This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is not a 'List of UFO sightings'. It is a 'List of alleged UFO sightings'. It should be renamed accordingly. Unless someone comes up with a better suggestion, I shall be doing this myself in the next few days. AndyTheGrump (talk) — Preceding incompletely signed comment was added 03:22, 29 July 2012
Since nobody has commented on this, I have gone ahead with the move. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Pro well done. --Trofobi (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Excellent work. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't link to search results pages, so neither link is appropriate. Or are you obliquely arguing that because not all news stories use the exact word "alleged", the title of this Wikipedia article shouldn't either? --McGeddon (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
A simplified diagram of how consensus is reached. When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion.Hello McGeddon (talk), thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Yes, maybe you are right about the fact that Wikipedia doesn't link to search results pages, but I would like to point out that U.F.O. it's an acronym that stands for "Unidentified Flying Object" so adding the adverb "allegedly" to the title (or whatever) should this obliquely mean that "allegedly" the "flying object" is "unidentified": so are we talking about "identified objects" then?
"(rv - reflections on the nature of sightings belong in the UFO article, not this one (although the opinion of Wikipedia editors is WP:OR, and not enough to introduce this level of commentary))
The Euler diagram representing a definition of knowledge could be applied to the UFO sightings.Well, what can I say?
Wikipedia is also believed to be WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:CONACHIEVE.
Please don't get me wrong:
I consider myself a skeptic.
I have never seen a U.F.O. myself but I personally know people that did so and I am a bit puzzled about the whole dilemma. IMHO the Euler diagramm picture was allright to keep but I am posting it again here to invite for a discussion about it. Thanks again for your patience. Cheers. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
We don't link to search engine results. We don't put WP:OR into articles. We don't need a diagram to explain why... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This is not WP:OR.
This is not a 'List of UFO sightings'.
This is not a 'List of alleged UFO sightings'.
This is a 'Partial list of UFO sightings'.
And it should be renamed accordingly.
Unless someone comes up with a better suggestion.
It doesn't matter that since the creation of the article by Emperorbma (talk) on the 22nd of November 2003 have passed almost nine years and hundreds of editors have never never objected about the article name.
It's time for a change. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Standard practice is to name all list articles "List of..." even if they are presently incomplete ("Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself."). The "alleged" is a little clunky - I'd maybe have gone for "reported" - but it seems preferable to calling this a flat "list of UFO sightings" (given that "UFO" effectively means "flying saucer" in common parlance). --McGeddon (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Having said that, Wikipedia has a lot of other UFO articles that just use the word "sighting" in their title. Does the noun "sighting" provide a sufficient amount of implied subjectivity? --McGeddon (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Further discussion needed According to WP:NOT Wikipedia policies:
"(...) Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not. (...)".
Given this major premise, it seems like AndyTheGrump (talk) is using "common parlance" like swapping meanings between the terms U.F.O. and Flying saucer as noted by McGeddon (talk). There are two separate articles on wikipedia as anyone can check by themselves exploring the respective hyperlinks.
This should automatically mean that we are using this talk page for a "general discussion of the article subject" which is something we should try to avoid as stated at the beginning of every Wikipedia talk page:
* "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."
so that... maybe either:
someone is not interested "in building and using a 'high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect" or
maybe because this subject is generally considered a taboo in Western culture and so it becomes difficult to deal with it in a so called "civil way".
The quantum-mechanical "Schrödinger's cat" paradox according to the many-worlds interpretation. In this interpretation every event is a branch point; the cat is both alive and dead, even before the box is opened, but the "alive" and "dead" cats are in different branches of the universe, both of which are equally real, but which cannot interact with each other.
As for the "UFO sightings" we could replace "the cat observed before the box is open" with "UFOs observed in sightings" (this should be the type of reasoning people that never seen UFOs should follow because they have a "closed box" available): the UFOs will be both real and not real in different branches of the universe.Anyway IMHO it's difficult to structure a syllogism because the major premise foundations are not clear and solid and it seems impossible to proceed to the next two steps:
the minor premise (?) and...
the conclusion (consensual deciding a new name for this article).
