Talk:The Fatima UFO Hypothesis

Redirect Appropriate
The redirect of Fatimah UFO Hypothesis to this page was appropriate. I am restoring it.Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved related text
I'll get back to this within a day or so for now the following text is from my talk page on this subject:

I have redirect The Fatima UFO Hypothesis again. It's a complete mess of an article. The non-proponent sources make no mention of the UFO theory (the article subject). The proponent sources are all published by Anomalist Books, which is not a reliable publisher. They do not have a reputation for fact-checking and related editorial oversight. Thus, while the article may appear well-sourced, it does not contain even a single citation to an on-topic reliable source. This brings up the related point that the article completely fails our notability requirements, as the topic does not seem to have received substantive coverage in independent reliable sources. I hope this helps better clarify why I have redirected the critically flawed article. Vassyana (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting your edit again. If you have objections you should do so in the proper manner. There is a process for articles for deletions and you should know it better than me. This has been up for 4 months without objections to delete or redirect it without at least the usual 7 day discussion period is unreasonable. I may not have time to explain further right now but I will add more later on the talk page for the hypothesis or if there is an AfD request by then I'll add it there. There are plenty of sources cited by the authors of the trilogy plus original versions done by a different publisher and mention in other books as well some of which I can cite and more that I have heard of indirectly. This is notable and although it is considered fringe by many it is backed up by more research than either the skeptics or the religious people have done. Also it isn’t presented as fact it is presented as theory with a request for more research. This is as it should be you don’t figure out what is true by declaring you know it all and trying to stop the argument before anyone can prove you wrong. If either skeptics or believers decide what is or isn’t true without looking at the evidence this is pseudo science. Besides the advocates of this hypothesis don’t all agree on the explanation just that there is a legitimate mystery and it deserves more research. Zacherystaylor Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Had this discussion recently in an RfC on this very issue. An AfD is categorically not required for a redirect when the redirect is appropriate.  Which this redirect is.Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of this discussion. Secret discussions to make disissions are unreasonable. You didn't even provide a link to the location of this discusion. Nor did you give me or others a chance to participate. this is a unilateral decision based on badly explained reasons. There is no emergency here and no need to censor without a real discussion. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No secret. Just a different article.  I'll see if I can find it; may be hard as article now redirects to a different one.Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * here it is.Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the notability of the subject, the fringe theory of a single person is not independently notable from the single theorist.Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are doing an end run to avoid discussion. This link didn't involve The Fatima UFO hypothesis nor was there ever a AfD discussion on the subject. I don't have time to argue with you this discussion will happen eventually it is just a matter of whether others are allowed to participate. You are obviously not a reasonable skeptic as your user page claims but a pseudo skeptic. A reasonable skeptic wouldn't need to avoid discussion. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct that there was no AfD. That's the point.  The RfC was "Is an AfD necessary for a redirect" and the answer was a resounding NO.  You complained that the redirect was done without an AfD and I pointed you to the most recent RfC on that issue that I was aware of.

And I will also refer you to WP:CIVIL.Simonm223 (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can do so without throwing about insults I'd be interested to know why you believe this to be independently notable from Jacques Vallée?Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no secret discussion. An RfC (this one)was added to the list of RfCs at Requests for comment/Policies - so very public. AfDs are not for redirects. Among other things, redirects preserve the history, deletions delete it. I support the redirect. Dougweller (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My intention wasn't to insult but to point out a flaw in the process that was used to eliminate the content of the article without discussion. My statement about being a pseudo skeptic is reasonable since you are behaving that way. As I stated before it has been up for 4 months to rush to redirect without discussion is unreasonable. The discussion both of you pointed out was one that was about an article that went through discussions before and it isn't a rule or it shouldn't be. If you can set a precedent in a location where most people including myself aren't even looking then apply it to anything you want that isn't sincere or honest. There were 50,000 people (according to the most credible estimates other estimates are from 30,000 to 100,000 people) who claimed to see something. There are also many more notable researchers with PhD's than just Vallee; he isn't even the one who did the most research on it. However as I said before they don't all agree on the details including the ET hypothesis which is usually assumed although some people including Vallee claim that it isn't conclusive. This is notable for other reasons since it has been used to prop up the authority of many politicians and the evidence doesn't seem to support either of the two traditional beliefs. I will recheck this next week to mention other less known theories including Persinger's theory about earthquakes and one that cites Jung who believes that it is a result of illusions or something. The bottom line is that many people saw something including many skeptics and they don't know what it is yet it has had an enormous impact on society. For skeptics to say that religious people should respect the evidence in most cases then ignore it on the few cases where the evidence doesn't support traditional beliefs is unreasonable. Rational skepticism involves looking at the evidence and doing the best to figure out what is true, if there isn't enough evidence than rational skepticism means admitting it and coming up with the best theory until further evidence clarifies things. To limit the options to beliefs that don't explain the evidence and label any one who disagrees a fringe pseudo scientist isn't rational skepticism but pseudo-skepticism and pseudo-science. For the next few days that is as far as I'm going to go but the best scientific research should be notable even though it isn’t conclusive and ignoring the subject won't do that. Good dayZacherystaylor (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Addressing your points:


