Talk:Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact/Archive 1

Exopolitics
This is a sneaky, backhanded recreation of the exopolitics topic that was salted, deleted, recreated, and redirected back in 2009. Viriditas (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion over at Talk:Exopolitics, there doesn't appear to be any reason to change the redirect. Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a recreation of the exopolitics topic. I have provided links to reliable sources, and have showed that there is actually something to say about the topic. I have provided links to statements by reputable scientists, rather than mere speculators, and then you accuse me of rehashing a topic that has already been deleted. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 16:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides, this only documents the implications that an actual visit by extraterrestrials may have for humanity. It has nothing to do with "secret government actions" or UFO sightings, and if you have tried to edit the article page I have added a disclaimer that this is not about the paranormal. I have additionally stated that there is no binding post-detection plan, again debunking your belief that this pertains to exopolitics as it has been defined in the linked page. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 16:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which perfectly explains why you made this edit while nobody was looking. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's compare:


 * "Exopolitics, a speculative branch of political science, is the study of possible contact and relations between humanity and extraterrestrial civilizations."
 * "the hypothetical study of political relations between humans and extraterrestrial civilizations."
 * "actions performed by humans with regard to the ultimate detection and possible arrival on Earth of extraterrestrial intelligence...as well as the speculated potential future implications that contact with and confirmation of extraterrestrial civilizations could have on culture, science, politics, and other aspects of human life."

So, it appears quite obvious that this is a deliberate rewrite of exopolitics under another name. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While you think you will gain something out of deleting this article, I have something to state. This is not exopolitics as it is covered in that page, based on a particular group talking about conspiracy theories. Where do I even mention conspiracy theories here? The reason for the "see also" link was because, although this may be related to exopolitics, it discusses:
 * Legitimate speculation.
 * Does not pertain to conspiracy theories.
 * Does not cover groups subscribing to them
 * It is a completely different take on exopolitics, not the one which may have been deleted previously. I didn't even have exopolitics in mind when writing this page. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 04:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which source best represents this topic? Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead section
Which reliable source in the article currently supports the statements in the lead section? Based on this initial version of the article, I will suggest that none support it. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the current article rather than trying to mislead readers. Thank you. Your attempts at defaming me have not been welcomed. The lead section gives a summary of what the article tells, and the article is enough source for that. What exactly is being told in the article is what requires reliable sources. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 04:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Asking for sources is neither misleading nor defamatory. It is part of the process of verification.  If you aren't engaging in OR synthesis, then you should be able to easily provide one or two sources that say exactly what the lead says. Please do so. Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Issues

 * The search for extraterrestrial intelligence has had a profound impact on society.

I realize that this statement has already been removed, but I'm very curious why it was added in the first place. I've studied SETI (history, etc.) and I can't quite imagine why this was added. Please explain. It appears to be a very strange statement that isn't supported by any reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Title changed
I've gone ahead and changed the title and focus to "Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact", which is the most accurate title for this subject, as reflected by the best sources. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Television shows
I'm moving this sensationalized material here for now. It's not necessary to cite television shows when we have more reliable sources available, and it makes the encyclopedia look very amateurish. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Science Channel has, following the release of SETILive in February 2012, designated March of that year as "Are We Alone Month." One show, Alien Encounters, covers possibilities of how humans may react to contact, projecting uncertainty and apprehension in the time between confirmation of extraterrestrial intelligence and the realization of their power and the arrival of such beings on Earth, with a potential societal collapse building in the wake of contact. The show Through the Wormhole, also on the Science Channel, has approached the subject of human reactions to first contact with its own show, Will We Survive First Contact?
 * Moved content
 * I agree, Science Channel is usually a legitimate source but this is too speculative.

Archiving
There is absolutely no reason to archive after 6 days. We don't need to set up archiving until it becomes obviously necessary. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, then... I will set up archiving later. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 17:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for content addition
I would like to condense the contents of some previous posts into this request for the addition of new content to the article. Viriditas stated that the following content

from a previous diff of the page makes the encyclopedia look amateurish. However, these are from Science Channel, a television channel run by Discovery and countable as a reliable source. Nevertheless, the source material is rather speculative and merely explores some possibilities, rather than doing a complete analysis of the subject.

