Talk:Unidentified flying object

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)

---

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)

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)