In his/her second comment posted @ 18:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC) (9 minutes after the first one) McGeddon (talk) adds:
"(...) Does the noun "sighting" provide a sufficient amount of implied subjectivity? (...)".
But I would suggest to stick on the renaming of the article right now or we could end up in total confusion and/or in WP:ANI.
Thanks for your patience and for reading me. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this has to do with Schrodinger's Cat, or why it might end up at ANI, but apologies for the slight tangent - I'll just note that I remain opposed to your suggestion of "Partial list of UFO sightings" and will start a new thread below. --McGeddon (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
@ McGeddon (talk): if "someone" (me) has allegedly ended up in a "slight tangent" maybe that's entirely to blame to a little teeny-weeny word that has been added to the article title completely changing it's meaning. And also being a little offensive towards the thousands of sightings (millions in the case of the 1952 Washington D.C. UFO incident) that have provided photographic and video evidence. Concerning the renaming into "List of partial UFO sightings" ... let's say that I was trying to mirrorAndyTheGrump (talk) in a failed attempt to ease stress that was building up in this talk page: I wasn't really serious about the change. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Please don't disrupt Wikipedia and waste people's time with a move request that "wasn't really serious" just to make a point. --McGeddon (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Maurice Carbonaro, if you persist in filling this talk-page with off-topic waffle and irrelevant diagrams, it is entirely possible this will end up at ANI. I suggest you either stay on topic, or find a parallel universe where different talk-page guidelines apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
@ AndyTheGrump (talk): I've tried my best to be civil towards you but it seems like you have been more than once on the border line of personal attacking me ("waffle talking" should mean that I am "telling lies" which is absolutely not true). Life is not black and white like a chessboard. And we might find ourselves together in the "parallel universe" (=WP:ANI) where actually things ARE black and white: you either GET blocked or NOT. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Rename back to "List of UFO sightings"
As above, it looks like all other UFO articles which use the word "sighting" don't bother to qualify these as "alleged". Can we assume that the noun "sighting" provides a sufficient amount of implied subjectivity here, and rename it back? (This isn't about many worlds or Schrodinger's Cat or anything like that, just that the English sentence "there was a sighting of a blue car" would, I think, suggest "a person reported that they saw what they thought was a blue car" rather than "a blue car existed and somebody saw it".) --McGeddon (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Nope. To state in Wikipedia's voice that 'an unidentified flying object was sighted' in these cases is just plain wrong. Maybe 'list of claimed UFO sightings' might be more acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Pro Obviously we cant' apply the scientific method in order to determine if this "UFO sightings" are true or not: because we cannot reproduce a UFO sighting neither in a lab neither outside a lab. I guess that in this case the falsifiability quality should be applied: we will be in the scientific borders of the demarcation problem. So if we take for granted this we should ask ourselves:
But let's try not go on a tangent again and concentrate on the renaming: I agree with McGeddon (talk) that the article should go back to its original title i.e.:
List of UFO sightings.
Unfortunately the renaming cannot be done by simple editing because the original page is occupied by a redirect and we will need an administrator to do that through template.
Pretty please to whoever will attempt do so: do NOT copy and paste the article because also the changes history should be moved.
