Talk:Unidentified flying object: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>D. Matt Innis
(sign)
m (Text replacement - "conspiracy theory" to "conspiracy theory")
(99 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
{{TOC|right}}
{{TOC|right}}
==Editor rulings requested by Constabulary==
#Anecdotal reports will move to a Catalog page.
#If radar or other technical sensors are mentioned in the context of a UFO report, they shall either cite a source that gives technical characteristics that can be evaluated by a radar engineering, or a formal proceeding (e.g., NTSB hearing) at which there was an opportunity for expert discussion. 
#Editor rulings that radar descriptions are implausible shall be removed unless answered with technical detail. Weather radar is not optimized for tracking solid targets, any more than air intercept radar is not optimized for tracking air masses.  Long-range air intercept radar does not reliably give the size of targets.
#An "aviation expert" cannot be automatically assumed to be acting as an expert unless the statement is made in  a formal hearing, a responsible peer-reviewed journal, or other procedure where there can be reasonable challenges from other experts.  A general news article is not such a context, although an article in a professional-level industry publication, such as ''Aviation Week and Space Technology'', would be. Other news coverage will be considered on a case-by-case basis, when there is a verifiable online source.
#Simply citing a "military witness" is inadequate unless a formal investigative report is given.
#Sightings by "famous people" have no place in the article unless the famous person is an expert witness.
#Newspaper experience does not qualify one as a technical expert and continued arguments that it does are not desired. Further, CZ Editors do not edit in the manner of a newspaper Editor. If an Editor directs that text move to a subpage, that is the Author's responsibility.


==Constable comment==
[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
As this is obviously a contoversial subject, I need everyone to pay attention to our rules of [[CZ:Professionalism]] and make sure to refrain from remarks that will be percieved as [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Professionalism#Templates_the_Constabulary_uses_and_what_they_mean <nowiki>{{civil}} and </nowiki> <nowiki>{{inflammatory}}</nowiki>. And, please <nowiki>{{no complaints}}</nowiki> about others].  Do understand that these rules apply to everyone equally, including editors and officials.  I encourage authors to cooperate with the gentle guidance of Editors. Editors, I encourage you to be gentle.  I will not be editing this article or involving myself in any of the disputes and will remain as neutral as humanly possible in performing this constable duty. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 12:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
<hr>
:I am unclear as to what [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Unidentified_flying_object&oldid=100746445 Editor rulings that radar descriptions are implausible shall be removed unless answered with technical detail.] in ruling 3 is supposed to mean, and I think that general statements like the ones in #7 are not within the scope of an [[CZ:Editor|Editor]]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::Ruling 3 means that you can't just say weather radar does something not usually associated with weather radar, and you can't draw comparisons between military and air traffic control radars unless they are described with sufficient detail for a radar expert to understand the capabilities being compared. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 05:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


:Gentleness is a scarce resource after repeated reverts, unexplained deletions, incorrect revision of citations, and decidedly non-neutral writing on what we now learn, from Milt's talk page, is "ufology". [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
==Added metadata and some notes==
This is a reasonable start for a collaborative project, and, blessedly, does not read like a conspiracy theory. It may need to be contextualized with articles on [[extraterrestrial intelligence]] and, indeed, expansions on [[radar]], [[technical intelligence|technical]] and [[imagery intelligence]]/[[photogrammetry]], and phenomena of witnessed observation.


::Not Defending Ufology. I am defending the tolerance of accepted facts. Facts are facts. You can not ignore them. At one time people believed the Earth was flat, and some people still do, but most people now accept the fact the Earth is round. It was proven to be fact and we all accept it as fact. At one time Galileo proposed theories that the Catholic Church found the earth heretical. Later his facts proved to be correct and we accept it as fact. I presented a fair, objective article based on facts. The facts were supported with footnotes. I even provided a link for you to read. When last checked CUFOS articles meet a high standard of scientific research. Authors are typically doctorate level and the jury panel is probably of the same caliber. If you like, you can email or call them to confirm what I wrote since you are so eager to establish facts. I wonder if other authors have had to meet such a high standard of writing caliber here at Citizendium.
As the text began, there seemed a strong implication that UFO necessarily equated to alien. I'm certainly not dismissing the [[Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence]] (SETI), but I think that a fair article also has to comment on the possibility of incorrect reports. The more dramatic the claim, the better the evidence need be.


Also, I am not sure where you managed to drag up WP in this discussion. None of the stuff I have used even used WP (and I presume you mean Wikipedia) in this discussion.
The article may need to address the possibility that some sightings were [[compartmented control system|highly classified]] experiments, and certainly other phenomena with an obscure but natural origin. I did provide some CIA references that indicate that at least some observations suggest something was present and could not be explained with the knowledge of the time. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


As far as Wikipedia is concerned I have written one article for them.
== Name of the article ==


Finally, I apologize for using shorthand for CZ. I guess I should have written Citizendium. OK Citizendium Guide. I thought CZ was the appropriate shorthand here. I apologize for my innocent error.
As you can see, I've Moved it, and created a bunch of Redirects. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


I've tried hard to be friendly, collaborative and cooperative. I am the new kid on the block and I know it. It sure would have  been nice to have had a little help instead of out running road blocks and criticism.
== Thanks for the Workgroups ==


Where I have written at wikiHow (yes the spelling is correct) the environment is far more encouraging of new authors. We go out of our way to send personalized welcome messages, offer assistance with writing, and respect someone who is actively writing an article. We also allow new authors to write and then we gently edit. I have gently edited over 5,000 articles based on my writing skills and understanding of wiki syntax. I came to Citizendium to stretch my wings a bit and exercise my mind. I love writing how-to articles, but I also love the challenge of researching; and writing articles offered at Citizendium.
I didn't have a clue as to what I should do there! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


Just some things to think about...and finally here's a link to wikiHow statistics and it is fact based [http://stats.wikihow.com/reports/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm] or [http://www.wikihow.com/Special:Popularpages] or [http://siteanalytics.compete.com/wikihow.com/] US statistics only.
:My thinking is that aviation and flight is generally engineering (and sensors), biology deals with the nonhuman aspect, and sociology with the issue of mass belief systems. Certainly, other workgroups could be involved, such as military from the specific investigations, psychology especially from the perspectives of cognition and sensory capabilities, etc.  


Note: I started this message earlier but had to re-post as someone had edited the current Citizendium discussion page.
:While I'm not sure how much time I'll spend on it, I hope this can be an example of a controversial, borderline-fringe issue that can be objective from the start. It's not an issue on which I have strong personal opinions. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 04:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)MA


:"Also, I am not sure where you managed to drag up WP in this discussion. None of the stuff I have used even used WP (and I presume you mean Wikipedia) in this discussion. " You cited it as a source for several statements. Do I need to get this from the history?
::Ditto.  Fortunately, I don't think we have any UFO nuts in our Citizenry at the moment. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


:"I am defending the tolerance of accepted facts. Facts are facts. You can not ignore them." All facts need contextualization and validation. You  said "When last checked CUFOS articles meet a high standard of scientific research. Authors are typically doctorate level and the jury panel is probably of the same caliber."  Sorry, I have read several of the data bases, and I do not find them to be at a high level of engineering or science research, as, for example, the level of discussion in the 1997 symposium.
:::Do you not have a section or category for paranormal subjects? I'm sure someone has written about ghosts. Or you could take a look categorizing under philosophy and religion. Finally, the term UFO Nuts may be showing some bias and could be considered derogatory. What do you think? The appropriate term would be Ufologist I think.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 02:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (UTC)<s>Mary Ash</s> ''Putting in <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> signs your name; you're getting it twice''


:"If you like, you can email or call them to confirm what I wrote since you are so eager to establish facts." Frankly, I don't like the tone of that -- but I looked at assorted databases and essentially found nothing but anecdotal witness reports -- not even time or location correlation.  
:::<s>Do you not have a section or category for paranormal subjects? I'm sure someone has written about ghosts. Or you could take a look categorizing under philosophy and religion. Finally, the term UFO Nuts may be showing some bias and could be considered derogatory. What do you think? The appropriate term would be Ufologist I think.</s>


:"I wonder if other authors have had to meet such a high standard of writing caliber here at Citizendium." I certainly hope so. You might want to review some of the history of Approved articles and how the details can be argued in tremendous detail, with much rewriting. It is fair to say that I've written a few articles here, and such things as [[measurement and signature intelligence]], [[electronic warfare]], and [[rating raw intelligence]] very much deal with the criteria for reliable observation. As I remember, the thing holding up approval for the [[Battle of Dien Bien Phu]] is a question about the equipment in specific artillery strongpoints.  
:::There is a brief article on [[ghost]]s that certainly could be expanded. In general, though, there's nothing on the [[paranormal]] or [[paranormal intelligence]]. I'd personally welcome an objective article that establishes some concepts.  [[CZ: Anthropology Workgroup]] might be a good choice.  


:I'm not asking anything of you I wouldn't expect others to ask of me. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 04:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
:::I would agree that "ufology" is an acceptable term for someone that specializes in interpreting UFO reports. Any group, of course, can have nuts among it; the Politics Workgroup is aware of many. :-(  


==Article moved from mainspace==
:::To get the best collaborative work on controversial topics, avoid sensationalism and things that come across as conspiracy. When dealing in political and security subjects, for example, it's often wise to present text from documents, perhaps side-by-side with laws or treaties''Putting in <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> signs your name'' <small>...said</small> [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] ([[User_talk:Howard C. Berkowitz|talk]]) {{#if:19:59, July 25, 2010 |19:59, July 25, 2010 |}}
I have of the lastest version of this article to Draft space and moved the last version written by [[User:Mary Ash]] to a separate space at [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object/Mary_Ash Unidentified flying object/Mary Ash] where she can work independently. This is a procedure that does have precedent, but has not been used often.  It is my hope that time will heal all wounds and collaboration may continue. I will continue to monitor the talk pages of both articles. Please keep all conversation [[CZ:Professionalism]].  Thanks for your understanding and co-operation. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


:As far as I can remember, such a procedure was invoked by Editor ruling and carried out by Constables, not Constables acting unilaterally.  Mary Ash has defied Editor rulings, a behavioral problem. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)
I just changed the second workgroup from Biology to Psychology, since most of the biological aspects of the matter have to do with perception. However, most of the cases for which reliable explanations exist, they are based on physical, chemical or classified military knowledge, so these workgroups might have to be considered as well. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 21:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


::I think I can make an Editor ruling, or Milt can do so. It is unprecedented to move an article variant to a personal subarticle in namespace. You may move it to [[User: Mary Ash/Unidentified flying object]], and do not link it. Please delete the UFO/Mary Ash. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
:It's not a three-workgroup-only subject. I was thinking of biology in the astrobiological sense, but perceptual psychology certainly is an issue. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 22:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


==I've archived this talk page==
== Hello and welcome to Citizendium ==


I've archived the talk page in hopes that we can start fresh. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Mary, please note that I reformatted some of your notes more correctly. If you will study the edit page, you will see how my edits were done. When using an online source for a note, rather than simply enclosing the URL in brackets, thus [url], it is much better to include a title of some sort within the brackets, thus [url Title] with one space between the end of the url and title. In that way, the note simply displays the title as a link. That avoids the actual url being displayed as a link because urls are often very long and do not make the actual title of the online source clearly visible.


==Protest==
Also, Citizendium uses subpages:
Matt, you've also archived discussions that had to do with community discussion about the scope of the article.  I ask that the talk page be restored, and you reflect on whether you may be trampling on the rights of other Citizens to protect a defiant newcomer.  Do not protect the article page; Engineering Editors have the matter in hand.


Please restore, to mainspace, the last version restored by Milton Beychok. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Related Articles:''' This where we place links to related articles within Citizendium. In other words. the relate Articles subpage replaces Wikipedia's "See also" section.


:'''<u>Matt</u>, I request you move the "Draft" article back to mainspace, and [[Unidentified flying object/Mary Ash]] to [[User Talk: Mary Ash/UFO]]. This restores our usual naming convention. At present, the /Mary Ash version does not meet the requirements of mainspace, and it is simply confusing to have two versions.''' [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 05:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Bibliography:''' This where we place links to books and journal articles that provide information related to the main article.


::I won't move it myself once a Constable has done it, but '''please restore proper naming conventions'''. /Draft implies there is an Approved version, which there is not. On a practical basis, when I create wikilinks to internal sections of the main article, I'm having to include /draft. If the article is ever Approved, that leaves much room for ambiguous linking. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''External links:''' This where we place hyperlinks to online website sources of related information.


:::I agree that it should be done. I don't think I can do it myself, since I've been involved in this article's editing and arguing. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
With that in mind, what you denoted as "Notes" all pointed to a specific line or paragraph in the main article text, just as they should. However, what you denoted as "References" do not point to any specific line or paragraph in the main article and therefore would be much better placed in either the "Bibliography" or the "External Links" subpages. Since they are all hyperlinks to online website sources, I plan to move them to the "External Links" subpage. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 17:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


::::Howard, continue to link to the draft page. When the article is returned to mainspace, I'll check the 'update links that refer to this page' box.  Thanks. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
== Am I Free to Do Some Minor Edits or Will I Be Banned?==
Am I free to make some minor edits to this article or will I be banned. The description of Ufology needs some tweaking. I would like to rewrite this Wikipedia definition which is far less negative and lacks potential bias.


== Ufology, MUFON ==
Ufology (pronounced /juːˈfɒlədʒiː/) is a neologism coined to describe the collective efforts of those who study reports and associated evidence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). While ufology does not represent an academic field of research and is widely described as a pseudoscience, UFOs have been subject to various investigations over the years by governments, independent groups, and scientists. The term derives from UFO, which is pronounced as an acronym, and the suffix -logy, which comes from the Ancient Greek λογία (logiā).


First, it appears that there is something called "ufology", apparently that of which skeptics are skeptical...I think. It really needs to be defined.
Please advise.


I have moved the following text here, regarding the Mutual UFO Network:
[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 02:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


:''One of the publications is a scholarly review and is called the Journal of UFO Studies.''
:No, you won't be banned. I'd appreciate, though, some discussion, so I can understand your concerns.  In the above definition, I would avoid the words "and associated evidence". Evidence has a legal meaning; "data" would not. I tried to be neutral in the current definition, and, as I remember, paraphrased some mission statements from ufology groups.


:Scholarly by what definition? What general learned organizations recognize it? Could someone familiar with a citation impact data base verify that it is cited in general literature?
:From my perspective, it's a legitimate area of observation. Where it gets to be problematic is where there are unsubstantiated claims of coverups, or there are also unsupported allegations of alien (i.e., paranormal or extraterrestrial) intelligence.


