Talk:Pentagon UFO videos/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Attributes/Flight characteristics of the Vessels

This section appears to have been synthesized from various reliable sources, some of which have been misinterpreted. For example, the US Intelligence report explicitly states that UAP probably lack a single explanation. A section on “flight characteristics of vessels” rules out explanations like airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, sensor error, etc. and assumes that all reports are explained as aircraft, and they all embody the same set of sensational flight characteristics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to compromise on this and exclude the parts that you claim are synth, but its reasonable to include in this article information about the attributes of the vessels that are not otherwise defined as airborne clutter, etc. As such, I'll include something that mentions what you've said - I hope that's ok. Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, LuckyLouie I have now added some wording to indicate that the report and some commentary indicate there is a range of explanations, and that *some* of the vessels exhibited these flight characteristics. Please feel free to play with the wording in the text if you have further issues.I do take your point, there isn't a single explanation for all these vessels, but the commentary clearly indicates that *some* of them have unusual flight characteristics, and, of course it would make sense for them to be mentioned in the article. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

"Attributes/Flight characteristics of the Vessels" (the vessels?) is still WP:SYNTH using multiple sources. All you've done is add a disclaimer. From the ODNI report: In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis.. A section highlighting reports from a limited number of incidents is pushing a POV, and we don't want to do that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm just including information about the flight characteristics, as noted in the Pentagon report, and various articles. I understand you think I'm trying to say *all* the vessels had these characteristics, and of course you are correct, that is not the case. So I'm happy to include the "In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics" section, as a further compromise. However, the are multiple references, from various articles discussing the unusual flight characteristics, including quotes from pilots, some of which I've included. These are all RS references. In an article about UAPs, it would be unusal not to include details about their behaviour, where that is otherwise noted in RS.Deathlibrarian (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I;ve made a further adjustment to the text, hopefully that addresses your concerns, inluding specifically mentioning that it is from a "limited number of incidents" - so it is in fact clear. If you'd like to alter it yourself, to perhaps put it in a framework that addresses your issues, please do, but as I mentioned, of course its reasonable to assume an article about UAPs is actually going to discuss their characteristics. Thanks once again. Deathlibrarian (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Changed title of the section from Vessels to UAPs as that matches the rest of the article, and is probably less POV? - not sure. Deathlibrarian (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with LuckyLouie. That new section is WP:SYNTH and unduly emphasizes individual claims of "vessels" in a somewhat sensational manner. It is fair, however, to mention briefly (with citation) the alleged flight attributes of these alleged "vessels." I will add such text to the pre-existing "June 2021 UFO Report" section, wherein it seems appropriate. Note that the same RS are included there. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the actual text from the ODNI report is the most useful summary, re the issue of flight characteristics. And since it's copyright-free, we can use their exact wording. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to the removal of the (brief) material I just added. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Well done, and the surrounding ODNI text provides much-needed context that the small number of provocative observations could have mundane explanations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, for including that material, it does need to be in the article. I think simply explaining them away with the *Mundane* explanation "These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis" is POV, and doesn't reflect the actual RS, which largely doesn't discuss these things. There is no explanation for these characteristics. Various articles have explained them as Russian tech, US tech, some say alien craft, while a body of the material says there is no explanation. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have made a slight change to that, to include that the craft could be foreign tech, which the ODNI report and plenty of other commentary concludes, and added in the RS to support. I hope that's a good compromise, and glad we could work this out without a lot of effort and to and thro - thanks to both of you, LuckyLouie and JoJo Anthrax. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, That was redundant with the following paragraph, so I moved your wording there. MrOllie (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

yeah, thanks MrOllie I was wondering about that, it read oddly. However, the various explanations being split into two paragraphs was a bit odd, so I have moved them together. Reads better, and makes more sense structurally. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, Your latest edit added text that was redundant with the text already in the article. Why do you keep doing that? The article shouldn't repeat itself. MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian, I noticed the same problem. You keep adding redundant text. Also there’s no need to add your sig ~~~~ to edit summaries. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 US government report on UFOs/UAPs

I've added a new section with the UAP report, released yesterday - which is mostly discussing the recent UFO videos and trying to interpret them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• US intelligence community releases long-awaited UFO report. By Katie Bo Williams, Zachary Cohen and Jeremy Herb, CNN. June 25, 2021. From article (emphasis added):

"We absolutely do believe what we're seeing are not simply sensor artifacts. These are things that physically exist," the official said, noting that 80 of the reported incidents included data from multiple sensors. In 11 cases, pilots reported a "near-miss" collision with these strange objects.

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes interestingly, the report says these are *physical existing objects* - recordered simultanously by radar and visual confirmation from the pilots. The fact that the Government now sees them as (1)a possible threat (2) a possible safety issue as jets may crash into them! means the government viewpoint is now that these UAPs exist and real.. they just don't know what they are. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Didn't Project Sign establish that the unknowns with good data were actually extraterrestrials, before Project Grudge, as its name suggests nixed the whole idea? The French Government seems to have come to the same conclusion through GEIPAN. Flip-Flopping over the issue for over 7 decades is confusing. The Malmstrom Airforce base incident, the findings of Project Blue Book, JANAP-155, "unidentified helicopters", etc. It just seems that whatever these objects are, the US Government just doesn't want to address the issue at hand. Will it require one of these "phenomena" to down a civilian or military plane before they are taken seriously (I mean that's what happened in Tehran in 1976)?Chantern15 (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Easy question. No, it did not. Our article Project Sign says, However, Project Sign's final report, published in early 1949, stated that while some UFOs appeared to represent actual aircraft, there was not enough data to determine their origin. Unless you use argument from ignorance to deduce "aliens" from "no idea", it does not follow. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

What did they mean, "not enough data to determine their origin"? How much data do you need to know that a plane is a plane, and a helicopter is a helicopter, unless it's a grainy photograph taken at night? Even so, the silhouette of plane, either Delta, Backwards V or straight wings like the B-52 should tell the investigators what kind of plane it is. Or the distinctive difference in design of soviet planes. I wish they were more specific. Was it a blur, a distortion, a smear, poor development of film, etc? "Not enough data", just seems like a very imprecise answer for a scientific committee. Were they being deliberately vague due to pressures to make things go away, like with subsequent investigations?Chantern15 (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

What did they mean Don't know, don't care. The point is that Wikipedia users do not get to draw conclusions like the unknowns with good data were actually extraterrestrials. You can believe that is what they mean, of course, but your beliefs do not matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Only what the sources actually say matters. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it against the policy of Wikipedia to highlight links between reports on the same topic? For example, Project Sign was open-ended, while Project Grudge was biased towards denial from the start, Project Blue Book mission changed with different directors and so on. These can be phrased neutrally, but perhaps readers should get a sense of continuity from the start? Because as it currently stands, when reading these articles on these reports, it seems as if they were all written independently of each other with little hint that they were related to one another, unless that's how the Air Force wanted them to be.106.215.127.75 (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Perhaps it is easiest to simply repeat what Hob Gadling wrote immediately above: your beliefs do not matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Only what the sources actually say matters. What you seem to be suggesting is original research, and I recommend that you read that policy to better understand why such content is inappropriate. And while you are at it, you should probably also familiarize yourself with WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:RGW, and WP:NOTFORUM. I know that is a lot of reading, but doing it now just might prevent you from receiving editing restrictions. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I've read the links which you posted here, and I understand what the admins of Wikipedia are saying. I didn't intend my questions or points of clarification or exploration of different interpretations of the data to be in violation of Wikipedia's standards. It just seemed that in subjects where great reticence is present, there seemed to be an absence of questioning, but that's not Wikipedia's job. I get that now, and maybe I'll ask questions in a more circumspect manner. I'm not aware of how much information people here have compiled, so maybe I should ask users about how much info they have on a topic before I get enthusiastic about a particular one.106.215.127.75 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

