Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 15:44, 15 September 2012.

Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
k


 * Nominator(s): Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This article has undergone substantial improvement as a result of the previous FAC, but that was botched as no spotchecks were performed. It is my hope that the article gets the review that it deserves in this second FAC. It is already a good article and FA is the next logical step in the article's improvement. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Queries. This article is interesting and, despite some of my comments below, I generally like its discursive style. It is a tough gig: writing about something that can be only one of two things: obscure, quirky and hampered by the musings of cranks; or, the most important topic in the history of humankind. It can't be anywhere in between. It may take work, but it is a worthwhile exercise, and kudos to Wer900 for taking it on.
 * I'm not sure what's happening with the citations here. The majority of scholarly cites have online versions available (not just dois - i mean direct links), but only in the minority of cases are there retrieval dates (I am excluding websites, for which there are retrieval dates). Examples with retrieval dates: 29, 53, 54. Most other items similar in nature to those at 53 and 54 do not have a citation date. What are the criteria here, and how are editors aiming for consistency? There is also an apparent inconsistency in the pagination of citations. For example, note 57 cites an individual page of a book, presumably because that is the page containing the relevant info. That's fine. However, note 58 cites the page range for a chapter in a book, while notes 59 and 60 appear to cite the full page range for journal articles, not the relevant pages supporting whatever is cited in the text. I realise there may be a fair amount of work needed to get this ironed out, but there should be a consistent approach, whatever it is.
 * On-line versions of "real" texts are a courtesy, not mandatory. Since the text is fixed, they do not need retrieval dates. Normal practice is to give the whole article page range for journals, and the relevant page(s) for book. If a book has chapters by different authors, it's a matter of judgement whether to ref the exact pages, or the whole of a short chapter, but that should be done consistently  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, happy to run with that - looks like there just might be a small number of "real" texts where retrieval dates are better removed for consistency. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know why there is a "see also" for European colonization of the Americas?? There's been a lot of colonisation of all parts of the world. Why this one link? I'd get rid of both 'see also's. Either write about stuff in the text, or drop it. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Numerous parallels have been drawn between the European colonization of the Americas and the cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact. I've made that link in the text, although it is scattered throughout the article. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a problem with article structure in the "Background" section. I do not see why "impact assessment systems" or "post-detection protocols" are subsets of "background" information for an article about cultural impact of ET contact. On the contrary, they are central subjects for it.


 * These post-detection protocols in and of themselves are part of the background, as they are being written and agreed upon before extraterrestrial contact. They are about planning for contact, rather than the results of this planning. Impact assessment systems provide a similar background, as they do not cover the results of contact so much as how they are derived. This is the background, the foundational knowledge upon which the rest of the article can build. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The "Impact assessment systems" section begins with a sentence that sounds more like it comes half way through a para: "The Rio Scale was devised as a better gauge of the types of contact with an extraterrestrial civilization and the consequences of each type." Better than what? And we need to begin with an introductory sentence or two on the very concept of an "impact assessment system".


 * Better than "I think... will happen if ET contacts humanity." Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The final para of that section commences: "The beliefs of the general public about the effect of extraterrestrial contact have also been studied." That doesn't sound like information that is a subset of "impact assessment systems", but a different topic altogether. Maybe the heading needs to be broadened?
 * Under "post-detection protocols", we are told about "one of the first" such protocols, and that it has been given a tick by SETI, IAU and a bunch of others. Then we have this: "A separate "Proposed Agreement on the Sending of Communications to Extraterrestrial Intelligence" was subsequently created". But by whom? And if no-one has acknowledged it (in contrast to the other one), is it being given undue weight here? Also, can an editor just confirm that the cited source does indeed say that the protocol ticked by IAU et al really was "One of the first post-detection protocols", and not the first? Has anyone mentioned what the first was?