I would suggest to wait a few weeks before doing so in order to give the opportunity to other editors to comment on the change. Thanks for your patience. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You should try to keep your talk page messages concise and to the point, and avoid unnecessary emphasis, if you want other editors to understand your arguments. --McGeddon (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair point, Andy. Is it worth bringing this up for wider discussion in a Wikiproject somewhere so that similar articles in Category:UFO sightings (there are 25 "UFO sightings in [country]" articles) can be renamed? "Reported" may be an obvious adjective to reach for here. --McGeddon (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear McGeddon (talk), if you have any other hypothesis on the UFOphenomenawith or without"emphasis" (and/or typographic emphasis) you are more than welcome to post them here. So other editors I will be able to criticize your contributions as well as me. Have a nice day. Thanks. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're suggesting here - Wikipedia is not a forum, this isn't a place to chat about hypotheses. --McGeddon (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
McGeddon is on the right track here with the suggestion of using "reported" rather than "alleged", or nothing. List of reported UFO sightings has a nice ring about it for me. HiLo48 (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"Reported" UFO sightings would cover it. However the article really needs to be pruned of speculation, e.g. Tunguska event is listed as a UFO "sighting." - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there's a lot of nonsense in the article, but that's really another issue. Quite happy to address it, but not in this thread. Does anyone disagree with moving in the "reported" direction? HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm o.k. with 'reported'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
@LuckyLouie (talk) I agree for pruning the Tunguska event (which some authors believe it has been a comet that hasn't been spotted because its trajectory was placed between Earth and the Sun). I would suggest to prune and graft it here on this talk page with the "Unidentified Walking Object" from Italy that McGeddon (talk)) has cut off @ 10:37, 29th October 2012.
@ McGeddon please let's try to be constructive. Okay, WP:NOTFORUM but also WP:NORULES. I am just trying to start a constructive dialogue here. If you feel uncomfortable with "chatting on wiki-talk pages" we can always exchange private e-mails trying to follow WP:EMAILPOST. You will not be the first and not even the last one (I hope).
@ HiLo48 (talk). Thanks for participating to the renaming discussion. Please let's try to avoid weasel words like "(...) Yes, there's a lot of nonsense in the article (...)" and make efforts towards being more specific.
Thanks to everyone for contributing, and let's try to have a nice and relaxed day. Cheers. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey, that's a bit rough. I'm happy to be much more specific, but as I said, this thread wasn't the right place. It would have only distracted from the essential conversation here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
With unanimous consensus among five editors, I've gone ahead and moved the article to "List of reported UFO sightings", and fixed all double redirects. --McGeddon (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
in particular HiLo48 (talk), sorry for being a bit "rough".
Talking about "threads not being in the right place" I would like to propose the page creation of "Unidentified Walking Objects (U.W.O.)" or "List or Reported Unidentified Walking Objects" like "Yetis" or something like that.
On the 29th of October McGeddon deleted the Italian sighting of an "unknown walking thingie":
well, I am more inclusionist than deletionist so I've created a table with the reported sighting that could be inserted in a List of Unidentified Walking Objects.
As well the Hynek scale should be reviewed because no flying objects were reported so I filled the corresponding column with "N/A".
I am not sure this is the right place to discuss the matter and if this could be considered original research so I apologize right now for any problems that could arise.
I hope this helps.
Cheers.
Several witnesses in vehicles saw a 4 meter tall creature walking by the road that was slowing traffic down. The only witness who spoke in public said he stepped out of his car to have a look at the creature and saw that it was grey and had a very large oval shaped head. All mobile phones appear not to be working when people tried to alert the authorities. D'Andrea stated on national TV that a local farmer that did not want to come forward reported seeing a creature fleeing his property damaging the fence hours before being seen on the road. The direction of the creature is compatible with the following sighting. Also the damages to the fence are compatible to the size and shape of the creature.
Yes: "Unidentified Walking Objects" looks like a neologism to me - can you provide a reliable source to suggest that the term is commonly used? (incidentally, I very much doubt that the source you provide as an example would meet WP:RS standards). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Adjusting something while destroying something else ... (?)
please allow me to "wikify" the code back again adding clear references in a separate section because the table where you changed the code now is basically unreadable.
Unfortunately last monday (the 19th) a very dear acquaintance of mine collapsed and fainted really badly after reading the article and the comments that we had to call the hospital and an ambulance.
Firstly, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to have a 'references' section on a talk page - simply provide URLs in single quotes thus: '[http://www.unonotizie.it/17096-ufo-creatura-misteriosa-nella-provincia-di-udine-essere-alto-4-metri-paralizza-il-traffico-di-mortegliano.php]'. Secondly, this isn't a forum, and we aren't interested in your ridiculous stories about your friends - please stay on topic. The topic of this talk page is content for an article on reported UFO sightings, nothing else... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Maurice it would be best if you use standard indentation and formatting conventions on the Talk page, and avoid making new sections for each new reply, adding artwork and quote boxes and other personalized html decorations, etc. Makes the discussion easier to follow. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
As part of the WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL code of conduct which is part of the first wikipedia policy pillar (civility) I have striked out your personal attacks.
