Talk:Unidentified flying objects

i've moved this page from UFO, so it is in accorde to wikipedia naming conventions. There is a redirect in ufo, just in case.--Zero00 14:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's not, actually - it should be singular, not plural!

This is not a problem, because it should also have been moved using the "Move this page" link - because this preserves the edit history.

So I'll move UFO to Unidentified flying object with its history, copy the disambig text back to UFO, then copy this article's text to that new long name. Then put a redirect on the plural - David Gerard 14:54, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Whoops, that exists! I've put a request on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion to implement the above plan. - David Gerard 15:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are additonal terms, names, and links which should be part of the article. NICAP, the National Investigations (Investigating) Commitee for Aerial Phenomena, has a website: http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/. I knew Ray fowler, an investigator for NICAP, many years ago, and read his (first?) book on his experiences. He has a website, http://members.evansville.net/slk/rfowler.htm, with other books. Also interesting is an interview with Ray: http://boudillion.com/interviews/fowler.htm. Ray pointed out to me that perhaps the book of Ezekial--the "wheels"--recounted UFO sightings. --User:John Barrington

Name of article

i hope this discussion ended happilly. for more see talk:UFO --Zero00 14:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"UFOs are most frequently seen in Scotland."

Source? I've never heard this before.

This link no longer works:

http://web.archive.org/web/20001201174900/http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.htm A page belonging to proponents of the extraterrestrial life hypothesis

Neither the original page nor the supposedly archived page exists. Parking here in case the situation is temporary. Ortolan88

Very odd, since I was briefly at that site when I made my NPOV edit eariler today - that's why I changed the description to mention that it belonged to propoments of the extraterrestrial life hypothesis. I wonder if the archive got alerted to the link from the referrer when I followed it, and they took it down. Bryan 04:08 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

There is some additional info from this version that might deserve reinclusion into the article. The author took out much of the current article w/o any explanation and CamelCased some things which was odd. --mav

This might use some NPOV for the alternative view. As vital as skepticism is, this version kind of discounts by omission. I had a good 15-second sighting of three during the daytime; there was no mistaking the flight patterns, it does make one a believer. There are good methodical books out there like Timothy Good's Above Top Secret, which even as a resource reference might lend this balance. Might do sometime if someone else doesn't. --CR 03:34 Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have an article on UFO hoaxes?

Hoaxes are fair game for discussion; elimination of alternative views, particularly without discussion, are not, and pretty revealing. NPOV requires acknowledging even the existence of alternative views. Removing edits that did not undercut one view, they simply presented the alternative, is bad enough, but deleting even two links discussing the evidence is highly POV. I've been studying this field for years (even subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer) and observed these non-delusional craft in flight. Selective bias has no place in wiki. Kindly practice civility and discuss first, but I do intend to revert it. Chris Rodgers 08:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

An article on known hoaxes (of all kinds) would be fun! Mark Richards 22:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

--Zero00 13:43, 15 May 2004 (UTC) Great idea. Why don't you write one then chris?[reply]

"UFO-ism"

This section is presently rambling editorial speculation. I can vaguely see the idea you're getting at, but so far it's rubbish. Is there any good reason this section should stay at all in its present form? - David Gerard 16:12, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

The article might be not perfect, and might not be based in facts. But A important aspect of the UFO's mith is the religious aspect some see in it, this should not be omitted. Maybe a little less speculation a more names of sects with believes as described might improve the article. I'll do some research, but i don't agree to eliminate everything --Zero00 14:52, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I improved the article, we both happy? I do prefer him like this. --Zero00 15:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot better :-) The section header needs a new name. "UFOs and religion", or something. Listing the UFO sects is very good! - David Gerard 16:49, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to clean it up a bit. I've listed the religions before the list of characteristics - some of those listed don't share those characteristics. Is there a written work or two we can reference on the subject? - David Gerard 17:06, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

In fact yes there are many books. I added the Erich Danikem reference. I am trying to write in a tone more apropriate to ufo article than extraterrestrials article or something. --Zero00 18:25, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]