 * The "Proposed Agreement on the Sending of Communications to Extraterrestrial Intelligence" was created by the SETI Permanent Committee of the IAA, just like the "Declaration of Principles." I will make that clear. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Tough (1986) suggests that..." The article doesn't seem to use Harvard-style years in the text elsewhere: is the reason it has been done here? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that Harvard referencing is used throughout the text. If not, someone must hav removed it. Wer900 • talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't need to have the reference year in the text, as it is taken care of in the footnote. The only reason to mention years in the text is if the year is itself relevant (for example, if there is a discussion that reflects a chronological development of academic thought). hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've fixed those occurrences that were still in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The title suggests ... no, assumes ... that there has already been contact. This alone yields an oppose from me. Tony   (talk)  13:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tony. I mentioned this in Featured article candidates/Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact/archive1 ("Isn't this event more hypothetical than a given? Do we have any way of knowing this will ever take place and, if it does, what the impact will be? Isn't this fantasy and speculation not based on science?") MathewTownsend (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The scientific consensus is that at least a handful of extraterrestrial intelligent species exist in our galaxy. It's not fantasy, it's based on logic and reason. I agree that none of the information in the article, except for the "background" section, contains anything which can be certainly stated to be true, but I think that I've made it clear to any reader of the article that 1) extraterrestrial contact has not yet occurred and 2) if and when it occurs, the information in the article may not necessarily be accurate and is merely based on existing research. The reason that you are stating that this is a complete fantasy is probably because of the "giggle factor" resulting from such a subject which has been covered more extensively by science fiction writers and mad people than by astrobiologists. Granted, there is a small chance that extraterrestrial intelligence may not exist, but this is, according to the prevailing scientific consensus, so unlikely that a few sentences in the article suffices to further that position. This link uses EXTREMELY conservative estimates (some of which recent research shows to be too conservative) and demonstrates that there may be 4000 extraterrestrial civilizations within our galaxy. Given that many estimates are too conservative (but some may be too liberal) I'd raise the number of civilizations fivefold. With ~20,000 possible civilizations in our galaxy, it's really only a matter of time before we are contacted. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 19:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Tony's issue is a different one from Mathew's. Tony's is a question of appropriate article title. Tony, what would you propose as an alternative? Did you have something like "cultural impact of possible extreterrestrial contact"? Mathew's issue seems to me not to be actionable, and in any case, there is a reliable literature that doesn't agree: obviously it is speculation in the sense that contact hasn't happened. However, it is a subject about which researchers can and do theorise etc., and is an entirely reasonable subject for a WP article.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What about "Cultural impact of possible future extraterrestrial contact"? Tony   (talk)  02:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The possibility of future contact is assumed by the current title. It does not assume that contact has already taken place, nor could it. I believe that is something you are reading into it. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What about "Hypothesized cultural impact of possible future extraterrestrial contact"? In actuality, we have no idea, despite speculations of today's scientists. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The current title is the hypothesis. You guys aren't getting it. Although it is completely unnecessary, I have no objection to "cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact hypothesis" if that settles the problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I established a topic on the article talk page for discussion of the article title. Please comment there. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose because of article title. BTW, Virititas's statement, "It does not assume that contact has already taken place" is unconvincing. That assumption is the default in that title. Tony   (talk)  02:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC) .... and do you mean "Cultural impact of hypothesized extraterrestrial contact"? That sounds better to me.  Tony   (talk)  02:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no such assumption in the article title nor could there be; you've confused this subject with the pseudoscientific subject of ancient astronauts and various aspects of pseudoscientific xenoarchaeology. These topics, on the other hand, do assume contact has already occurred and that cultural impact may have taken place sometime in the distant past or even up until the present time. However, the topic currently under discussion is completely and totally different, and when an editor like yourself is confused, we create a dab header to help the reader—we don't change a valid article title and redefine the subject.  The topic of cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact does not assume any such previous contact, nor does the topic cover such contact.  There is nothing wrong with the article title in any way, nor can you demonstrate anything wrong with it. You're just confused about the subject. The title only assumes that if contact ever occurs there will be some kind of impact on our culture.  That's altogether different that your claim that the title assumes "there has already been contact". In fact, the title assumes no such thing and I challenge you to show that it does.  Not only doesn't the title assume that, the very subject of cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact has nothing to do with any claims of previous contact.  When the literature on this subject (SETI) uses the term "extraterrestrial contact", it never assumes that previous contact has already occurred because the entire discipline is built on the  philosophical foundation of the Fermi paradox—the underlying assumption that contact has not yet taken place. That's why your claim about the title is so off.  The assumption of previous ET contact isn't even part of the discourse when talking about the hypothetical cultural impact. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Viriditas, for bringing much-needed expertise to this discussion! I really dislike the fact that people consistently confuse this with pseudoscience assuming that it extraterrestrial contact has already occurred, which any sane thinking person knows is not true. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 19:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is assuming the science is pseudo? My problem is the strong implication in the title that we've already had ET contact. Tony   (talk)  01:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * MathewTownsend is assuming that this is pseudoscientific. As for you, I don't know anyone other than a hardcore Ancient Aliens, NASA's Unexplained Files, The X-Files or Chasing UFOs viewer who would assume that contact has happened. Now you don't even have to go through the lede, you just have to get to the hatnote, which I modified to make it clear that contact has not yet occurred. For anyone who does not watch the four previously listed shows, it should be clear from the start that this does not deal with an event that has occurred yet. The title is already long and complex as it is, and for people who do not watch the previously listed four shows, the title is unambiguous enough. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 02:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming the article is pseudoscientific. If the article's name was Scientific study of the effect of possible extraterrestrial contact on humanity, I'd have no problem. But the current article's title Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact assumes there has been/will be extraterrestrial contact, when this is a hypothesis for which there is yet no proof. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, let me reiterate my argument: the current title is excessively long and complex as it is, and any thinking person would interpret Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact to mean Scientific study of the effect of possible extraterrestrial contact on humanity. "Scientific study of" is really redundant - "scientific study of the biology of fish" can be conveyed in the form of "biology of fish," encompassing not only the physiological characteristics of fish but the study of these characteristics as well. The fact that extraterrestrial contact is possible but not 100% certain is established very early on in the article, and is known to any thinking person. I would be glad to find a compromise title, but owing to the unnecessary length and complexity of your proposed title I cannot accept it in its current form. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 21:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, above I was accused of assuming the article content was "pseudoscientific". I don't. But there is no scientific proof that humans have experienced extraterrestrial contact. But many people do believe it has happened and is happening now, and some of them are readers of WP. So I think the article title should be clear that the possibility of extraterrestrial contact is a hypothesis. The fish article exists without "Scientific study of fish" because there is widely accepted scientific evidence of the existence of fish. The existence of fish is not in question. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See Million Fax on Washington, Coast to Coast AM (take a look at the guest list of that radio show), Sightings (TV series), Ancient Aliens etc. - evidence that there are believers!  MathewTownsend (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my God. Do we call the page on evolution Not just a theory of evolution in order to deal with creationists? Creationists are a much larger minority than are believers that alien contact has occurred, making up 46% of the US population, but we do not attempt to refute their hypothesis in our titles of the pages regarding evolution. While evolutionary theory is not in dispute by the scientific community, nor is the belief that extraterrestrial contact has not yet occurred. And while absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, that principle is accepted by me in the existence of the article - had we known extraterrestrial beings not to exist with almost complete certainty, then there would be no purpose for this article. Much as creationism and intelligent design are given pages on Wikipedia with which their position is analyzed in depth, so are ancient astronaut theories already. There is thus no need to change the current title, an accurate descriptor of the page content which is not absurdly long and does not state the super-obvious. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 22:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions here (since my attempt to move this to article talk page failed :-))
 * Would "Potential implications of extraterrestrial contact" be okay? It's short, it doesn't assume that contact has already happened, and makes it clear that the article is not likely to be 100% accurate if and when extraterrestrial contact occurs.
 * I oppose that title as it isn't accurate. The topic is about the cultural impact of ET contact. There is absolutely nothing in that title that implies contact has already occurred, and anyone that maintains that it does is misreading it.  "Potential implications" is implied in the concept of cultural impact, the most accurate description of the subject.  By removing it, you are proposing to make the title inaccurate, which I cannot support.  Nobody has been able to show anything wrong with the current title other than "I don't like it". You could get away with saying "cultural impact of potential extraterrestrial contact" but that is both redundant and assumes that ET might exist.  We don't know if they exist or not, we just know that if they do there will be a cultural impact, just as we have observed on Earth when a more advanced culture comes into contact with a less advanced culture, as only one example of such a scenario. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the comments above and there does not seem to be much in the way of an emerging consensus. For reasons explained below anything with "scientific study" in the title would not work for me. The problems seems to me that both the extraterrestrial contact and the cultural implications thereof are both "potential" rather than actual and not having some kind of caveat in the title is therefore a concern. Having two qualifiers would be overkill. Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact would be my first choice as the first word covers both. "Cultural impact of possible extraterrestrial contact" does the job, but is for me rather clumsy. I don't accept that a qualifier of some kind is redundant. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All editors here appear to believe that 1. there has been no contact with aliens 2. aliens might exist, but we don't know, although there is a reliable literature that hypothesises their existence as likely, and 3. there therefore might be future contact with aliens, but we don't know.
 * I think all editors agree that there is a reliable literature discussing what the effects of possible contact might be.
 * The only question is how to signal the subject matter to readers.
 * WP policy on article titles states "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."
 * It seems to me that some of the debate here comes down to whether, in order to "unambiguously define" this subject, we need to rule out the interpretation that might be placed on it by individuals with fringe views. I can't imagine anyone with mainstream views could possibly interpret this article as meaning anything other than "what might happen". On the other hand, if one day there is actual contact, then that contact will need its own article, so maybe we should preserve Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact for that occasion :-)
 * Of the various suggestions, I favour "potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact" (per Ben Macdui); my second preference would be "cultural impact of possible extraterrestrial contact".
 * The reason I'm happy to have the word "possible" (or "potential") placed immediately prior to "extraterrestrial contact" rather than at the start of the title, is that no-one questions that there would be cultural impacts if contact were to occur.
 * "possible future" is redundant in my view. We are not designing wikpedia to be idiot-proof. If a reader already believes aliens came and drew the nazca lines, then this article will either set them straight, or it won't, but no amount of lengthening of the article title is going to change that. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment. First of all, I echo Hamiltonstone's comments at the top of the page - this is a difficult topic and I admire the nominator's diligence in researching it and fortitude in bringing it here. I have two main comments, a subsidiary question and two relative trivialities.