 * "My intention wasn't to insult but to point out a flaw in the process that was used to eliminate the content of the article without discussion. My statement about being a pseudo skeptic is reasonable since you are behaving that way."


 * Again please read WP:CIVIL.


 * "As I stated before it has been up for 4 months to rush to redirect without discussion is unreasonable. The discussion both of you pointed out was one that was about an article that went through discussions before and it isn't a rule or it shouldn't be. If you can set a precedent in a location where most people including myself aren't even looking then apply it to anything you want that isn't sincere or honest."


 * The RfC we directed you to was a recent one on the question of whether an AfD was necessary for a redirect. The redirect may have been bold but it was in keeping with Wikipedia policy.


 * "There were 50,000 people (according to the most credible estimates other estimates are from 30,000 to 100,000 people) who claimed to see something."


 * There is also an article on The Miracle of the Sun already on Wikipedia. A second just for one fringe theory on the cause is not needed.  If you like I can change the redirect to The Miracle of the Sun I would be ammenable to that.


 * "There are also many more notable researchers with PhD's than just Vallee; he isn't even the one who did the most research on it. However as I said before they don't all agree on the details including the ET hypothesis which is usually assumed although some people including Vallee claim that it isn't conclusive."


 * Which is why there is already an article about the event, as I said previously. This article is a PoV Fork.


 * "This is notable for other reasons since it has been used to prop up the authority of many politicians"


 * Please name one politician whose career has been supported by the suggestion that the incident that happened in Fatima, Portugal was an alien encounter.


 * "the evidence doesn't seem to support either of the two traditional beliefs."


 * Which two? Also consult WP:OR.


 * "I will recheck this next week to mention other less known theories including Persinger's theory about earthquakes and one that cites Jung who believes that it is a result of illusions or something."


 * Please consult WP:FRINGE.


 * "The bottom line is that many people saw something including many skeptics and they don't know what it is yet it has had an enormous impact on society. For skeptics to say that religious people should respect the evidence in most cases then ignore it on the few cases where the evidence doesn't support traditional beliefs is unreasonable."


 * The evidence is 100 year-old eyewitness testimony; and it supports the postualte that it was a sun dog quite well. But regardless how does this have to do with the supposition of ET encounters?


 * "For skeptics to say that religious people should respect the evidence in most cases then ignore it on the few cases where the evidence doesn't support traditional beliefs is unreasonable. Rational skepticism involves looking at the evidence and doing the best to figure out what is true, if there isn't enough evidence than rational skepticism means admitting it and coming up with the best theory until further evidence clarifies things."


 * Again this is irrelevant to the topic at hand but, notwithstanding that irrelevance the strongest hypothesis is the sundog one. Barring the invention of time travel nobody will be able to prove anything about this but there are plenty of parsimonious naturalistic explanations for the miracle of the sun.


 * "To limit the options to beliefs that don't explain the evidence and label any one who disagrees a fringe pseudo scientist isn't rational skepticism but pseudo-skepticism and pseudo-science. For the next few days that is as far as I'm going to go but the best scientific research should be notable even though it isn’t conclusive and ignoring the subject won't do that."