And for the second time again please refrain from using pluralis majestatis.
If you insist in keeping this offensive behaviour towards me I will seriously consider posting a request for comments regarding user conduct. Last but not least you are kindly invited to read carefully the preceding comments before making allegedly offensive comments. I wrote that was an "acquaintance of mine" and NOT a "friend": please compare "acquaintance" second meaning on english wiktionary.
@ LuckyLouie (talk), I apologize if I didn't follow correctly WP:TYPES. Please assume good faith because it was my intention to make the discussion easier to follow: I will try my best to avoid "artwork and quote boxes" in the future. If my signature is also disturbing please let me know.
Thanks to both of you for contributing to the discussion and let's try to all have a relaxed and nice week-end. MauriceCarbonaro 11:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL only applies to removing your own comments, there are a few situations where it's okay to edit another user's comment, but not very many. (Striking out another user's comments is potentially confusing, as it will appear to other editors that they have stricken the comments themselves.)
Your custom signature seems to be lacking a datestamp - are you applying it manually rather than using the method recommended in WP:CUSTOMSIG? --McGeddon (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator, and yes, I'm aware that you've now made three oblique threats to take all other editors here to WP:ANI. If you have a problem with or question about another editor's conduct, the first step should always be to talk to them clearly about it so that they understand your exact concern, and can offer a response. Given that we are no longer discussing the "Unidentified Walking Italian Object" here, I'd suggest taking any such discussion to editors' personal talk pages. --McGeddon (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
What is this section? What is being proposed? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
200+ USAF and USSR missile control officers
This National Press Club testimony and these documents are said to establish that about 210 US Air Force and USSR military nuclear missile control officers from the 1950s to the 1990s have all reported very similar circumstances where their missiles were deactivated for extended periods while persons above ground at their locations were reporting UFO sightings in progress.
How can that be added when it spans decades? 67.41.200.185 (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Unless it is reported in secondary reliable sources, it won't be - see WP:RS. ufohastings.com appears to be a blog, and we don't cite YouTube downloads as a source - in fact, we won't even provide a link to them unless it is entirely clear that the download is from the copyright holder. In any case, from what you say, these aren't 'reported UFO sightings'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The Telegraph, FOX News, CBC TV. These aren't hard to find. There must have been at least a dozen mainstream news reports after the National Press Club event. 67.41.200.185 (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
If there are individual reliably-sourced reported UFO sightings, they can go into the list - but this article isn't about Robert Hastings' claims that there is some sort of 'UFO cover up' involving nuclear weapons, or anything else. If Hastings has been reported widely in the mainstream, maybe this merits an article - but it doesn't belong here, because it isn't what the list is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Where do you see it reported that Hastings has claimed a cover-up? He's always been pretty straightforward that none of the missile fire control officers he interviewed were ever asked to keep quiet about the experiences they reported. The mundane reality of the situation is that reliable journalists under the supervision of editorial staff with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy have repeatedly produced WP:SECONDARY news reports on the primary sources that Hastings and his co-authors have compiled. But for some reason the idea that UFOs like to buzz missile silos and turn off nukes doesn't sell detergent ads on the "History Channel" so those stories never become controversial enough to enter the conspiracy theorist literature. I'd love to read where Hastings or any of his co-authors or subjects allege any actual cover-up beyond that. 67.41.200.185 (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
From the Telegraph article you linked: "The beings have repeated their efforts in the US and have been active since 1948, the men said, and accused the respective governments of trying to keep the information secret". Anyway, Hastings claims are off-topic for this talk page, as I've already pointed out - where the sightings themselves are individually sourced, they can go in. Per WP:COATRACK, discussion of Hastings broader claims doesn't belong here. Find the sources, and write an article, if you think you can do so within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
New column for number of corroborating non-colocated witnesses
I'd like to suggest that we add a new numeric column for the number of witnesses reporting the event from different locations. This would clearly distinguish events such as the 2006 O'Hare sighting, where several people who didn't know each other all said the same thing, from sole individuals' eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. 67.41.200.185 (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
