Talk:Brookings Report

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paranormal

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Since the "Wikify" and "Cleanup" tags are still up, I assume that there is still some work to be done on this article. If someone with more experience can give me a few hints on what needs to be done, I'd be glad to do it. I don't currently see any problems with the current article.

Having said that, the article does not really address the entire Brookings report entitled “Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs”, but primarily the small section regarding ET Aliens.

Even given that out of all the reports submitted by the Brookings Institute, this appears to be the only one referred to as “The Brookings Report”, and even given that the only section usually discussed by space enthusiasts is the section regarding interaction with ET Aliens, the question is: Is is appropriate to have a Wikipedia article on that report addressing only that limited section?Mentalavenger 22:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps rather than "Cleanup", the "Expand" tag would be more appropriate? Also, there are some sentences that are difficult to follow and may benefit from re-writing.--Jmartinky 03:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up a bit, added a sources section and removed wikify tag.Akradecki 20:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad link[edit]

The link to the PDF of the full report doesn't work anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chill Mike D (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

full report available @nasa technical reports server: [1] pdf, 250 pages. regards --Gravitophoton (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing?[edit]

The report recommended "continuing studies". Were there any? Kortoso (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brookings Report. 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/20151125090411/http://www.ufodocarchive.org/NICAP/UFO_Investigator/011%20DEC-JAN%201960-61.pdf to http://www.ufodocarchive.org/NICAP/UFO_Investigator/011%20DEC-JAN%201960-61.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 11:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and references[edit]

Hi all! This article has pretty good info and quotes already, but it looks like it could use a bit of cleanup/restructuring and additional links. I'd like to start doing that. If you have some ideas or additional material, please let me know. Megiroember (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Megiroember, look forward to reading the rewrite. It does look like it just needs some love and attention.Sgerbic (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Megiroember has given up on his cleanup. I will try instead.--Snipergang (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am done with my rewrite. I am not happy with the formating of the quotes, but it is as good as I can get it to look at the moment.--Snipergang (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]