts consider any of the proposed research programs that were previously in the article to be at all notable or indicative of anything at all, really. I also notice that they interview Knuth without addressing his WP:FRINGE status, likely because the journalist writing the article was either incapable or unwilling to address that particular angle. Mentioning a paper that Knuth published in a journal that he is the editor of is hardly the kind of in-depth evaluation we would require for such extraordinary claims. In short, I find that you did not do your due diligence in getting high-quality sources here. I am willing to look at anything that you have which does rise to this level, but you have not provided it. jps (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC) All of the used sources are to be considered a) together b) not in terms of criticism of any "best" source c) mainly in terms of the relevant text contained there quote here d) in relation to the included text. They aren't sources for text content that says "UFOlogy as a scientific endeavor is serious" but for various other relevant info. I added 5 sources with relevant quotes in the comment I referred to and used more than these in the article edit. I don't know which "WP:FRINGE status" of his you're referring to and how you'd back up such a claim. In any case, that's also not a policy about sources but something you made up as a requirement because that's how you'd like it to be. The high-quality sources were included in the reverted change. Name the source(s) you object to and explain why. All of them are sufficient and fine, except maybe The Debrief. Should I list all the sources used along with the content they are used for here (i.e. copy and paste the changes here)? Prototyperspective (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC) Simply saying you've already done something doesn't mean anything when I can clearly read what was written and see that is not so. I mean, there's a part that lays out five specific claims about these "characteristics" without doing more than paying lip service to the fact that they're just some ufologist's endlessly-credulous claims. It even fails to acknowledge the fact that the 'UAPs' in the specific videos Elizondo is referring to have been widely identified as likely being of a number of mundane origins. These possibilities include lens flares, which would make the whole concept of 'flight characteristics nonsensical. Nor does Elizondo, at any point, ever account for the movement of the camera platform, a feature which has been pointed out countless times by skeptics as drastically reducing the perceived irregularities in the filmed phenomenon's movements. There's no parity of sources going on in that section at all. It's completely credulous, failing to present the entire body of knowledge on the subject in favor of a one-sided polemic that reads more like an attempt to legitimize a fringe theory than encyclopedic content. Also please stop pinging me. I am already watching this page. Happy (Slap me) 16:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC) The WP:ONUS here, as far as I'm concerned, is clear. Prototyperspective, you haven't demonstrated that you have taken any of the criticisms of others (of which I count 4) on board. Until you do, I think it's best we start with the current live version. jps (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC) I hoped more people would participate instead of it being the same ~4 people who cause UFO-related articles like Pentagon UFO videos hopelessly outdated. This is a failure of Wikipedia indirectly and of people interested in this topic directly. I didn't just say that I have done so but pointed out the exact comment where I did so b) told you it's not me who needs to list all the used sources (they can be found in the diff!) and explain why they're WP:RS but you to list those you think aren't c) clarified why this would be inappropriate by itself as the refs need to be considered along with the specific text content they support. For example, of the five sources in the comment I pointed to The Debrief was admitted by me to be (possibly) inusufficient and I'm fine with removing that one, The Guardian one was pretty much the only one named and addressed by you and I addressed your points regarding it, saying that you need to consider which parts of the source were used for which article text content. I also named a sixth source and explained that it's WP:RS as well and haven't heard you saying that I really should list all the used and removed sources here. All of them except the one or two in the comment at "11:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)" are fine. If not, list those you think aren't (preferably with an explanation for why) or remove just these specific parts. without doing more than paying lip service to the fact that they're just some ufologist's endlessly-credulous claims The article said The "five observables", as put forward by UFO researcher Luis Elizondo, so it is clarified that this is what this expert UFO researcher reported (and is widely used within the UFO science community). If you aren't fine with how it's written you could alter the text or explain what you didn't like about that specific part when removing that specific part so it can be fixed. The mundane origins are known and have been proven wrong for many but of course not all data. For example concurrent radar data, heat signatures and so on can be used discard some of those and there's many sightings by many people, it's inappropriate to mention this there and there is no reason or even source to do so plus you didn't even try to add such but instead just removed the whole thing. No part of WP:PARITY was violated here. For example re In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. – the info contained in my additions wasn't even "described by amateurs and self-published texts" but if you feel like that's needed for quality, then add such reliable criticism instead of removing the whole thing. There is nearly no criticism of such that isn't ridiculous in terms of just ignoring various aspects such as additional sensor data or near-misses by pilots but it could be added anyway if critics' attempts were reported in WP:RS. I do have demonstrated that I have taken some of the criticisms of others. I have addressed afaik each and every actual point made and admitted that one or two sources could or should be removed even after already shortening the text due to the prior discussion. Unlike that, you still haven't pointed out which sources those you think aren't okay (preferably with an explanation for why) or removed just the specific parts (with explanations). WP:ONUS is relevant but per WP:NODEMOCRACY the consensus should be built based on reasons, not voting-like tendencies. It says Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. [...] The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You haven't explained why this due, relevant, important, brief, notable content doesn't improve the article beyond criticism of the sources. It's just your basically-unexplained opinions with your specific criticisms being addressed now. Moreover, you did a bulk removal instead of removing specific content. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC) This needs closing as it is going round in circles. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC) I think you mean to say you have not and will not address my points (like point #2 above) and I had to repeat what I already said. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC) No i am saying that this has been going on for too long, and you are refusing to accept that you have not got a consensus for your edits. This is now really pushing into wp:tenditious territory. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Quality of refs?