:''Hynek appointed Dr. Mark Rodeghier to head CUFOS. MUFON collects UFO reports, sponsors a yearly UFO symposium and offers a monthly journal called The MUFON UFO Journal. MUFON has written and published a recognized UFO investigation manual.''
:There is evidence that the U.S. government tried to avoid public hysteria. Arguably, the Air Force stopped active study before the CIA did because the Air Force's responsibilities are more for current operations -- they didn't see any immediate threat and didn't want to expend funds. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 03:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


:I suppose that if one put it in front of me, I'd recognize it to be a UFO investigation manual. "Recognized", however, implies more than self-recognition. In the article on [[interrogation]], there are examples of widely recognized reference in criminal investigation and witness reports. Is this comparable?
==Added info about UFO databases maintained by MUFON and NUFORC==
Added information about the databases maintained by both organizations. MUFON offers a live UFO "Weather Map" tracking UFO reports and a searchable data base. NUFORC offers a database that goes back at least 20 years and includes location, time and type of object seen. [[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 02:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


:''MUFON field investigators are required to study the MUFON Field Investigator's Manual and pass a test before they can investigate UFO reports.''
== Made some changes to the first paragraph ==


Ah, but who tests MUFON? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Unidentified_flying_object&diff=100724635&oldid=100708678 Mostly to clean-up] superfluous language and combine repeating sentences.  Feel free to revert if I messed something up. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 19:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


::Protocols and manuals have to start some place. The CZ user guide was written for CZ users. It is expected that users learn how to use the guide. It is accepted as being "the guide".
:I added a mainstream view: if there is [[extraterrestrial intelligence]], radio is the most likely initial form, as being actively investigated by the [[SETI]] Project. Also, I put [[transpersonal psychology]] into Related Articles but it belongs somewhere -- Mack very much considers this relevant to visitations and abductions. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


::Scientists set up testing protocols, and they follow standard procedures, and they are accepted. For along time doctors treated patients without changing bloodstained clothing or washing their hands. It was accepted protocol. Later it was discovered the doctors unknowingly spread germs to their patients caused by accepted protocol at the time.
::Not sure that is has much to do with unidentified flying objects, but it is good information. Maybe we can develop that idea further down in the article if it isn't already (I haven't gotten far). [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 20:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


::MUFON has established a set protocol for dealing with investigations. Here is a Wikipedia link telling about scientific protocol: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_protocol] I do believe MUFON has established a good protocol for examining UFO cases based on the link given.
:::The relevance is that a number of scientists are not prone to accept the physical visitations, as they believe radio is a better Occam's Razor explanation (Occam's electric razor?). [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


::You have to draw the line some place when it comes to all things and you have to accept that MUFON is trying to appropriately investigate reported UFO cases.
== lede rewrite ==


::[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 02:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash
that's perfect, howard!  I had those words on the tip of my tongue but couldn't spring them loose.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 02:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
==Added a couple respected researchers==
I added a couple science based UFO researchers to the article. Both are physicists. I also removed about 10 words, perhaps less, that were probably not accurate. Not all UFO groups or Ufologists are conspiracy theorists. Some could be but you can not state that all are. I will add more information later, stuff that I never had the opportunity to do so, but that will be in a couple days. [[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 08:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
===Inflammatory and bias?===
Below is what is written in the article:


:::Center for UFO Studies offers a peer reviewed (juried) journal referenced in the article.<blockquote> See '''The Journal of UFO Studies is the only refereed ::scientific journal dealing exclusively with the UFO phenomenon. A full table of contents is provided for both series(Click on a year to see the contents of that year's issue}  Link: [http://www.cufos.org/pubs3.html]</blockquote>
"Sightings increased greatly following the [[Second World War]]; mass hysteria began as many were conflated into claims of "flying saucers" or other "vehicles from outer space" that many people believed were directed by [[extraterrestrial intelligence]]s.  In 1947 the [[U.S. government]] began studying them, often in [[classified information|classified]] projects. There is, however, a distinct difference between unidentified aerial objects and these theoretical constructs.  All investigators and scientists readily concede that the explanation of some aerial sightings remains unidentified even after the most intense examination. Most dismiss the notion, however,  that there is any concrete evidence that Earth is being, or has been, visited by creatures from other worldsThe U.S. government is not known to have specific investigations underway, although there is a group for the study of '''unidentified aerospace..."


:::I have read the journal in the past but not recently. The articles were rather boring but very scientific. LOL!{{UnsignedShort|Mary Ash}}
I find the statement concerning mass hysteria biased or opinionated. I would like to see documentation i.e. scientifically based references showing there was mass hysteria.  


::::First, you have referred before to a [[CZ: User Guide]]. Note that link is in red. There is no such single document.
There are UFO flaps but not usually hysteria unless you consider the people who were frightened by the War of the Worlds broadcast by Orson Welles. That's another subject. I have not edited the above material but I would like to see it toned down, if possible.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 16:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


::::Second, scientific testing protocols are set out in peer-reviewed journals and subject to validation. Just as an example, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4098.txt is a testing protocol that I coauthored and was subject to independent validation. We have an Approved article on the strict process of [[randomized controlled trial]]s.   [[Rating raw intelligence]] also deals with a representative categorization system. 
:I agree with Mary here about the use of "mass hysteria" -- that was, as I recall from living through that era, a phrase that was actually used from time to time by UFO skeptics, BUT for us to use it here with no citations or references is not very professional. Today the phrase implies (almost) people running panicked through the streets, and this was certainly not the case. "Mass delusion" might be used instead, but even that implies that millions of people were being deluded. How many people, I wonder, '''actually''' reported "flying saucers"? I really doubt that it was more than somewhere in the thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Possible.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


::::Again, I remind you that CZ does not consider WP authoritative. As has been pointed out, WP doesn't consider WP authoritative.
::My recollection, which I'd have to check, is that term was used by contemporary reports. I too lived through some of the period, as a science mad kid a little younger than Hayford.  The "mass" aspect is similar to that with many phenomena -- after an initial report, there are a surge of well-intentioned but copycat sightings. What term would you prefer to "mass hysteria" for the rise in unconfirmed, or actively unexplained, reports?


::::In no way do I, or CZ, "have to accept MUFON is trying to appropriately investigate reported UFO cases."  This is another case where you tell CZ what it must do, such as accepting your work in progress flag, your reverts, and your deletes without explanation. First, by your use of "skeptic", there seems to be a distinction between "unidentified flying object" and "ufology". Second, my initial searches show that MUFON is essentially self-validating. I can't find their reports cited in general scientific journals, and the reports come across as anecdotal and not meeting minimum engineering standards of validation.
::For the record, I was, at the time, a badge-wearing member of Captain Midnight's Secret Squadron, eager to defend Earth. Where, oh where, is my decoder badge, which is worth real money today? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
===Anecdotal reports===
Mary, in completely unrelated articles--I'm especially thinking of neuroscience meeting popular culture that Gareth edited-- there is hesitation to put anecdotal, and even small scientific reports into main articles. From a personal standpoint, I get a bit frustrated that many veterinary medical studies are so small, but I try to make that clear in the article. When there's nothing else, people proceed with caution, and these often are well-reviewed articles.


::::Your link to the Journal of UFO Studies gives no information about the refereeing process, the independence, or quality of referees.
In like manner, therefore, I am a little concerned with anecdotal reports in the main article. Perhaps a catalog subpage might be more appropriate. This concern came to me when I read the JAL incident, and, in particular, the weather radar comment. Weather radar is of two types -- long-range and very-short -- but neither operate on wavelengths, or even wave form (e.g., Doppler vs. pulse) intended to track hard objects. Do we really want to get into arguing the specific incidents in the main article? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
::I disagree as there is precedence with the inclusion of Roswell incident, etc. The article I intended to write would have included a brief history of well documented historical cases including Roswell. The facts are what they are and they are documented through mainline sources including reports and news articles. Standard research fare.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 18:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Roswell is a far more well-known incident. I don't know how to respond to "the facts are what they are" when there is a clear technical problem in at least one report, mischaracterizing how radar actually works.
:::I am not aware of "precedent" allowing multiple specific cases. In articles such as [[recovered memory]] and [[Satanic ritual {abuse]], these went to annotated bibliography/external links. That's a precedent that existed before this article. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


::::" For along time doctors treated patients without changing bloodstained clothing or washing their hands. It was accepted protocol. Later it was discovered the doctors unknowingly spread germs to their patients caused by accepted protocol at the time." Umm...yes. [[Ignaz Semmelweis]], who died tragically in 1865. Anything more recent? Oh, I suppose we could go to Lister or Halsted.
:::: Mary, I had the same thoughts (independent of Howard). It may be useful and even interesting to collect an annotated list of claimed UFO sightings (with refernces to reports and references to potential explanations). But this belongs on a Catalogue subpage -- there are much too many to list them on the page. It would be boring and put too much weight on these claims. The main article should summarize, analyize and evaluate the phenomenon. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 18:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


::::Make up your mind if this article is about unidentified flying objects or a defense of ufology. It can't do both and meet [[CZ: Neutrality Policy]]. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::I think that there are only TWO items that should be mentioned directly in this article: Kenneth Arnold, which started the whole business, and Roswall. Roswall was, I believe, completely overlooked at the time, but has been built up into a famous incident. All the others should, as Peter says, either be put into separate articles, or, more usefully, perhaps, into a catalog. "Catalogs", in CZ usage, can be quite all-encompassing.  This article should NOT become a laundry list of "sightings"! If you disagree with that, Mary, just look at it from the other point of view: for *every* sighting that you list, it would be easy for Howard to write about *two* "sightings" that were then later explained as being Venus, airplanes, or whatever. I don't think you would want *that*, so I think you're gonna have to start a catalog somewhere.  Peter, I'm sure, or others, will help you with that. Here's an example of '''one''' catalog: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Tennis/Catalogs/World_No._1_male_players. I, and others, started it because Larry *insisted* on it.  Larry isn't EiC anymore, but his ideas about Catalogs live on, I suppose.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
{unindent}I disagree. ''You'' can use the briefs as feeders to more extensive pages. As the article started out to be a history of UFOs and the study thereof, including some well documented major cases is appropriate. Also, CZ is supposed to be all-encompassing and not US centric so including ONLY two US cases would seem rather provincial. I have submitted fact-based well investigated worldwide UFO reports. I plan to add both the Belgium UFO flap and the Iranian UFO Dogfight which was not written about earlier. I will add the briefs for later linking to more extensive articles.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:First, if you want more extensive pages, then by all means write them, and then briefly link them to this article. As far as what the article started out to be, unless it is a Signed Article, no one individual can make that claim.
:I'm sorry, but some of your fact-based cases to not seem solid to others. To take the JAL case,  that the pilot thought he tracked the objects on weather radar, if anything, suggests they were weather phenomena and not solid objects. More specifics would be needed on the radar. A long-range radar would be long-wavelength with poor resolution for aircraft-sized objects. Ultrashort-wavelengths are used for short-range detection of microbursts, wind shear and the like. There are X-band radars used for weather and for target tracking, but they have different waveforms, timing, and signal processing''.
:I certainly am challenged on things I write, but I try to respond with sourced support, not just a flat statement that things are well-investigated. Even then, I don't always get agreement. Mary, your best bet to gain consensus is not to keep enlarging this article, but to write smaller, linked subarticles that can be discussed individually.  When I write long articles because it's easier for a first draft, I still try to split subarticles. Now, if you did write about the JAL incident and cited radar, do you believe that an electronics engineer should not challenge the described radar behavior? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::Howard you misread the Japanese pilot report. The pilot reported seeing the UFO on radar and his observation was confirmed by FAA radar. The military radar did not as it seemed to be "clutter". See:


:::::I should add that as an Engineering Editor that contributed to the article, I could not nominate it for approval without the agreement of two other Editors. That doesn't preclude me from guiding, and even making rulings, within my expertise.
''Japan Airlines (JAL) pilot Kenji Terauchi reported seeing a UFO while flying from Iceland to Japan. The UFOs were reported during the Anchorage leg of the trip in November 1986. '''Terauchi reported seeing the UFOs on his weather radar''', and dimmed his cockpit lights to confirm the UFOs seen were not a reflection. Military radar did not confirm the UFOs as they were considered clutter while FAA radar did pick up one of the objects on its radar. FAA officials also said one of the objects stayed close to the cargo jet, even after the pilot took various maneuvers to elude the objects. Terauchi described seeing three objects that exhibited green, yellow or amber lights.''


:::::Milt Beychok is also an Engineering Editor, who has not made other than copy edits to the article. He has called for your being banned for repeatedly defying Editor rulings. I have not yet done that, but I am quite willing to say that some of the sources of information are self-validating at best, and you have repeatedly removed other, sourced contributions without discussion.  
I've researched and presented some of the best documented UFO reports available. I have also provided well-founded resources from the military, newspapers and respected UFO investigators. I've also tried to present both points of view, when available, so the reader can learn about UFO phenomena. That is what any good writer is expected to do.


