|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Adamski article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|George Adamski was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
Above his info box, he is identified as a Paranormal Reseacrcher. Skeptics will take issue with that. He was a UFOlogist certianly, but identifying him as a parnormal researchers is gonna tick off both Skeptics and the paranorml researchers who are struggling to keep their articles as "scientific" as possible. Let's not retcon him into something he wasn't just because it fits a template or seems more mainstreamLiPollis 09:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
er, this template is a general template for anybody whose notably contributed to the field through fact, pseudoscience or bunk. I can add a variable in if you like, but there is no template specifically for ufologists.
It's all laid down clearly on the templates description (see Template_talk:Infobox_Paranormalpeople1#What_this_is)
"This is a biography template pertaining exclusively to people involved in researching, or documenting the paranormal and relate fields as defined by Project Paranormal. Or who have played a noteworthy part in enabling/campaigning for such work. Please note, belief in the paranormal is not a predetermining criteria, neither is the integrity of their contribution to the field (fakes, frauds and hoaxers all fall within exceptable bounds)."
People who are eligible to use this template include
- Paranormal writers (for example, Jerome Clark)
- ESP/EVP researchers
- Ghost hunters
- Notable fraudulent researchers/investigators
perfectblue 11:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
GA Assessment - failed at this time 
Whilst I do not wish to offend anyone and as an assessor with bad news that may be the outcome that I achieve where editors do not accept in good faith my comments; with respect this article is some way from GA status - in fact I do not think that it should even have reached B class at this time. My reasons are as follows:
In terms of being written well the article fails in the very first sentence which contains a knockout tautology. The lead does not provide a synopsis of the rest of the article and does not explain the controversies contained within the article. The early years are reduced to bullet point sentences which jump from age to age, the punctuation and grammar is very poor in many places. There are unneeded flags in the info box, there is no persondata. There are numerous one sentence points or paragraphs.
In terms of my other point I also note that the article was promoted to B class on May 1, 2007 by an editor who had undertaken a vast amount of small edits, decided to promote and then continued with editing until it was nominated for GA. There is of course nothing wrong with undertaking a vast amount of small edits to achieve a better article but with respect I think there is a distinct conflict of interest in promoting one's one biography article to a B status as such an action does not allow for a neutral review of the material - which is particularly needed in this case.
I suggest that editors go to this link WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps so as to initially gain assistance in producing at least a B level article and then take step 10 (which involves asking for a peer review from the Biography team).
On that basis I am failing this article under GA criteria and I am taking the unusual step of demoting the article back to start. I note that it will not take much to get the article to B grade but it is not there at this moment.--VS talk 11:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Citations & References
The Saucer Model
If would be helpful if someone could reference the mainstream news story about the identification of the item used by Adamski to fake his saucer photos. I had a quick Google but couldn't find it. As I recall, it was in the 1970s or early 80s that the story hit the news wires with photos. It was a item of early 50s professional soda equipment. As I recall, it was a woman who recognised the item was identical to the saucer of the photos, and the only surprise was that no one had also recognised it during Adamski's lifetime, even though he had worked as a soda salesman at one time. Engleham (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
In the article it mentions the photo being identified as a street light in one place, as part of an ice cream machine in another, and here you mention it identified as soda equipment. I can't find anything to back up these claims either. Perhaps a little consolidation and just describe them as possible identifications? Merennulli (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC).
In the 1950s ufologist James Moseley did an extensive investigation into Adamski's claims and found plenty of evidence of fraud on Adamski's part. One part of his expose concerned the 1952 saucer photo. Moseley interviewed famed German rocket scientist/engineer Walther Reidel, who told Moseley that he had analyzed the photo and found it to be a hoax; among other things, Reidel had discovered the saucer's "landing struts" were really General Electric light bulbs, and even had the GE label on them! Adamski claimed that famous Hollywood cinematographer Pev Marley had found the photo to be genuine and had even seen a "spaceman" in the photo; when Moseley interviewed Marley he denied having enlarged the photo for analysis or found an alien in it, and he knew of no one who had. IMO, any notion that Adamski's UFO photos are of "real" UFOs is absurd; there's plenty of evidence to show they were faked - it's just too bad they aren't mentioned in the article. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
No Serious Criticism?
