Talk:Belgian UFO wave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Belgium (Rated Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Disputed?[edit]

There is currently a template on the main article that says the neutrality of article is disputed and says to come here to see the dispute. But there is nothing here about a dispute. Does anyone know what should be done?WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, if nobody objects I will remove the template tomorrow.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the template was added due to the conclusions section. I created the article, but the information of the section was taken from this section of the black triangle ufos article. As most of the controversial content was removed, so should be the template. Victao lopes (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will remove the template. But the conclusions section, although not very well written and not referenced, was just the conclusions reached by the Belgian Air Force as stated in their report on the incident. That should be OK to include, no? WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually the conclusions are still there. Only the statements trying to deny the explanations were removed, because they may be original search. Victao lopes (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't make myself clear. The assessment and rejection of those suggestions (balloons, aircraft, lasers etc.) that was previously in the article, was made by the Belgian Air Force in their report. You can see an English translation of the report here [1]. WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In that case, I believe they were indeed referenced. They'd only need a rewriting to keep a neutral point of view. Victao lopes (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

References dispute[edit]

The article was originally created with the first paragraph of the first section using a reference from the Sunday Express' article (actually, the article was found in ufoevidence.com, which states this is from Sunday Express). A few months ago, User talk:JMA1 removed it in this edit and added another paragraph, with totally different data from a publication of SOBEPS, stating the former information is false. For me, the Sunday Express sounds more reliable giving the non-relation with the subject. But before I undo his edits, I'd like to see other editors' opinions. I already asked JMA1 for more explanations regarding this edits, but no answers were returned in the last 20 days. Victor Lopes (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So long as changes satisfy wp:verifiable I don't think many people will mind. Personally though I wouldn't consider ufoevidence.com a reliable source, and would want to reference directly to the Sunday Express article. My view? Insert {{fact}} tags on the end of every single paragraph without an inline citation, give it a month or two, and if no action is taken, remove all the offending material. Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Following your suggestions, I've reverted his edit (after much more than a month or two). As there was a reference, the {{fact}} template wasn't really appliable, I suppose. Victão Lopes I hear you... 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Photograph Section - native Belgian speaker help required[edit]

I have done a little bit on this small section of the article in attempt to clean it up. However, some aspects may require further research. For example, the previous version cited http://www.conspiration.cc/sujets/ovni/ovni_retraite50ans.htm as a source of results from a simulation "proving" that the 3-dimensional trajectory of the image was not possible -- However when I viewed this source, no mention is made of what was previously claimed in the article. For this reason I have been forced to remove that paragraph.

When the section is read back now however, there is clearly some information lacking - It seems strange that any professional scientist would question the shake of an object without taking into consideration the shake of the camera. This leads me to question whether perhaps some meaning from the source article has been lost in translation (either this, or an incorrect article has been cited with regard to this aspect and another should be sought). It would be good if, as a first step, a native Belgian speaker could take a proper look at the source to double check this. Marmouse999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

The shake of the camera was taken into consideration by scientists, but there are some scientists who became blinds and lacked any wariness because they were obsessed by ETs. The article written by Pierre Magain in Physicalia Magazine (in french) will give you all the reason to became convinced that this picture was a forgery. I have studied in France (trough a centre of distance teaching) but I live in Belgium and go regularly in England.Titi2 (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Prominents scholars[edit]

Auguste Meessen is known in Belgium to be a good lecturer and good teacher in relatity. But he is not a prominent sholar and has committed very important mistakes in ufology (e.g. fr:Cas de Nort-sur-Erdre,fr:Photo de Petit-Rechain. In Belgium others scientists have emitted very agressive remarks because he is most influenced by faith than by reason and because his approach is not scientific. So I suggest to erase references about his commentaries. The situation would be different if he publishs anything in a scientifis review.Titi2 (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Refernces - "The sightings" section[edit]

I am going to start cleaning up this mess if no-one else bothers to in the next few days. The section is ridiculously under refd and needs immediate improvements. The numbers of witnesses, the way it has been written and POV are all dubious, though for now I will concentrate on the refs.

Many of the sources used in the article also seem to be of dubious reliability. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)