RFC - Removal of Parallax Graphic

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was: Item retained. Overwhelming opposition against removal. Personally, I'd have removed that image, because I find it a bit confusing (and disorienting, making me dizzy). But what do I know? Scientists are like wizards to me! El_C 18:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose that the Parrallax graphic is removed from the article (but leave the text) Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Why? EEng 03:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support (as nominator) - I propose that the Parrallax graphic is removed from the article (but leave the text), given that the text and prominent graphic seem to propose it as a prominent explanation, where that is not supported by recent commentary here and here and here. This article mentions it only briefly on the videos as a likely explanation, and the White House report on the videosthe report. None of these articles, including the White House report, mention the concept of parrallax at all. The current discussion is not that it is some kind of pallalax error, but that they are possibly Chinese or Russian technology. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The idea that parallax should act as "an explanation" seems to miss the actual way this subject is discussed in the context of this article. I judge that the nominator hasn't really understood some of the most basic content here and question the WP:COMPETENCE of the nomination. There could be good reason to change content on this page, but it should not be in the service of ignorance like this. jps (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As JoJo Anthrax has mentioned, if people want to see diagrams about it, they can follow the link off to the parallax article, where there are plenty. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons outlined in the sections above by me and multiple others. The argument for exclusion is that the graphic somehow constitutes skeptical POV pushing, but has been explained more than once now, not only is it not that, but the skeptical POV is, in fact, the neutral POV. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • No.The argument here is that the explanation of the videos, by way of the fact that they are simply parrallax error, is not supported by the recent discussion of the Navy videos, so it doesn't appear to be prominent factor - in particular compared to the primary proposition outlined in the articles, that is, the craft are possibly Russian or Chinese (not weather balloons, parrallax errors or Aliens). The prominent positioning of the parrallax argument is not inline with the sources - see WP:UNDUE - "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

    No I would refer to the previous discussions, where your words are clear.

    Simply put, parrallax error is not a prominent viewpoint in the context of these videos That is demonstrably false. Parallax is mentioned in several of the sources used in this article, and as I explained at my talk, these experts are more trustworthy than the government experts, who have well-defined (albeit proper) biases towards a non-natural explanation.

    Note that I don't intend to relitigate this with you, and that the mere opening of this RfC after you had gotten such a clear answer to your question already is problematic enough, even without considering the decidedly non-neutral way you initially worded it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

    • Hang on a sec, this RFC is about WP:Due, why are you bringing up the previous discussion which I have dropped and am no longer advocating?As far as I can see, you haven't addressed the issue in this particular RFC at all. Also, you seem unhappy with how I did my original RFC, well its the first one I have done, and I pulled the original one when it was pointed out (rather patiently by MrOllie) I had done it improperly, and resubmitted it in a neutral fashion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Given the Pentagon UFO Report release and its mostly unexplained findings, we have a weird case where a skeptic becomes the fringe opinion. Keep the text, but the image is WP:UNDUE unless it becomes the prevailing theory among multiple notable skeptics. If and when it becomes solved (most likely never), we can add it. The "he's the most qualified" argument is poor when the people he's arguing against are trained pilots or scientists, which he's not. If one needs an explanation of the parallax effect, clicking on the article link is easy, the image gives undue prominance to what isn't in a lot of WP:RS, and can trick the reader into thinking it's the "correct" answer. Loganmac (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  A position does not turn into fringe when someone in a government body opposes it. Otherwise, the whole of science would have become fringe when Biden's predecessor shit on it. Wikipedia is not in the habit of brown-nosing: the criterion for a good source is reliability, not political or military power. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" See here A position is a fringe viewpoint when it is not supported by the mainstream RS. The mainstream RS does not support the viewpoint that the Pentagon videos are simply a result of Parrallax error. I suspect, its only seriously advocated by one person.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  The article does not make any claim that "that the Pentagon videos are simply a result of Parrallax[sic] error". jps (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The reasons given for removal now are as bad as the reasons given before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The ODNI report did not issue a blanket statement that all previous UFO reports were completely unexplainable, or explainable by only one explanation. Here is the relevant quote from the report: There are probably multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations based on the range of appearances and behaviors described in the available reporting. Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or U.S. industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall “other” bin. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes ,but it certainly does not propose that parrallax error is a significant explanation, as indicated by the weight we gave to it in the wiki article. It mention the phrase "natural atmospheric phenomena" once, and doesn't discuss it. In fact, it does not mention the word "parrallax" at all. Would the Government be concerned about threats to national security, and safety issues for the pilots from these craft, simply if they thought the recordings were a simple parrallax error?.Deathlibrarian (talk)
    • What kind of jejune response is this? It doesn't even make any sense. I question whether there is any understanding what the concept of a "parallax error" is. WP:COMPETENCE is required, and we seem to be skirting on the edge of this requirement. jps (talk) 2:11 pm, 2 July 2021, last Friday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)
      • Hey jps- I'm not responding to this, and here's something you should probably read
        • Truth hurts, but WP:SPADEs are spades. This discussion has solidified for me that we will have to deal with an apparent level of incompetence if we're going to make any progress here. jps (talk) 8:32 am, 3 July 2021, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)
    • Would the Government be concerned about threats to national security, and safety issues for the pilots from these purported craft, if they were certain that the recordings were a simple parallax error? Obviously not, but it's a straw man. Would the Government be concerned about threats to national security, and safety issues for the pilots from these purported craft, if they thought that they were probably parallax errors or some other mundane natural phenomenon but that there was still a significant possibility that they were aerial vehicles from a potential adversary? It would be their sworn duty to be concerned. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - summoned by bot. I like the graphic, and having it allows us to shorten the descriptive text. Words cannot convey the effect as well. I shortened the caption and linked to the parallax article, as a compromise solution. I felt standalone context was necessary. If anyone disagrees, or think that this somehow violates the spirit of the RfC, feel free to revert. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - worth a thousand words, here. Applicable to a wide range of observations mentioned on the article, necessary to disentangle when analyzing such reports. – SJ + 20:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Unfortunate, but all I see here is a lot of editors ignoring Wikipedia policy on undue weight, and pushing a line of argument not supported by the RS. Practically no commentary is saying these videos are explained by parrallax errors, compared to a majority of the experts and witnesses who are stating other reasons (foremost that they are Chinese or Russian tech, which may be a threat to the US). Explaining these videos as parrallax error, is a tiny minority viewpoint. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It is a strawman to claim that our article "explains" these videos as "parrallax error(sic)". I'm not sure why you think otherwise. jps (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying the parrallax diagram isn't there to explain the videos? why else would it be there? Is it merely decorative??Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

(turns out this comment of mine was the answer to a question asked later, so I moved it up here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)) The parallax thing is just an error people often make when they tell others about what they saw. It is never an "explanation for" a sighting, it is an explanation for inconsistencies within a report of a sighting and, if people are aware of it, makes explanation of the sighting easier by taking unrealistic claims about flying speeds with a grain of salt. UFOlogists tend to cling to the wording of reports, ignoring the fact that "what I saw" always actually means "what I believe I saw". Any serious attempt at talking about UFOs must make that fact clear. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Not that I want to get into a big discussion about it, but parrallax is not an explanation for these videos, because I'm pretty sure parrallax error is only somthing that affects human — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 08:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

That is what I said. Nobody says anything else. But I also said other stuff which answers your clucking about it not explaining any videos: it explains details of sighting, which UFOlogists usually ignore, because they want to not explain flying objects and not to explain flying objects.