:::::I am going to rule that the "Skeptics" section be removed until there is a clear definition of what the skeptics are supposed to be skeptical about. At the present time, I regard many of your statements in violation of [[CZ: Neutrality Policy]] in emphasizing UFOlogy organizations, which are not the subject of the article. I'm not even going to try to edit your WIP article with its dump of MUFON material, and do not recognize it as a legitimate part of mainspace. A protest has been placed about Dr. Innes' action as infringing on Editor responsibilites. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
As to the long article, I'd start editing out some of the chaff but I can not. I am not an editor, only an author, so for me to edit the article would not be acceptable to CZ.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 03:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:No, I did not misread the radar parts. You bolded '''Terauchi reported seeing the UFOs on his weather radar''', and that is the first thing I am challenging. Weather radar, certainly of 1986, is not designed to track solid objects -- it's designed to track air movement. Second, it would have to be researched, but not all FAA radar is true tracking radar. Current radar is primarily dependent on transponders, one of the reasons it couldn't precisely locate aircraft on 9/11.  Earlier radar may have used a "skin paint" mode with actual reflections, but that would be considerably more restricted than a military radar. In particular, the range gate would exclude things at significantly different speed than an airliner. FAA air traffic control radar has more, not less, clutter rejection than a military air surveillance radar. You seem to be accepting radar reports that support your position and deny ones that do not.
:You again misinterpret the role of a CZ Editor, which is completely different than a news editor. Any author should be able to restructure and write subarticles.
:There are also substantial questions about the Iranian dogfight incident. First, it wasn't a [[air combat maneuvering|dogfight]] at those ranges. If I assume it was an F-4E with an AN/APQ-120 radar, I'm not confident it would show tens of kilometers. Yes, the APQ-120 has a high-resolution mode, but that's for ground mapping.
:If you aren't reasonably well versed in radar, I suggest you may not be able to select accurate reports based on it.  If Terauchi's report is one of the best documented, the documentation is pretty poor. Do you read NTSB incident reports?  That's my standard of documentation for an aviation event. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 03:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Aviation officials, including pilots, would be considered sophisticated expert witnesses. As to the radar:  the objects were picked up and tracked for sometime. The event lasted about 1 hour and the larger UFO was described by the JAL pilot as two times bigger than an aircraft carrier. The Mohave News also reported that the FAA radar picked up mysterious object trailing the jet. Another source said otherwise. I went for the conservative approach. You can check the sources to see what was reported. My writing the article is based on what was reported to the FAA and journalists. My "job" is to collect the facts and present them. I do not need to be an expert on radar but I do need to be an expert on presenting the facts. I am an expert  based on my 10 years of journalism experience. During that time I was responsible for military affairs reporting so I am well versed in military weapons and aviation. I suspect you do not have experience as a military journalist...In the case of the Iranian UFO numerous aviation witnesses and an Air Force general all reported seeing UFOs. Some descriptions were different, based on location, but all military and aviation officials involved saw something. Again, based on their documented reports, including a declassified report from the US military, this is well documented case.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 05:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::::An expert witness testifies in a formal process, such as an NTSB or court hearing. In what formal hearing did these people testify?
::::A newspaper report of what a radar was said to do is not an acceptable source. ''Aviation Week'' might be, because it would give the technical details.
::::Mary, you have shown no particular evidence of being "well versed" in military weapons and aviation. You have never described any in technical terms. You haven't written anything about them. For example, what F-4 type was flown by the Iranians?  What radar did they have? Was it the AN/APQ-50? AN/APQ-72? AN/APQ-120? Assume the latter, the most advanced. What is the angular resolution of that radar, in a plausible operating mode, and why should an anecdotal report that it would give the size of the target be believed?  Was the radar CW-doppler or pulse-doppler?  C-, S-, or X-band (I include both ground and airborne radars.
::::It is true I do not have as <u>much</u> experience as a military journalist as...a military electronics engineer, but I do have military journalism experience--as an engineer who writes and doesn't have to rely on public affairs officers. Are you telling me a pure journalist knows more about electronics?    Alas, I only have about 40 years of working with military electronics and computing.  I don't have to have an official explain the differences between weather and air intercept radar. 
::::If it comes to technical journalism, however, I currently write on subjects including radar for ''Marine Electronics Journal'', the publication of the National Marine Electronics Association. In my marine electronics and computing business, I integrate such things as chartplotters with [[Automatic Radar Plotting Aid]]s, and do tradeoffs among radar navigation with [[Automatic Identification System]] and [[GPS]].  I've written more than a few related articles here, such as the top-level articles on [[C3I-ISR]], [[radar]], [[signals intelligence]],  [[electronic warfare]], [[electronic  intelligence]],  and, I suppose, more detailed articles on tens of radar systems.  
::::Unless the actual technical description of the radar, its track, etc., is available, I will rule, as an Engineering and Military Editor, that is simply not an acceptable source for a claim.  It is certainly preferred, at CZ, that an author be able to judge the plausibility of a report, not just cite it. Editors can check the validity of the reports.  That is quite different than military journalism for a general publication. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 07:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


::::::Protest acknowledged.  Meanwhile, until we have a resolution, anyone can continue working to improve this article while the powers that be resolve the editorial dilemma as well as determine the repercussion for my actions or lack of actions. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 03:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
== Material for subpages ==


:::::::Matt, please acknowledge whether you will abide by the ruling of Engineering Editors, perhaps not banning but certainly directives on content and style (e.g., rewriting citations, removing text without discussion). I hope "anyone can continue working" doesn't mean that you are telling Editors they have no special authority. Remember, I'm not the only Editor concerned with this. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 03:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
As its title indicates, the article is intended as a general article on the phenonemon "UFO", a summary covering all aspects of the topic.
It is, therefore, not the place for a collection of detailed reports, claimed incidents and suggested explications.
You are right, Mary, that this information has its place in CZ, but not in this top level article (and not in a page on UFO history, either).
The correct place is a Catalogue subpage, and separate articles on selected incidents.
(By the way, the same is true for the section on "Government investigation".)
--[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 13:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


(undent) Of course, Howard. All the same rules still apply. Please remain [[CZ:Professionalism|Professional]] and be civil, refrain from complaining about other users, and do not write anything inflammatory. Authors need to recognize the authority of editors and Editors gently-guide. Editors need to be familiar with [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Editor_Policy#Low-Level_Administrative_Management_of_Authors Low level Administration of Authors]. Especially the part about helping authors (which Milt certainly did). I assure you, had Milt asked me to block any author, I would (he knows I have before), but the the final determination is at the discretion of the constable. I need to be able to document why and as I consider extenuating circumstances, I can't execute that request in good conscience considering the behavior on this page. I assume Larry designed it that way for a very good reason. I suppose we'll soon find out. That is not saying that I won't do it under new or different circumstances as required by the rules. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 03:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
:Okay, I will back up Peter on this 100% -- I've already said the same thing in my comments above. Mary, you have now had three (THREE) members of the Editorial Council strongly suggest to you that while your efforts are appreciated, your approach here is wrong. You are adding too much detail to what should be an overall article. Do you recall the problems that arose with the [[Adolf Hitler]] article? The same thing is happening here. Right now the Hitler article was reverted by a Constable to its original version and the Editorial Council is in the Voting stage (at the moment Paused) about making a formal ruling that the article be reverted. This has been a terrible "time sink" and has caused a fair amount of acrimony. Speaking as the Secretary of the Council, I don't want to see this happen again -- but, if it keeps on like this, I fear that it may well end up that way. Please learn the CZ way -- you say over and over that you are here to write and that Editors are here to edit your writing. That is the NEWSPAPER way, but CZ is NOT a newspaper. We have explained to you many times how our processes work. So PLEASE take the advice of every one who has looked at this article recently and start a Catalog(ue) -- Peter will he happy to help you, I'm sure. If you don't, I can almost guarantee you that all of your recent additions are going to end up reverted. Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 15:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::I've presented briefs from several well documented UFO cases. Stuff I had planned to include in my original article until it was ripped from my hands by an over zealous editor. You can do what you want with this article, but in order to write a well rounded article you do need to include some of the history surrounding UFOs. Reading about the technical aspects is ho-hum and does little to tell the reader about what expert witnesses reported. Aviation experts provide expert testimony. You will notice that I did not include fly-by-night UFO reports. Each case has been thoroughly investigated and concerned military or aviation personnel. As such what I have included documents UFO reports in an interesting (aka reader friendly) way that might interest people in giving CZ a chance. I hate to write this but the current article lacked perspective and interest. The addition of historical reports added that. Of course I know nothing about writing even after getting a BA in English and having 10 years professional writing experience.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 16:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Actually, Mary, at least two other Editors ripped things  from the article, not your hands. They were doing their job, and they are the people who determine if information is plausible. An author alone, at CZ, does not unilaterally decide that the source is accurate, although the provenance and plausibility of the source can indeed be discussed, in specifics. How could they rip things from your hands if you don't own the article? Personally, I find reading about reports without technical detail to be boring and a waste of time, coming across at the level of cable news.
:::Weren't most of the UFOs flying by night, not day? :-) I rule that an "aviation expert" cannot be automatically assumed to be acting as an expert unless the statement is made in  a formal hearing, a responsible peer-reviewed journal, or other procedure where there can be reasonable challenges from other experts.  A general news article is not such a context, although an article in a professional-level industry publication, such as ''Aviation Week and Space Technology'', would be. Other news coverage will be considered on a case-by-case basis, when there is a verifiable online source. "Military reports" also must be sourced. While I have contributed text to this article, I am not ruling on anything I wrote.
:::This is not the place for yet another lecture about what CZ, in your opinion, should be. This is a place for discussing your article.
:::English degrees and general news experience may teach writing, but not technical analysis and objective analysis. Now, I first wrote for the ''Washington Post'' and ''Science News'' over 40 years ago, but I don't consider that a qualification for this article. I do consider a comparable time working with radar and other [[C3I-ISR]] systems to be far more qualifying. Consider this an Editor directive to move the reports to a Catalog subpage.  In any event, the determination of expertise at CZ, at present, is by the Editorial Personnel Administrators.  As you should be aware, refusal to follow Editor directions can result in Constabulary action. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
===Technical Expertise===
For ease of responding to Howard's calling into question technical expertise I have started a new section. I will have to do some checking but I do believe the Rendelsham case was investigated by MOD while the other sightings were investigated by US officials. The Belgian UFO flap was also investigated thoroughly by Belgian authorities and NATO became involved. If you doubt the veracity of military witnesses in general I'd suggest you listen to this video from a military man who witnessed an encounter that affected our missile silos. The report was given at a National Press Club conference in 2010:  http://www.ufodigest.com/video/ufo-national-press-club-conference-2010. Or for a full listing of NPC conferences you can visit You Tube:  http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=national+press+club+disclosure+project&aq=7. Or for more military testimony you can check out this link:  http://www.freedomofinfo.org/national_press.htm.


:In that case, I point to the first entry on the talk page, [[Talk:Unidentified flying object/Archive 1#Added metadata and some notes]], in which I offered gentle guidance. Indeed, I created articles, such as [[extraterrestrial intelligence]], to help contextualize. Later, I questioned MUFON sole sourcing for [[Talk:Unidentified flying object/Archive 1#Shapes]]; note that the peer-reviewed material that I added to the article, dealing with the perceptual psychology of shape recognition, was removed without initial discussion.
As to my credibility to write about military and aviation: There is a difference between writing about military aviation and weapons. In other words there are differences between boats and planes. I have paid professional experience writing about military craft and weapons. I've also personally interviewed military pilots. I've also been known to read Aviation Week and a few other aviation journals. While I may not be an engineer, I do have military writing experience that covered both aviation and weaponry. Based on my professional experience, and my ability to investigate, I am relying on the expertise of my sources:  expert witnesses such as aviation and military personnel. BTW also lacking in this article is famous people who have claimed to have witnessed UFOs. I guess that should be added too.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 17:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:Mary, I do not consider you credible about military aviation, avionics, and weapons unless you have written neutrall, technical articles about them at CZ or other verifiable expert-reviewed publications. I really don't want to get into a credentials war, but I do have paid professional experience written about these both for news media and professional organizations/think tanks. It wasn't just writing about what engineers said, but doing what military electronics and systems engineers do.
:In the Homeopathy article, testimonials by "famous people" were excluded as irrelevant, and they will be here. Yes, there are differences in boats and planes -- but not in weather versus target tracking radars, with some weather caveats about near-surface water absorption. You are unable, apparently, to address the specific questions raised about the descriptions of radar being implausible. If I am wrong, please do so.
:I am not going to continue arguing, but will call for Constabulary enforcement. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]]  
17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:::I forgot to add with the logic used for expertise I should have been a peace officer so I could write police stories, a funeral director in order to write obituaries; a government official to write about government; or an aviation expert to write about aircraft or a weapons something or other expert to write about weapons. Of course I was none of the above as it was not needed to be a writer about any of those topics. A writer is hired for their ability to research, investigate, use experts based on their veracity and write interesting articles that sell newspapers. I am an expert at that. Something CZ would be wise to take advantage of. Remember I did write articles that sold newspapers.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 17:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::::CZ would be wise to recognize, as it does, that its writers either are experts or take guidance -- preferably without making it an order.
::::Mary, you would be wise to recognize CZ is not a newspaper, does not want to be a newspaper, and will not especially value newspaper-only expertise outside the Journalism workgroup. You continue to make this argument, as well as CZ Editors should do what newspaper editors do.  Hayford explained this above. Newspaper writers do not, for example, thoroughly source their work if they cannot demonstrate expertise. Oh -- and you aren't the only one around here with paid professional writing experience. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(unindent)Howard you have never read any of my articles so you have to accept on faith that I spent hours investigating and researching topics to make sure they were as accurate as humanly possible. I am writing about the articles that I wrote that were not timely such as aviation or weapons topics (and I used some of the same online sources you have used at CZ) or governmental affairs. Believe me I have read volumes of peer reviewed articles from the EPA and the BLM. I've also researched many a military topic including network centric warfare and supporting the warfighter. Both terms I find to be buzz word bingo! As to timely articles, as you were a member of the journalistic profession, they were written as accurately as possible to meet deadlines. I lost a few chances to make the wire as I was waiting to confirm facts. Facts come first. And as a former member of the press, you also realize the importance of follow-up articles to clarify information. As to the UFO information I presented:  the information came from mainline reliable sources. I would have done the same as a reporter EXCEPT when I was a working reporter I was able to personally interview the appropriate officials involved. This included pilots, biologists, engineers and ANY subject matter expert. This opportunity is not presented at CZ as we are volunteers and therefore do not have access to subject matter experts. Instead, like you, I have to rely on online resources or make a trip to the library. And as always I do respect CZ editors but I do plan to continue to contribute well researched material even if it doesn't fit the accepted view of some participants. Professionally and respectuflly, [[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 20:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:Again, Mary, this is not a newspaper and we are not on deadlines.
:It does not given me confidence when you tell me network-centric warfare is buzz word bingo, yet there are articles here that analyze the evolution [[FBCB2]] from [[BFT]], the generations and capabilities of [[WIN-T]], and broader contexts such as [[swarming (military)]] and [[restructuring of the United States Army]]. 
:When you say "I do plan to continue to contribute well researched material even if it doesn't fit the accepted view of some participants", I suggest you take that up with the Constabulary, before they take action. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


:I explained that the initial author does not set the scope of the article, which was not accepted. "The article is about reported characteristics of what UFOs look like. "  Hayford and I tried to explain that CZ writing style was not what the new author believed, in [[Talk:Unidentified flying object/Archive 1#AI disagree: This is a straight up objective style or reporting]].  While Hayford is not an Editor, I fully support his guidance on style.
:: Mary, comparison with journalistic work for a newspaper does not help because writing for an encyclopedia has a different purpose and needs a different style. Moreover, (once more) there '''are no deadlines'''. and you may not rely on others to follow up.
:: But there is no need to be defensive, and you have no reason to be offended: Asking you to move material from the main page to a subpage can be compared to being asked (by your editor-in-chief in the newsroom) to move your article from the frontpage to a specialized page in the interior of the paper (because it is too detailed). --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


:With a later revert, the statement was made "Removed: To recognize a previously seen object, the visual system must overcome the variability in the object's appearance caused by factors such as illumination and pose. Developments in computer vision suggest that it may be possible to counter the in£uence of these factors, by learning to interpolate between stored views of the target object, taken under representative combinations of viewing conditions. Daily life situations, however, typically require categorization, rather than recognition, of objects. Due to the open-ended character of both natural and arti¢cial categories, categorization cannot rely on interpolation between stored examples. [6]
== Constable Comment ==


:"Unneeded as the NUFORC cites witness reports. Only the witness can evaluate what they saw and I am sure most can figure out the difference between a circle, triangle or light. Also, Davenport does weed out obvious hoaxes. "
Hello all.  It appears that we have a difference of opinion about the structure and content of this article as well as a question of expertise.  It is not up to me to determine the qualifications of authors or editors. I am currently bound by the workgroups linked in the metadata template.  So far those are Engineering, Psychology, and Sociology.  Howard is an editor in the Engineering workgroup.  I don't see any other editor working on this page, so, according to our current rules (which are the same old rules), Howard gets to be sole decision-maker about style and content under the watchful eye of the ME.  If any author were to have a problem with one or more of Howard's decisions, then they would need to consider bringing in another editor or appealing the editor decision to a higher level. The Ombudsman is designed to help with that process.