I don't know about you, but just leads me to a blank page on redorbit. What even is redorbit? ~ HAL333 17:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

[54] Fixed, thank you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No problemo. ~ HAL333 19:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Carl Sagan was not a ufologist

I can't believe I have to make a section that says this, but as it keeps coming up, we should make this clear. Maybe we can link to it in the FAQs. jps (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, the humanity! ~ HAL333 21:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed improvements

Have you read the travesty which is the current Lead? It sounds like a delirious rant rather than an encyclopedia entry. With illogical phrases like the one I pointed out. Clearly trying too hard to push a POV with no semblance of detachment and neutrality and no sourcing. Let's wait for other editors to chime in on this. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 01:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Current lede is fine. All the problems are in your head or perhaps a result of the language barrier. jps (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I do think the opening sentence is laborious to the point of absurdity. It is very visibly the outcome of a long and agonizing editorial conflict, rather than an introduction to an article. It should be shortened, but its import - that ufology is seen as a pseudoscience - should not be watered down. May I suggest that we change

Ufology (/juːˈfɒlədʒi/) is the term that those who believe that unidentified flying objects (UFOs) are a phenomenon worthy of serious study use to describe their investigation of reports, visual records, purported physical evidence, and other phenomena related to UFOs.

to

Ufology (/juːˈfɒlədʒi/) is the study of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and related phenomena, in the belief that they may be of alien origin.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Except I am not sure that is wholly true. whilst most (even the vast majority) may believe they are little green men with three heads I am not sure that all do.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Much better. A vast improvement on the current lead and I agree with both.

• @Steelpillow: Ufology's status as a pseudoscience (or amateur/grassroots science as some sources define it) should not be watered down. I think the first sentence should be a very dry description. While the second sentence/paragraph can introduce this aspect (see discussion above on the next sentence/paragraph). I would say this is the most crucial aspect of ufology and should be significantly and appropriately treated.
• @Slatersteven: agree in the belief that they may be of alien origin is a generalisation. There are many other hypotheses as well (e.g. they are not unknown at all but just misidentified phenomena or errors or hallucinations / they are black projects / they are crazy time traveling tourists etc. etc.)

The result would be (I've added the two sources, if you agree, to solidify this):

Ufology (/juːˈfɒlədʒi/) is the study of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and related phenomena.[55][56]

If nobody has any strong objections we can move on to the next sentence which treats Ufology's status. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Strong objection here at least. The association with aliens is clear from the sources I posted and is a part of their definitive understanding of ufology. It has to be part of our "Ufology is..." definition too. I would not object to adding say "typically" to my proposal to read "..., typically in the belief that..." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No doubt the general association is clear. However the sources you have posted state exactly the opposite of "typically in the belief". As I have said. I suggest reading them entirely and not limiting yourself to the abstract. It is a very thorough review.