How about you leave this Talk page alone for a while? You are clearly confused, you repeat yourself, you ignore what people say, you stop in mid-sentence before you come to the signature, and you generally keep flooding this RFC by leaving your opinion turds opinions everywhere. I cannot think of the exact wording at the moment, but there is a WP:something term for a single person trying to dominate an RFC like this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I had a look at your talk page and its littered with people making comments about your lack of civility. May be its you that needs to take a look at yourself? I'm not suprised at these sort of comments. You and your friend jps make a great team. Its people like you both that makes writing articles and editing on wikipedia such a delight. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It is WP:BLUDGEON, and I agree that you would benefit from a read of it, Deathlibrarian. - MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON, right! --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

So what? Climatologists get death threats. Doesn't mean they are wrong about anything. I will not be civil to people who ignore the basic rules of discussion by WP:IDHT.

Your bad reasoning did not convince people, your WP:IDHT exhausts people's patience, and now are tone trolling. You are trying anything so you can ignore what people are actually saying in response. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree MrOllie I've actually given up on it - I think its run its course (and yes, I should have a while back, but kept responding to certain editors incivilities) Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Support As I explained in the earlier thread, I do not think the parallax graphic (as opposed to the descriptive text) is needed here. I also do not think its retention would be particularly onerous, or likely to confuse any readers. For the record, my weak support for this proposal does not mean I agree with the comment that we have a weird case where a skeptic becomes the fringe opinion, and I reject the claim that opposing editors are ignoring Wikipedia policy on undue weight, and pushing a line of argument not supported by the RS. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Regretful support I really like the graphic, but parallax does appear to have been excluded as the primary factor, so it probably has slipped into UNDUE territory. Feoffer (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:DUE it is inappropriate to give that much weight to the parallax explanation in the article. This is a violation of Wikipedia policies just like that of WP:NPOV with wordings like calling theories "pseudoscientific" or the "as is typical in the context of such incidents, extraordinary [...]" in the lead. It is especially concerning due to the article clearly under-representing information about theories that editors here apparently disfavor even though they are widely discussed in lots reliable sources. As the parallax explanation was not found to be a viable explanation for the Pentagon-confirmed peculiar UFO sightings, the mention of "(e.g., parallax)" is more than enough reference to that particular explanation. The article should inform about theories, viewpoints in rough accordance to how widely they are being discussed in third-party media which reports far more extensively about explanations that involve the existence and direct or indirect detection/inferring of extraterrestrials (which also appears to be more plausible and in better accordance to Occam's razor but that is probably irrelevant here).

Anybody that has done user support for a significant amount of time will learn to distinguish among

• What the user reported
• What the user remembers seeing
• What the user saw
• What actually happened.

Never confuse raw data, reported data and reported conclusions. What make UFOlogy a pseudoscience is reporting assumptions and hypotheses as fact instead of testing hypotheses. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If there needs be this much lengthy discussion on talk pages to resolve such obvious problems with articles with even just hatnotes informing about these problems getting removed entirely Wikipedia is having a big problem (I'd say that problem is a lack of editors alongside lack of spent time and effort for research about an article's topic before reverting edits to it).

Other Arguments like necessary to disentangle when analyzing such reports are simply irrelevant here as this is not a page meant to be used to disentangle UFO reports but to inform about the Pentagon UFO videos and the Pentagon UFO report (note that the latter is larger in scope than those few videos) and sourced information that directly relates to these. Concerning the argument(/s ?) I like the graphic, and having it allows us to shorten the descriptive text I'd say remove the descriptive text about this specific effect entirely – it's enough to say observational errors and maybe list a few wikilinked examples even though they can be discarded at this point. (My argumentation here is also relevant to other improvements of the article which are long overdue but less relevant now that people are not as interested in the article as earlier.)

To make things very clear WP:NPOV is crucial to Wikipedia and that page says the following: neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It does not say "skeptical – however you define 'skeptical', which is always relative to something to be skeptical about, and select the explanation to be skeptical™ about over those to be supportive of in terms of coverage – is the neutral viewpoint and all other viewpoints must subordinate to whatever was found to be the "correct" "skeptical" range of explanations.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nah. The idea that we need to guard against "skeptical" opinions is one that has been deprecated over the years in spite of the litany of WP:PROFRINGE attempts. See WP:YWAB, e.g. jps (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Not what I was saying at all. In short it violates WP:DUE (as well as WP:NPOV and science-based rationality).

The WP:FRINGE theory here is that all of these peculiar UFO events can be explained by things like mundane weather balloons in addition to a conspiracy theory involving false testimonies being made by lots of military personnel from various countries. We don't need to "guard" against such theories but look at what (and to what extent) the sources are covering and not neglect any significant viewpoints and theories. The violation of WP:FRINGE is tied to that of WP:DUE so I didn't bring it up (from that page: Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.) (emphasis mine). --Prototyperspective (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The WP:FRINGE theory here is that all of these peculiar UFO events can be explained by things like mundane weather balloons ^{[citation REALLY needed]} ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This is straight-up ufology talking points. jps (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Meh. I put the graphic in because a few of the sources sourced in the article at the time mention the parallax effect and I thought the graphic useful for illustrative purposes. If there are other images that are better suited to explain concepts for this article, that's fine with me. I'm not sure I understand the arguments over what may or may not be a "primary factor" in the context of this article. The parallax effect is simply a thing that any analysis of these ideas will have to address, and we have at least three sources that I see which mention this as a consideration. I don't see reliable sources that claim that this is not the case. jps (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Three articles...and this is exactly my point. I can reference at least 30 articles I have handy (and happy to link them here if you like), or more that discuss Russian or Chinese technology, and don't mention parrallax error at all. May be it was more supported when you put the diagram in? But in the main, from all the articles I've read, it's no longer supported as an explanation now. The articles and the Pentagon report have showed a shift in attitude and moved on now, its no longer about weather balloons/pilots seeing things, and the article needs to accept that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    • If you have 30 articles that don't make mention of parallax as an issue with these sorts of videos and accounts, I hardly think you've found a good library for this subject. WP:WEIGHT is not done on the basis of WP:SOURCECOUNTING. jps (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
      • jpsSee WP:WEIGHT "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." As far as I can see, there are only three references to parallax in the article that support it (and that I know of) and there is only one expert who is supporting it - Mick West, who is a professional skeptic. Seems to me that's a small minority.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
        • The relative number of sources is irrelevant. If you think that the parallax effect is "not supported", this is a rather WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim and I'd like to see one reliable source that shows that there is no parallax effect. jps (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