:Sorry, but I cannot accept blanket acceptance of NUFORC. You will note that I am adding material to the beginning of the article from the 1997 symposium on physical evidence -- which Vallee attended -- and will be adding material from intelligence disciplines. I'm afraid, that after examining NUFORC and other ufology group reports, they do not rise above the anecdotal level. From that symposium and other sources, I am giving reasonable criteria. This article is not about ufology and the ufology groups do not set the rules of evidence -- that is a ruling on which I will expand if necessary.  The statement "I am sure most can figure out the difference between a circle, triangle or light" is simply not accurate.
Concerning expertise, the EC would be the place to bring that issue.


[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 04:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile, Mary, you are required to follow each specific rule that Howard lays out with the specific announcement that it is his ruling. Failure to do so will result in limiting your access to this page or citizendium altogether.


::Are you going to discount police reports, science reports or any report because the witness can not identify a shape? Or two witnesses reported seeing something slightly different? The National UFO Reporting Center reports are accurate data as they reflect the amount and type of reports submitted to the center. It is the best resource for such things. The government no longer collects UFO data after Project Bluebook was closed. NUFORC is the best resource for collected UFO data. If you examine the reports, you will see that Davenport does note potential hoaxes. He also states on his web site that obvious hoaxes will be removed. See: [http://www.nuforc.org/webreports.html] Supplement the NUFORC data with yours but realize the NUFORC data is an excellent source, and probably one of the best sources, for privately collected UFO reports.
Thanks for your continued professional behavior.


::[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 04:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash
[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


:::Discount? For what purpose? What does the NUFORC data establish other than people saw things they can't explain, and for which there isn't enough data for scientific analysis? Look at the discussion of luminosity, with Vallee as a participant, on page 191 of the Physical Evidence report, and the issues of analysis of isotropic versus anisotropic light sources. That discussion is at what I would call a reasonable scientific level -- which all agreed proved nothing. Look at the desire for spectrometric data at Hessdalen. Mark Rodeghier of CUFOS participated.  
:Howard, I think you are supposed to rule in areas of ''your'' expertise.  I will enforce your decision on the radar sentence, but you'll need to be specific about what you think it should say and I will make sure it won't be removed. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 21:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::First, I note that I have asked Mary to move the anecdotal reports to a catalog page, as have Hayford and Peter.  Is this the sort of thing you want? Here are three.
::Aurora, Texas report
Aurora, Texas residents reported a UFO crash in 1897. The UFO reportedly crashed into a windmill located on Judge J.S. Proctor's farm. A fire ensued which was seen from three miles away. Residents found the pilot and buried him in a local cemetery. Through the years the headstone has disappeared and the reported UFO visitor lies in an unmarked grave. Some people believe the story is a hoax although some MUFON investigators believe there is validity to this report.
''I don't think this should be included at all witghout more data. The only sourcing is a Houstgon Chronicle report, with no definition of "some people:"  or why MUFON believes otherwise. We are not a newspaper where "allegedly" or "reportedly" allows us to use unconfirmed material.
::For the JAL report,
Japan Airlines (JAL) pilot Kenji Terauchi reported seeing a UFO while flying from Iceland to Japan. The UFOs were reported during the Anchorage leg of the trip in November 1986. <s>Terauchi reported seeing the UFOs on his weather radar, and dimmed his cockpit lights to confirm the UFOs seen were not a reflection. Military radar did not confirm the UFOs as they were considered clutter while FAA radar did pick up one of the objects on its radar. FAA officials also said one of the objects stayed close to the cargo jet, even after the pilot took various maneuvers to elude the objects.</s> ''There were conflicting reports that different radars did or did not sense an object consistent with the visual sighting; news reports alone do not give enough technical detail to evaluate''  Terauchi described seeing three objects that exhibited green, yellow or amber lights.
::: This really needs to identify the radar types to be given more credibility.
::Iranian report -- not a [[air combat maneuvering|dogfight]]; the range was too long.
During Septemember 17 and 18, 1976 two Iranian pilots and a general reported seeing a UFO flying near Mehrabad Airport. Several phone calls were received at the airport and air traffic supervisor Hussain Perouzi used binoculars to view a "'...It was rectangular in shape, probably seven to eight meters long and about two meters wide... it was probably cylindrical. The two ends were pulsating with a whitish blue color. Around the mid-section of the cylinder there was this small red light that kept going around in a circle...'"<ref name="urlTEHERAN DOGFIGHT">{{cite web
|url=http://www.nuforc.org/Teheran.html
|title=TEHERAN "DOGFIGHT"
|format=
|work=
|accessdate=2011-01-07
}}</ref>
Perouzi contacted General Nader Yousefi, of the Imperial Iranian Air Force Command about the UFO; and a single [[F-4 Phantom Im II]] jet was scrambled from the [[ Sharoki Air Force Base]]. Approximately one hour later the jet took off from the airfield. The pilot managed to fly within 46 kilometers of the UFO when his jet's avionics failed. The pilot turned his jet towards the airport when the jet's electronics returned to working order. During this time Yousefi witnessed the UFO and described it as a star larger than other stars located in the area. He described the UFO as twice as large as normal stars within the area.


:::What does a policeman seeing a light establish beyond that simple fact? That's a serious question. The most basic principle of photogrammetry is triangulation. You can't triangulate from a single point. If there are multiple witnesses, is there a plausible geometry that reconciles their observation? If there isn't, it isn't a multiple-source confirmation. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 05:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
''Twice as bright, although, as you'll see in the main article, it's very hard to compare luminosity. There's no real way people can compare sizes of point targets.''


:::::
A second jet was scrambled flown by Lieutenant Jafari. Jafari was able to see the UFO on his jet's radar.<s> Jafari said the radar return was similar to that one found for a Boeing 707.</s> <u>Jafari was unable to visually determine the UFO size due to its bright light.</u> He did describe the colors observed as blue, green, red, and orange that rapidly changed in color.
. I think not. Both types of evidence, what you found, and what I wrote would help flesh out the article and make it better. '''That is what collaborative editing is all about. Working together to make an article the best it can be. Also, it helps encourage authors as they feel like they contributed something to the common good.''' [[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 05:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash


::::::We don't share the same idea of collaborative editing, at least with respect to the idea of expert guidance. I simply don't see what the raw numbers of reports at the NUFORC add value to the question of UFOs -- not ufology, which isn't the subject of this article.  The article is about unidentified objects and how they can be identified. I'm sorry, but I'm describing basic engineering analysis of phenomena, and I'm not going to promote the inclusion of statistics of no obvious use.  Tell me why they are valuable to the subject of the article; as a newcomer, are you really sure you know what is valued in a CZ article or what sort of collaborative work is of use here? 
''Most F-4 radar would not give a reliable object size.  Specifics, please, if this claim is being made.  Note that there were widespread avionics failures, which don't give confidence in the radar.''


::::::One of the roles of an Editor is to stop what seem to be never-ending content arguments, of the sort that are frustrating at Wikipedia. Unless I see convincing reasons why these raw statistics are meaningful, I rule that they aren't germane to the article. I believe I have given you abundant examples of what is expected as meaningful analysis. If you don't know why photogrammetry is essential to validating observations, I can't help that.  [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 07:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
''I just don't understand the underscored section''


Hi, Mary and HowardMary, it appears that Howard has considered your input and has decided not to include it.  As an author, you have to accept his decision and move on from there. Meanwhile, there are avenues of appeal that you can attempt.  Our current dispute resolution process is demarcated [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Dispute_Resolution here]. Notice that it requires that you move on to something else while the decision process proceeds. So, here on this talk page, I'm enforcing the directive to move on to something else. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 11:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Jafari gave chase to the UFO and when south of capital city the UFO ejected an object that flew directly towards his F-4 jet. Jafari attempted to fire an [[AIM-9 Sidewinder]] air-to-air missile at the UFO but was unable to as his weapons control panel as well as his radio quit. Jafari placed his F-4 in a dive to prevent striking the second UFO. The second UFO returned to the main UFO and a third UFO was detached from the first UFO. The third UFO, or object, was seen flying to the ground. Yousefi observed these maneuvers from the ground. Another jet flying in the area did not see the UFOs but did report experiencing radio failure during this time.


:I'm certainly not going to do it myself, but I see absolutely no reason why there couldn't be separate articles on [[Ufology]] and on [[MUFON]] -- both of them unquestionably exist, one as a cultural phenomenon/interest group/area of study/area of interest that attracts many people around the world; the other as sort of think tank. Articles would have to be done in the usual CZ adherence-to-encyclopedic standards, not gee-whiz advocacy, but it would certainly be possible. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 15:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
''Without knowing the Sidewinder type, I can't guess if he was firing sensibly, but, guessing at the 1976 version, he would need to be within 6-8 miles and preferably closer. Earlier, it was well out of Sidewinder range.  It really would help to see a drawing of the engagement.''


::Have just checked and WP has an article on '''Ufology''' that begins: "Ufology (pronounced /juːˈfɒlədʒiː/) is a neologism that is coined to describe the collective efforts of those who study reports and associated evidence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). While ufology does not represent an academic field of research and is widely described as a pseudoscience, UFOs have been subject to various investigations over the years by governments, independent groups, and scientists." That seems like a reasonable enough start to me. There is also an article on '''MUFON''' that begins: "The Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) is an American non-profit organization that investigates cases of reported UFO sightings. It is one of the oldest and largest UFO-investigative organizations in the United States." Can't fault that one, either. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The next day a helicopter flew some of the Iranian pilots to the area where the third UFO was seen landing. The Iranian military officials did not see any evidence of a UFO landing in the area, but they did hear a "beeper" signal described as a homing signal. The signal was strongest near an occupied small house. Inhabitants of the small house said they heard a loud noise and saw bright lights the night before. The source of the signal was never discovered.<ref name="urlupload.wikimedia.org">{{cite web
|url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Tehran_ufo_1976_2.jpg
|title=upload.wikimedia.org
|format=
|work=
|accessdate=2011-01-07
}}</ref><ref name="urlTEHERAN DOGFIGHT">{{cite web
|url=http://www.nuforc.org/Teheran.html
|title=TEHERAN "DOGFIGHT"
|format=
|work=
|accessdate=2011-01-07
}}</ref>


:::Hayford, both suggestions make perfectly good sense. In this article, I have, indeed, included technical observations from people associated with ufology organizations. The politics and social dynamics of ufology is, however, too complex for an article that is talking about the definition and characterization of UFOs; the emphasis is more on methodology than raw statistics.  
''Do aliens use the same homing signals we use?  What was the frequency? 121.5 or 243.0 MHz? I'd be inclined to delete that without more specifics.''


:::CUFOS and MUFON, as well as others, could well have articles, and it would be appropriate to describe their databases there. Until, however, there is a way to correlate anecdotal reports with more scientific analysis, I just don't see how that adds to the article. Note that scientific and engineering information from people affiliated with CUFOS is in the 1997 symposium.
[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 22:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


:::That symposium is quite technical, but I think there's value in contrasting the directions in the MUFON investigator manual to bring a tape measure, versus the Norwegian Hessdelen Project that "involved three stations with observers and their cameras, some cameras fitted with gratings to obtain spectroscopic information. At the principal station, observers used the following equipment: cameras, some fitted with gratings; an infrared viewer; a spectrum analyzer; a seismograph; a magnetometer; radar equipment; a laser; and a Geiger counter." The MUFON manual isn't available online and the level of guidance it gives thus is something I can't evaluate. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
:Howard, I think you're asking Matt here to be the Editor-in-Chief and All Powerful Editor -- I don't think he's equipped to do this, he's just a poor, hard-working Constable. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 22:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


::::I agree entirely that *this* article shouldn't have more than mentions of them, along with other related mattersIt should be like an article about the [[Republican Party]] that briefly mentions right-wing think tanks and has mentions of, and links to, separate articles about the [[Hoover Institution]] and the [[Club for Growth]] or whatever they're called. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
::Thank you, HayfordReplace the offending text with the text that you have decided is proper and let me know if someone changes it. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)/Clark Kent


:::::Certainly, the anecdotal observer reports can be mentioned, but I think this is the place where the more technical reports need to go. While there may be few of this type, in my personal opinion, they deserve the most attention, such as "one case for which [military] radar records were released occurred on June 5, 1996 at about 2:30 p.m. Six employees, including radar operators, of the military ATC at Dubendorf, Switzerland observed from their building in Klothen a large silvery disk apparently at a distance of 1700 meters. It appeared to be rotating and wobbling at an altitude of 1300 to 2000 meters. There was a corresponding recording of a target by three radar devices." This, to me, is far more significant than hundreds of people reporting lights with no further detail. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
== An observation from another EC member ==


::::::I absolutely agreeRemember the Hudson Valley lights a number of years ago? Plus similar lights over Phoenix a few years ago? There was also a hoohah about enormously brilliant lights seen in the darkened ocean around New Zealand either by astronauts in orbit or high-flying airline pilots. Turned out to be some sort of night fishing by commercial fishermen used high-power beams for some reason or other. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me in reading this page that people are going out of their way to try to explain things to Mary professionally.  Mary, I am at a loss to understand why you are finding this offensiveI am entirely sympathetic with your view that articles need to be interesting and engaging, but they also need to be well-written in a CZ sense: that is, they need to be organised, accurate, encyclopaedic in our cluster format, and even scholarly when that is appropriate.  I do not see where this type of cross statement is helpful: "Of course I know nothing about writing even after getting a BA in English and having 10 years professional writing experience." No one has attacked you personally, indeed I would defend you from personal attack, as would many, even Howard, who disagrees with you here, has not attacked you personally. He has confronted you on what he sees as the issues, which is his right.  Just about everyone here has at least a BA, and most have at least 10 years professional and/or academic writing experience, so that sort of sarcastic argument avails you little.


== cellphone cameras ==
You also said: "Howard you have never read any of my articles so you have to accept on faith that I spent hours investigating and researching topics to make sure they were as accurate as humanly possible."  Well, no, that doesn't stand to reason.  Howard has never read any of my traditionally published articles to my knowledge, so he does not have to accept on faith anything about my ability or methods. He is within his rights to request a track record, demonstrated expertise or clarification of anything that isn't common knowledge or generally accepted in the field.  I don't find this offensive.