Firstly, I agree that a better title has to be found. I am not sure whether the discussion is now happening here, on the talk page, or perhaps both at once, but like Tony I am concerned that it could be misleading. I will give this some further consideration and comment in due course.

Secondly, I am concerned about the hatnote. You may think this is not a matter of significance, but I note that the assumption of the hatnote is repeated in this discussion above. It states "This article is about the scientific study of the effect of possible extraterrestrial contact on humanity." I beg to differ. It is mostly about the possible effect of possible extraterrestrial contact on humanity as discussed by scientists and some others including theologians and lawyers. I don't think it can be called a "scientific study" in the normal sense as, whilst the Fermi paradox holds good, it is simply untestable. This does not mean that I am attempting to dismiss the topic - it seems to me to be entirely worthy and creditable. Nor am I entirely sure what the hatnote should say - perhaps simply omitting the word "scientific" would do or perhaps "… the rational study of the effect…", which would include the law etc.
 * I actually think this is an open and shut case, that Ben is right, and I have made a revision to the hatnote. Happy to discuss further tweaks. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My question is given that "cultural" includes the arts, it seems odd there is no detailed mention of this. At the risk of unwittingly passing some kind of debating event horizon surely one of the biggest impacts of any contact would be on… science fiction? There would doubtless be other impacts. I recognise that these are almost certainly unknowable, but surely our worthy reliable sources must have commented on this beyond the brief comment under "Benevolent civilizations"?

On to the trivia. Dyson sphere should be linked in the image and there are probably one or two other possible image links. Last and least, inter alia will be an obscure phrase for many readers and should be linked e.g. via Wiktionary. Ben  Mac  Dui  18:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

PS Those of us with a GSOH woud surely wish to see The Martians as a "see also"?
 * I will make it clear in the hatnote that:


 * This refers to a potential real-world scenario.
 * The topic has received attention from priests, theologians, lawyers, and artists in addition to scientists.
 * I don't think specific such references are needed in the hatnote, which should be brief. I've attempted a concise revision. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Inter alia has been linked to the Wiktionary page.