          Sensationalism ("OoOoH! ScArY aLiEnS!" or "OoOoH! ScArY fOrEiGn DrOnEs!") always gets significantly less weight than sober analysis, and anyone arguing otherwise is POV pushing. Also note that a very large number of skeptical analyses were excluded from this article on the basis of "Jesus Christ, do we really need to quote another skeptic?" so there's plenty more out there if someone really wants to count sources. Of course, that requires that an editor doing the counting not look for excuses to exclude each skeptical source... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose There seems to be enough emphasis on parallax as a mundane explanation/part of an explanation that having a small illustration of it is within the realm of due weight and good taste. And even if one mundane explanation is later supplanted by another, equally mundane one, keeping track of the history of that process is generally a good idea, and one way or another, it'll have to be addressed. Keeping the illustration makes sense. XOR'easter (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support for 'purely aesthetic and functional reasons. We can quibble about policy and guidelines for centuries, but I find that the moving animation that can't be easily paused or deactivated is visually distracting, and hinders the ability to read and comprehend the text. It's like trying to read a book while a strobe-light flashes. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  Now that is what a good reason looks like. No comparison with any of that "skeptical POV is fringe" crap. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: For those claiming undue weight, I would look at the article as a whole. There are multiple other illustrations in the article, including the videos themselves, which at first glance appear (to many people) to have extraordinary explanations. Without this, there would be none illustrating the ways in which this type of video can have relatively mundane explanations. As such, it is removal that would be a violation of due weight. The value of the graphic is not in demonstrating the parallax effect explanation specifically, but rather as an example of the broader class of mundane explanations in general. Sunrise (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't agree with that view. There are multiple graphics in the article, yes, but only one diagram (with a bunch of explanatory text) that is explaining it - the other graphics aren't explaining it, they are images from the recordings.If we are going to have one explanation, that is dominant in the article, it should be from something the sources are supporting, not something the sources have dismissed(or in the main, not considering as a likely explanation). It's misleading to the reader. The *overall impression* to the reader, because of the undue weight/prominence of the diagram and all the text, is that parallax is a likely factor in the videos, and the RS is not supporting that at all. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see anyone dismissing the fact that the parallax effect exists. Can you point to one source that indicates that? jps (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't say the concept didn't exist, clearly it does. I said its not being discussed as an actual possible reason in this case. I have about 15 articles I've read, with links - they largely focus on the possibility of it being foreign advanced tech, either manned or drones. The days of putting this down to pilots with bad eyesight or weather balloons seem to be behind us now (except for that one writer I gather) Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  Similarly, the GHITs speak for themselves.....

  China and "pentagon UFO video" - 35,300 hits

  Russia and "pentagon UFO video" - 24,100 hits

  Drone and "pentagon UFO video" - 29,900 hits

  parallax and "pentagon UFO video" - 8 Hits

Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• More WP:SOURCECOUNTING devolving now into WP:GHITS. You're going to have to do better than that. The strawman argument that the parallax effect is "an actual possible reason in this case" notwithstanding, you seem to have missed the point entirely of what the sources who pointed out that this effect is relevant in these cases are saying. jps (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think debating this with you is probably a waste of both our time. If I haven't got my point across to you by now, I never will. Thanks for the discussion.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  The problem is that I question the understanding of the argument. I'm not convinced that it is understood what parallax even is. The spelling of the word is incorrect frequently in these discussions. jps (talk) 8:55 am, 3 July 2021, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

  Ok, so that's the second time I've asked you to observe WP:civil, and you ignored the first one.Is this what you enjoy doing with your weekends, coming onto wikipedia to make snide comments and mock people because of their spelling errors? Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  Spelling errors is one thing. I make spelling errors all the time. But you seem to be constitutionally inclined to misspell the word "parallax" in this discussion. You seem to think that there is a group of people out there who think that the parallax effect "explains" these videos and in spite of multiple people telling you otherwise, you continue to repeat that claim. Finally, I notice that you've been notified for one month already about issues with regards to your involvement on pages relating to fringe theories and pseudoscience. Competence IS required especially when dealing with these subjects and so far I've seen quite a bit of evidence that your involvement here is not a net positive. jps (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not responding to your comments. I've asked you twice now, if you want to make a point, do so politely and professionally, instead of making your snide comments. I'm sure you've got plenty of other people that you like to harrass and refute and challenge every single comment they make. No frigging wonder Wikipedia has such a hard time getting editors with people like you being so rude to them. You and Hob Gadling have been tag team harrassing me and I'm over it. I should have stopped commenting on this section ages ago. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  you seem to be constitutionally inclined to misspell the word "parallax" This comment is utterly incompatible with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Doubly inappropriate in light of the existence of conditions which genuinely do cause a constitutional inclination towards spelling errors. Feoffer (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  The only word that seems to be messed up here is the one that is most relevant to our discussion. It seems pretty noticeable. In any case, this is not personal. This is a matter of questioning whether people actually understand the idea of a parallax error. jps (talk) 11:07 pm, 3 July 2021, last Saturday (1 day ago) (UTC−4)

  I'm unaware of any modern browser that doesn't incorporate a spell checker into any text areas on the page, and jps' point that DL keeps insisting that parallax "explains" the incidents is a very valid one. Questioning an editor's competence is not uncivil; doing so without cause is, and jps has cause here.

  I would also note that reverting another editor's talk page comments is distinctly uncivil, and only warranted in cases of vandalism or trolling, which is explicitly spelled out in WP:RUC. So what I saw when I looked at this page history and this section was jps and DL discussion whether or not DL understands all the concepts here, and then you jumping in to accuse jps of trolling or vandalism.

  If you have complaints about another editor's civility, you should leave them a polite note on their talk page. You should also assume good faith that they did not intend to be uncivil. If they argue with you, you should drop the subject if it's not a major incident, or report it to ANI if it is.

  What you absolutely should NEVER do is revert their comments while citing a policy that states clearly that only vandalism or trolling comments should be reverted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I don't care about the animated graphics, if the fact that it is animated is problematic, it could be expressed differently with a diagram. However, the text and sources pertaining to parallax should remain. —PaleoNeonate – 08:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose That the Pentagon's report and a round of articles covering that report don't have much coverage does not invalidate the sources that do. Anyway, the report says "These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception" - and this graphic is about a type of misperception. - MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal I see no point in repeating arguments so cogently made by others. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the comments above. Sea Ane (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - At least one source mentions parallax effect as possible explanation.[1] The image gives a quick perception of the effect (even though I would agree that wiki linking is a good option to refer the reader to but anyway) --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose After following up on the discussions above, i tend to agree with the reasoning of the opposing editors. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• I am going with support to remove it.Thelostone41 (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bringing this page text into line with UFOLOGY page

There is a reference here in the potential explanations section, that states that UFOLOGY is a pseudoscience....which appears to be broader than what Wikipedia otherwise states. The actual wording in the UFOLOGY article is that "ufology is regarded by skeptics and science educators as a canonical example of pseudoscience". So I had made an adustment to the text (see diff) to bring this text into line with that article by stating "including ufology (regarded by skeptics and others as pseudoscientific)" - so that they don't contradict. However, if we want to be precise, I'm happy to compromise here with "including ufology (regarded by skeptics and science educators as pseudoscientific)" - which is pretty close to the exact wording in the other article. There is obviously a difference here in the way this is expressed in the two articles, so this article needs to be brought into line with the main article on UFOLOGY, unless we are going to have a huge discussion about changing the main UFOLOGY article, which is something I'd prefer not to get involved in!. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to keep the good scientific reputation of the english wikipedia as a first step ressource of information YOU WILL HAVE TO DISCUSS THE MAIN UFOLOGY ARTICLE in an appropriate way as Ufology is an evolving Protoscience. Classifying Ufology in the one-sided way you used to do it contradicts the open-minded spirit of research AND neglects the contemporary progress of official disclosures in this field. NOW you have the chance to change it. Or do you prefere that your version of ufology turns out to be nothing than a mere dogma? - Driven by the ignorance of some narrow-minded mods :)) RüHeRi (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That may be the case, I don't know, but if it is its a conversation for the UFOLOGY talk page, you can start that conversation here. However, at the moment, I'm just trying to correct this page and bring it inline with what is on the UFOLOGY page as it stands *currently*. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Calling something a protoscience is a prophecy: you predict that it will turn into science some day. Wikipedia does not do prophecies. See WP:CRYSTAL.