Studies conducted in the 1980s (Little, 1984; McIver, 1987), for instance, showed that a clear majority of ufologists at the time did not accept the hypothesis that UFOs were extra- terrestrial in origin. A more recent study by Denzler (2001) reveals that ufology provides an overarching rubric for a wide range of beliefs, ranging from the metaphysically speculative to the strictly materialistic. and after discussing mainstream scientists: Within this circle alone, however, opinions about the UFO phenomenon differed sharply: McDonald, for instance, firmly believed evidence pointed to the extraterrestrial origins of UFOs; Hynek came to argue that UFOs warranted serious scientific investigation, but was dubious about contactee stories; Vallee empha- sized the psychosocial dimensions of UFO sightings; Sagan considered alien visitation improba- ble, but communication with extraterrestrials within the range of the possible; and Menzel rejected all claims of extraterrestrial visitors as baseless and founded on unscientific speculation (American Philosophical Society (APS), Menzel Papers, Boxes 13, 23; APS, Condon Papers, Box O.27). [57]

-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The main article is paywalled, I have only the abstract to go on. Odd that your quotation should so flatly contradict it. I wonder what the follow-up to that paragraph was? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure? The link in the source above goes directly to the full open access PDF: [58] Maybe they have location restrictions? Anyway after the first quote the paragraph ends. You can find the rest there but if you need it I can share more and the full citations for the quotes (which may be interesting for inclusion in the article). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I am sure. It is demanding $$$ off me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I've corrected the page numbers of one of the two sources above as it was incorrect: can be read here [59]. The other source is open access (in the EU at least) but in any case my quotes are verbatim. Are there any other comments on the proposal above? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, got in via an institutional affiliation. Your first quote is a good one. The second is followed immediately by "These figures, however, were the exceptions at this time." which basically means that they are nigh-on irrelevant to an overview article, however the point is already made. I also see that; "By and large, academic researchers have categorically dismissed ufology, “pseudoarcheology,” and claims of alien contact as wrong-headed, irrational, and dangerous (Stoczkowski, 2007).". So I think we are agreed that this particular pseudoscience is focused on unacceptable theorising, we are merely discussing whether we treat that as principally alien spacecraft or whether we include other conspiratorial ideas such as X-planes and Nazi survivors. Does that seem fair? I'd suggest that the lead should focus on alien spacecraft and refer only loosely to the rest. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

One step at the time or we won't get anywhere. The phrase "These figures, however, were the exceptions at this time." and that whole section refers to the fact that the list of mainstream scientists that treated the subject was an exception and not the norm. It is irrelevant to the discussion regarding the first sentence which includes the definition of UFO. It is very relevant to the next sentence and we can and should use it later (the famous "few scientists" from my edit). However, in relation to this first sentence which defines Ufology in accordance with sources, do you still have an issue? For clarity the proposed first sentence is:

Ufology (/juːˈfɒlədʒi/) is the study of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and related phenomena.[60][61]

If you, User:Slatersteven and I agree with this first sentence I think we have consensus and we can move to the proposed next part that states how academia dismisses ufology and treats it as a pseudoscience:

Although UFO reports have been subject over the years to investigations by various governments, independent groups, and a few scientists, ufology as a field has not been embraced by academia and is considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community.

Thanks, -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: I think we need to make t clear that Ufology is a term of art used only by the crazed believers that there is something worth studying to UFOs beyond the social phenomenon. The serious academics who study the UFO phenomenon as a psychological disorder or a sociological phenomenon would not call themselves "Ufologists", so this needs to be made clear otherwise it misleads the reader. jps (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the serious academics do not refer to themselves ufologists. But they do refer to the believers they study as ufologists. So it is not the case that only the believers call themselves that, academics call them that too. The current wording does not recognise this, and it should. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point. Indeed, the term is not just self-applied, but when it is applied by non-believers to believers, it is typically couched as something of a pejorative which just describing it as "investigation" doesn't quite capture. jps (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. However I think that classifying them as pseudoscientists is perjorative enough, there is no need to diminish their own usage of the term. NPOV can occasionally cut both ways. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I just want to make it clear to the reader how the term is actually used since it does seem to be a source of confusion even here on the talkpage. It should be clear to the reader that Carl Sagan is not a ufologist, for example. Anyway, I tried to fix this problem. Let's see what you think. jps (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion for the lead is above. Why are you editing the lead independently? [62] If you want to participate in the discussion you are more than welcome but you should do it in the thread above and wait for consensus before editing. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't get to tell people where to discuss matters. I would prefer to talk to Steelpillow right now as that user does not seem to suffer from thinking that Carl Sagan is a Ufologist, for example. jps (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Anyway, I have now had my turn at hacking it into shape. Any use? (I also split this discussion off with a more appropriate subheading) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. I'm just trying to make sure this doesn't turn into a useless and confused discussion. Thank you User:Steelpillow for reorganising the threads.