There are many factors which may make one UFO sighting more or less reliable than another. Adding another column for just this one would seem undue. With modern communications, non-colocation would be no proof of anything at all. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Such as what other factors? 67.41.200.185 (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Multiple witnesses can misidentify some ordinary object as easily as one individual could. The number of witnesses doesn't actually "distinguish" anything. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
As someone who used to work evaluating witness statements for insurance reports, those statements seem just plain wrong to me. Do you have a source supporting them? 67.41.200.185 (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
We aren't required to give sources for what we say in Talk page discussions. But we are required to supply reliable sources for material we wish to include in the article. It sounds like you want Wikipedia to treat UFO reports with multiple witnesses as more "distinguished" than UFO reports with single witnesses because of your job experience. I'm afraid we can't do that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm just saying that reporting the number of independent observers, which is readily available in the vast majority of the existing sources, will clearly distinguish the sole eyewitness accounts from those which are harder to dismiss. There's not a court or a news organization, or even a traditional reference publisher that doesn't consider single eyewitness testimony to be the least reliable beyond hearsay. 67.41.200.185 (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
If reliable sources opine that the number of independent observers for a particular UFO sighting is significant then it's OK to add it to an article about that particular UFO sighting. However for a list article such a this one, I have to agree with HiLo48 that a columnar tabulation scheme is undue emphasis on a non-notable detail. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, it would be like adding a column for "civilian/military witness" or "US/non-US" - it's always interesting to play with the data, but it would be implying a point of view about what makes a sighting significant. A few entries already mention the number of witnesses in the "description" field, where the sources consider it relevant, which seems enough. --McGeddon (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
page protection
Why are users allowed to remove several entries without satisfying explanation but I aint inserting or exchanging links to Wikipedia pages? 84.159.189.249 (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Ioannes Salinensis
You can propose changes here and if they get consensus than they will be added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Notability is a pretty standard list criterion, and it makes the most sense here. You were asked to take the issue to the talk page but you didn't. Bearing in mind the criterion, what is your argument for inclusion? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Theres no restriction for this list article concerning notability. You didn't remove the "Dr. Enrique Botta UFO incident" nor the "close encounter of Cussac" completely. But simultaneously you withdrew useful changes of the article. And you wasn't the first nor the last. WTF? My argument among others is, as already mentioned in the summary of the version from 21:50 UTC on the 18th, the consequent - but absent - exclusion of many other entries. Now the page is protected and everything's all right. The wikitable for the 20th century has still a crack. Do you and recent editors really care about this article? Excuse unusual word choice and delay of answer; in everyday life I don't use englisc tongue. 84.159.189.249 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Ioannes Salinensis
Every article in any encyclopedia has a restriction concerning notability. If something is not notable it should not be in Wikipedia. Stop making silly arguments like that; no one will listen to anything you have to say. Why not explain specific additions you wish to make? Ratemonth (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The article is still quite clear. Moreover a wikitable about the middle ages is missing. Why shouldn't it - or how notable hath it to be? Is Wikipedia runnin out of storage space? Wikipedias not restricted to 24 thick volumes. Silly arguments like what? No one will listen...? O, I'm shocked! What shall I mere doen? Well, for now is nothing left but explain... Theres still the caesura in the wikitable for the 20th century. 84.159.188.197 (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Ioannes Salinensis