Also, your attitude is different from that of Wikipedia. We are collecting what reliable sources have to say about a subject, and the fantasists you seem to get your info from are not. Have a look at WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

RüHeRi if you are new to Wikipedia, I'm happy to talk to you on your talk page about the perceived issues you have, and the protocol for addressing them, if they can be.As Hob Gadling has indicated, there's lots of rules with Wikipedia, but there are places to raise concerns if you have them, but yes, you do need to refer to reliable sources. 09:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

RüHeRi I've left a message on your talk page.Otherwise Please advise if any issues with bringing the articles into line. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not do prophecies" neither do I. But neglecting the reality of protosciences as a whole is proof of a narrow mind that's all. "[Y]our attitude is different from that of Wikipedia." - ah, ok Hob, got it: YOU are Wikipedia. How ridicule is this :)) RüHeRi (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Drop the insults. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

As per Lucky Louie's request, I started this new section on this change. So far there, it's been up for more than a week with no dissenting comments. RüHeRi raised some connected issues, but I believe these were resolved on his talk page (RüHeRi - please let me know if that's not the case). As such I'm going ahead to bring this page's text into line with the main UFOLOGY page. If people want to have an indepth discussion about the definition of Ufology, it would be appropriate to have that discussion on that talk page - here. Thanks all, and glad we could this done without a huge debate, as I'm really just trying to bring what this article says about Ufology into line with the main article on the topic. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, I dissent. 'Skeptics and others' is essentially a meaningless qualifier. It's like writing 'people who disagree disagree'. MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No problemMrOllie I'll use the exact wording from the main page on Ufology, I hope that compromise suits. As mentioned, if you want to debate definitions from the main article on UFOLOGY, the best place to discuss it is on the talk page there so the editors there can discuss.Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, This isn't really how Wikipedia works, we're not required to mirror the wording of another article exactly. MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No consensus for the proposed change, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn’t a valid rationale. Ufology has historically been considered a pseudoscience by most scientists. I’m not aware of any sources that indicate a change in this status. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if I am barking up the wrong tree here, but I assumed two wikipedia articles wouldn't be able to contradict each other -but to be honest, I'm not 100%. While I certainly may be wrong, if it is allowed, I would find it a bit odd that that is the case. I'm just following up. Also, I'm not sure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is applicable to this situation, but it may well be. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no rule that two articles must be consistent. If they are not, then at least one of them is wrong, but WP:TRUTH says this does not matter. The articles can be based on different sources which contradict each other because one source is due only for one article and the other only for the other article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

LuckyLouieHow would you feel about using your text,"Ufology has historically been considered a pseudoscience by most scientists" - something like that, which is closer to the text on the Ufology article, and brings them together/gets rid of the contradiction. Could I offer that as my third compromise here? I'm ok with that text, and after all its only the text you have used. That would solve the issue, and stop the need for a huge debate. How do people feel about that? Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I do appreciate your efforts to work out a solution, but rather than make a separate agreement with me, it would be best to review relevant sources and discuss them here or at the main article in order to get a wider consensus. This will take a bit more time, but the end result will be much more useful in the long run. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks LuckyLouie - No problem, I mainly addressed you here because it was your wording, I certainly expected the other editors to chime in with their opinions! :-) I agree, I'll set up the RFC for a wider consensus, I was just trying to get this done with less fuss, but if people think that is best, lets go in that direction - thanks for the input. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

• However, the ODNI report noted that most of the UAPs reported probably do represent physical objects, and so couldn't be radar spoofing, as they were detected by "multiple sensors" and "visual observation" This WP:OR was inserted twice into the article text, supposedly "for balance" (?).
• Media commentary has noted that if China or Russia had the level of technology that allowed for the extreme speeds and manouverability exhibited by the UAPs, then the US would be aware of it. This was cited to an anonymous comment in the comment section of this article. Comments sections aren't RS.

- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

My error. It wasn't just in the comments section. The BU article does contain the statement from one of the interviewees: My concern with the report is that [it] stated it could be a foreign power’s technology. The UFO sightings dating back into the ’50s and ’60s were never technology that we were able to see later on from a foreign power. That never materialized later into a foreign nation having a capability like that. I can’t comment on whether they’re UFOs or not, because I don’t want to look like a kook, to be blunt. All I’m saying is that if a foreign power developed technology, then later on we’d see technology like that from them, either in operation or testing. Yet, later on, there is also this statement: It’s just a pure guess, but I would think these things would be electronic warfare. They’re trying to get intelligence of exactly what our weapons systems are capable of doing, the frequencies they use, the encoding of radar transmissions, things they could use to develop countermeasures to render themselves invisible to radar. It would be either Russia or China. I’m more worried about China. Since we already have both these points of view represented in the article from other sources, there really isn't any need to cite the BU article for the same thing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ollie - here has posted a particular point of view - introducing "Radar spoofing" as a potential explanation. I posted an opposing point of view, to counter that - referenced to RS. The editor has removed the opposing point of view. This is against WP:NPOV and WP:Bal "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". Wikipedia needs to have all points of view represented in an article, considering due weight. There is nothing wrong with the post from the ODNI report.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't add anything about radar spoofing. At any rate, though, representing fairly and without bias does not mean all views should be balanced with opposing statements. - MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, the Radar spoofing comment was added by Luckylouie, not yourself - sorry about that. Dif False balance is discussing minority views and fringe. The ODNI report is neither of those, I'm not sure how that is even relevant?Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, It is a minority view (and OR/Synth) to imply that statements in the report about all the studied objects (this physical objects bit you keep adding) apply to statements about unusual flight characteristics. The report specifically says those observations could be the result of spoofing, we can't twist wording to try to imply it says something else. MrOllie (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie I am not twisting the wording. The ODNI report clearly says that *most were probably physical objects*. That's blatently clear. It only says that they *could* of been the result of radar spoofing...but it mentions that with a number of explanations. But clearly a reference from a major government report, saying that most of the UAPs were physical objects, is relevant to this article, and relevant to a statement proposing radar spoofing as an explanation.You continueing to blocking that is going against NPOV by only allowing one viewpoint and blocking another. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Goodbye

see WP:TPG

I came to this page because I legitimately was interested in the topic, and enjoyed researching on it. I was hoping to work on this page and build it up to a GA class article. From my viewpoint, all I was doing here was what I normally do on article; objectively adding statements from experts sourced from RS to try to provide the full range of RS perspectives currently in the commentary on this particular topic – which otherwise was missing. However, in so doing, I’m consistently being told my edits are fringe and pseudoscience and told I’m POV pushing. Everytime I try to make a significant change I am blocked.I've been rude to, and had to get two editors to retract statements about me, which I have never done before in 15 years of working on Wikipedia. Even the inclusion of content like flight characteristics of UAPs, which you would think would be relevant if not central to an article like this, was blocked. If I take it to RFC to get a wider opinion, even if it looks like it might get general support, it’s then downvoted by a block of the same editors. After working on Wikipedia for this long, the one thing I’ve learnt is to know when to give up on a page, so I won't be working on or visiting this page in the future. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC) That's unfortunate.Chantern15 (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Issues with NPOV on this page

