Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-16 Unidentified flying object

The Talk Page for mediation for the Article UFO
My only goals are to preserve the original meaning of the article, while making sure it is edited correctly. I have been told that this is a fringe article and I have stated my objections to the term. However, today someone struck through several lines in the talk page. I find that offensive. It also effects a vote on the merger of UFO and IFO. I would like to know what where I went wrong in my efforts to make sure that all viewpoints are represented and how we can hammer out this article to be a neutral article. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please leave a message on my talk page if you have a question for me. It will flash a warning that I have messages and I will see them quicker than if you ask here. (But do put your question here too as a duplicate for others to read)Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for revising UFO
Here is my proposal for revising and rebuilding the article, UFO.

I. Introduction. Tell what UFO is and what its about.

II. History of UFO Blue Book, Grudge, the Hills other history.

III. Theories on what UFO are. A. The Pro-UFO side B. The Skeptics Side C. Any other theories and ideals on what UFO may or may not be. D. Other Views on UFO E. The Religion Angle on UFO F. NASA Government Law Enforcement view on UFO

IV. Sightings A. Famous Sightings B. Citizens Sightings C. Astronomer, NASA, Government, Law Enforcement sighting D. Trucker, Ship Crew, Etc Sightings. E. Abductions F. Other

V. Conclusion.

VI Sources and Web links.

Thank you Magnum Serpentine (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * History could be broken down as thus:

A UFO History before 1800AD B UFO History 1800-1900 AD   1. Era of the mysterious Airships. 2. Aurora "Incident" C UFO History 1900-2000 D. UFO History since 2000

Right after I made this proposal, Scienceapologist attacked me accusing me of violiating Fringe Policy and weight. He then made the claim that UFO are NOT mysterious. Please see Talk page on UFO for his full statement.

I disagree. First where did he get the ideal that UFO are NOT mysterious. This is an opinion statement.

I believe the outline allows for expansion and is very neutral. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was informed by SA that its the "Mainstream" opinion that UFO is not a mystery. I beg to differ and I object. I say, "Who's Opinion? the Skeptics?" Magnum Serpentine (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We have now hit an Impass. The Skeptics say that its mainstream to say UFO is not a mystery. I say that is not in the mainstream. If UFO were not a mystery, Then they would not be unidentified. Yet they are. What the skeptics are saying is that since UFO is not a mystery then there are NO unidentifiable UFO yet the Federal Government its self classified UFO's as Unknown over the course of Blue Book. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We are at an impasse
We are at an Impasse. I made an outline of a possible start to rebuilding article UFO and I was attacked because I allowed for the UFO to be a mystery. I take it that the Skeptics believe all UFO's are identified because they all three of them, told me that UFO is not a mystery. Yet we can read in the Blue Book that there are sightings that were unexplained and this was by the Government.

They told me my article outline is imbalanced and represented a Fringe viewpoint. Well, I feel it is balanced. It allows for all opinions and viewpoints. What it does not say is that all UFO sightings are identified. I suspect that is why they declared [edit conflict] because I was not walking lock step with their view that everything is explainable and that there were no paranormal Mysteries. I am rather fed up with their holier than thou attitude and how they command that the mainstream does not believe UFO is a mystery. I ask, Who's mainstream... the Skeptics mainstream? Because in polls the Citizens still feel that UFO are a mystery. At this point I am not going to do anything more until a moderator can rule on this Magnum Serpentine (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to clarify my proposal. Here is what I said:

I. Introduction. This tells what the UFO is, its an Unidentified device that seems to fly on its own power be that beating wings or Warp Drive. It is unidentified because we do not know what kind of machine or animal or energy source it is. Let alone where it comes from.

II. History. This is rather self explanatory. Would talk about the long history of Unknown flying Machines or Animals.

III Theory. There are a lot of ideals what the Unknown Flying Object is. The Skeptics say its Mass hysteria. The UFO Believers say they are from another planet. Others not related to Skeptics or Believers might say they are Natural occurring objects like Earthquake Lights, Or meteors falling into the atmosphere. Some Biologist might say they are an unknown natural life form like a bat or bird never seen before. The Military might say they are our black box projects, a new type of Fighter or even new type or space craft.