I had already begun to think about this myself, then a week or so ago I saw a column somewhere (NYT? Scientific American?) about the decline of photographed UFOs.  You'd think that with a billion or so people all over the world now equipped with digital cameras there would be *millions* of high-quality, irrefutable photographs of UFOs all over the placeInstead, what do we get?  Nothing.  If that Swiss incident happened today there would be thousands of photos taken by all the people in the neighborhood.  Except me, of course -- I still don't have one of the damn things.  And I doubt if Milt does, either.  So if we're ever sitting on his terrace in Newport Beach some afternoon sipping martinis and a UFO flies down to investigate us and hover for a while, we won't have any means of proving that we had visitors.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to discuss any of the things that are being said to you, I'm willing to take time out for that.  Not that I'm the Great CZ Guru, but if I can be helpful, I'll be glad to.


:Just remembered -- it was a brief semi-editorial in the NYT at the very bottom of the *real* editorials.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Finally, Hayford is quite right in pointing out that that we have just been through this sort of thing. The EC has been accused of 'micromanaging' issues; I'm not sure what else we can do other than get involved, considering CZ's limited resources. Our choice seems to be to either let talk pages run riot, or intervene, either as individuals or as a body. We are intelligent and thoughtful individuals, and are already well aware that this is not a productive use of our time, and that intervening in individual articles should be an extremely infrequent occurrence.


::If you can find it, you might want to add it to the cultural effects section.
What on earth are we going to have to do to make people behave sensibly and reasonably?  Shut down any controversial issue and insist that people can only write on core subjects pending a reorganisation and concrete guidelines?  Only allow people to write on their subjects of bona fide expertise pending said reorganisation?  Such draconian measures are so anti-wiki as to be absurd.


::Evidentiary photography isn't only a matter of equipment availability. For example, there's a natural tendency to center the most interesting part of the subject. If I saw a UFO, I hope I would remember training and make very sure that while I should get a centered view, I should do everything I could to get some known object into the frame. Having a ground reference offers enormous benefits for scaling, positioning, and other photogrammetric analysis.
Citizens really need to help us out, here, by being cooperative, open to suggestion, and amenable, not make our lives more difficult.


::That cellphone cameras can capture motion may have great potential for understanding flight paths. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 00:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


:::It ought to be easy to find, it was only about 10 days ago. I remember reading that a lot of the exposures of hoaxes involving flying pie plates etc taken in the backyard depended on background analysis and references. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
:I think this comment goes beyond the scope of this article, so I [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,3751.msg39016.html#msg39016 replied on the forums]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 00:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


::::When you mention analysis, you are, I suspect, alluding to such things as photogrammetry. When I brought that up, there is a response, on this talk page, "What does that have to do with the amount and type of UFO reports filed at the National UFO Reporting Center? The statistics were to show the amount of UFOs reported and the top shapes reported. Do the things you mention show how many reports are filed with the National UFO Reporting Center. Or the shapes reported."
::Thanks, Daniel, I've responded there as well. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 01:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


::::How can I get across that a list of reported shapes is not anything that can be subjected to detailed analyses? Simple counts barely qualify as statistics, if one thinks of statistics as a discipline. Another response was "If you like, you can email or call them to confirm what I wrote since you are so eager to establish facts." Is there something wrong with establishing facts -- and I disagree with the statement "facts are facts."
===Catalog page created===
I created a catalog page and put two of the sighting reports in it, editing them so they spoke of what reasonably can be inferred from the information given. In no way am I saying that nothing was seen, but I did not include things that are implausible, based on the available references, about visual, radar or radio detection. With more information, these elided sections might become more plauusible.


::::Some hoaxes became obvious with simple magnification. Others, especially the more sophisticated image manipulation possible today, may take very detailed analysis of such things as the rate of contrast transitions at sharp edges, or the behavior of shadows.
With these as a guide, Mary should be able to move other articles. We can certainly discuss why I find certain things implausible from an engineering standpoint, but these have to be substantive, not saying the sources cannot be challenged. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


::::I am not remotely suggesting there are Things We Do Not Understand, but perhaps I have a blind spot -- I don't know what is significant about large numbers of anecdotal reports. I find reports of bright lights on July 4 especially needing scrutiny, not a special announcement. Occam's Bright Light Razor and all that. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
: I suggest to arrange incidents in chronological order, and to use three subsections: <br> Incident as reported / Investigations performed and their result / Explanations (verified or probable or suggested) <br> Of course, often not all this information will be available. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 02:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::Excellent suggestion, Peter. I didn't expect to do the entire catalog myself, but to give Mary an example. I completely endorse your suggestion. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::The historical events I added were presented in chronological order. I can not speak for others.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 03:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


== Where to? ==
===Removed the history sections I added===
Removed the history sections I added as the facts presented seemed to offend. My intent was to make the article a bit more human, and to attract to the reading audience. Since the facts are in dispute, and the requests were made to move the history, I have done so. I will move the historical section I wrote to my user page sandbox for further work. It is a very sad day when my expertise is called into question as both a journalist and for someone who has professional writing experience in the military affairs field. Also, I have spent over 20 years studying this phenomena and that does make me an expert even if Citizendium refuses to acknowledge my experience. I am not sure how the engineering workgroup is involved as there is no evidence that UFOs are mechanical or otherwise. The workgroup best able to study and review this subject would be the paranormal workgroup (is there one here?), societal or pyschology groups. Until there is clear scientific evidence to prove ALL UFOs are mechanical the paranormal realm is the best fit for this subject. Finally, could some one please archive this page. It is too long. Thanks[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 03:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


There's a pretty decent framework here, with logical places to have related articles on [[ufology]] and organizations. Mary has much earlier history on her page, but I'm not sure how best to use something about a medieval report of an anchor thrown from a sky ship other than as an example of social effects.
: I have copied the entire (partially deleted) history section to the Catalogue subpage for further editing. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


As I've mentioned, I don't have any sense of the utility of the anecdotal reports, at least on an engineering level.
::Thank you, Peter. That, to me, is in the CZ spirit, as opposed to Mary apparently acting from a position of ownership when she removed them. Personally, when I have had material challenged, I don't think I've ever deleted it completely, but moved it to a user page, or, as in the case of the challenged Hitler article, broken it into subarticles that can be worked with on a less massive way. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 23:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


The 1997 symposium has a lot of good material on investigation, but this is not a topic that interests me so much that I want to spend a lot more time unless others are interested in solid, engineering-based collaboration. Are others interested?
===Corrected definition===
The correct definition for a UFO is any flying object that can not be identified. It has nothing to do with engineering as stated although it be could considered paranormal as it is not NORMAL to see a UFO. Or as Merriam Webster says:  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ufo. [[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 03:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::I removed less than 20 words which I think is permissible. I did not contact the author based on this fact.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 03:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Let me be sure I understand this. You decided not to move them to a catalog page as requested, but to remove them completely. That's certainly marginal response to rulings.
:::I'll be blunt here. The very fact that you don't understand why Engineering is involved is reason to doubt your expertise, because radar, aviation safety, etc., are all part of Engineering.  Your expertise as a journalist is not being questioned; it's more that it's considered irrelevant. Your expertise, however, about identifying objects is definitely in question.  If you never mentioned radar and other "mechanical" sensors, then I suppose engineering might be irrelevant. If you never mentioned the variability of visual sightings, perceptual psychology might not be relevant.
:::You are free to archive the page, without deleting active discussions.
:::CZ has no paranormal workgroup, and, frankly, there's never been any other interest in having one. I suspect there would be strong antipathy to having one, for the same reason that Healing Arts was closed: it creates a situation where when other workgroups, more scientifically based, reject an idea, the Healing Arts or Paranormal group could say "well, we believe in it so it stays."
:::[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 05:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
== May I ask why the Roswell and Arnold sightings were not cataloged like the others ==


Actually, this is the start of a decent article on a controversial subject. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
May I ask why the Roswell and Arnold sightings were not cataloged like the others. If we are going to have a separate catalog page for UFO reports then those should be put there too. This would also help shorten the article making it for all readers to read the article in question. As of now I get a warning whenever I open up the article to edit it. [[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
:Because as I said somewhere above, about a million words ago, THESE ARE THE TWO MOST FAMOUS UFO incidents!  Arnold was essentially the first, and Roswell is now the most famous, although after the fact.  They HAVE to be in the article. It would be like writing an overall article about [[Baseball]] and not mentioning [[Babe Ruth]] and, oh, [[Ty Cobb]]. Or about [[Tennis]] and not mentioning [[Bill Tilden]] or [[Pancho Gonzales]].  But thousands of other people would go into catalogs. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 00:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
:: I copied the entire History section (including Roswell and Arnold). I did not edit the Catalog (two items appear twice) and I did not edit the main page. Roswell and Arnold belong into the Catalog. Some example(s) (certainly Roswell) belong on the main page, but not in the same way. The Catalog, of course, needs editing. And the main page also needs editing. For instance, as I have already mentioned, the section on government investigation lists too much details. I think it should be a summary while details belong elsewhere. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Both the JAL and the Chicago O'Hare reports were recent and famous. So was the Belgian UFO flap which was investigated by both US, Belgian and NATO authorities. I have not included the Belgian report as I haven't gotten there. While Roswell is important, it is not recent nor all that famous; the famous recent report was the Chicago O'Hare report. Witnessed approximately four years ago by many. [[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
{unindent)For the record the references did not transfer. I will see if I can fix as I was called on the carpet for the information presented.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
:Hayford's point about mentioning Roswell and Arnold in the main article is valid, although I'd personally put them in both places, with the intention off expanding on the catalog page.  Peter is right that different levels of detail are appropriate.
:The reason I did not move more than two is that I was attempting to guide and give an example both of how to move to a catalog page, and, in the particular two I selected, there were significant issues regarding electronics and weapons system characteristics.  In other words, I was not acting as a copy or news editor, trying to do the entire catalog, but to act as a CZ editor, giving enough example to see what was meant.
:The references seem to be working now, and I note that two are from Wikipedia, which we do not use as a reference source. It's unclear if one is meant to be a graphic, and perhaps needs to be uploaded rather than linked. I also note that I don't see any official reports, but news or UFO site material alone. While I can't speak for all the incidents, there certainly are detailed official reports for Roswell. I personally find it unlikely that if the [[Federal Aviation Administration]] (FAA) made a comment on what their radar saw, there wouldn't be an FAA technical report  -- FAA is regulatory and operational, but also does laboratory research and publishing. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
==Requesting Editorial Council intervention==
I am requesting Editorial Council intervention to disallow Howard from making any rulings concerning any technical matters in this article. Howard has established himself in the editorial role and allowing him to make technical rulings (or any other article rulings) would be a conflict of interest. I have also sent this request to the Chief Constable for review as I am not sure of the exact procedure concerning this request. The Chief Constable can refer this request to the appropriate channels. Thanks!  [[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 05:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


== An article apparently concerning "vehicles that might be directed by extraterrestrial intelligences" ==
{{nocomplaints}}


I would like to change this sentence. As it is now, it implies that there are reasonably strong indications that this is the case. To me, this is no different from saying "thunder is a phenomenon that might be caused by the god Thor using his hammer" (exaggeration). Also, it bothers me that the introductory paragraph discusses the possible locations of such intelligences. Literally, of course, the union of "this solar system" and "other stars"  is equivalent to "all stars", a sweeping statement.
:::If you want to appeal to the EC, there is a procedure, which requires you to submit a motion to Hayford.
:::"Editor role" but not allowed to make technical rulings?  What else do Editors do? I would like, Mary, for you to explain where my knowledge of radar is inadequate, or yours is superior. You are defying formal Editor rulings, and I ask the Constabulary to take action. You continue to argue, on the talk page and the Forum, that your news reports are unchallengeable.
:::I am not speaking here just as a random Engineering or Military Editor, but as an expert in [[radar]], [[Air Traffic Control]], and [[integrated air defense system]]s. My knowledge should be reasonably apparent from these, and many other specific radar articles. I also point to [[electronic warfare]].  
:::Matt, how can I better deal with something where it is my own "little piece of the world" in which I am expert? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 05:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
::For reference, I believe both ''[[CZ:Moderator Group Blocking Procedures#offenses that will result in a warning first, then a ban|offenses that will result in a warning first, then a ban]]'' and ''[[CZ:Moderator Group Blocking Procedures#Offenses that will result in a warning first, then a ban|offenses that will result in an immediate ban]]'' are worth being aware of here, particularly the fourth point of the former and the second point of the latter. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 05:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


If I have your support in this, I will perform the edit.
: This is a content dispute that needs to be referred through the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Dispute_Resolution#What_to_do_if_you_have_a_disagreement dispute resolution process].  At this point, the decision of the editor on this page (Howard) shall remain in the article.  It is my interpretation according to the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Dispute_Resolution#What_to_do_if_you_have_a_disagreement section on what to do if you have a disagreement], Mary should contact the Ombudsman through his email. 
{{unsigned|Johan_A._F%C3%B6rberg}}
 
:Meanwhile, there is no reason that other areas of the article cannot continue, but the discussion and edits concerning radar should cease on this article and its talk page. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 13:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 
==Chainsaw==
I'm afraid I've been taking a machete to this article. It seemed to me to be repetitive, disorganised, packed with irrelevent detail in some places and lacking any references or relevant detail in others, littered with meandering speculation, and over-weighted anecdote. (Apart from that, it's fine). I haven't finished the clean up by any means. If anyone objects, revert anything at will.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 14:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:26, 9 May 2024

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Catalogs [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition (UFO) Any airborne object or phenomenon of unknown origin or nature, observed visually or by instruments; often linked with alleged but unproven claims of extra-terrestial origin. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category No categories listed [Editors asked to check categories]
 Subgroup category:  Pseudoscience
 Talk Archive 1  English language variant American English
  • At least one workgroup needs to be assigned.
Metadata here


Editor rulings requested by Constabulary

  1. Anecdotal reports will move to a Catalog page.
  2. If radar or other technical sensors are mentioned in the context of a UFO report, they shall either cite a source that gives technical characteristics that can be evaluated by a radar engineering, or a formal proceeding (e.g., NTSB hearing) at which there was an opportunity for expert discussion.
  3. Editor rulings that radar descriptions are implausible shall be removed unless answered with technical detail. Weather radar is not optimized for tracking solid targets, any more than air intercept radar is not optimized for tracking air masses. Long-range air intercept radar does not reliably give the size of targets.
  4. An "aviation expert" cannot be automatically assumed to be acting as an expert unless the statement is made in a formal hearing, a responsible peer-reviewed journal, or other procedure where there can be reasonable challenges from other experts. A general news article is not such a context, although an article in a professional-level industry publication, such as Aviation Week and Space Technology, would be. Other news coverage will be considered on a case-by-case basis, when there is a verifiable online source.
  5. Simply citing a "military witness" is inadequate unless a formal investigative report is given.
  6. Sightings by "famous people" have no place in the article unless the famous person is an expert witness.
  7. Newspaper experience does not qualify one as a technical expert and continued arguments that it does are not desired. Further, CZ Editors do not edit in the manner of a newspaper Editor. If an Editor directs that text move to a subpage, that is the Author's responsibility.