I would like to raise the issue of NPOV and this page. I recently posted a reference to the ODNI report, to counter the potential explanation of RADAR spoofing. This was a legitimate reference, from a government report that is well referenced in this article. The post was removed, (dif) thereby allowing only one viewpoint, the view substantiating Radar spoofing, to remain. IMHO this is a breach of WP:NPOV and I see no reason why my post should be removed. If there is an opposing viewpoint, Wikipedia should include it, as long as it isn't fringe, or proven to be a minority viewpoint. Considering it has come from the ODNI report, neither of these are the case. I can see so far, from comments here, and on my talk page, that people seem to be largely ignoring WP:NPOV. If this reference isn't allowed to be introduced as a valid counter to maintain NPOV on this page, I will be asking an admin to have a look at this, or asking for mediation. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Directly quoting the report :"In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis. " The report explicitly says that these observations might be due to spoofing. It seems misguided to cite the report to say it "couldn't be radar spoofing". MrOllie (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The quote I used to counter radar spoofing doesn't say there wasn't any possibility of radar spoofing. It says MOST were actual physical objects. Its very clear. "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation." In any cases, its clearly relevant. I would be ok with modifying this wording and coming to a compromise, but if you are simply going to continue blocking the reference being introduced into the article, I'll be seeing some outside input. Its pushing the idea of Radar spoofing, and blocking an opposing viewpoint to that from being introduced into the article. That's not how Wikipedia works.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Please note - I have added a NPOV tag to the article while this discussion is underway - as per WP:NPOVD - cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

MrOllieI have previously asked for some sort of compromise on the wording, and that isn't forthcoming. This doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so rather than risk an edit war, I have asked for a third opinion.If we can some to an agreement on some suitable wording, I'm happy to remove that, which would obviously be preferable for all involved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, Given that LuckyLouie has reverted you and commented on this in the previous talk page section, it'd be more like a 4th opinion, wouldn't it? I can't think of any compromise wording that would both do what I assume you want to do (dilute the strength of the claim that these observations of anomalous flight characteristics could be due to radar spoofing) and remain true to the report, which unequivocally states exactly the opposite. PS: You do get that radar spoofing is done by a physical object, right? You do need an antenna and power source to generate the time and/or frequency shifted signal. MrOllie (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You do get that Radar spoofing only works...against radar (and other sensors) right? If the one incident is recorded by various types of sensors AND human vision from a pilot looking at the UAP, it can't be radar spoofing. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That, right there. That 'If A then B' that you're applying isn't in the source. That's the WP:OR we've been talking about. - MrOllie (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Its not Original Research... it's just obvious! Radar spoofing fools radar... not human vision. Why don't you allow the quote to be included, so the user can read it and make up their own mind?. I'm happy to use the quote verbatim, if you like, if you think I'm inferring something that isn't there Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Also you are being simplistic about radar spoofing. Some radar spoofing shows objects moving in a different way to what they are actually moving.So they don't appear to be phsyically in the place they actually are.Some radar spoofing can show multiple craft when there is actually only one. But the ODNI report says it is probably a physical object recorded by the sensors. The exclusion of this RS seems to be bordering on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Came here from a 3O request. I've reviewed all this pretty thoroughly and it seems like the New York Magazine article spoofing mention would have undue weight without mentioning that the report states that most of the sightings don't actually fall into that category. Otherwise, it's confusing for the reader. I'm open to hearing why I might be wrong, though. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skeptic, As I quoted above, the report states the exact opposite. MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay I just read the magazine article and the report in more depth and I see what you mean, and agree with you on this now. However, I do think because it's only one writer's take on one possibility, it would read better to remove the last sentence of the paragraph to shorten it. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian, there are any number of problems with the arguments underlying your recent POV push, but here are two:

• The Jeff Wise article discusses advanced Electronic Warfare techniques ‘’similar to early radar spoofing’’ as a possible explanation. Radar spoofing is only discussed in a historic context (i.e. the US military used radar spoofing to fool Cuban radar ‘’in the 1960s’’) and as an analogy for discussion of present day EW advancements. It doesn’t offer radar spoofing as a blanket explanation for UAP or UFO reports. Instead, it discusses modern EW capabilities that could potentially fool multiple sensors (radar is only one of many) and alter information at the data processing level. I am concerned that you fail to apprehend this important distinction and continue to ague as if “radar spoofing” is the focus of the Wise article.
• The ODNI report doesn’t specify how many and which particular UAP were recorded by multiple sensors and visual observations. And the report doesn’t specify how many and which particular UAP were perceived to have extraordinary speed and maneuverability. So jumping to the conclusion that ALL or MOST or even SOME UAP had extraordinary speed and maneuverability AND were verified by multiple sensors and visual sightings is WP:SYNTHESIS. It really is that simple, and I don’t understand why you don’t get how SYNTH works.

I think your recent pattern of edit warring is rapidly approaching WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior in the area of fringe science and pseudoscience, so I would caution you to slow down a little bit and take in what others are trying to tell you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, Pyrrho the Skeptic, you are already "here," having !voted just two days ago on the RfC above. Secondly, per WP:3O, that edit by you, in which you support the position of the editor who filed both the RfC and the third opinion request, seems to disqualify you as a source of an "outside opinion." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I changed my opinion to agree with MrOllie above. But you are right, although this topic was different from the past dispute, I should probably have recused myself from this Third Opinion. Lesson learned. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