I see the current edit which is a vast improvement and I may consider it as a good starting point for the initial sentence. However, despite the common misconception and as others and sources have noted (see discussion above) it is not "typical" even among ufologist to believe the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. Sources:

• Studies conducted in the 1980s (Little, 1984; McIver, 1987), for instance, showed that a clear majority of ufologists at the time did not accept the hypothesis that UFOs were extra-terrestrial in origin. A more recent study by Denzler (2001) reveals that ufology provides an overarching rubric for a wide range of beliefs, ranging from the metaphysically speculative to the strictly materialistic.[63]
• From the cited 2001 Denzler source: UFOs and aliens are a seemingly never-ending source of amusement for most people. A cartoon depicts two aliens visible in the bubble top of a UFO flying away from Earth. One turns to the other and says, “It’s weird, Zork. We’ve been visiting that planet for years and the only ones who believe in us are the poor white trash!” The cartoon is funny because it plays on stereotypes about UFO believers. Those stereotypes are, however, largely untrue. I may not copy the rest of the book but you get the drift. [64]

Proposal for edits to your sentence (I would also include the sources):

Ufology (/juːˈfɒlədʒi/) is the study of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and related phenomena.[65][66]. The subject is popularly associated with the view that those UFOs may be of alien origin (known as the extraterrestrial hypothesis) although a wide range of beliefs exists among ufologists.[67]

What do you think? Seems balanced and introduces the ETH prominently. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a tendency to conflate what a UFO is with what ufology is. For example followers of the X-planes hypothesis are more likely to be conspiracy theorists or aviation enthusiasts rather than ufologists. While many investigators no doubt believe that UFOs are not alien spacecraft, those investigators who call themselves - or get called - ufologists usually do believe in flying saucers. And we are defining ufology here, not UFOs. Having said that, the position was probably different 30-40 years ago, when the ufology community still had more serious investigators among its ranks. I would suggest that since then the serious investigators have drifted away, leaving only the alien-hunters still in the frame. Or, perhaps we have slowly come to tire of the game and publicly treat all ufologists as freaks. It comes to much the same thing. So, what was an accurate description then is no longer so close to the mark. Perhaps we could write "popularly" rather than "typically"? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

There isn't much separation between the concept of UFO and UFOlogy according to the sources presented. The association of ufology=tin foil hat/alien religions/etc. is a popular association but not one supported by the academic study of the subject (per sources above). The sources I report are from 2001 and 2017. So they are not from 30-40 years ago. If you find sources that contradict those sources I would be happy to read them. I haven't found any.

I like your proposal to use "popularly". However I think that the wording of your proposal with "popularly" doesn't read very well anymore. I've amended my proposal to include that. Using two sentences allows us to be more readable and complete.

I think we are really getting close to an excellent intro with a balanced and complete treatment and relevant sourcing. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem I have with Eghigian is that he contradicts himself, saying one minute that ufologists are eclectic investigators of unexplained sightings and the next that they are tantamount to alien abductionists. One has to ask why he would write a sociological study of eclectic investigators, if that was what he believed them to be. Might I suggest that to start with we put up the more direct association with alien craft, which should be more acceptable to the sceptics among us. If that stays stable for a week or so, then amend it to your marginally less direct association and see if it still sticks? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

To that end I have made a few minor changes, and also taken the opportunity to condense the exposition of its status. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Made some additional tweaks to try to capture the subject more accurately. I think we must make it clear that the only investigations which count as ufology are those done by believers. I tried to make that clear. Also, it is not a good idea to call UFO organizations "independent". Indeed, they are a far cry from being "independent" in the normal academic sense. I think calling them "private" is what you were after. I also think it is important not to identify pseudoscience demarcation with the scientific community. The scientific community ignores ufology. The skeptics and science educators debunk it as pseudoscience. Otherwise, seems good to me (as to be expected after I take a hatchet to it :)). jps (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: I have reverted those edits. It is unacceptable that you do not engage in discussion and then swoop in to impose your view over the hard work of consensus building by others.

@Steelpillow: I don't see the contradiction. Where does it state that they are "tantamount to alien abductionists"? He is reporting the common perception and pointing out that it seems to be incorrect and a stereotype (as we have also discussed here).

In any case, the compromise we have is a vast improvement. I can live with the current version although I think my proposal of separating the two sentences makes it clearer without diminishing the connection with the ETH. Currently the use of "popularly" is not very clear and I would hesitate to add the sources we discussed to that sentence as I think it would be a misrepresentation.