I would like another editor to incorporate this material into the encyclopedia in a way that does not give undue weight to this speculation, and, as Viriditas stated in another of his comments, I would like the article to be expanded with material from [this work of the Foundation for the Future. Additionally, there are additional, paywalled sources, like this one from Elsiever and this book from SpringerLink. If anyone has access inside the paywalls, it would be great as from what I know from freely available summaries, this article could be expanded tremendously. [[User:Wer900| Wer900 ]] talkessay on the definition of consensus 19:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is another article source, also from Springer, over here.

Wer900, take a look at the treasure trove of material I added to the further reading section under "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society". It's all freely accessible with added audio lectures to summarize the print material. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made additions using the material from the PTRS A, but there is still more material to add from that and other sources. I did not entirely neglect your sources. The problem is, for the remainder of the Royal Society materials that I have not added, the place where it would fit into this article seems unclear without broadening the scope.
 * Like what, for example? As for the above Science channel material, let me review the sources and get back to you with an informed comment. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, if there is something specific that you saw on Are We Alone: Alien Encounters or Through the Wormhole that you think should be covered in this article, then let me know and I'll help find good sources for it. Most, if not all of this can be sourced to high quality publications. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Universe Today had a post just in time for us here. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 04:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a secondary source supporting Marc Kaufman's book First Contact: Scientific Breakthroughs in the Hunt for Life Beyond Earth, which has more to do with astrobiology than cultural impact, however, Chapter 10 is titled "The Day after First Contact", so there might be something there we can use. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Scientific American has another source, which I will access soon: Contact: The Day After.