IV. The Sightings would just give first, famous sightings, then common everyday sightings with no explanation. More like a list or example. To get a good sample sightings from across the board would be listed

V. Conclusions would be just that a conclusion. As of now, not all Unknown Flying machines are identified. If the Air Force does indeed have an type of aircraft like Aurora they are not saying and thus if anyone actually saw this craft they would not know what it was because the Air Force refuses to say.

Thats a general summary of what I was trying to do. I am sure that even this will be attacked.

Needless to say its not popular with the skeptics. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Uhm, this is, to put it mildy, inaccurate. "The sceptics" are not claiming that all UFOs are mass hysteria - they are claiming that UFOs in all probability all have some natural explanation (hysteria, weather phenomena, metoers, whatever). Sceptics are not, by definition claiming to know what the phenomana is, they are skeptical about a specific explanation. A "hardliner" sceptic would be one who takes this a step further and says that there is no "mystery of UFOs" since the thesis that they are all causes by similar causes as the 90% which have been explained is so much more likely than the various mysterious explanations that there is really no discussion to be had (anymore than the "parents put them there" vs. Santa thesis of christman gifts).
 * In your first post you write that there is such a thing as a "pro-UFO" side of this? Would this be the people who believe they are alien crafts (which would be pro-alien) or just the people who believe they are unidentified (which is the very definition, making it a rather silly viewpoint to introduce as such)? If the former, why should it be given primacy over other explanations? A lot of UFOs have been identified and explained as satellites, why not list that explanation first? Lundse (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the pro UFO was just an example. It was a place holder for those who support UFO. Be it as a natural but unknown item, a Alien from the planets item, a Alien from another universe item Or alien as a demon item. The Skeptical Side of my article will cover the views of the skeptics every angle, every skeptical theory, every skeptical opinion will be listed. I also included the Military belief the Scientist (not involved with skeptics) Viewpoint The Law Enforcement view point.


 * After watching some skeptics at our university, I get the feeling that their only adjenda is to make sure the word Paranormal is erased from common memory. Of course, even though I feel there is not much to Paranormal, I do oppose the skeptics because there are lots of honest people who feel they had an experience and Science is not treating them right by classifying them as cracks or insane. Thats why I am concerned with keeping this article neutral. And I assure you, the so-called Pro UFO group will not get any more advantage than will the Skeptical group. Both will be equal along with Law Enforcement, True Scientist, Astronomers etc. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm... that does clear your viewpoint up for me. I am not, however convinced that equal weight to pro-alien vs. pro-IFO is the way to go - the latter has scientific consensus behind it. That said, the former is the culturally important one. I say it should be given a lot of weight (as in a lot of bytes in the article) and the scientific view should be given 'editorial weight' (as defining the viewpoint from which the article is written). Lundse (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's a bit outside the scope of this mediation, but I've never really been very clear about what we mean when we say "paranormal", except when we mean "stuff we don't know about". "Unexplained", in other words.  If there is some specific technology involved or some other way in which we can recognise the paranormal (like in those films where you can tell it's a ghost because the temperature drops) then let's get it on the table.  If it only means "stuff we can't explain", then that's okay, too, but at the moment it's unclear to me what various people mean when they say "paranormal", and particularly unclear to me whether all those people agree with one another about what the word means. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to express one hundred percent agreement with Lundse. The bulk of the article should be dedicated to the ETH and other culturally relevent perspectives while making it abundantly clear that ufology lacks legitimate standing among mainstream academics. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Objection to any merger of UFO with other articles
Once again, the Skeptics want to make UFO vanish by merging with Flying Saucer. First they tried to make UFO vanish by merging it with IFO and now with Flying Saucer. Both Flying Saucer and UFO are totally different articles. If they were not, they why do you think the UFO believers made two articles. I also wonder if the Skeptics think they can gain control of the result of a merger because it would be considered a new article and thus free it from any mediation and other editorial issues. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to object formally to the depiction of this mediation as involving "Skeptics", "Believers", or other ideological groups. In Wikipedia, we should drop our labels at the door, and work according to the Wikipedia policies.  Let's approach this mediation in the correct spirit. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to chime in and disagree with Magnum about the idea that a merger would make "UFO vanish." The idea of an IFO only has meaning in contrast to the idea of UFOs, so a merger would probably be apropriate. I think flying saucer can remain separate for now, but a merger would not be the end of the world.