The proposed second sentence is: The subject is popularly associated with the view that those UFOs may be of alien origin (known as the extraterrestrial hypothesis) although a wide range of beliefs exists among ufologists.[68][69]

If you still don't like it how about editing it but as a separate sentence and in a way that allows us to keep the citation. That would solidify it for the future. Right now it doesn't represent accurately the work we have done and may not stand the test of time (that second sentence is begging for a WP:CN). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Gtoffoletto, you cannot revert someone just because you don't like "swooping". Try again with a substantive critique. jps (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what the fuss is. Ufology is a pseudoscience and the lead must clarify what adherents believe and its relationship to mainstream science, per WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed above by ජපස (jps). We do need to take them on board. But I am less sure about including their phrase "people who believe they are worthy of study", I think it has two problems. First, it is a trivial near-tautology; who the flip else would investigate them; people who don't think they are worth investigating? Secondly it is obviously an awkward euphemism for - well, what? Logically it still embraces genuine defence concerns as to what these unidentified sightings might be and whether they represent a security threat, and that is certainly not ufology. Nor is it the editor's intent. Seriously, that phrasing really is vile. I do think that the concern is better addressed by running the two sentences into one and dealing with it in the second half. "Typically" and "popularly" have been tried as the linking adverb, how about "principally"? I think the rest could then be edited to make the advocates-only point forcefully enough, something like this:

Ufology (/juːˈfɒlədʒi/) is the investigation of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), principally in the belief that they may be of alien origin (the extraterrestrial hypothesis) although other fringe theories are also proposed. Despite reports of sightings, claimed alien encounters and artefacts being subject to many government and private investigations, ufology as a field is generally considered by skeptics and science educators to be a canonical example of pseudoscience.

I have not been considering citations, principally because the need for them depends on the final form adopted and its relation to the main text.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we are straying far far away from the Wikipedia:Five pillars. I will ignore the obvious WP:BAITing by other users and focus on the content.

Wikipedia demands an approach based on reliable sources per WP:RS. Others here seem to like to express their original opinions freely but this is not how Wikipedia works. If we try to reach consensus by expressing all our (clearly different) opinions and "bending" sources to fit those opinions we will fail. This is not about opinion. It is about SOURCES.

principally in the belief that they may be of alien origin (the extraterrestrial hypothesis) although other fringe theories are also proposed is completely unsupported by sources.

The subject is popularly associated with the view that those UFOs may be of alien origin (known as the extraterrestrial hypothesis) although a wide range of beliefs exists among ufologists.[70][71] Is supported by two RS.

Therefore we should prefer the second sentence. If it isn't an inaccurate representation of the sources please point out how and we may fix it. If you would like to propose other sources that dispute this I am all ears. None have emerged so far.

Let's end the irrelevant opinionating and get back to the sources please. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

P.s. I agree totally with Steelpillow that that phrasing really is vile for the first sentence and will remove it. It is also unsupported by the sources. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

But I am less sure about including their phrase "people who believe they are worthy of study", I think it has two problems. First, it is a trivial near-tautology; who the flip else would investigate them; people who don't think they are worth investigating? Secondly it is obviously an awkward euphemism for - well, what? Logically it still embraces genuine defence concerns as to what these unidentified sightings might be and whether they represent a security threat, and that is certainly not ufology. Nor is it the editor's intent. Seriously, that phrasing really is vile. Speaking as someone who professionally studies UFOs and is not a ufologist, I can assure you that this is not a near-tautology. In fact, most of the reliable sources about ufology are written by people who study this subject as a social phenomenon or agnotology, but no one who does that calls themselves a ufologist. As to whether there are any active investigators trying to evaluate whether sightings represent defence concerns, generally there really is no one left seriously investigating these claims who do not believe in the "alien spacecraft" proposals. We could try to emphasize the alien spacecraft more up front, but it has to be in terms of the ufologists believing in this idea. There really are not ufologists who do not take this alien spacecraft idea seriously. jps (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful opinion. Any reliable sources support it? We have already shared several against this view. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I only undid the other edit. Because it did not match with what was in the sources https://archive.org/details/sciencetechnolog0000unse_m5y0/page/206 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1979.tb00067.x?journalCode=sora.Driverofknowledge (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Its time for either an RFC or DR.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

References