Immediate human reaction
"Immediate human reaction" is a bit strange. If we are going to discuss the human response to first contact, we should be careful to attribute sources (you are really referring to a quote by Kaufman). You write, "When the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence is confirmed, but when no other knowledge of the species exists, humans may react in a defensive fashion, but could also respond to the news with a sense of awe, wonder, and fascination regarding the place of humanity in the Universe." While that is a creative summary and paraphrase of the quote, it is not exactly accurate. Kaufman is just speculating about a general reaction, but for an encyclopedia entry, we want to talk about specific reaction scenarios, such as protocols and civil defense scenarios. Survey data might also help as well. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will remove it. Thanks for illustrating that it was unencyclopedic. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 17:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert Freitas
Freitas' book, Xenology:An Introduction to the Scientific Study of Extraterrestrial Life, Intelligence, and Civilization is online, and while some of it is outdated, Chapter 26 ("First Contact and the Human Response") can provide a lot of useful pointers for this article, as he documents the known scenarios regarding cultural impact. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll take a look. But I don't know if it is a reliable source. Even though the word "xenology" is attested to in Science and Nature, that's just the definition, not the contents of the book. It seems legit, and I hope it is. Anyway, thank you for finding this source. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 02:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, this is one of those rare exceptions to WP:SELFPUB, and we don't see very many of them. First of all, Freitas is an expert in the field.  Second, the book in question is really a tertiary source for the most part, and merely collects the most notable primary and secondary sources in a review of the literature.  I looked very hard through the collection for any strange or outlandish claims and couldn't find any; in fact, Freitas comes off as a skeptic.  If we do cite an opinion by Freitas, I would cite it as a primary.  As for the question to how reliable this work is, this might be of some help. If we do use it, we should rely on the notable sources Freitas uses directly, but give him credit for citing them.  This is usually done with a as cited in mention, and allows us to use reliable sources directly but make note of Freitas for bringing them to our attention, thus adhering to the use of reliable sources in the end. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like it meets WP:SPS, so it is OK to use as a reliable source. In other words, the book may be considered reliable since Freitas is an expert on the subject whose work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications.  To be safe, I would still cite it carefully.  The 2008 preface points out which sections to avoid citing as they are out of date. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The book is not exactly a self-published source (it is published by the Xenology Research Institute, not affiliated with Frietas) but I'll take your word for it. The fact that it has been looked at by another institute, however questionable, improves it, given what you have stated about the book. I'll start writing using information from it pretty soon. But there's one problem - the book was written in 1979, when there was no Internet. Therefore, I think few if any of the sources he cites will be available online for further study of this subject. Anyway, the book seems reliable enough. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 04:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source obtained through unreliable portal
[This paper (url removed to avoid copyvio)] is one which I wish to use as a source for the article. While it has been published in a legitimate journal and is written by SETI Institute scientists, I have obtained the paper through a Spanish exopolitics website as there is no other way for me to access the full text for free. While the article is legitimate, it would be odd indeed to cite an exopolitics website in the body of my article, and would dampen its credibility. On the other hand, the paper itself is written by authorities on the subject and is perfectly citable, and would be an essential addition to this article as it would enable it to build background on the subject - an area of this article which is clearly lacking. I would like the opinions of Wikipedians in how to solve this problem. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 20:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The paper is legitimate, but I will be including a note that the website itself is not reliable. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 00:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't link to the website as it could be a copyright violation. Just cite the paper, and forget about the website. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will remove the link to the website then. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 01:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Will I have to get the diff deleted permanently from the server by a bureaucrat or someone who has extreme delete capabilites? Anyone interested in violating copyrights would most certainly be less stupid than to not look through diffs. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 01:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think at this point, it is OK. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Images
Does anyone know what good images for this article would be? The article would be more compelling with them. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 02:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got various ideas, but there are so many issues with the current version that I would wait a bit. Have you addressed the impact of extraterrestrial contact with non-biological entities (machines such as the Gaijin, the monolith, etc.), such as the kind Stephen Baxter and Arthur C. Clarke write about? I'm sure there must be a paper or two that addresses this. I'm pretty sure Seth Shostak must have talked about it. Viriditas (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I added an Alcubierre drive concept picture, because a paper cited specifically stated that an extraterrestrial civilization may have faster-than-light technology. As it is one of the only two methods of FTL travel possible under general relativity, it seemed a pretty reasonable picture. However, it got removed with a rationale of "science fiction." While the field is mostly speculation, it is speculation that needs some justification, not complete science fiction and fairy tales. As for robotic contact scenarios, I didn't think of that previously. We should get to work adding those. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 20:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the reason the Alcubierre drive image was removed is because it has less to do with this topic. When you think of the cultural impact between two civilizations, what do you think of? I think of something like the death of Captain Cook or those images of hundreds of outriggers rushing out to meet Cook's ships, or the Spanish conquistadors invading Teotihuacán.  Now think of Avatar.  Those are all realistic scenarios. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Attribution
In the "Malevolent civilizations" section, you attribute a paper to a publisher instead of an author. Instead of saying "A paper published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1986 speculates", you should refer to James W. Deardorff. We should also try to use papers in the context they were intended. Deardorff was, I believe, talking about a contact scenario, otherwise known as the zoo hypothesis. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I attributed it to Dreadorff. He seems to be talking about the benevolence and malevolence of extraterrestrial civilizations, and only touches on the zoo hypothesis briefly as a potential solution for the Fermi paradox. By the way, I think that we should start working on a "Robotic contact" section on this talk page. Do you have any good sources for that? Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 22:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dreadorff's paper is about the "leaky-embargo hypothesis", which is a variation on the zoo hypothesis. The point of using sources in their original context, is that if you take them out of that context and put them in another, you have to proceed very carefully, otherwise you run the risk of synthesis.  I'll look for sources on robotic contact, but I have a feeling they will all be sentinel-related. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Perfect link
I think that this space.com article would provide an ideal source for some material in this article. Even though it's about a movie, there is some relevance to the actual impact of extraterrestrial contact as this topic is explicitly discussed along with the movie. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 17:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not call that "perfect". Most of the popsci stuff is based on already reliable work that has been published in better sources.  That source is basically an interview with Shostak, so he's probably said this stuff before in better venues and about the subject directly.  Since he's talking about the film, I would say this is not ideal.  What does it say that you would like to convey in this article?Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just some general stuff, not something I gave too much weight in the article anyway. Maybe a sentence, two at most. By the way, someone's added a "WikiProject Paranormal" tag here even though there isn't anything paranormal about this at all. I hate it when people equate this with the UFO phenomenon... Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 20:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Foundation for the Future reference
Can anyone add information to this article based on my reference to the Foundation for the Future? There is a wealth of information in there which one person simply cannot add. I have done all that I can. In addition to this work, I hope that someone can add information of other sources as well. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 22:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Insufficient references
This is a quick pre-GA review comment: I see unreferenced sentences. Please provide references for them (many of them are at the end of paras, I have just glanced at the article - there could be more inside paras). Insufficient references would make it a GA quick fail, at least in my book.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the least of the problems. The user should make use of the peer review process, either informal or formal. Viriditas(talk) 22:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for enlightening me. I thought that peer review was only for featured article candidates previously. I will add inline citations and then consider placing the nomination for good article on hold while the review is in progress. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 23:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be able to speed the process along by requesting two expert reviews from both the astronomy and the philosophy projects.Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Astronomy seems like there are, like, ten people in the project only. But I will try the other options. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 23:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many active users on the topic. Looking at the project watchlist for activity, I see many registered users actively engaged in article improvement.  Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

