The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Paranormal Top‑importance 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.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Top‑importance 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I would like to have one or more references proving that ufologists consider their ufology to be a science. Of course, there are scientists among ufologists, just as there are scientists among debunkers, but I think it's abusive to consider, without further argument, that ufology is a science, and more, that it considers itself to be one. Where is this written? Who said it? ~~~~ Mcorrlo (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you would like and what Wikipedia policy requires are two different things. A statement that 'ufology is generally regarded by skeptics and science educators as an example of pseudoscience' only needs sources concerning the opinions of said skeptics and science educators. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, AndyTheGrump. I understand your point of view. But the question remains. Do the so called ufologists consider themselves ufology a science? To be pseudoscience means that on the other side there are people who claim the status of science for ufology. Who are them? ~~~~ Mcorrlo (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are them? I believe, Mcorrlo, that you might find some answers to this, and your other, questions in references 3 and 4 of the main article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we have sources stating that ufology is presented as science. Not that we need them for the statement that 'skeptics and science educators' consider it pseudoscience. To me, the biggest problem with that statement is its restrictiveness. The Science, Technology and Society source could in fact be cited for ufology being rejected as pseudoscience by mainstream science as a whole. Not just 'skeptics' (though science is built around scepticism) and educators.

Mcorrlo, you seem to be trying to argue that the sources we cite for ufology being pseudoscience are invalid, based on your own arguments concerning what can or cannot be described as pseudoscience. We don't do that. That isn't our job. The sources analyse. The sources describe. We report what they say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the sources and the claims exist. We are not vouching for the truth of them, only asserting they are there. That is a fact. WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. That there are critics doesn't make the purported controversy disappear. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let us be clear, of course I am not "trying to argue that the sources we cite for ufology being pseudoscience are invalid". Of course they are valid, I was just trying to find the other side.

To me, certainly ufology is not a science, but investigations, reports, some times journalist investigation, and that is the opinion of some so called ufologists.See https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-breaking/2019/09/08/international-ufo-congress-holds-annual-conference-downtown-phoenix/2252176001/. And it can be just "fairy tales " for adults.But I think we may not put everything in the same bag. There is a great difference between Adamsky and Hynek for example. Mcorrlo (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bit difficult, but I found the article and the book for refs 3 and 4. The book is an encyclopaedia, it talks about ufology as a pseudoscience, nothing new. The article is by a professor named Joseph Blake, who nobody knows, and as with source https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-breaking/2019/09/08/international-ufo-congress-holds-annual-conference-downtown-phoenix/2252176001/ I can also say, quoting AndyTheGrump "No, you cannot cherry-pick (questionable) sources like this to make vague claims about what 'some' ufologists think." That is just my coment. Mcorrlo (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, at this point, I think we're done here. The English-language Wikipedia cites articles from The Sociological Review regardless of whether you have heard of the author. If you don't like this, feel free to start your own online encyclopaedia, where ignorance is a valid reason to exclude a source. Policy on sourcing has been explained to you, repeatedly, and it isn't open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope you are not calling me ignorant...

I can not cite Hynek, but you can cite Joseph Blake...and please, do not be kind of agressive. Greetings! Yes, as you say, weŕe done here. Mcorrlo (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A user has noted that the lede image on this page states that it was "taken by Patrick Maréchal", but when you click on the image, it clearly states it was taken by "J.S. Henrardi".

There are two cites in the caption, neither of which contains this photo. They contain a different photo which *is* claimed by Patrick Maréchal. The photo found here can be found online, always alluding to Henrardi.

So unless there is additional information to be presented, it appears this image is misattributed, and following the links leads only to questionable web pages.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo (the only one taken) was by Patrick Maréchal. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the image that PM took, as I explained. This one was taken by JHS, as it says on the Commons page. If you have concerns that the attribution on the Commons is incorrect then you should look into that, but in any case, this is not the one that PM took, this is the image PM took, which I have taken the time to upload and place. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NO and it seems to me that it is very poorly sourced, so I have removed it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "no" means in this context, but I'm perfectly happy removing it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]