Fringe ufology websites such as "AboveTopSecret.com", "Ufocasebook.com", "Ufoevidence.com" and Wordpress ufology blogs are not reliable sources of fact. I've removed these sources, along with much hyperbole and fringe-POV text from the entries that cited these as sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't downgrade UFO Evidence to Above Top Secret in regard to "ufology". Aside from that ATS is a site consisting of different fora. I know its off topic but I found following funny: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread949392/pg1. Where are the sources to the Ubatuba UFO Explosion, Old Saybrook UFO incident, Cisco Grove Alien Encounter, Buff Ledge Camp Abduction, Judy Doraty Abduction, Alabama Close Encounter, Cowichan District Hospital UFO Incident, Hudson Valley Sightings, 1986 São Paulo UFO sighting and Kelly Cahill Abduction? You cut the descriptions of Whitley Strieber's abduction (and again theres no UFO in it), the Gulf Breeze UFO Incident and Kelly Cahill Abduction too much. And what is the "3" between 1966 and 1967 waiting for? I propose that the infamous Dr. Enrique Botta UFO incident be returned to the table but explained a myth, if its not welcome, kuz there quite some sources reporting it. Are you happy now with the description about the Michigan Swamp Gas Sightings entirely missing? The article was much better on 17th May at 20:58 UTC. 84.159.188.31 (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Ioannes Salinensis
So find some reliable sources and do it. Ratemonth (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Enrique Botta? I got only original research. And I didnt look into "Situation Red". And why me? I didnt remove it. 84.159.160.159 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Ioannes Salinensis
True, and was not a real explanation for their edit. Ratemonth (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Although they might be unreliable sources, I presume you do agree that these sources identify what is notable and not notable on the field...Kevinjonpalma11 (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
See Notability if you have problems understanding the policy. We require actual and real coverage in a number of independent reliable sources to identify what is notable. Any users editing when not logged in should familiarize themselves with our policies on sockpuppetry as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I aint got a Wikipedia account. Whom do you mean? 84.159.160.159 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Ioannes Salinensis
Not reliable are the sites as a whole. I have the impression, that some of their content though be quite useful, the more so as they are citing sources themself. At least I can read a summary of the events by clicking once in Google - which is not the case with some pages of some books. I'm not criticizing your effort, but I aint got nuthin from it that sumthin is mentioned in "Hair of the Alien" (I always thought it be primarily about Peter Khoury). And who says that the book is reliable? And whos that guy Bill Chalker (is his name really "Bill")? (I aint puttin him in question now, but the question is legitimate.) Why is a book to which I got no (full) access, unless I buy it, more reliable than a web page, what everybody can see and whats citing its sources? By the way, "page 352" is the back cover of the book (but I dont know if Google Books is reliable enough to be sure about that). Did Lucky Louie prove all that? He did remove my link to UFO Evidence wheres a copy of an article by Bill Chalker. 84.159.160.159 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Ioannes Salinensis
Salem, MA UFO incident too. How does this look like?! There should be mentioned: look at UFO Evidence or UFO Casebook, kuz Lucky Louie dont want the links to be in the article due to unreliability. 84.159.160.159 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Ioannes Salinensis
I disbelieve... 84.159.157.176 (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Ioannes Salinensis
We won't be including original research and poorly sourced material in the article. The standard criteria for lists of this type is notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Funny, kuz there are still 5 cases that are not sourced at all and the description of the Salem incident is basicly copied and pasted from the removed source of UFO Evidence. 84.159.171.13 (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Ioannes Salinensis
Seems like you will be including hardly anything but not hesitate to exclude. Poor is the history of the article. 6 cases they are, I miscounted. C'mon, source em or delete em! 84.159.128.232 (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Ioannes Salinensis
You condemned my summary as not objective but yet offered no alternative. (How can a summary be non-objective?) I welcome your latest edits and am positively surprised but yon action leaves me no other choice than to undo it. Besides its not my fault that my IP is changing. Are you more trustworthy or of more authority kuz you are registrated? 84.159.161.40 (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Ioannes Salinensis
O, did the entry about Charles Hall attract your attention? In the unreliable source of Open SETI are some books by Charles Hall mentioned. Maybe you could dig them and in case of enough reliability put him back to the date 1965 to 1967. (Whos gon search the needed reliable sources when you removed the entry?) Furthermore I recommend that you think edit 559482409 over... 84.159.190.156 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Ioannes Salinensis
Incident in ottoman times
Historian Erhan Afyoncu (tv show partner of Murat Bardakçı) had uncovered an ottoman archive document about an ufo sighting, and had published it in Haberturk Tarih weekly journal. Unfortunately, back issues of Haberturk Tarih is not available on internet. If someone from Turkey has the hardcopy of the issue covering ottoman-ufo incident, they may think adding into the article. 88.229.100.54 (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of Fort Dix/McGuire AFB material due to "conspiracy sources"