FA
What should be the next steps for moving this to Featured Article quality? I have resolved all of the problems which came up in the peer review, but I'm not ready to post this just yet. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 16:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would review all of the Royal Society papers I referred you to earlier. Have you done that? Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A quick glance tells me you are using 4 out of the 17 or so papers (and talks) from Dominik & Zarnecki 2011. Why so few? Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the papers seem to be about astrobiology, or how to best conduct the search itself, but there were few which actually related to the title of this article. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 17:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't cite the title paper, Dominik & Zarnecki; page 503 has helpful information in the section "Societal relevance and political action" that can be added. Morris has a number of great points you haven't added regarding the predictability of evolution, particularly the notion that "we should prepare for the worst" because if ET exist, they will be like us, insinuating that the cultural impact will be devastating, although he doesn't seem to come out and say that directly, that's the idea we're left with; it may be helpful to review his paper for some ideas.  Fridlund's paper dovetails with the points made in Davies' book, particularly in regards to the potential impact on science, in other words, answering the big questions.  This is more of a nuts and bolts approach, such that making the efforts to search will lead us to big answers in science, regardless of whether or not we find them (or they find us), and the advances in technology required to keep searching.  Then there is the heart wrenching story of Ishi told by Denning, who shows how our very attempt at objectivity in terms of understanding "contact" is wrapped up in mythologizing what we find, and that our attempts to predict the impact of contact aren't up to the task; we are so wrapped up in our own myths, it is difficult to think outside of our POV.  Denning's point should be followed up on, as I find it one of the most important, namely, the sheer difficulty of estimating cultural impact.  Then, there is the Davies paper (I refer to his book below) that touches upon the impact of contact (or discovery) of life on biology and philosophy.  So there is a lot there and a lot more to go on, even if you have to use these papers as only a starting point. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're using the Almár paper(s), and you mention the Rio Scale, but you make no mention of the London Scale, and the suggestion of the author, "...experts in social sciences should take the structure of the respective scales into consideration when investigating case by case the possible effects on the society of such discoveries." I should request the paper on the RX. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Requested here. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the London Scale (which has more to do with finding bacteria/otherwise unintelligent flora or fauna) has a great relevance to the subject of the article. Again, the same problem arises with the other Dominik et al. papers. I think we should just use the resources cited and search for more of Dr. Almár's papers. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 04:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wer900, it sounds like you didn't read the paper. It's all about creating a unified scale, and the source is directly relevant to this topic.  Did you download and read the specific paper in that link? More to the point, this specific paper addresses several missing areas of the current article.  Discussing the scale is important.  Almár writes: "Experts of social sciences should take the structure of the respective scales, as well as the RSI or LSI values into consideration when investigating in a hypothetical case the possible effects of an announcement of a putative discovery of ET life or intelligence on science, on world view and on society.  The social impact of such an announcement depends namely critically on the scale value and every kind of generalization is misleading." Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Topic fails to mention current investigations and areas of study related to "post-detection", in particular, astrobiology and society. Viriditas (talk)
 * Per Almár, Chapter 9 of The Eerie Silence (2010) by Paul Davies addresses the impact of first contact on science, philosophy, politics, and religion. A copy of the relevant material is accessible on Amazon if you are signed in to the site to "look inside" the book. Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll add information from the Almár paper you gave me. I'll also create a section of the article dedicated exclusively to presently proposed post-detection protocols. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 23:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you had a chance to look at the Davies book? Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Amazon appears to have 54 pages on the book, quite a bit. It seems to even include the "What if ET Calls Tomorrow" section, which would be quite relevant. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 22:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think after you've done that, the article will require a major copyedit and verification. After that, I think you should be ready to nominate it for FA, but copyediting and verification is going to take some time. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * RJHall added to the peer review for this article (although his comments should have been split) but nevertheless, I will implement his recommendations following the addition of the material you mentioned here. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 19:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll need some help, I don't think I will be able to implement everything at once. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 00:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Bullets
I'll use this section to explain any changes that might need explaining (bullets) and to raise questions where I'm not sure (subsections). Feel free to thread on the bullets too, of course. --Stfg (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed "These implications come in various areas of the human experience, such as religion, politics, the law, science and technology, and the ecology of the Earth.", the last sentence of pargraph 1, because it largely duplicates the first sentence (but I added ecology to that). --Stfg (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Search for extraterrestrial intelligence and contact with extraterrestrial civilizations are different, so I've removed the link in the lead which piped one to the other, but linked SETI in the caption of the Arecibo picture. --Stfg (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Search for extraterrestrial intelligence" section, exoplanet counts: Template:Extrasolar planet counts is updated from time to time, but Kepler's count isn't provided with a similar template, so we aren't comparing like with like here. At the moment I can't see what can be done about this. --Stfg (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll add the Kepler stuff by hand.
 * OK. --Stfg (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Search for extraterrestrial intelligence" section, penultimate paragraph: FN14 (ref name=seti-berkeley) supports the information about SEVENDIP, but not the second sentence of the paragraph, so I've had to move the citation up and tag the 2nd sentence. --Stfg (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's something called "IR Excess" which I thought was referenced on the SEVENDIP page, but was not. I'm adding a source for that now.
 * Perfect, thanks. --Stfg (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the new paragraph you added to the lead last night. That distinction is well worth making up front. Two questions: do you want the "conclusive" -- it's searching for evidence whether conclusive or not, isn't it? And "... the former attempts to identify how human society will react should the search be successful": may I rephrase that to something like "... the former tries to predict the impact on human society should contact be made"? The reasons are: to remove the assumption that the impact is determined only by our search and actions; and that the article topic is the effects of contact, not merely discovery. --Stfg (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Search for extraterrestrial intelligence" section: at the end of the 2nd paragraph we have "After it was discovered, the SETI Institute resumed the search for an intelligent extraterrestrial civilization, focusing on Kepler's candidate planets,[10] with funding from the United States Air Force.[11]" Then at the end of the 3rd paragraph we have "In the SETILive project, which began in 2012, human volunteers analyze data from the Allen Telescope Array to search for possible alien signals that computers might miss because of terrestrial radio interference.[13] The data for the study is obtained by observing Kepler target stars with the radio telescope.[10]". I think these refer to the same project and should be unified. Also, (seeing RJH's comment in the PR that "telescope" should be "telescopes") ref 10 says that the data comes from the ATA, so the last sentence just repeats what has been said already. Do you want me to reassemble this (in pargraph 3), or do you wish to? --Stfg (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Impact assessment systems" section, para 4 (Dominik and Zarnecki): I removed the following sentence as being too obvious to be worth stating: "However, they argue that examples from history do not necessarily provide a strong indication of how humanity will react to extraterrestrial intelligence unless they are thoroughly analyzed, as misinterpretations of history are possible. ". --Stfg (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Impact assessment systems" section, para 5 (last): I've removed the footnote, which read:




 * as this conveys no information about extraterrestrial contact or about the questions and answers, only that it was scored from 1-6 and certain statistical methods were used. --Stfg (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * References to abstracts: is there a reason why some references, like FN24, link only to abstracts, when the full text is available online (in this case, here)? --Stfg (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Benevolent civilizations" section, para 2: "On a larger scale, due to the greater longevity of cooperative civilizations versus uncooperative and aggressive ones, extraterrestrial civilizations as a whole would be more likely to aid humanity." I've left this in for now, but ... uh? Who says that cooperative civilizations have greater longevity than others? Why does it make them more likely to help us (rather than, for example, steering well clear of us)? To be honest, the best thing this section could do would be to quote Baum et al (FN36 abstract), who say: "many discussions of this question assume that contact will follow a particular scenario that derives from the hopes and fears of the author". I haven't seen any science yet. --Stfg (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rephrased to make clear who says it. --Stfg (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, your first instinct was correct. Baum isn't really saying this, he's surveying the literature, and in this case, he's citing Sagan (see footnote 45 in his paper).  It's also poorly phrased in the current article and taken out of context.  In the original paper, Baum is talking about "the nature of information shared through communication with ETI", and speculating about what might happen.  However, Baum concludes, "it is somewhat less likely that ETI knowledge would be useful in addressing social issues on Earth."  So, I would suggest that the original author revisit the source and rewrite it for accuracy. Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Viriditas. As the source is behind a paywall and I don't have access, I can't help with this. Over to you, Wer900. --Stfg (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can e-mail it to you, if you like. Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let's see what Wer900 can come up with first, as I'm mainly copy editing rather than content generating. If you or he want me to do something taking the source into account, I may take you up on it. --Stfg (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Benevolent civilizations" section: "Cultural instruction of humanity is another method through which an advanced extraterrestrial society may interact with humanity. It is likely that this information will be of an informed-consent nature, with much advice being offered but nothing being implemented unless world leaders are willing to accept what is given by the extraterrestrial species.[36]". This seems to be pretty much the same as the advise-and-act-with-consent option. It's also a bit strange to talk about information being "of an informed-consent nature". It's information. That's why I've abandoned most of this sentence and folded the remainder into the next. --Stfg (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Malevolent civilizations" section, para 3: " Seth Shostak, an astronomer at the SETI Institute, dissented from this view, stating that the finite quantity of resources in the galaxy would cultivate aggression in any intelligent species, and in a later interview,[42] stated that an explorer civilization which would want to contact humanity would be aggressive." Putting the citation just there implies that the later interview is being cited. Thus we may still need a citation for the first half. I've removed "in a later interview" as unnecessary and distracting, and moved [42] to the end of the sentence, but we may still need that other citation. --Stfg (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation of edited proceedings: with a source like current FN32 (ref name=ff-2000) for an FA it isn't enough to simply cite the procedings, acknowledging just the editor. You need something like "Bloggs, J, (2000); "Rhubarb and Custard". In Smith, J. (ed.); Procedings of the 2000 Rhubarb Growers Conference; ... etc." and, in a document this long, definitely a page number/range. (This arose from the attribution to Ragbir Bhathal, but it applies generally.) --Stfg (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Political" section, last sentence: "The shock of meeting an extraterrestrial civilization may take decades or even centuries to be fully realized if an extraterrestrial message to humanity is extremely difficult to decipher." How does one fully "realize" a shock? Is the intended meaning more towards "resolved" or "assimilated"? --Stfg (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Scientific and technological" section, end of para 2: I've removed "and, if it had a high success rate, would be an effective weapon" as tautological. --Stfg (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Peer review comments
Please read the comments which RJH added to the peer review:


 * OK, but they should be transcluded in their own section, not in this GOCE copy edit section, otherwise we'll be forced to scroll up and down too much. I've created a section above in order of section start date. --Stfg (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, I've had a first read of them, and:
 * The Ruhrfisch comments are mostly about content, and I assume you will have addressed these. Note that if the lead still needs expansion, I won't be doing that. If you want to do it, go ahead, and I can c/e the lead again afterwards if necessary. Note also that Ruhrfisch's bullet
 * "Per WP:See also, links are generally repeated in See also if they are already linked in the article. Search for extraterrestrial intelligence is linked at the top of the article and in the section with that title."
 * is missing a key word. It should say "... links are not generally repeated ..." :)
 * The RJH comments do, of course, impact the copy edit. I may pick them up while working on each section, or I may just plough on and then review against them afterwards. For the next couple of days, please don't worry if I seem to have overlooked an RJH comment; I may just have postponed it. --Stfg (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. Don't forget to sign your comments and replies. --Stfg (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Lede: ignore all rules

 * The cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact is the change to human society and institutions resulting from communication with an extraterrestrial civilization. These effects may include, among others, sweeping changes in terrestrial science, technology, religion, politics, and ecosystems.

For some articles, cramming the exact title into the lead sentence is more trouble than it's worth. I'd combine these two sentences:
 * The effects on human society and institutions resulting from communication with an extraterrestrial civilization could include, among others, sweeping changes in science, technology, religion, politics, and ecosystems.