I'm surprised that this article omits almost all of the criticisms of Adamski's claims made by serious researchers such as James Moseley, Curtis Peebles, and others. The article is at times misleading in its claims; it notes the infamous "R.E. Straith" letter and makes it sound as if it was a legitimate State Department letter, but omits the fact that Moseley in his memoirs (pp. 124-127) clearly states that he and his friend Gray Barker hoaxed the letter to Adamski as a prank. One of Barker's friends had a father who was a State Department official; Barker and Moseley obtained some official State Dept. letterhead and wrote the letter to fool Adamski. Yet the Wiki article makes no mention of this, but instead acts as if "R.E. Straith" was a real person. Moseley also did a detailed expose of Adamski's claims in the 1950s (mentioned in pp. 63-70 of his memoirs). Among other things, he found that German rocket scientist Walther Riedel had analyzed Adamski's "spaceship" photos and found the "landing struts" were actually General Electric light bulbs and the ship was a fake (the photo is the one shown in the article). Adamski also claimed that well-known Hollywood cinematographer J. Peverell Marley had enlarged the photos and found a "spaceman" in it; when Moseley interviewed Marley he denied ever having enlarged the photo and knew of no one who had. Again, the Wiki article mentions Marley's praise of the UFO photo as looking genuine, but carefully omits that Marley denied having done any analysis of the photo or of having found an alien in it. Several of Adamski's "witnesses" to his meetings with Orthon were interviewed by Moseley and contradicted Adamski's claims. Moseley reprints his entire 1950s investigation into Adamski's claims in the appendix of his 2002 memoir "Shockingly Close to the Truth." Curtis Peebles, an aviation historian at the Smithsonian, offers detailed criticisms of Adamski's stories in his 1994 UFO history book, "Watch the Skies." He notes that Adamski created his "Royal Order of Tibet" in the 1930s as an excuse to make wine for "religious reasons" during Prohibition, and that Adamski later told two followers "I made enough wine for all of Southern California...I was making a fortune." However, when Prohibition ended, "I had to get into this saucer crap." (Peebles, p. 93) I could go on, but the point is there are numerous legitimate criticisms that can be made of Adamski's claims beyond the brief "Criticisms" section listed at the bottom of the article, and, imo, they should be included in the article. And Moseley and Peebles are just two UFO researchers who have found Adamski's claims wanting, others include Jerome Clark and Kevin D. Randle. As it currently stands the article is misleading (such as the R.E. Straith omission) and reads like a promotional piece by an Adamski follower; the article needs to be rewritten to be less biased for Adamski and more neutral. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and added in the hoax information on the "R.E. Straith" letter to the article - it is simply misleading to use Moseley as a source to describe the letter and then fail to mention Moseley's admission that the letter was a hoax to fool Adamski. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added this: Adamski's co-author, the irish aristocrat Desmond Leslie made a UFO film Them And The Thing at Castle Leslie in the mid-1950s in which the flying saucer was created by shining mirrors on to a Spanish Renaissance shield suspended from a fishing line. The film was rediscovered in 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-10985156 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
"Golden Medal of Honor" nonsense
The term "Gold Medal of Honor" suggests some sort of official Papal decoration, which is not the case. The medal shown in the article is a privately-minted commemorative medal issued by Stefano Johnson of Milan to mark the opening of the Second Vatican Council in 1962 (see http://numismatica-italiana.lamoneta.it/moneta/W-F19S/59). As a gold medal it doubtless has some monetary value. But as evidence of a secret meeting of Adamski with Pope John XXIII, it is utterly worthless. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree - as I noted in the above paragraph, a good deal of this article is misleading or inaccurate, and I suspect it has been done deliberately. The article has clearly been written to portray Adamski in the most positive light possible, and any real criticisms have been carefully omitted (as opposed to the pathetic "criticisms" section at the bottom of the article). The article needs a serious rewrite. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why the Desmond Leslie film is mentioned in the criticism, nor why it merits the description a “low budget UFO film”, which implies that it is being compared to large-budget Hollywood films - it is in fact quite obviously a glorified home-movie, with family and friends (including Sir Patrick Moore the astronomer) mugging for the camera in a burlesque on sci-fi and horror movies, with no pretensions of seriousness or professionalism to it. It is a group of people larking around for their own amusement. The title isn’t as given in the article; the “cast” is named (a list of children given as first names only, followed by a general “and The Grown Ups”) follwed by “In”, then a title card appears bearing the legend ‘THEM in the “THING” an X’, which suggests that “them” refers to the ensemble cast, and that the name of the film is “Thing” (the “X” suggests the “X Certificate” of the BBFFC for a horror film). The article also states that the UFO was created by shining light on a shield, when there were several methods, mostly flinging something through the air (quite what isn’t clear), but also using what would seem to be a cut out of the Adamski photo stuck on glass. The shield is used for a “forced perspective” shot, where it is filmed from close to, filling the frame, with the edges held off camera, and the house in the background, making the shield appear to be a large object next to the house. The light flashed onto it (a toy torch in the shape of a “ray-gun” is seen several times in the “production” and may have been called into service) is to make the “flying saucer” pulse with light, at which point the shield is moved up, or the camera moved down to make it appear to rise. At no point is anything done to suggest that the intention is to deceive anyone, as the pantomime reactions of watchers shows they are participating in a joke. The film can be found on-line. Jock123 (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)