Talk:Flying saucer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Flying saucer was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: September 25, 2007 |
 |
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. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
One possible explanation of flying saucers is based on the theory of parallel universes. As these parallel universes fold and twist in their higher dimension, occasionally they come in contact with one another. Using a two-dimensional analogy, imagine bedsheets hanging side by side on a clothes line, wafting in the breeze. The two-dimensional creatures that inhabit this two-dimensional bedsheet world are constrained by some force that prevents them from moving into the third dimension. When two bedsheets come in contact, this constraining force causes the point of contact to assume a minimal surface two-dimensional object, a circle. The dimension-constraining forces interact, causing an emission of light. The intersection could effect bizarre motion - sudden acceleration, abrupt turns, and suddenly disappear as the two bedsheets separate. The behavior of this "object" would be unexplainable by the laws of physics as understood by the two-dimensional beings.
Moving up to three-dimensional universes, when two come in contact, the region of contact again assumes a minimal surface area object, a sphere or ellipsoid of revolution. The dimension-constraining forces cause the emission of light around its perimeter. Bizarre motions are evidenced by the object of intersection, and it suddenly disappears as the two universes separate their point of conjunction.
This theory raises many questions. Is it possible, for example, for the inhabitants of a universe to force a wrinkle in their universe such that it intentionally comes in contact with a parallel universe? Could they then use this intersection to travel from their universe to the adjoining one? What if the intersection of two universes takes place at a location in one of the universes at the center of a star? There would likely be a sudden infusion of star-interior matter flowing into the other universe.
Some may criticize this hypothesis as attributing one unexplained phenomenon to yet another, the theory of higher dimensionality and parallel universes. However, many scientists believe that physical dimensions higher than three could explain numerous phenomena we observe in our universe.
Um. What the hell? This whole thing stinks of crackpottery -- I can't find a decent reference of any kind for the theory, which suggests that it's 12.253.162.61's own. Moved here for now; please discuss. --Mirv 07:34, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
____
Regarding edits of 3/21/04, prior version almost completely lacked balance. NPOV requires acknowledging at very least the existence of responsible opposing points of view. I had the arbitrary fortune of directly observing three distinct glowing UFO craft in broad daylight for approximately 15 seconds flying in the "impossible" zigzag pattern before flying directly into a cloud and illuminating the vapor as they passed into it. This phenomenon is real and non-imaginary, and deserves at minimum the kind of mention the previous draft denied it. CSICOP does good work much of the time, but it also proceeds, imho, from sometimes dogmatic preassumptions. Timothy Good's book Above Top Secret is the kind of credible research that provides the evidence for those willing to examine it, and the link http://www.ufoevidence.org provides intelligent discussion of some of the most common skeptical objections. The main point is, this edit acknowledges the existence of both perspectives rather than one only. Chris Rodgers 03:39, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is there any convincing reason this article shouldn't be merged with unidentified flying object? - David Gerard 12:23, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It's been over a week and no-one seems to care. So I'm merging - David Gerard 11:35, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Actually, there is: not all saucers are UFOs -
IE: those in popular movies, US & Canadian designs - PFS 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Flying saucers out of style?
I think I take issue with the assertion that black triangles have supplanted flying saucers in sightings, and this contention does not seem to be particularly supported by the source provided. While certainly the absolute numbers of flying saucer sightings have declined, and flying saucers than less credibility than they had previously in the "UFO community", it seems to me that the the man-in-the-street's conception of a UFO is probably still a flying saucer (few have probably even heard of "black triangles"), and it's likely that these still form the greater part of sightings. So we need real numbers, and if we don't have real numbers either way, then this unsupported statement should I think be removed.--Pharos 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, by studying the raw reports available from UFO collecting organizations one would notice that the saucer reports are still present and seem to be statistically more prevalent than other shapes (although the most common UFO reports are just lights)
[edit] GA Review
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
Overall, this is a rare example of a really good short article on a subject - there can be (and were/are) volumes written on the subject, but this article provides a good, succinct summary of all the important aspects of flying saucers. That said, if editors would like to advance it to the FA level, it would need to be expanded with more in-depth information, which is basically what the difference between GA and FA is all about.
As you can see, however, I still cannot promote this article because of some reservations I have. I hope the article's editorial team will keep active in helping improve the article, and within the week's time I can assign it the "on hold" status, all the issues will be dealt with and I will be able to promote it duly.
- While I can only appreciate the good referencing throughout the article, source #1 does not seem particularly reliable or appropriate to me. It appears to be somebody's personal essay on a personal website. It is also used to substantiate potentially contentious statements in the article. I would try to find a better source for those, perhaps removing some.
- Reference #2 does not directly state what is being attributed to it in the last part of the lead section. It also doesn't cover the vehicles in "Earth-based examples".
- Reference #3 is a perhaps good summary of the subject, but I believe the author himself used some original sources - I think for a keen ufologist, locating them wouldn't be too hard.
- Reference #5 - what about baloons?
- The first paragraph of "flying source in culture" curiously goes without a single reference. It also contains statements likely to be challenged, so good, reliable references seem necessary.
- Reference #8 doesn't even mention Googie style - I believe the author of this article went one step to far in interpreting the meaning of the source.
- Mentioning a particular movie and game in the last sentence seems going a bit into less relevant detail to me (unless the sentence would be phrased to highlight those as EXAMPLES, and the sources would discuss the use of the motiff in more recent cultural context, giving those examples.
Looking forward to being able to promote the article, PrinceGloria 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
PS. One last thing - a pet peeve of mine is placement of navigational templates at the end of article that do not contain a link to the article itself. I think the template still has room for more links, which could broaden its utility.
- Whoops, seems like I forgot about the deadline... Not much activity here anyway, so I guess that's it for now. In case anybody would feel like working on the article further, please do mind the review above - once all reservations will be offset, the article should clear GAC with flyijng colours! Happy editing, PrinceGloria 15:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anteriority debate
There have been some heated debates between skeptics and non-skeptics to acertain wether saucers in science-fiction productions (litterature or comics) were anterior to saucer sighting reports or the opposite. The purpose of this debate was to try and dismiss the saucer sighting as fabricated after science fiction material.
It would be interesting to include some of this debate on the main page, and maybe to try and track some of the earliest examples of both science-fiction saucers and real saucer reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.8.17.235 (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