 * With regard to the title, though, I am split. Certainly a "better title" is needed, but we have no clue what a better title would be. Potential cultural impact of possible future extraterrestrial contact, as has been suggested before, is not unlike saying Not just a theory of evolution. In both cases, the title attempts to placate a significant population of people who willingly and knowingly believe in pseudoscience. Yet in the case of the page on the Theory of evolution, obviously predating this one, we don't attempt to refute the "just a theory" argument in the title. Similarly, I don't see the need to refute "contact has already happened" in this article's title. As for your comments on the arts, literature, film, and other areas of human society which are more commonly associated with "culture", that is not really something that we can even begin to know about. Sure, as an advanced species they may see the fundamental beauty and splendor of the Universe in a similar way that we do, but their specific artistic traditions - and thus their impact on our own - are topics that we cannot even begin to think about. There are not too many reliable sources which discuss their art, as we have no specific example of extraterrestrial art or literature. Science and technology are more set in stone, and based on the laws of physics, so we can get some idea of what they might do given their motives. These motives, however, are unknown to us, so we must group them into broad categories of "benevolent," "malevolent," and so on. Sure this is an oversimplification, but doing the same for art would result in an even greater oversimplification. It is therefore that I cannot put too much information about art in the article. Even the discussion on religion and law deals mainly regarding "what will happen if they come here" and "are they religious or not," rather than how SPECIFIC religious traditions will impact us. It's not unlikely that some groups will start worshipping he extraterrestrials, but we cannot know what specific ritual practices would arise from this. Same for art. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 18:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, Wer, that Ben isn't asking us editors whether (for example) these are things "we can even begin to know about": it is solely a question of whether the reliable sources discuss these matters. Just take a look at them and see if they do. If so, include useful and relevant content; if not, then we're done. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources have little to say on the subject. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 17:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments I share the above concerns about the speculative nature of much of this article expressed above and see nothing to add to them.  In general I'm not a fan of these articles with "phrase" titles in any event - they tend to be a little essayish and this one seems no different.  As a general rule if a reader cannot reasonably be expected to enter the exact article title (excepting disambiguation) when looking for the very material the article covers that suggests to me that the material itself is probably not highly encyclopaedic in nature.  I have two main specific criticisms in addition to those more general comments:
 * 1) Images For the most part these are highly speculative in nature, even more so than the article text. Arecibo Observatory, fine, the others contribute absolutely nothing to the article unless an RS specifically discusses them. The double helix and Dyson's sphere in particular strike me as complete irrelevances.
 * I agree re images of kudzu vine and atomic explosion. The others didn't bother me, and appeared associated with key concepts under discussion. But I agree with you that they should be raised in RSs before they appear here. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Kudzu vines were merely placed to give an example of an invasive species. Atomic explosions were only shown to show a risk that a benevolent ET may eliminate. Both invasive species and the elimination of risks to humanity by extraterrestrials were mentioned, with nuclear explosions being mentioned specifically by one source. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 17:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Article scope  This is restricted to cultural impact.  Ecosystem damage or even the introductory stuff on SETI is out of place here, as is extensive discussion on the methods and means of contact, except as brief background and as relevant to the actual subject of the article.  This is quite extensive - I haven't gone through it with a red pen but I'd suggest perhaps a third of the article could be trimmed out without losing any pertinent coverage. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC).
 * Agree this is an issue, but my suggested solution was to drop the word "cultural" from the article title. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an issue alright, but one of the fascinating things about this form of inquiry is that it is easy to forget that it is all a Gedankenexperiment. The moment someone has the thought "how might alien contact impact our ecosystems" this is an, albeit minor, cultural impact. In the absence of such contact there is no ecosystem damage, and so thinking about it is a cultural, not an ecological effect. The wording of the section probably needs amending to reflect this as these trains of thought are telling us a great deal about how we as humans tick, but, by definition, they tell us nothing definitive at all about how ET thinks or behaves. Similarly, whilst SETI is an example of scientific action, it is a significant cultural phenomenon too.  Ben   Mac  Dui  09:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Quantum, my view would be that either the article satisfies the five pillars or it does not, and in terms of the first pillar, the only debatable point might be WP:CRYSTAL. However, as this article reports current reliable source literature on the subject, it doesn't seem to me to be problem. Are you arguing that the article breaches a relevant policy? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is where it deviates from those sources: if you make ten points, backing up four of them isn't enough to assert that it is reliably sourced if the remaining deviate substantially from those sources. I don't say that every sentence needs a reference for simple stuff that is broadly in line with the sources that are given, but we need to avoid any extension, extrapolation, or deviation from those sources.  Since I raised the images specifically we may as well continue with them: where are the sources asserting that those illustrated objects are directly raised in the sources?  How much is extrapolation on the part of the authors?  For  subject matter as inherently speculative as this we can't cut much slack if any at all in that regard, lest the entire article becomes a primary source of original research as opposed to a genuinelly encyclopedic article. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC).
 * I don't think we need to hold this article to a higher standard than others in respect of illustration, but I think I can see the issue you're getting at with the images. There should not be a point made in the image caption that is not a point made in the article text, and appropriately sourced there. However, I just checked two examples - the nuclear weapon image, and the dyson sphere, and both appear to meet this condition. I actually don't think the nuclear bomb itself needs to be named in the source (though Wer says that it is): insisting on that would be to misunderstand the purpose of representative illustration. That said, I'm not at all wedded to the images, and I still think the kudzu vine and a couple of others could go. Moving away from images, I haven't examined the whole article, but it appears to be generally well-sourced, with regular statements explicitly linking the text to the authors involved. Do you have any particular examples of concerns around this?hamiltonstone (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.