 * This still doesn't address the independent notability of the UFO hypothesis.Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "For the next few days that is as far as I'm going to go"
 * Considering your vocal concern over our alleged reticence to discuss this matter I find it somewhat ironic that after posting a single comment completely devoid of content regarding the notability of this article compared to the two other articles that address this subject matter you say that you won't be posting again for a few days.Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't choose the timing of this discussion and I have other things to do. If this article was so bad it should have been questioned when it was created, the fact that it wasn't means that someone didn't see a problem. I find it ironic that you seem to think you are more qualified to make decisions about this article since it is obvious that you haven't read up on it. Your claim that it was a sun dog doesn't explain more than a fraction of the phenomena. This was a series of events that began in May and there were several newspaper articles about it before the Miracle of the sun in October including the following: Also according to wikipedia article about Sundogs they are usually seen when the sun is low in the sky. Even if it was a Sundog it wouldn't explain how they knew something would happen ahead of time.
 * O Mensageiro, 8/22/1917
 * Raio de Luz, 9/1/1917
 * O Seculo, 7/23/1917

This can't be explained away in an honest manner by just addressing one aspect of the subject and ignoring the rest of the history. Joaquim Fernandes and Fina d'Armada investigated past records in depth and provided 20 pages of sources to back up their research in the first book which is the most important one.Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And that is why I redirected to the article which addresses this incident, including both the Sundog explaination and other, more outlandish, ones in detail.Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural concerns
I was previously unaware of the rfc policy so I will now use it. I will also inform other people who have provided edits to this page to see if they are interested in commenting which is I believe normal procedure.

I am going to add this tag to the talk page restore the article and make a few small changes. The reason I'm going to do this in two steps is so that you can see the changes.

Are virtual deletions allowed without discussion?

Should precedents set on one page be applied to all pages without being incorporated into the rules? If this is true then it could lead to thousands of different precedents contradicting each other. If these precedents are applicable they should be incorporated into the rules. If they aren't discussed in the rules they shouldn't be applied to all articles without at least some discussion.

If speedy deletions are in order isn't that supposed to be done when an article is created? This article was up for 4 months before the virtual deletion was initiated by a former member of the arbitration board. I would think that he would know better than I that in the name of openness there should be a discussion period before deletion or virtual deletion.

As for notability at the advice of Doug Weller I googled Fatima UFO and found 130,000 hits which implies that it is a popular topic. For the sake of comparisons I also tried a few of the other most popular UFO incidents on the wikipedia list and found that most of them are much less known than Fatima. Roswell was first of course at 350,000 followed by Aurora Texas at 283,000, Belgium at 149,000 and Washington 1952 at 135,000. This was followed by Fatima and Phoenix Lights at 82,000. Incidents that were much lower include Rendelsham Forest, Shag Harbor, Kecksburg, Incident at Exeter, Phoenix Lights at 82,000, Colares, Lubbock Lights. The rest of the ones on the list are probably even lower. If you use this criteria as Doug Weller suggested it is the 5th most talked about alleged UFO incident.