Howard C. Berkowitz 19:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


I am unclear as to what Editor rulings that radar descriptions are implausible shall be removed unless answered with technical detail. in ruling 3 is supposed to mean, and I think that general statements like the ones in #7 are not within the scope of an Editor. --Daniel Mietchen 23:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Ruling 3 means that you can't just say weather radar does something not usually associated with weather radar, and you can't draw comparisons between military and air traffic control radars unless they are described with sufficient detail for a radar expert to understand the capabilities being compared. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Added metadata and some notes

This is a reasonable start for a collaborative project, and, blessedly, does not read like a conspiracy theory. It may need to be contextualized with articles on extraterrestrial intelligence and, indeed, expansions on radar, technical and imagery intelligence/photogrammetry, and phenomena of witnessed observation.

As the text began, there seemed a strong implication that UFO necessarily equated to alien. I'm certainly not dismissing the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), but I think that a fair article also has to comment on the possibility of incorrect reports. The more dramatic the claim, the better the evidence need be.

The article may need to address the possibility that some sightings were highly classified experiments, and certainly other phenomena with an obscure but natural origin. I did provide some CIA references that indicate that at least some observations suggest something was present and could not be explained with the knowledge of the time. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Name of the article

As you can see, I've Moved it, and created a bunch of Redirects. Hayford Peirce 16:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Workgroups

I didn't have a clue as to what I should do there! Hayford Peirce 16:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My thinking is that aviation and flight is generally engineering (and sensors), biology deals with the nonhuman aspect, and sociology with the issue of mass belief systems. Certainly, other workgroups could be involved, such as military from the specific investigations, psychology especially from the perspectives of cognition and sensory capabilities, etc.
While I'm not sure how much time I'll spend on it, I hope this can be an example of a controversial, borderline-fringe issue that can be objective from the start. It's not an issue on which I have strong personal opinions. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. Fortunately, I don't think we have any UFO nuts in our Citizenry at the moment. Hayford Peirce 17:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you not have a section or category for paranormal subjects? I'm sure someone has written about ghosts. Or you could take a look categorizing under philosophy and religion. Finally, the term UFO Nuts may be showing some bias and could be considered derogatory. What do you think? The appropriate term would be Ufologist I think.Mary Ash 02:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (UTC)Mary Ash Putting in ~~~~ signs your name; you're getting it twice
Do you not have a section or category for paranormal subjects? I'm sure someone has written about ghosts. Or you could take a look categorizing under philosophy and religion. Finally, the term UFO Nuts may be showing some bias and could be considered derogatory. What do you think? The appropriate term would be Ufologist I think.
There is a brief article on ghosts that certainly could be expanded. In general, though, there's nothing on the paranormal or paranormal intelligence. I'd personally welcome an objective article that establishes some concepts. CZ: Anthropology Workgroup might be a good choice.
I would agree that "ufology" is an acceptable term for someone that specializes in interpreting UFO reports. Any group, of course, can have nuts among it; the Politics Workgroup is aware of many. :-(
To get the best collaborative work on controversial topics, avoid sensationalism and things that come across as conspiracy. When dealing in political and security subjects, for example, it's often wise to present text from documents, perhaps side-by-side with laws or treaties. Putting in ~~~~ signs your name ...said Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:59, July 25, 2010

(unindent) I just changed the second workgroup from Biology to Psychology, since most of the biological aspects of the matter have to do with perception. However, most of the cases for which reliable explanations exist, they are based on physical, chemical or classified military knowledge, so these workgroups might have to be considered as well. --Daniel Mietchen 21:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a three-workgroup-only subject. I was thinking of biology in the astrobiological sense, but perceptual psychology certainly is an issue. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Citizendium

Mary, please note that I reformatted some of your notes more correctly. If you will study the edit page, you will see how my edits were done. When using an online source for a note, rather than simply enclosing the URL in brackets, thus [url], it is much better to include a title of some sort within the brackets, thus [url Title] with one space between the end of the url and title. In that way, the note simply displays the title as a link. That avoids the actual url being displayed as a link because urls are often very long and do not make the actual title of the online source clearly visible.

Also, Citizendium uses subpages:

  • Related Articles: This where we place links to related articles within Citizendium. In other words. the relate Articles subpage replaces Wikipedia's "See also" section.
  • Bibliography: This where we place links to books and journal articles that provide information related to the main article.
  • External links: This where we place hyperlinks to online website sources of related information.

With that in mind, what you denoted as "Notes" all pointed to a specific line or paragraph in the main article text, just as they should. However, what you denoted as "References" do not point to any specific line or paragraph in the main article and therefore would be much better placed in either the "Bibliography" or the "External Links" subpages. Since they are all hyperlinks to online website sources, I plan to move them to the "External Links" subpage. Milton Beychok 17:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I Free to Do Some Minor Edits or Will I Be Banned?

Am I free to make some minor edits to this article or will I be banned. The description of Ufology needs some tweaking. I would like to rewrite this Wikipedia definition which is far less negative and lacks potential bias.

Ufology (pronounced /juːˈfɒlədʒiː/) is a neologism coined to describe the collective efforts of those who study reports and associated evidence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). While ufology does not represent an academic field of research and is widely described as a pseudoscience, UFOs have been subject to various investigations over the years by governments, independent groups, and scientists. The term derives from UFO, which is pronounced as an acronym, and the suffix -logy, which comes from the Ancient Greek λογία (logiā).

Please advise.

Mary Ash 02:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you won't be banned. I'd appreciate, though, some discussion, so I can understand your concerns. In the above definition, I would avoid the words "and associated evidence". Evidence has a legal meaning; "data" would not. I tried to be neutral in the current definition, and, as I remember, paraphrased some mission statements from ufology groups.
From my perspective, it's a legitimate area of observation. Where it gets to be problematic is where there are unsubstantiated claims of coverups, or there are also unsupported allegations of alien (i.e., paranormal or extraterrestrial) intelligence.
There is evidence that the U.S. government tried to avoid public hysteria. Arguably, the Air Force stopped active study before the CIA did because the Air Force's responsibilities are more for current operations -- they didn't see any immediate threat and didn't want to expend funds. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Added info about UFO databases maintained by MUFON and NUFORC

Added information about the databases maintained by both organizations. MUFON offers a live UFO "Weather Map" tracking UFO reports and a searchable data base. NUFORC offers a database that goes back at least 20 years and includes location, time and type of object seen. Mary Ash 02:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Made some changes to the first paragraph

Mostly to clean-up superfluous language and combine repeating sentences. Feel free to revert if I messed something up. D. Matt Innis 19:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a mainstream view: if there is extraterrestrial intelligence, radio is the most likely initial form, as being actively investigated by the SETI Project. Also, I put transpersonal psychology into Related Articles but it belongs somewhere -- Mack very much considers this relevant to visitations and abductions. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure that is has much to do with unidentified flying objects, but it is good information. Maybe we can develop that idea further down in the article if it isn't already (I haven't gotten far). D. Matt Innis 20:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The relevance is that a number of scientists are not prone to accept the physical visitations, as they believe radio is a better Occam's Razor explanation (Occam's electric razor?). Howard C. Berkowitz 21:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

lede rewrite

that's perfect, howard! I had those words on the tip of my tongue but couldn't spring them loose.... Hayford Peirce 02:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Added a couple respected researchers

I added a couple science based UFO researchers to the article. Both are physicists. I also removed about 10 words, perhaps less, that were probably not accurate. Not all UFO groups or Ufologists are conspiracy theorists. Some could be but you can not state that all are. I will add more information later, stuff that I never had the opportunity to do so, but that will be in a couple days. Mary Ash 08:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Inflammatory and bias?

Below is what is written in the article:

"Sightings increased greatly following the Second World War; mass hysteria began as many were conflated into claims of "flying saucers" or other "vehicles from outer space" that many people believed were directed by extraterrestrial intelligences. In 1947 the U.S. government began studying them, often in classified projects. There is, however, a distinct difference between unidentified aerial objects and these theoretical constructs. All investigators and scientists readily concede that the explanation of some aerial sightings remains unidentified even after the most intense examination. Most dismiss the notion, however, that there is any concrete evidence that Earth is being, or has been, visited by creatures from other worlds. The U.S. government is not known to have specific investigations underway, although there is a group for the study of unidentified aerospace..."

I find the statement concerning mass hysteria biased or opinionated. I would like to see documentation i.e. scientifically based references showing there was mass hysteria.

There are UFO flaps but not usually hysteria unless you consider the people who were frightened by the War of the Worlds broadcast by Orson Welles. That's another subject. I have not edited the above material but I would like to see it toned down, if possible.Mary Ash 16:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mary here about the use of "mass hysteria" -- that was, as I recall from living through that era, a phrase that was actually used from time to time by UFO skeptics, BUT for us to use it here with no citations or references is not very professional. Today the phrase implies (almost) people running panicked through the streets, and this was certainly not the case. "Mass delusion" might be used instead, but even that implies that millions of people were being deluded. How many people, I wonder, actually reported "flying saucers"? I really doubt that it was more than somewhere in the thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Possible.... Hayford Peirce 16:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
My recollection, which I'd have to check, is that term was used by contemporary reports. I too lived through some of the period, as a science mad kid a little younger than Hayford. The "mass" aspect is similar to that with many phenomena -- after an initial report, there are a surge of well-intentioned but copycat sightings. What term would you prefer to "mass hysteria" for the rise in unconfirmed, or actively unexplained, reports?
For the record, I was, at the time, a badge-wearing member of Captain Midnight's Secret Squadron, eager to defend Earth. Where, oh where, is my decoder badge, which is worth real money today? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotal reports

Mary, in completely unrelated articles--I'm especially thinking of neuroscience meeting popular culture that Gareth edited-- there is hesitation to put anecdotal, and even small scientific reports into main articles. From a personal standpoint, I get a bit frustrated that many veterinary medical studies are so small, but I try to make that clear in the article. When there's nothing else, people proceed with caution, and these often are well-reviewed articles.

In like manner, therefore, I am a little concerned with anecdotal reports in the main article. Perhaps a catalog subpage might be more appropriate. This concern came to me when I read the JAL incident, and, in particular, the weather radar comment. Weather radar is of two types -- long-range and very-short -- but neither operate on wavelengths, or even wave form (e.g., Doppler vs. pulse) intended to track hard objects. Do we really want to get into arguing the specific incidents in the main article? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree as there is precedence with the inclusion of Roswell incident, etc. The article I intended to write would have included a brief history of well documented historical cases including Roswell. The facts are what they are and they are documented through mainline sources including reports and news articles. Standard research fare.Mary Ash 18:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Roswell is a far more well-known incident. I don't know how to respond to "the facts are what they are" when there is a clear technical problem in at least one report, mischaracterizing how radar actually works.
I am not aware of "precedent" allowing multiple specific cases. In articles such as recovered memory and [[Satanic ritual {abuse]], these went to annotated bibliography/external links. That's a precedent that existed before this article. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Mary, I had the same thoughts (independent of Howard). It may be useful and even interesting to collect an annotated list of claimed UFO sightings (with refernces to reports and references to potential explanations). But this belongs on a Catalogue subpage -- there are much too many to list them on the page. It would be boring and put too much weight on these claims. The main article should summarize, analyize and evaluate the phenomenon. --Peter Schmitt 18:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that there are only TWO items that should be mentioned directly in this article: Kenneth Arnold, which started the whole business, and Roswall. Roswall was, I believe, completely overlooked at the time, but has been built up into a famous incident. All the others should, as Peter says, either be put into separate articles, or, more usefully, perhaps, into a catalog. "Catalogs", in CZ usage, can be quite all-encompassing. This article should NOT become a laundry list of "sightings"! If you disagree with that, Mary, just look at it from the other point of view: for *every* sighting that you list, it would be easy for Howard to write about *two* "sightings" that were then later explained as being Venus, airplanes, or whatever. I don't think you would want *that*, so I think you're gonna have to start a catalog somewhere. Peter, I'm sure, or others, will help you with that. Here's an example of one catalog: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Tennis/Catalogs/World_No._1_male_players. I, and others, started it because Larry *insisted* on it. Larry isn't EiC anymore, but his ideas about Catalogs live on, I suppose.... Hayford Peirce 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

{unindent}I disagree. You can use the briefs as feeders to more extensive pages. As the article started out to be a history of UFOs and the study thereof, including some well documented major cases is appropriate. Also, CZ is supposed to be all-encompassing and not US centric so including ONLY two US cases would seem rather provincial. I have submitted fact-based well investigated worldwide UFO reports. I plan to add both the Belgium UFO flap and the Iranian UFO Dogfight which was not written about earlier. I will add the briefs for later linking to more extensive articles.Mary Ash 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

First, if you want more extensive pages, then by all means write them, and then briefly link them to this article. As far as what the article started out to be, unless it is a Signed Article, no one individual can make that claim.
I'm sorry, but some of your fact-based cases to not seem solid to others. To take the JAL case, that the pilot thought he tracked the objects on weather radar, if anything, suggests they were weather phenomena and not solid objects. More specifics would be needed on the radar. A long-range radar would be long-wavelength with poor resolution for aircraft-sized objects. Ultrashort-wavelengths are used for short-range detection of microbursts, wind shear and the like. There are X-band radars used for weather and for target tracking, but they have different waveforms, timing, and signal processing.
I certainly am challenged on things I write, but I try to respond with sourced support, not just a flat statement that things are well-investigated. Even then, I don't always get agreement. Mary, your best bet to gain consensus is not to keep enlarging this article, but to write smaller, linked subarticles that can be discussed individually. When I write long articles because it's easier for a first draft, I still try to split subarticles. Now, if you did write about the JAL incident and cited radar, do you believe that an electronics engineer should not challenge the described radar behavior? Howard C. Berkowitz 02:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Howard you misread the Japanese pilot report. The pilot reported seeing the UFO on radar and his observation was confirmed by FAA radar. The military radar did not as it seemed to be "clutter". See:

Japan Airlines (JAL) pilot Kenji Terauchi reported seeing a UFO while flying from Iceland to Japan. The UFOs were reported during the Anchorage leg of the trip in November 1986. Terauchi reported seeing the UFOs on his weather radar, and dimmed his cockpit lights to confirm the UFOs seen were not a reflection. Military radar did not confirm the UFOs as they were considered clutter while FAA radar did pick up one of the objects on its radar. FAA officials also said one of the objects stayed close to the cargo jet, even after the pilot took various maneuvers to elude the objects. Terauchi described seeing three objects that exhibited green, yellow or amber lights.

I've researched and presented some of the best documented UFO reports available. I have also provided well-founded resources from the military, newspapers and respected UFO investigators. I've also tried to present both points of view, when available, so the reader can learn about UFO phenomena. That is what any good writer is expected to do.