LuckyLouie I'm a bit confused about this discussion now, I'm not sure if you are addressing myself or Pyrrho the Skeptic? If you are talking to me - I started this 30 request to stop further WP:tendentious edit warring with NPOV not being observed in the first place, as it was ongoing and achieving nothing see [dif] - Also its not a POV push, I am merely inserting balance counters for the proposal that Radar spoofing is a potential explanation, so please stop calling it that, and please stop trying to refer to my edits as psuedoscience/fringe when I am referring to the same recognised government reports and articles that everyone else is referring to. As mentioned, Radar spoofing fools radar only, and the report states that a number of different sensors AND human vision corroborated the presence of the objects. Even if it fools radar, Flir, Gymbal and gofast and the other types of sensors, which seems unlikely, its still not going to fool the human vision of the pilot watching it at the same time. I've made this point *countless* times. The quote is completely relevant and should be in the article as a counter to radar spoofing/EW - and if people think I am inferring something that isn't in the quote, I'm happy for the whole thing to go in VERBATIM. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I seem to remember that there were other UFO cases (I don't have those cases at hand, sorry) where radar spoofing happened at a a similar time and place as people seeing a light they could make no sense of but which turned out to be Venus or something like that, and ufologists used the coincidence as evidence that "it was real". Generally, ufologists will claim all weird things happening close to a UFO sighting to be corroborating it. Then, when one of the things they threw together is explained, they can say that can't be it because it does not explain everything. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling we are talking about US Navy sightings/recordings using (various) sophisticated equipment, corroborated by Pilots eye witnesses - all officially released by the government. I'm not really sure "ufologists" from the 1950s looking at lights that ended up being Venus is in anyway the same thing or relevant? Also, I think regarding highly trained US Navy pilots as crazy UFOLogists and thus stigmatising them is something, in 2021, we are trying to move on from.... isn't it? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with jojo Pyrrho the Skeptic -thank you very much for your effort here (I'm sure trying to interpret all this is not easy!!), but you are already "here" so as per JoJo Anthrax it is fair to have an objective person (with fresh eyes than perhaps all of us have at this point) to look at this. Note: as there are now multiple editors involved, 30 is no longer appropriate so this will go to wider arbitration (which is obviously apt) Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If reading pseudoscientific sources teaches us anything, it is that people have been, are, and will continue to be miserable eye witnesses, make the same mistakes again and again, and be all-round incompetent and stupid except for the specific stuff they have been trained for. Your opinion that 2021 is in anyway better than the 1950s in that respect is refuted by the huge number of people who still believe what ex-President Combover Mussolini says.

Being hired by the government of some state does not make a person less prone to mistakes, and the military is still not a reliable source for such things. Ufologists have always been quoting US Navy sightings/recordings using (various) sophisticated equipment, corroborated by Pilots eye witnesses. "Highly trained pilots" is a phrase you will encounter again and again in ufologist literature, and it has never convinced anyone who understands human failure. When a pilot cannot identify something, that only means it is a thing that was not on the list of things they have been trained to look out for. Humans write those lists, and humans have been, are, and will continue to be fallible.

So, if we have a reliable source that says radar spoofing is a possible explanation of the PUFOs, we will not ignore it on the basis of your WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling Seriously I am speechless. I hope one day you meet one of these US Navy pilots and you can explain this to them, I'm sure they will be glad to hear your theory. Seriously. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Speechless people don't pester others by pinging them again and again. I have a watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: Perhaps you can consider that your complaints about wording tend to be ones that interpret sources and prose in ways that may be a bit different from the way we often write in these articles about WP:FRINGE subjects. To take a less involved example, let's consider Loch Ness monster where many different "sightings" of the supposed beast have been made and there are "possible explanations" that are offered for some of the more famous sightings. The typical pattern is as follows: (1) believer in Nessie argues that a particular sighting is strong proof of Nessie's existence unexplained by any other means, (2) skeptic points out a few possible explanations that the believer either dismissed or did not mention, (3) believer responds trying to poke holes into the argument because it isn't proof positive that the skeptic's possible explanation is what was actually seen. (If the photograph were faked, we would see certain artifacts in the development which I don't see.) Typically that's where the controversy ends because, well, WP:FRINGE advocates are more motivated to continue the argument than anyone else. Lather, rinse, repeat. Now, when Wikipedia was first starting out, there was some question as to how to handle this sort of thing. Since the vast majority of discoverable text on a subject was by the credulous, there were some good faith arguments made that WP should preference this sort of WP:PROFRINGE perspective in many cases (and it helped that there were some users who were expressly at WP to WP:ADVOCATE for such in the meantime). After a decade of wrangling, the general consensus for how to handle this sort of thing has developed that interprets WP:WEIGHT as a preference for the critic in these regards. This infuriates a lot of those who disagree, but the editorial principle is a simple one: WP:MAINSTREAM is an essay that gets at it. The problem, of course, is that with fringe claims the mainstream perspective often has less text and less attention paid by the sources which mention the fringe idea and it is sometimes easy to nitpick the better sources with "yeah, buts" that include such things as I'm describing. I see a lot of this dynamic playing out here. We aren't in the business of accommodating the fringe positions at WP, even when it seems apparent to those who are sympathetic to such positions that there isn't a lot of solid research done by those who reject the proposals or explanations out of hand. That's just the way things go. It seems to me that ultimately what you are objecting to here is the editorial principles of Wikipedia as they have been established for fringe articles. If that's truly the case, your task is rather a bit harder than what you're trying to do here: you need to change the actual editorial philosophy of WP, rewrite FRINGE, WEIGHT, GEVAL, NOR, and a few other PAGs and then come back with a better handle on how we might accommodate the perspective you are arguing for here. jps (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks jps for taking the time to write this. I wasn't aware of the history of fringe material, but I can see what you are saying about the policy, and its affect on writing, and how it plays out in the process of editing any article that can be tarred with the "fringe" or "pseudoscience" labels. It is interesting, and while I can see it's necessary for wikipedia to work, I can also see its unfortunate. The fact is, I don't see what I am writing as fringe or pseudoscience. We have a situation here where the US navy has released recordings of these UAPs, recorded on various types of sophisticated recording equipment, and eye witnessed by fighter pilots. I am adding commentary only from noted experts, from RS. So as far as I am concerned, the edits aren't WP:PROFRINGE. I think if an editor added material that said it was aliens from Venus, with no support whatsover, that is definitely comparable to your standard loch ness fringe - but there's in fact not one mention of aliens on this page. In this case, not only is the US Navy and the government now taking the whole thing seriously, they are even that concerned about these objects they are worried about collisions between them and Navy fighter jets.Anyway, at this point, I'm veering off the essence of what you wrote about. Yes, quite possibly the policy needs to be changed somehow, though that probably wouldn't be an easy taks. In any case, I'd like to say thank you once again for explaining some of the background, which puts things in context Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Please note: this topic is currently under mediation on the DR noticeboard here Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

There have always been times when someone in the government or military has taken bullshit seriously. Starting with presidents: Jimmy Carter once saw a UFO (Venus, again), Ronald Reagan consulted an astrologer, George W. Bush denied climate change in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and I guess I do not even need to mention You-Know-Who and his redcaps, who believe the craziest shit.

Further down in the hierarchy, the NCCIH was founded because of senators who believed in quackery, and Albert Stubblebine, the man who thought he might learn to walk through walls, led a whole group of people who tried to prove psi.

And that is only the US. I could go on with other countries, but it would just be more of the same.