Also from a scientific point of view the most effective way to investigate a historical event is to study the original documents. Neither the skeptics not the Catholic Church seems to have done a thorough job at that yet they are both attempting to make more conclusive claims than Joaquim Fernandes and Fina d'Armada. When examining the documents they found that the secrets of Fatima started as a rumor and that there was initially only one of them. By simply denying that anything happened instead of saying that something might have happened but we need more research they pass up the opportunity to point out fallacies in the religious argument including the fact that just because something did happen doesn't mean that all of the religious myths are true or that the alleged producer of miracles is a credible source of information despite the fact that he doesn't communicate. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose Speedy Close This was not a "virtual deletion" but a valid redirect of a PoV Fork to the main article. Furthermore there was a very recent RfC on the topic of whether a redirect is a "virtual deletion" which the editor who posted the RfC was fully aware of as his attention was brought to it a week ago.   Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please give the comment process a chance before you redirect again. This isn't an emergency and I see no reason why you can't give others a chance to comment before redirecting. As I stated Joe Nickel didn't address the issue he ignored the historical text and proposed an explanation that doesn't make sense. Joaquim Fernandes and Fina d'Armada didn't come to final conclusions but asked for more comment and they did address the historical text. I am going to restore this one more time before leaving. Please don't force people to look through the history to find out what we're talking about. Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This RfC only exists because you are trying to delay having this clear PoV fork from redirecting to the appropriate article. I will be restoring the redirect.   As this is not a deletion the history will be retained for anyone who cares to look. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some wikilawyering going on to defend an end run around process. IMO the unilateral redirection of this article without discussion is the same as page blanking. The defense that the content is still available through the history file is absurd.  I don't really give a rat's ass about the article, but I don't like seeing the process circumvented this way. Simonm223, why not show some good faith by putting the article up for deletion if you don't like it, or don't like its subject material?  Let the community decide what happens to it, not just one editor.  --CliffC (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because a redirect is the appropriate solution to the issue, not an AfD. After all, as Zacherystaylor points out the miracle of the sun is a notable event and if people try to find information on the incident, regardless of the search string they find to get there, they should be directed to the appropriate article.Simonm223 (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a valid redirect. The theory itself does not deserve an entire article, per WP:FRINGE, as it is held by a vast minority. And this is a valid redirect as the theory is presented in the article to which it was redirected. Angryapathy (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been characterized by some as another attack by the rational skeptics against the credulous. The truth is that I am a rational skeptic and don't believe that the miracle of the sun was anything unnatural at all.  It was just a sundog and some religious peasant children telling stories.  However, you will note, that I did not go and change miracle of the sun to support my personal PoV.  I am no more sympathetic to religious explanaitions for this event than to exterrestrial ones.  However there is an article.  A POV fork is not necessary. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have nothing against rational skeptics. What I objected to was that you did edits without looking into the subject. You stated it was a sundog but offered no explanation as to how they knew about it ahead of time. This explanation doesn't explain any of the other alleged phenomena that occurred. You have edited things you don't seem to be familiar with. You changed the miracle of the sun to indicate that Jacques Vallée was the sole supporter of this hypothesis and that he endorses the ET hypothesis both of which are false. If you had read the article you deleted you should have at least suspected this. Rational skepticism takes time to do the research. If the consensus is that it should be merged I will get back to it later to amend some of the things you have done. The irony is that by dismissing the work of Joaquim Fernandes and Fina d'Armada without looking at it you passed up an opportunity to do real debunking of the religious beliefs you claim to oppose. A lot of their research does indicate that the Catholic Church misrepresented the truth and they reached these conclusions by looking at the original documents and citing their sources. Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed no reliably sourced comments from miracle of the sun. If you have reliable sources with regard to the extraterrestrial argument for this incident I suggest you reference them properly in the parent article. If the only sources are, in fact, fringe sources you may have to accept that there is not notable mention of aliens being the cause of this incident beyond what is currently listed.  Again a POV fork is not necessary.  As for "missed opportunities for debunking" I must reiterate I'm not trying to debunk anything at all I simply redirected a clear }PoV fork to the appropriate article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You changed this statement: "UFO enthusiast, Jacques Vallée argued that the Fátima phenomenon and many UFO sights share a common cause,[35] or even that the phenomenon was an alien craft.[36]" It is now misleading. You have claimed the sundog explanation is sufficient. You have repeatedly referred to "the extraterrestrial argument" or the extraterrestrial hypothesis, ironically after I claimed that some of the sources cited are not advocating it. The article you have redirected has come to no hard conclusions but did look into the subject much more than you. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Um... I really don't know where to start with this... the statement about Jacques Valee in the miracle of the sun article was not written by me. The claims that it was a sundog were entirely restricted to talk pages and clearly labled as my personal opinion and not as something I intended to propagate on the main page.  As for the comments I made with regard to the extraterrestrial argument these have, again, been on talk page and have been in response to your complaint that the redirect removed information you believe to be relevant.  Specifically they were all suggesting that if you have reliably sourced material that is not presently in the target article then you should include it in the target article. And a wikipedia page should categorically not come to a hard conclusion on an openly disputed topic so it's just fine that miracle of the sun does not.Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Referencing the changes that took umbrage to see here. As is clearly evident all I did was remove a double redirect and replace a weasel statement with a reference to an individual who has been clearly attributed to this statement.  This does not preclude the possibility others have made that statement.  I have repeatedly suggested that the other user edit miracle of the sun with additional information if he has reliable sources! Simonm223 (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read through both the parent article and the redirected article and think this was a valid redirect. Reliably sourced material from the UFO (fringe) theory proponents such as Valee and Fernandes can be included in the parent article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)