As to the long article, I'd start editing out some of the chaff but I can not. I am not an editor, only an author, so for me to edit the article would not be acceptable to CZ.Mary Ash 03:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not misread the radar parts. You bolded Terauchi reported seeing the UFOs on his weather radar, and that is the first thing I am challenging. Weather radar, certainly of 1986, is not designed to track solid objects -- it's designed to track air movement. Second, it would have to be researched, but not all FAA radar is true tracking radar. Current radar is primarily dependent on transponders, one of the reasons it couldn't precisely locate aircraft on 9/11. Earlier radar may have used a "skin paint" mode with actual reflections, but that would be considerably more restricted than a military radar. In particular, the range gate would exclude things at significantly different speed than an airliner. FAA air traffic control radar has more, not less, clutter rejection than a military air surveillance radar. You seem to be accepting radar reports that support your position and deny ones that do not.
You again misinterpret the role of a CZ Editor, which is completely different than a news editor. Any author should be able to restructure and write subarticles.
There are also substantial questions about the Iranian dogfight incident. First, it wasn't a dogfight at those ranges. If I assume it was an F-4E with an AN/APQ-120 radar, I'm not confident it would show tens of kilometers. Yes, the APQ-120 has a high-resolution mode, but that's for ground mapping.
If you aren't reasonably well versed in radar, I suggest you may not be able to select accurate reports based on it. If Terauchi's report is one of the best documented, the documentation is pretty poor. Do you read NTSB incident reports? That's my standard of documentation for an aviation event. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Aviation officials, including pilots, would be considered sophisticated expert witnesses. As to the radar: the objects were picked up and tracked for sometime. The event lasted about 1 hour and the larger UFO was described by the JAL pilot as two times bigger than an aircraft carrier. The Mohave News also reported that the FAA radar picked up mysterious object trailing the jet. Another source said otherwise. I went for the conservative approach. You can check the sources to see what was reported. My writing the article is based on what was reported to the FAA and journalists. My "job" is to collect the facts and present them. I do not need to be an expert on radar but I do need to be an expert on presenting the facts. I am an expert based on my 10 years of journalism experience. During that time I was responsible for military affairs reporting so I am well versed in military weapons and aviation. I suspect you do not have experience as a military journalist...In the case of the Iranian UFO numerous aviation witnesses and an Air Force general all reported seeing UFOs. Some descriptions were different, based on location, but all military and aviation officials involved saw something. Again, based on their documented reports, including a declassified report from the US military, this is well documented case.Mary Ash 05:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
An expert witness testifies in a formal process, such as an NTSB or court hearing. In what formal hearing did these people testify?
A newspaper report of what a radar was said to do is not an acceptable source. Aviation Week might be, because it would give the technical details.
Mary, you have shown no particular evidence of being "well versed" in military weapons and aviation. You have never described any in technical terms. You haven't written anything about them. For example, what F-4 type was flown by the Iranians? What radar did they have? Was it the AN/APQ-50? AN/APQ-72? AN/APQ-120? Assume the latter, the most advanced. What is the angular resolution of that radar, in a plausible operating mode, and why should an anecdotal report that it would give the size of the target be believed? Was the radar CW-doppler or pulse-doppler? C-, S-, or X-band (I include both ground and airborne radars.
It is true I do not have as much experience as a military journalist as...a military electronics engineer, but I do have military journalism experience--as an engineer who writes and doesn't have to rely on public affairs officers. Are you telling me a pure journalist knows more about electronics? Alas, I only have about 40 years of working with military electronics and computing. I don't have to have an official explain the differences between weather and air intercept radar.
If it comes to technical journalism, however, I currently write on subjects including radar for Marine Electronics Journal, the publication of the National Marine Electronics Association. In my marine electronics and computing business, I integrate such things as chartplotters with Automatic Radar Plotting Aids, and do tradeoffs among radar navigation with Automatic Identification System and GPS. I've written more than a few related articles here, such as the top-level articles on C3I-ISR, radar, signals intelligence, electronic warfare, electronic intelligence, and, I suppose, more detailed articles on tens of radar systems.
Unless the actual technical description of the radar, its track, etc., is available, I will rule, as an Engineering and Military Editor, that is simply not an acceptable source for a claim. It is certainly preferred, at CZ, that an author be able to judge the plausibility of a report, not just cite it. Editors can check the validity of the reports. That is quite different than military journalism for a general publication. Howard C. Berkowitz 07:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Material for subpages

As its title indicates, the article is intended as a general article on the phenonemon "UFO", a summary covering all aspects of the topic. It is, therefore, not the place for a collection of detailed reports, claimed incidents and suggested explications. You are right, Mary, that this information has its place in CZ, but not in this top level article (and not in a page on UFO history, either). The correct place is a Catalogue subpage, and separate articles on selected incidents. (By the way, the same is true for the section on "Government investigation".) --Peter Schmitt 13:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will back up Peter on this 100% -- I've already said the same thing in my comments above. Mary, you have now had three (THREE) members of the Editorial Council strongly suggest to you that while your efforts are appreciated, your approach here is wrong. You are adding too much detail to what should be an overall article. Do you recall the problems that arose with the Adolf Hitler article? The same thing is happening here. Right now the Hitler article was reverted by a Constable to its original version and the Editorial Council is in the Voting stage (at the moment Paused) about making a formal ruling that the article be reverted. This has been a terrible "time sink" and has caused a fair amount of acrimony. Speaking as the Secretary of the Council, I don't want to see this happen again -- but, if it keeps on like this, I fear that it may well end up that way. Please learn the CZ way -- you say over and over that you are here to write and that Editors are here to edit your writing. That is the NEWSPAPER way, but CZ is NOT a newspaper. We have explained to you many times how our processes work. So PLEASE take the advice of every one who has looked at this article recently and start a Catalog(ue) -- Peter will he happy to help you, I'm sure. If you don't, I can almost guarantee you that all of your recent additions are going to end up reverted. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 15:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I've presented briefs from several well documented UFO cases. Stuff I had planned to include in my original article until it was ripped from my hands by an over zealous editor. You can do what you want with this article, but in order to write a well rounded article you do need to include some of the history surrounding UFOs. Reading about the technical aspects is ho-hum and does little to tell the reader about what expert witnesses reported. Aviation experts provide expert testimony. You will notice that I did not include fly-by-night UFO reports. Each case has been thoroughly investigated and concerned military or aviation personnel. As such what I have included documents UFO reports in an interesting (aka reader friendly) way that might interest people in giving CZ a chance. I hate to write this but the current article lacked perspective and interest. The addition of historical reports added that. Of course I know nothing about writing even after getting a BA in English and having 10 years professional writing experience.Mary Ash 16:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Mary, at least two other Editors ripped things from the article, not your hands. They were doing their job, and they are the people who determine if information is plausible. An author alone, at CZ, does not unilaterally decide that the source is accurate, although the provenance and plausibility of the source can indeed be discussed, in specifics. How could they rip things from your hands if you don't own the article? Personally, I find reading about reports without technical detail to be boring and a waste of time, coming across at the level of cable news.
Weren't most of the UFOs flying by night, not day? :-) I rule that an "aviation expert" cannot be automatically assumed to be acting as an expert unless the statement is made in a formal hearing, a responsible peer-reviewed journal, or other procedure where there can be reasonable challenges from other experts. A general news article is not such a context, although an article in a professional-level industry publication, such as Aviation Week and Space Technology, would be. Other news coverage will be considered on a case-by-case basis, when there is a verifiable online source. "Military reports" also must be sourced. While I have contributed text to this article, I am not ruling on anything I wrote.
This is not the place for yet another lecture about what CZ, in your opinion, should be. This is a place for discussing your article.
English degrees and general news experience may teach writing, but not technical analysis and objective analysis. Now, I first wrote for the Washington Post and Science News over 40 years ago, but I don't consider that a qualification for this article. I do consider a comparable time working with radar and other C3I-ISR systems to be far more qualifying. Consider this an Editor directive to move the reports to a Catalog subpage. In any event, the determination of expertise at CZ, at present, is by the Editorial Personnel Administrators. As you should be aware, refusal to follow Editor directions can result in Constabulary action. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Technical Expertise

For ease of responding to Howard's calling into question technical expertise I have started a new section. I will have to do some checking but I do believe the Rendelsham case was investigated by MOD while the other sightings were investigated by US officials. The Belgian UFO flap was also investigated thoroughly by Belgian authorities and NATO became involved. If you doubt the veracity of military witnesses in general I'd suggest you listen to this video from a military man who witnessed an encounter that affected our missile silos. The report was given at a National Press Club conference in 2010: http://www.ufodigest.com/video/ufo-national-press-club-conference-2010. Or for a full listing of NPC conferences you can visit You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=national+press+club+disclosure+project&aq=7. Or for more military testimony you can check out this link: http://www.freedomofinfo.org/national_press.htm.

As to my credibility to write about military and aviation: There is a difference between writing about military aviation and weapons. In other words there are differences between boats and planes. I have paid professional experience writing about military craft and weapons. I've also personally interviewed military pilots. I've also been known to read Aviation Week and a few other aviation journals. While I may not be an engineer, I do have military writing experience that covered both aviation and weaponry. Based on my professional experience, and my ability to investigate, I am relying on the expertise of my sources: expert witnesses such as aviation and military personnel. BTW also lacking in this article is famous people who have claimed to have witnessed UFOs. I guess that should be added too.Mary Ash 17:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Mary, I do not consider you credible about military aviation, avionics, and weapons unless you have written neutrall, technical articles about them at CZ or other verifiable expert-reviewed publications. I really don't want to get into a credentials war, but I do have paid professional experience written about these both for news media and professional organizations/think tanks. It wasn't just writing about what engineers said, but doing what military electronics and systems engineers do.
In the Homeopathy article, testimonials by "famous people" were excluded as irrelevant, and they will be here. Yes, there are differences in boats and planes -- but not in weather versus target tracking radars, with some weather caveats about near-surface water absorption. You are unable, apparently, to address the specific questions raised about the descriptions of radar being implausible. If I am wrong, please do so.
I am not going to continue arguing, but will call for Constabulary enforcement. Howard C. Berkowitz

17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to add with the logic used for expertise I should have been a peace officer so I could write police stories, a funeral director in order to write obituaries; a government official to write about government; or an aviation expert to write about aircraft or a weapons something or other expert to write about weapons. Of course I was none of the above as it was not needed to be a writer about any of those topics. A writer is hired for their ability to research, investigate, use experts based on their veracity and write interesting articles that sell newspapers. I am an expert at that. Something CZ would be wise to take advantage of. Remember I did write articles that sold newspapers.Mary Ash 17:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
CZ would be wise to recognize, as it does, that its writers either are experts or take guidance -- preferably without making it an order.
Mary, you would be wise to recognize CZ is not a newspaper, does not want to be a newspaper, and will not especially value newspaper-only expertise outside the Journalism workgroup. You continue to make this argument, as well as CZ Editors should do what newspaper editors do. Hayford explained this above. Newspaper writers do not, for example, thoroughly source their work if they cannot demonstrate expertise. Oh -- and you aren't the only one around here with paid professional writing experience. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)Howard you have never read any of my articles so you have to accept on faith that I spent hours investigating and researching topics to make sure they were as accurate as humanly possible. I am writing about the articles that I wrote that were not timely such as aviation or weapons topics (and I used some of the same online sources you have used at CZ) or governmental affairs. Believe me I have read volumes of peer reviewed articles from the EPA and the BLM. I've also researched many a military topic including network centric warfare and supporting the warfighter. Both terms I find to be buzz word bingo! As to timely articles, as you were a member of the journalistic profession, they were written as accurately as possible to meet deadlines. I lost a few chances to make the wire as I was waiting to confirm facts. Facts come first. And as a former member of the press, you also realize the importance of follow-up articles to clarify information. As to the UFO information I presented: the information came from mainline reliable sources. I would have done the same as a reporter EXCEPT when I was a working reporter I was able to personally interview the appropriate officials involved. This included pilots, biologists, engineers and ANY subject matter expert. This opportunity is not presented at CZ as we are volunteers and therefore do not have access to subject matter experts. Instead, like you, I have to rely on online resources or make a trip to the library. And as always I do respect CZ editors but I do plan to continue to contribute well researched material even if it doesn't fit the accepted view of some participants. Professionally and respectuflly, Mary Ash 20:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, Mary, this is not a newspaper and we are not on deadlines.
It does not given me confidence when you tell me network-centric warfare is buzz word bingo, yet there are articles here that analyze the evolution FBCB2 from BFT, the generations and capabilities of WIN-T, and broader contexts such as swarming (military) and restructuring of the United States Army.
When you say "I do plan to continue to contribute well researched material even if it doesn't fit the accepted view of some participants", I suggest you take that up with the Constabulary, before they take action. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Mary, comparison with journalistic work for a newspaper does not help because writing for an encyclopedia has a different purpose and needs a different style. Moreover, (once more) there are no deadlines. and you may not rely on others to follow up.
But there is no need to be defensive, and you have no reason to be offended: Asking you to move material from the main page to a subpage can be compared to being asked (by your editor-in-chief in the newsroom) to move your article from the frontpage to a specialized page in the interior of the paper (because it is too detailed). --Peter Schmitt 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Constable Comment

Hello all. It appears that we have a difference of opinion about the structure and content of this article as well as a question of expertise. It is not up to me to determine the qualifications of authors or editors. I am currently bound by the workgroups linked in the metadata template. So far those are Engineering, Psychology, and Sociology. Howard is an editor in the Engineering workgroup. I don't see any other editor working on this page, so, according to our current rules (which are the same old rules), Howard gets to be sole decision-maker about style and content under the watchful eye of the ME. If any author were to have a problem with one or more of Howard's decisions, then they would need to consider bringing in another editor or appealing the editor decision to a higher level. The Ombudsman is designed to help with that process.

Concerning expertise, the EC would be the place to bring that issue.

Meanwhile, Mary, you are required to follow each specific rule that Howard lays out with the specific announcement that it is his ruling. Failure to do so will result in limiting your access to this page or citizendium altogether.

Thanks for your continued professional behavior.

D. Matt Innis 17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Howard, I think you are supposed to rule in areas of your expertise. I will enforce your decision on the radar sentence, but you'll need to be specific about what you think it should say and I will make sure it won't be removed. D. Matt Innis 21:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
First, I note that I have asked Mary to move the anecdotal reports to a catalog page, as have Hayford and Peter. Is this the sort of thing you want? Here are three.
Aurora, Texas report

Aurora, Texas residents reported a UFO crash in 1897. The UFO reportedly crashed into a windmill located on Judge J.S. Proctor's farm. A fire ensued which was seen from three miles away. Residents found the pilot and buried him in a local cemetery. Through the years the headstone has disappeared and the reported UFO visitor lies in an unmarked grave. Some people believe the story is a hoax although some MUFON investigators believe there is validity to this report. I don't think this should be included at all witghout more data. The only sourcing is a Houstgon Chronicle report, with no definition of "some people:" or why MUFON believes otherwise. We are not a newspaper where "allegedly" or "reportedly" allows us to use unconfirmed material.