 * New Lover, as much as I like those sentiments, this situation is very much based on the opposing action "ideological groups," one of which appears to be gaming the system and using Wikipedia's rules in such a way as to harm Wikipedia's coverage of this subject. Now I don't think you guys are purposely trying to damage the coverage, but I think you are knowingly acting in ways that will result in that damage. And the consequences are the same.


 * I don't feel that any of the skeptics' claims of undue weight have any merit with regards to this article. As long as it is establis hed from the onset that UFOs are thought to be psycho-social constructs and misidentification by mainstream scientists, there will be no "weight" to neutral coverage of the pro-ETH view because any credibility the idea had would be effectively demolished to a neutral reader. This is true even if the ETH is given more page space. Devoting sufficient space to cover an idea is not the same as giving it "weight," especially if that idea has already been dismissed.


 * I also feel that you cannot have a good understanding of the UFO phenomenon without significant coverage of the ETH. Given the history and popular perception of the phenomenon it's just not possible. I think that is something we can agree on. Saying "it was just a weather balloon" maybe true, but misses the cultural impact among other things.


 * Also, I'm new to this debate and I'm not familiar with all the details that caused this argument, so if I say something stupid, please correct me. :) Abyssal leviathin (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Leviathin. What do you mean by "you guys" and "ideological groups"?  I hope it's clear that I speak only for myself and I'm only trying to make sure that Wikipedia's coverage of the subject is verifiable and neutral. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant skeptics and believers. I'd like the article to be neutral, too, but not at the cost of quality content. Even if including that content means that the perspective endorsed by the article gets less "air time" than the more culturally significant yet "fringe" perspective. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I'm the guy who suggested merging UFO with Flying Saucer, so I'm definitely in the "cultural significance" camp. Definitely isn't a matter of "air time".  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay I will not use constructs as Pro Anti, Believer, Skeptic if the other side also agrees not to use them and also not to use terms like Fringe or Quack (as in Quack watch), etc. I also would like to see any study that shows Scientist do not follow UFO or any other similar item. I have talked to a few professors and they were rather surprised that someone thinks that Scientist do not investigate UFO or will refuse to do so. Further they told me that they see no reason why people should NOT believe in them. The phrase was put to me as, there are always possibilities. However I was told some scientist fear for their tenure so that might be why no one is investigating.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the UFO article currently contains the terms "fringe" or "quack"? Is this an issue?  Is somebody suggesting that we incorporate those words?  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * SA used Wikipolicy:fringe against me when I suggested making sure the article was neutral and using all views not just the skeptics. He also declared that fringe views would not be accepted. But what constitutes a fringe is only thus by SA's opinion. I should also add that Wikipolicy:Fringe was created only in 2006 when the Skeptics first organized on Wikipedia. And in the long history before 2006 there was no such policy and Wikipedia seemed to do just fine with-out it. If it was such a needed policy, then why didn't wikipedia have it when the encyclopedia started all those years ago. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hu? Any policy which has been created is a wrong policy because wikipedia was able to exist without it before it was instituted? As I read your comment, this is the only reason you have for disliking WP:Fringe - please supply another if you want to discuss the policy (on the relevant talkpage, which is not here).
 * We do have a special situation here, because the fringe view that UFOs are spacecrafts is also the culturally important one. But this is no different than eg. reporting on Loch Ness monsters or the Spaghetti Monster - report _from_ the angle of the consensus/majority/scientific/common sense view primarily _on_ the angle of the pro-alien side and views. But disliking the policy on fringe theories and/or the fact that most of the article will report on those views does _not_ mean we have to write favourably of said views and present them as somehow "on par" with other, more accepted ones. Lundse (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)