Does that paraphrase lose anything other than fussy compliance with a guideline? —Tamfang (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not really about the guideline, it's about giving people a place to start reading. It's annoying to read articles without a bolded portion, and bolding of something which is not an article title or reasonable alternate name (for a person or place) is just odd. I like your sentence better, but for the purposes of this article it just doesn't fit. Wer900 • talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 20:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like Tamfang's introduction much better than the existing one, which I find awkward, but if we go for Tamfang's, it should not be bolded. The guideline doesn't actually require bolding anyway. From WP:LEADSENTENCE: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text". Note the structural similarity of that example to our present title. --Stfg (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, are "ecosystems" examples of human society or institutions? —Tamfang (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, but the health of ecosystems certainly does affect human society. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 20:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They are neither. The article Ecosystem opens with a pretty good description. --Stfg (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move to "(?cultural) impact of possible future extraterrestrial contact"
Tony raised an issue during the second FAC nomination, saying "The title suggests ... no, assumes ... that there has already been contact." I asked what he thought might be a better alternative, and he suggested "Cultural impact of possible future extraterrestrial contact". I understand Tony's reservation about the current title. The key relevant sentence in the WP:NAME policy would seem to be: "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." Since the whole article is essentially about "how would we react/be affected if...", it seems to me that the words "possible" and "future" together are needed to accurately describe the scope. The current title might be taken to imply, as Tony points out, actual contact in past or present. That in turn could encourage all sorts of cranks to join in the editing fun. My other query, though, is whether the word "cultural" is necessary. I note the article currently has a subsection "Impact on terrestrial ecosystems", which seems a stretch on "cultural" impact. Would "Impact of possible future extraterrestrial contact" be a more concise but accurate title? Other opinions? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hamiltonstone, a far better title is "Impact of possible future extraterrestrial contact". Best regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Tony is mistaken. Nothing about the title implies that contact has occurred at all, and changing the title to "impact of possible future contact" is ridiculous.  The topic is about the cultural impact of ET contact if it were to occur.  There is nothing here that says it has occurred, nor anything that implies it.  The relevant literature uses the term "extraterrestrial contact" all the time, and in this context, it never means it already occurred nor would anyone make that assumption.  In actuality, Tony is confusing this topic with ancient astronaut pseudoscience, and a proper dab heading would solve his confusion. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator and principal writer - The lede of the article settles all doubt with regard to extraterrestrial contact being "possible" and "future." I see no reason to make an already cumbersome title longer. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 19:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality
The article reads as if it was written by a social scientist or the infamous chomskybot. There is also a lot of name-dropping without explanation who the mentioned persons are and what they do. This is not encyclopedic and needs to be improved. 91.49.246.160 (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's how you know I didn't write that, because I always try to attribute the professional position of the person in order to inform the reader, so I agree with you. However, you should know, I often run into editorial opposition to your proposal, because many users do not think of the reader as you do.  Would you consider registering an account and helping us fix the problem? Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What you call "name-dropping" is a direct response to issues that I raised during this article's initial GA review. What you call "name-dropping" is what I would call "careful attribution of speculative or controversial views." Please see Review comments on NPOV. Imagine how the article would read if all of the careful attribution of speculative or controversial views were removed, then reconsider your critique. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think you've completely misunderstood the user. The user is wondering who these people are because somebody forgot to mention it.  You don't just drop the names of people into the text (like so many editors do every day) without telling the reader who they are! Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The source of each speculative opinion is already being identified, via the reference mechanism, as the author of an accompanying verifiable reference, and in some cases, is highlighted by a wikilink. For the purposes of this article, this degree of identification should be sufficient. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sufficient for editors, yes. Insufficient for readers, however. Encyclopedic works tend to attribute the author inline and briefly explain their position of authority.  I've noticed that many editors are often resistant to this, and I've often wondered why. Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the article risks sounding like it is making appeals to said authority. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no such risk, as nothing authoritative about this subject can be found. This is a thought experiment, just like the Drake "equation". Finally, it is good encyclopedic style to inform the reader who the source is and what their area of expertise is in regards to the subject.  That is the nature of the complaint. Viriditas (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Biblography
This provides a large number of future potential citations for this article: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Dangers of First Contact
David Brin's, "The Dangers of First Contact" (2009) has several points that can be added to existing sections. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)