For the JAL report,

Japan Airlines (JAL) pilot Kenji Terauchi reported seeing a UFO while flying from Iceland to Japan. The UFOs were reported during the Anchorage leg of the trip in November 1986. Terauchi reported seeing the UFOs on his weather radar, and dimmed his cockpit lights to confirm the UFOs seen were not a reflection. Military radar did not confirm the UFOs as they were considered clutter while FAA radar did pick up one of the objects on its radar. FAA officials also said one of the objects stayed close to the cargo jet, even after the pilot took various maneuvers to elude the objects. There were conflicting reports that different radars did or did not sense an object consistent with the visual sighting; news reports alone do not give enough technical detail to evaluate Terauchi described seeing three objects that exhibited green, yellow or amber lights.

This really needs to identify the radar types to be given more credibility.
Iranian report -- not a dogfight; the range was too long.

During Septemember 17 and 18, 1976 two Iranian pilots and a general reported seeing a UFO flying near Mehrabad Airport. Several phone calls were received at the airport and air traffic supervisor Hussain Perouzi used binoculars to view a "'...It was rectangular in shape, probably seven to eight meters long and about two meters wide... it was probably cylindrical. The two ends were pulsating with a whitish blue color. Around the mid-section of the cylinder there was this small red light that kept going around in a circle...'"[1] Perouzi contacted General Nader Yousefi, of the Imperial Iranian Air Force Command about the UFO; and a single F-4 Phantom Im II jet was scrambled from the Sharoki Air Force Base. Approximately one hour later the jet took off from the airfield. The pilot managed to fly within 46 kilometers of the UFO when his jet's avionics failed. The pilot turned his jet towards the airport when the jet's electronics returned to working order. During this time Yousefi witnessed the UFO and described it as a star larger than other stars located in the area. He described the UFO as twice as large as normal stars within the area.

Twice as bright, although, as you'll see in the main article, it's very hard to compare luminosity. There's no real way people can compare sizes of point targets.

A second jet was scrambled flown by Lieutenant Jafari. Jafari was able to see the UFO on his jet's radar. Jafari said the radar return was similar to that one found for a Boeing 707. Jafari was unable to visually determine the UFO size due to its bright light. He did describe the colors observed as blue, green, red, and orange that rapidly changed in color.

Most F-4 radar would not give a reliable object size. Specifics, please, if this claim is being made. Note that there were widespread avionics failures, which don't give confidence in the radar.

I just don't understand the underscored section

Jafari gave chase to the UFO and when south of capital city the UFO ejected an object that flew directly towards his F-4 jet. Jafari attempted to fire an AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile at the UFO but was unable to as his weapons control panel as well as his radio quit. Jafari placed his F-4 in a dive to prevent striking the second UFO. The second UFO returned to the main UFO and a third UFO was detached from the first UFO. The third UFO, or object, was seen flying to the ground. Yousefi observed these maneuvers from the ground. Another jet flying in the area did not see the UFOs but did report experiencing radio failure during this time.

Without knowing the Sidewinder type, I can't guess if he was firing sensibly, but, guessing at the 1976 version, he would need to be within 6-8 miles and preferably closer. Earlier, it was well out of Sidewinder range. It really would help to see a drawing of the engagement.

The next day a helicopter flew some of the Iranian pilots to the area where the third UFO was seen landing. The Iranian military officials did not see any evidence of a UFO landing in the area, but they did hear a "beeper" signal described as a homing signal. The signal was strongest near an occupied small house. Inhabitants of the small house said they heard a loud noise and saw bright lights the night before. The source of the signal was never discovered.[2][1]

Do aliens use the same homing signals we use? What was the frequency? 121.5 or 243.0 MHz? I'd be inclined to delete that without more specifics.

Howard C. Berkowitz 22:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Howard, I think you're asking Matt here to be the Editor-in-Chief and All Powerful Editor -- I don't think he's equipped to do this, he's just a poor, hard-working Constable. Hayford Peirce 22:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Hayford. Replace the offending text with the text that you have decided is proper and let me know if someone changes it. D. Matt Innis 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)/Clark Kent

An observation from another EC member

It seems to me in reading this page that people are going out of their way to try to explain things to Mary professionally. Mary, I am at a loss to understand why you are finding this offensive. I am entirely sympathetic with your view that articles need to be interesting and engaging, but they also need to be well-written in a CZ sense: that is, they need to be organised, accurate, encyclopaedic in our cluster format, and even scholarly when that is appropriate. I do not see where this type of cross statement is helpful: "Of course I know nothing about writing even after getting a BA in English and having 10 years professional writing experience." No one has attacked you personally, indeed I would defend you from personal attack, as would many, even Howard, who disagrees with you here, has not attacked you personally. He has confronted you on what he sees as the issues, which is his right. Just about everyone here has at least a BA, and most have at least 10 years professional and/or academic writing experience, so that sort of sarcastic argument avails you little.

You also said: "Howard you have never read any of my articles so you have to accept on faith that I spent hours investigating and researching topics to make sure they were as accurate as humanly possible." Well, no, that doesn't stand to reason. Howard has never read any of my traditionally published articles to my knowledge, so he does not have to accept on faith anything about my ability or methods. He is within his rights to request a track record, demonstrated expertise or clarification of anything that isn't common knowledge or generally accepted in the field. I don't find this offensive.

If you would like to discuss any of the things that are being said to you, I'm willing to take time out for that. Not that I'm the Great CZ Guru, but if I can be helpful, I'll be glad to.

Finally, Hayford is quite right in pointing out that that we have just been through this sort of thing. The EC has been accused of 'micromanaging' issues; I'm not sure what else we can do other than get involved, considering CZ's limited resources. Our choice seems to be to either let talk pages run riot, or intervene, either as individuals or as a body. We are intelligent and thoughtful individuals, and are already well aware that this is not a productive use of our time, and that intervening in individual articles should be an extremely infrequent occurrence.

What on earth are we going to have to do to make people behave sensibly and reasonably? Shut down any controversial issue and insist that people can only write on core subjects pending a reorganisation and concrete guidelines? Only allow people to write on their subjects of bona fide expertise pending said reorganisation? Such draconian measures are so anti-wiki as to be absurd.

Citizens really need to help us out, here, by being cooperative, open to suggestion, and amenable, not make our lives more difficult.

Aleta Curry 00:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this comment goes beyond the scope of this article, so I replied on the forums. --Daniel Mietchen 00:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniel, I've responded there as well. D. Matt Innis 01:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Catalog page created

I created a catalog page and put two of the sighting reports in it, editing them so they spoke of what reasonably can be inferred from the information given. In no way am I saying that nothing was seen, but I did not include things that are implausible, based on the available references, about visual, radar or radio detection. With more information, these elided sections might become more plauusible.

With these as a guide, Mary should be able to move other articles. We can certainly discuss why I find certain things implausible from an engineering standpoint, but these have to be substantive, not saying the sources cannot be challenged. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest to arrange incidents in chronological order, and to use three subsections:
Incident as reported / Investigations performed and their result / Explanations (verified or probable or suggested)
Of course, often not all this information will be available. --Peter Schmitt 02:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion, Peter. I didn't expect to do the entire catalog myself, but to give Mary an example. I completely endorse your suggestion. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The historical events I added were presented in chronological order. I can not speak for others.Mary Ash 03:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed the history sections I added

Removed the history sections I added as the facts presented seemed to offend. My intent was to make the article a bit more human, and to attract to the reading audience. Since the facts are in dispute, and the requests were made to move the history, I have done so. I will move the historical section I wrote to my user page sandbox for further work. It is a very sad day when my expertise is called into question as both a journalist and for someone who has professional writing experience in the military affairs field. Also, I have spent over 20 years studying this phenomena and that does make me an expert even if Citizendium refuses to acknowledge my experience. I am not sure how the engineering workgroup is involved as there is no evidence that UFOs are mechanical or otherwise. The workgroup best able to study and review this subject would be the paranormal workgroup (is there one here?), societal or pyschology groups. Until there is clear scientific evidence to prove ALL UFOs are mechanical the paranormal realm is the best fit for this subject. Finally, could some one please archive this page. It is too long. ThanksMary Ash 03:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have copied the entire (partially deleted) history section to the Catalogue subpage for further editing. --Peter Schmitt 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Peter. That, to me, is in the CZ spirit, as opposed to Mary apparently acting from a position of ownership when she removed them. Personally, when I have had material challenged, I don't think I've ever deleted it completely, but moved it to a user page, or, as in the case of the challenged Hitler article, broken it into subarticles that can be worked with on a less massive way. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Corrected definition

The correct definition for a UFO is any flying object that can not be identified. It has nothing to do with engineering as stated although it be could considered paranormal as it is not NORMAL to see a UFO. Or as Merriam Webster says: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ufo. Mary Ash 03:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed less than 20 words which I think is permissible. I did not contact the author based on this fact.Mary Ash 03:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me be sure I understand this. You decided not to move them to a catalog page as requested, but to remove them completely. That's certainly marginal response to rulings.
I'll be blunt here. The very fact that you don't understand why Engineering is involved is reason to doubt your expertise, because radar, aviation safety, etc., are all part of Engineering. Your expertise as a journalist is not being questioned; it's more that it's considered irrelevant. Your expertise, however, about identifying objects is definitely in question. If you never mentioned radar and other "mechanical" sensors, then I suppose engineering might be irrelevant. If you never mentioned the variability of visual sightings, perceptual psychology might not be relevant.
You are free to archive the page, without deleting active discussions.
CZ has no paranormal workgroup, and, frankly, there's never been any other interest in having one. I suspect there would be strong antipathy to having one, for the same reason that Healing Arts was closed: it creates a situation where when other workgroups, more scientifically based, reject an idea, the Healing Arts or Paranormal group could say "well, we believe in it so it stays."
Howard C. Berkowitz 05:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why the Roswell and Arnold sightings were not cataloged like the others

May I ask why the Roswell and Arnold sightings were not cataloged like the others. If we are going to have a separate catalog page for UFO reports then those should be put there too. This would also help shorten the article making it for all readers to read the article in question. As of now I get a warning whenever I open up the article to edit it. Mary Ash 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Because as I said somewhere above, about a million words ago, THESE ARE THE TWO MOST FAMOUS UFO incidents! Arnold was essentially the first, and Roswell is now the most famous, although after the fact. They HAVE to be in the article. It would be like writing an overall article about Baseball and not mentioning Babe Ruth and, oh, Ty Cobb. Or about Tennis and not mentioning Bill Tilden or Pancho Gonzales. But thousands of other people would go into catalogs. Hayford Peirce 00:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I copied the entire History section (including Roswell and Arnold). I did not edit the Catalog (two items appear twice) and I did not edit the main page. Roswell and Arnold belong into the Catalog. Some example(s) (certainly Roswell) belong on the main page, but not in the same way. The Catalog, of course, needs editing. And the main page also needs editing. For instance, as I have already mentioned, the section on government investigation lists too much details. I think it should be a summary while details belong elsewhere. --Peter Schmitt 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Both the JAL and the Chicago O'Hare reports were recent and famous. So was the Belgian UFO flap which was investigated by both US, Belgian and NATO authorities. I have not included the Belgian report as I haven't gotten there. While Roswell is important, it is not recent nor all that famous; the famous recent report was the Chicago O'Hare report. Witnessed approximately four years ago by many. Mary Ash 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

{unindent)For the record the references did not transfer. I will see if I can fix as I was called on the carpet for the information presented.Mary Ash 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hayford's point about mentioning Roswell and Arnold in the main article is valid, although I'd personally put them in both places, with the intention off expanding on the catalog page. Peter is right that different levels of detail are appropriate.
The reason I did not move more than two is that I was attempting to guide and give an example both of how to move to a catalog page, and, in the particular two I selected, there were significant issues regarding electronics and weapons system characteristics. In other words, I was not acting as a copy or news editor, trying to do the entire catalog, but to act as a CZ editor, giving enough example to see what was meant.
The references seem to be working now, and I note that two are from Wikipedia, which we do not use as a reference source. It's unclear if one is meant to be a graphic, and perhaps needs to be uploaded rather than linked. I also note that I don't see any official reports, but news or UFO site material alone. While I can't speak for all the incidents, there certainly are detailed official reports for Roswell. I personally find it unlikely that if the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) made a comment on what their radar saw, there wouldn't be an FAA technical report -- FAA is regulatory and operational, but also does laboratory research and publishing. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Editorial Council intervention

I am requesting Editorial Council intervention to disallow Howard from making any rulings concerning any technical matters in this article. Howard has established himself in the editorial role and allowing him to make technical rulings (or any other article rulings) would be a conflict of interest. I have also sent this request to the Chief Constable for review as I am not sure of the exact procedure concerning this request. The Chief Constable can refer this request to the appropriate channels. Thanks! Mary Ash 05:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

If you want to appeal to the EC, there is a procedure, which requires you to submit a motion to Hayford.
"Editor role" but not allowed to make technical rulings? What else do Editors do? I would like, Mary, for you to explain where my knowledge of radar is inadequate, or yours is superior. You are defying formal Editor rulings, and I ask the Constabulary to take action. You continue to argue, on the talk page and the Forum, that your news reports are unchallengeable.
I am not speaking here just as a random Engineering or Military Editor, but as an expert in radar, Air Traffic Control, and integrated air defense systems. My knowledge should be reasonably apparent from these, and many other specific radar articles. I also point to electronic warfare.
Matt, how can I better deal with something where it is my own "little piece of the world" in which I am expert? Howard C. Berkowitz 05:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
For reference, I believe both offenses that will result in a warning first, then a ban and offenses that will result in an immediate ban are worth being aware of here, particularly the fourth point of the former and the second point of the latter. John Stephenson 05:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a content dispute that needs to be referred through the dispute resolution process. At this point, the decision of the editor on this page (Howard) shall remain in the article. It is my interpretation according to the section on what to do if you have a disagreement, Mary should contact the Ombudsman through his email.
Meanwhile, there is no reason that other areas of the article cannot continue, but the discussion and edits concerning radar should cease on this article and its talk page. D. Matt Innis 13:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Chainsaw

I'm afraid I've been taking a machete to this article. It seemed to me to be repetitive, disorganised, packed with irrelevent detail in some places and lacking any references or relevant detail in others, littered with meandering speculation, and over-weighted anecdote. (Apart from that, it's fine). I haven't finished the clean up by any means. If anyone objects, revert anything at will.Gareth Leng 14:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  1. 1.0 1.1 TEHERAN "DOGFIGHT". Retrieved on 2011-01-07.
  2. upload.wikimedia.org. Retrieved on 2011-01-07.