Template talk:UFO sidebar

Remove Religion

I'm removing the Religion section in the template as it isn't directly relevant to UFOs and Ufology. Also we are giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority views. If someone is against it we can discuss it here. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

UFO religions are obviously relevant. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you get to remove them. They are not minority views, with respect to this ludicrous topic, either. All nonsense views deserve equal protection. jps (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your staunch defence of such "FRINGE" topics have you converted yourself to adoring J. R. "Bob" Dobbs? ;-) Here is my reasoning:

• Aetherius Society The society's membership, although international in composition, is not very large
• Church of the SubGenius The number of followers is unknown, although the Church's message has been welcomed by college students and artists in the United States. Journalists often consider the Church to be an elaborate joke
• Heaven's Gate (religious group) the members all committed mass suicide so membership is 0
• Raëlism maybe the only relevant one other than scientology. Members 100,000 (2018). Believe life was created by aliens.
• Nation of Islam not even a "Ufo religion". A minor item refers to aliens.
• Scientology some of its teachings relate to aliens.

Clearly extremely minority views except for Raëlism and Scientology. At a minimum we can cut down the rest.

However the whole section is inappropriate. The name "UFO religion" is misleading. "Extraterrestrial/Alien Religions" could make sense but Unidentified Flying Object religion doesn't mean anything. Those religions believe in Aliens while UFOlogy is about the study of unknown flying objects. The Extraterrestrial hypothesis is just one of the possible explanations. It's a crucial distinction which undermines the field and disqualifies this section from this template.

This template is not about aliens but about UFOs and Ufology. In addition those "religions" are minority views we are giving WP:UNDUE weight to while also infringing WP:ONEWAY.

Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. even then they may be linked but they don't have to. If you can demonstrate that this standard is met we can add them back in the template. Otherwise we should err on the side of avoiding undue weight.

One final note: Template:UFOs doesn't include the list of religions but a general section called "Culture" that includes links to Conventions/Fiction/Religions. This would be an appropriate compromise if you insist on keeping a link to UFO religions. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Each of these religions explicitly and without apology mentions UFOs as part of their founding documents. A bigger problem with the template right now is that it doesn't identify the important personalities associated with UFOs. That could be rectified. Religions are not minority views when it comes to a discussion of already fringe aspects UFOs. No way. jps (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"mentions UFOs as part of their founding documents" You mean aliens. Not UFOs. Those are not synonyms. You have not replied to my questions above. Do you have "independent reliable sources [that] connect the topics [of ufology and "UFO religions"] in a serious and prominent way"? Otherwise we should remove them per WP:ONEWAY. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 00:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not the Ufology template. This is the UFO template, and anyway it's a waste of time for me to go through and show you how many of these nutjobs are members of various UFO cults. jps (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Which "nutjobs" are your referring to? What does that have to do with this discussion? Wikipedia is based on sources. Not personal opinions. "independent reliable sources [that] connect the topics [of ufology/UFOs and "UFO religions"] in a serious and prominent way" are needed to comply with WP:ONEWAY. If you don't have time to do that now no problem. But in the mean time we should remove the links from the template until you do have time to do this. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we're good here. UFO religions are relevant to UFOs. jps (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry. We are not good. I'm applying the same standard used for the other template per WP:ONEWAY -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

UFO religions are just as valid and relevant as any of the other things in the template. jps (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If you apply that standard wikipedia would become WP:EVERYTHING. We have WP:ONEWAY and WP:DUE for a reason. And you are removing the other section we are discussing about in an apparent self contradiction. I have proposed a compromise. You have rejected and reverted it once again without proposing a solution. Do we need an RfC to get out of this? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 01:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

UFO religions are a legitimate and serious topic of study with respect to the overarching topic. There are many papers written about UFO religions. In contrast, there are only fringe sources that take serious the Interdimensional hypothesis. There is an imbalance in what you are using to determine the notability and prominence of ideas in this subject. I fear it may be due to your overripe interest in the To the Stars videos. I am happy to work with you, but I get the distinct impression you are not really seeing the problems with much of your approach. You have a rather blinkered view of what this topic is about and it seems that you aren't willing to spend the time to see it properly discussed in our article pages. jps (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR. Unless you provide sources you statements should not shape Wikipedia. Here is one source that supports my view:

In particular the equation of ufology with religion, made on the basis of studies of small groups led by people who claimed contact with aliens, goes against the self-understanding of the UFO community considered in its wider sense, for whom ufology is first and foremost a scientific quest to understand tangible, real-world phenomena. [1]-- Gtoffoletto  talk 11:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

What people should we add?

Rather than argue constantly, let's try to work together, User:Gtoffoletto. What people should we add to this template?

My first attempt would be:

• Kenneth Arnold
• Edward J. Ruppelt
• Donald Keyhoe
• J. Allen Hynek
• Stanton T. Friedman
• Jacques Vallée
• George Adamski
• Linda Moulton Howe
• James W. Moseley
• Billy Meier
• Erich von Däniken
• Giorgio A. Tsoukalos
• Carl Sagan
• Bernard Haisch
• Peter A. Sturrock
• Philip J. Klass
• Georgina Bruni
• Allan Hendry
• Jerome Clark
• Nick Pope
• James Oberg
• Leslie Kean
• Curtis Peebles
• Donald Howard Menzel
• Robert Sheaffer
• Joe Nickell
• Mick West

Would like to eliminate some, however.

jps (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Good idea but this is a summary template. We should keep it light. Would be in favour of a "list of UFOlogists"? Or something similar linked but not the individual pages. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

On second look what I say above is already included in the template List of ufologists. That's probably where you should add those names if they are not already present and not in this template -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Many of these are not ufologists. jps (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What is your definition of an ufologist? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 01:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

People who think UFOs are real phenomena that are likely alien spacecraft and claim to be studying such. jps (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that is why you have such a misunderstanding of the subject. The literature on the topic is against your view that all ufologists believe UFO are likely ET.