I added information to the article about the Fort Dix/McGuire AFB alien shooting, with three references, including a video of testimony by an Air Force officer who says he was informed of the incident in order to brief Air Force generals. The entire incident and all the supporting sources were deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_reported_UFO_sightings&diff=627538482&oldid=627532717 How do other editors of the article feel about this deletion? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:REDFLAG claims that an "ET" was shot by the US military (and then covered up) would need extraordinarily reliable and objective sources. Sorry, YouTube videos and UFO books don't cut it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
That YouTube video is witness testimony by retired Air Force Intelligence Major George Filer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0H-Pn8RKKo And if we don't cite books about UFOs, what kind of books would we cite? This is an article about UFO sightings. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey Ghost, I dont think Lucky believes in UFOs so his personal beliefs get in the way of fair judgment and to him even the phrase fringe theory doesn't seem worth defining. Too sad... Mercy11 (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
There is an article up for deletion called UFO sightings in outer space. Is anyone interested in working on it to bring it up to standards? Bali88 (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
What? I didn't see any such remark right now. 93.132.235.251 (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Ioannes Salinensis
Rize - Turkey sighting
Couldn't find this sighting in the list, and don't know the exact date; might be 2006. Logos (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like made up of many balloons. However, those balloon like objects seem as light emitting/radiating bubbles, some of which look like spreading, vibrating and bursting/vanishing/disappearing; it also casts shadow on the trees while rising. Logos (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
To include, we need more than a YouTube video. We need articles and some indication that the sighting is notable. Aliens could land, shake hands (tentacles, whatever), pose for some pics and take off and it won't make this list until somebody writes about it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That's why I added the youtube link here, for the sighting to be dug up by the active editors. Logos (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
One of the comments in the original video reveal that, there had been similar sightings before in other sides of the world, and the objects were described as "shiny object that looked like molten metal dripping from it" and as "Looked like molten fire was dripping off of it as it flew slowly by". A book writes that condon report included a "dripping molten metal effect/illusion" case as well. Col. Halt's sighting might be the most notable "dripping molten metal effect/illusion" ufo case. Logos (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on List of reported UFO sightings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just added archive links to one external link on List of reported UFO sightings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
I have just added archive links to one external link on List of reported UFO sightings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
I have just modified 4 external links on List of reported UFO sightings. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
The point of this list should be historically notable UFO sightings with a bunch of witnesses that at least don't have some completely obvious explanation. The most recent entry s terrible; if we included every example of some lone person photoshopping a UFO this would be a mess. Take it out (along with anything similar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.158.152 (talk • contribs)
I have just modified 10 external links on List of reported UFO sightings. 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:
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.
I have just modified 2 external links on List of reported UFO sightings. 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:
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.
I have just modified 10 external links on List of reported UFO sightings. 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:
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.
This article mentions a 2004 event recorded on video by Navy Jets in contact with the USS Nimitz Navy Cruiser. That event doesn’t seem to be in the timeline for the 21st century TheThomas (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of reported UFO sightings. 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:
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.
Pro' GREAT! But... ahem... I was thinking about adding an == External links == section to this article with a link to the results on google.co.uk search engine "News" category that uses the "UFO" keyword (171,000 results). If this is supposed to be a "list of alleged UFO sightings" do you guys think is still possible to make this change? Because using "alleged UFO sightings" as a keyword gives back "only" 825 results. Should we start a new article? Thanks. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.