So, any arguments that an idea must be non-fringe because government, or sources must be reliable because military, are completely worthless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not even going to reply to this, except to say I very much disagree with this viewpoint, and believe the US navy pilots concerns should be taken seriously.Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)≈

"sources must be reliable because military" Whether a source is considered reliable or not, largely depends on its reputation and the context of the information it offers. Debates on the reliability of the available sources should probably take place on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, not here. 19:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

This seems to be at risk of veering completely off topic, but as far as I'm aware, government/military studies into the possibility of telekinesis or remote viewing have tended to conclude that they were not real phenomena (Stubblebine himself said afterwards that the experiments had been a failure). Generally, in scientific research, conclusions are drawn after experimentation, rather than a priori (which would put them in the realm of philosophy or theology). jp×g 10:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC about sentence in "potential explanations" section

Should this text: "including those focused upon pseudoscientific topics such as ufology" (second sentence of the *Potential Explanations* section) be replaced with this text: "including ufology (regarded by skeptics and most scientists as pseudoscientific)". Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support (as nominator)- This change is merely to bring the text in this article into line with the main UFOLOGY article which states that "ufology is regarded by skeptics and science educators as a canonical example of pseudoscience" - which rather than being broad like this, clarifies who actually believes UFOLOGY is a pseudoscience. I'm only making this change to bring this article into alignment with the main article, so the two articles don't contradict - please see the policy discussion on articles not contradicting each other on the Policy noticeboard here. *please note- this is not a discussion about whether UFOLOGY is a pseudoscience or not - if people want to have that separate discussion, it should take place on the Ufology talk page* - cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see a contradiction here. Wikipedia follows the mainstream scientific consensus. If "skeptics and science educators" call ufology a pseudoscience, then so do we. That said, the easiest solution in disputes like this is just to avoid the contentious word. That paragraph could do with being a bit more specific anyway. So instead of "theories and speculations ... including those focused upon pseudoscientific topics such as ufology", say something like "Some have claimed that the videos depict extraterrestrial spacecraft". Dan from A.P. (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose There is nothing incorrect, inappropriate, overly-broad or misleading about pseudoscientific topics such as ufology. Additionally, its brevity and accuracy makes it an appropriate replacement for the corresponding phrase on the Ufology page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I am going to assume good faith here, but one could easily interpret this RfC as an attempt to inappropriately qualify, if not suppress, the description of ufology as a pseudoscience. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The phrase "skeptics and most scientists" understates the case and even suggests doubt about the fringe nature of ufology; the proposed wording functions essentially as weasel-words. NightHeron (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Science educators reflect mainstream scientific opinion among scientists, so I think it's not a stretch to simply state that UFOlogy is a "pseudoscientific topic", as the present sentence does. This status hasn't changed, nor is it changing, despite what recent pop culture hype has tried to imply. I think there has been misunderstanding of the Pentagon's wish to destigmatize UFO reporting among airmen, as if the destigmatization applies to society and science in general. It doesn't. Also, regarding the "skeptics and science educators" phrase at the main article, it appears to have come about following a discussion here, so pinging User:ජපස and User:HAL333 for comment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep "pseudoscientific topics such as ufology" per WP:YESPOV (that reminder is not just an opinion and does not need to be attributed). About the previous claim that ufology would be a protoscience, in the event where in the future we're interacting with ETs, the sciences dealing with it will not be ufology as we know it... —PaleoNeonate – 21:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment OK, I guess that went as expected. I've put about 2 weeks into this already... as nominator, this can be closed off if someone wants to, or let it run for further comments if the editors want. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Moral support to Deathlibrarian . I just want to thank you for your obvious good faith attempt to improve the article. This suggestion wasn't an improvement -- your next one will be. Don't get discouraged. Feoffer (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support because the pseudoscience statements, including the "science educator" bit are coming from debunkers, not "the scientific community" as others have suggested. Just make it consistent with the Ufology article. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You do make a good point. The "scientific community" does include a few ufologists, e.g. Michio Kaku and Avi Loeb, so it might be ever-so-slightly unfair to characterize the entire field as pseudoscientific, but in practice, I don't thank anyone is going to make up their minds based on a few words in a lede sentence. Feoffer (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Neither Kaku nor Loeb are ufologists. Kaku has essentially shrugged instead of shaking his head when asked about aliens, and Loeb sympathizes with several outlandish ideas, but both have never invested much time into not identifying flying objects, as ufologists do.

Also, fields are not identified as pseudosciences or not by looking at the scientific tinsel on the shoulders of the people who are in them, but by their pseudoscientific methods and their wilful ignorance of those scientific methods which, if applied, destroy the fundamental errors of those fields. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to second Hob Gadling's point here. Even if it is true that "the scientific community includes a few ufologists", it is preposterous to claim that therefore it is unfair to characterize the field as pseudoscientific. It doesn't matter how many respected scientists believe in, propose or practice a pseudoscience -- let's say, astrology or homeopathy. When doing so, they will be scientists performing pseudoscience. VdSV9•♫ 15:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I oppose changing the existing lede text, so ultimately we're in agreement. But Pyrrho does have a point -- the ball has moved a bit since 2015. And yet, WP is notnews, it's ideal for us to be a lagging indicator. Feoffer (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"Debunkers", AKA scientific skeptics, are the relevant scientific experts on the topic of pseudoscience. They are part of the scientific community, and their field of expertise includes (among other things) determining whether or not something is pseudoscientific. Sunrise (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support that seems to be clear and to the point. Make sure there is a hyperlink to the term pseudoscience and link the word "skeptic" to the page for scientific skepticism. Sgerbic (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no such thing as bringing the text in this article into line with other articles and no reason to do so. That would be akin to using Wikipedia as a source, and Wikipedia is unreliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This only decreases the objectivity in the text. VdSV9•♫ 22:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose making it sound like "only some" people regard the subject as being pseudoscientific. The supposed contradiction that bothers the OP is this:
  • This article, which about particular collection of four videos, says the whole, broad subject of ufology is considered pseudoscience by everyone (well, we will stipulate here "everyone with functioning brains", but it is approximately every reliable source that mentions anything about whether it's scientific or not).
  • The main article about the whole, broad subject says the subject has been called not merely everyday, garden-variety pseudoscientific by basically everyone, but it has also been specifically and explicitly called a particularly important, "canonical" example of pseudoscience – by some people. There is no evidence that anyone (i.e., with functioning brains) actually disagrees with saying that it's a textbook example of pseudoscience (or fraud, for that matter), but we can only verify the claim that multiple sources have used exactly that word, so we've written the article more conservatively.
• There is no actual contradiction, but even if we pretended that there were, this would be changing the article's POV in the wrong direction (towards pretending that there is less support for this classification than there actually is). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring - 12 Nov

See the WP:ANEW posting here JoJo Anthrax (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Sound quality is horrible

Why is the sound in those videos so horrible? It's like the sound was recorded in 1930. It's like presenting a film produced in 2010 but looking exactly like a movie from the silent movie era. The microphones used by the pilots of those military jets are that bad? -- Barecode (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Not my place to speculate or get all forumy- but my general aviation understanding is that the live audio is much higher quality than the recordings. Feoffer (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Feoffer - The current technology allows a far better audio recording. If the live audio has a higher quality that means the microphones are good enough. That makes one think they cripple the recorded audio quality on purpose. I mean I'm not sure what is forumy asking a legitimate question about the quality of the videos the article is about. -- Barecode (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Airband#Audio_properties - yes, it’s intentional, but not for nefarious reasons. Basically the sound quality is tailored to a very narrow bandwidth by noise-canceling microphones for maximum intelligibility in the aviation headsets being used in high noise environments (and jet cockpits are very loud environments). Check out any of the aviation comms videos on YouTube. They all sound like 1920s telephones; pinched and restricted voice quality. A pinhole aperture mic positioned an inch from your lips will do that. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

LuckyLouie - Thank you. So the quality of the live audio is the same as the quality of the recordings? -- Barecode (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Roughly speaking, yes [2]. Depends on where the recording device is plugged in. Audio recorded by pilots, and audio recorded by radio operators on the carrier...can have slightly different qualities. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)