• 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.[2]
• A closer look at developments in the United States, however, reveals that even there the scientific community did not entirely shun ufology. From the early-1950s through the 1970s, a number of academics took the study of UFOs seriously and regularly engaged with ufologists Names mentioned are William Hartmann, J. Allen Hynek, Donald Menzel, Carl Sagan, and William Powers, James McDonald and Peter Sturrock, Jacques Vallee, David Saunders, and Ron Westrum. 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 improbable, 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).[3]
• 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. Unidentified flying objects have actually been observed and reported by people from all walks of life—from professional astronomers, pilots, and presidents... [4]

A ufologist is one who participates in ufology i.e. the study of unexplained flying objects.

You say also and claim to be studying such. I think it's debatable if one's boundary-work (i.e. saying he is not a ufologist) to disassociate himself with the stigma of Ufology while studying the subject means we shouldn't still call him a ufologist. Claims and definitions of oneself by an individual are usually not taken into account on wiki. The substance is what matters. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Carl Sagan is not a ufologist. That you keep claiming he is is disconfirming as to your participation at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You apply an extreme definition of ufologist which is your own personal opinion. I have provided the source for my statements above. Your inability to check my sources and to provide any of your own is worrisome. I would also like to add that when one edits papers on UFOs I think he may be rightly defined as someone who "studies unidentified flying objects"="ufologist": https://www.si.edu/object/siris_sil_19951 (just one of many examples of Sagan's involvement with UFOlogy) -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"People who think UFOs are real phenomena that are likely alien spacecraft and claim to be studying such" - I would expand "alien spacecraft" to include other fringe ideas, such as time travelers, dimension travelers, insubstantial beings, smurfs, or fairies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: how would you call a scientist that is contracted by the U.S. government to study UFOs such as the ones that participated in AATIP for example or other government programs? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Depends on what he thinks. See above. Because that is an indication of how he goes about it: either mainly dropping his jaw and jabbering about weird stuff, or actually investigating what it could have been. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hypothesis section

This section has been removed although it is clearly relevant: [5] The reasoning was These are not validated hypotheses.. Hypotheses don't need to be validated to be relevant. It is clear that something like the Extraterrestrial hypothesis is highly relevant to the field and should be included. Unless a better reasoning is discussed here I think we should reintroduce it. It's been in the template since 2015 and one user shouldn't remove it without any discussion and consensus unless in gross violation of some Wikipedia guideline (none have been mentioned in the edit summaries). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to think about how to couch this. Right now, there isn't much said about the fact that most UFOs that people think they see are probably any of a number of Identified Flying Objects. If we don't include those hypotheses, the section is essentially a WP:POVPUSH. jps (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This template is a collection of links. Such an article doesn't exist on Wikipedia so nothing to link to (or does it?). If including it is a POVPUSH what about not including those clearly related links? The standard for inclusion here is A.existance of a link B. relevance. Those links satisfy both A and B. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 01:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Identification studies of UFOs is the start. It's probably not okay that we have separate articles on each. I might merge them all to ufology, for example. jps (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually we can link to:

• Venus
• Meteor
• Lenticular clouds
• Birds
• Space jellyfish

etc.

jps (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. Identification studies of UFOs is already linked within the template. So I guess your issue with including the other hypotheses is now resolved and we have consensus. If you wish to add the other links they may be appropriate in the "types of UFOs" section. Obviously I wouldn't include Venus or Bird but only the most relevant ones such as Lenticular Clouds and Space Jellyfish. Venus accounts for many UFO reports but the article doesn't mention it. Merging everything under Ufology can be proposed but I doubt it will receive much support especially for pages like ETH -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 01:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No. It's not resolved. Since most UFOs are identified, we need to WP:WEIGHT our explanation to these other possibilities and not have just separate articles to the pseudoscientific explanations, such as alien spacecraft. jps (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Remember this is not an article. It is a template. Users can read the linked articles.

The Fermi Paradox article is exactly what you say you would like to include, as most of the hypoteses within that article state the "mainstream" view of the impossibility of "real aliens" reaching the earth. I placed that link first in the template for exactly this reason. And yet this whole discussion started with you insisting on removing it as it was not relevant. Isn't this a contradiction?

Also, you are arguing exactly against this reasoning (no UNDUE weight to minority views) in the discussion where you are arguing for the inclusion of "UFO religions" in the template Template talk:Ufo#Remove Religion. How do you reconcile this other contradiction? WP:WEIGHT does not apply uniformly?

-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The Fermi Paradox is not about UFOs. Study of UFOs are closer to religion than science. jps (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

That is your WP:OR. Wikipedia is based on sources. There is a reason the Fermi Paradox article links prominently to "UFO" articles. And regarding religion:

In particular the equation of ufology with religion, made on the basis of studies of small groups led by people who claimed contact with aliens, goes against the self-understanding of the UFO community considered in its wider sense, for whom ufology is first and foremost a scientific quest to understand tangible, real-world phenomena. [6]-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't care about the feelings and self-understanding of the UFO community at Wikipedia. We only care about the sources that discuss what people believe and those sources identify UFO religions as an interesting social phenomenon. jps (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Image

File:PurportedUFO2cropped.jpg is cropped from File:PurportedUFO2.jpg, from the CIA website. Is there an official explanation of what do we see in it? It would be useful to add that as a caption. Cambalachero (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This keeps popping up so just asking, why don't you all want Ariel in here?

Just curious why that even seems contentious given it's fame in this 'space'. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)