Talk:STS-48

message: The Ice particle information has been removed 3 times now by one other editor and myself.  The only references is links to 2 youtube videos.  This information needs to be reliably sourced to be included.  A new name 2008 (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And considering the fact that the information is completely superfluous. It is just unnecessary. Andy120290 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ice particle information was reliably sourced by referring to the book named as "Bad Astronomy". I see no use in discussing matter further, and have to revert back the article to the previous state. There are simply 2 editors insisting on that the book named as "Bad Astronomy" is not a reliable source. There are other points of views seeing the information as beneficial. "the information is completely superfluous" can only be a point of view, not a fact.Lyckey (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Bad Astronomy is indeed a reputable book and a perfectly good source. However, this is missing the point. What sources do we have for the claim? We have one article which quotes the guy behind it. We have a second article which quickly details the claim and then debunks it. That's it; that's the entire level of attention this claim has been given. If the only reliable third-party source discussing the claim says the claim itself is just nonsense, surely this is a decent indication we shouldn't waste time and space discussing it? As it is, the article certainly gives undue weight to the claims, and that itself is a pretty bad thing... Shimgray | talk | 19:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've condensed the section substantially for the time being, but for the record, I strongly believe it shouldn't be in the article. The current version is less of a trainwreck, but it's still giving vastly undue weight to some nonsense we shouldn't be paying attention to. Shimgray | talk | 19:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry for my English. Condensed version looks much better. My aim in stuffing so much material was to source the issue reliably and adequately. Hope this version survives.Lyckey (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree it shouldn't be in the article in line with WP:UNDUE or our NPOV policy (it isn't significant enough to be in the article). I'm also not happy with using Youtube in this way. I don't think it is a reliable source, and reliability is not the default. I suggest the whole thing be removed and Lyckey can ask at the RSN if he can use the Youtube videos. dougweller (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't disagree with you all more.  I just came here after watching the show UFO Hunters, to look up this mission as well as STS 75, two missions with possible UFO encounters.  I wanted more information - for example, if the claim is nonsense, as apparently described in the book Bad Astronomy, then I'd like to know that, and know why.  By intentionally keeping this information off wikipedia simply because YOU think it isn't relevant, you're depriving some users of the information they came here to obtain.  Wikipedia isn't paper, remember. 69.181.220.209 (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Badly redacted. At least one of the object changes direction and flashes regularly. The camera is ultra uiolet  and ice should not appear in that kind of camera. 81.39.105.40 (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice Particles 

message: could not understand what do you mean by "entirely unreferenced" you were commented for the UFO info I had added to the article, after deleting. How can we resolve this dispute?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyckey (talk • contribs) 12:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no references to verify any of the information you put into the article.  You tube is not a reliable source and that is all the section had.  A new name 2008 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Florida Today a reliable source? But first, reliability of the source should not be the concern here because the information I put into the article was not about a "fact", it was about a "claim". Since NASA will never publish the original version of the footage, people at least should be able to be informed about the claims.Lyckey (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia reporting what reliable and verifiable sources have to say about a subject, publish this claim? Reiability always is a concern. But it doesn't matter, because I found a reliable source "jack+Kasher"+professor+spacecraft#PPA209,M1 which can be used. Search the book using the search box in the upper right hand corner for Kasher, then click on page 209. That both tells people that the claims have been made and explains what actually happened. dougweller (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And you think, that 1 page of "this and that" explains what actually happened? Where is the physics, kinematics? Jack Kasher does the explanation in a different way. Putting what actually happened aside, even the reliable source you found is a proof for the information I put into the article, that means this is an occurred event, on which some people felt a need to discuss. So, when there is a video on youtube showing the exact footage, why not use on wikipedia? I have a right to put a controversial subject on wikipedia, in order to bring the issue to the peoples' attention and/or awareness without infringing upon reliability and verifiability rules of wikipedia. Because I am presenting the information from a neutral point of view. I am not saying that those are real UFOs, I am just bringing the issue into the article. Lyckey (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I am saying that what Wikipedia does is present what reliable, verifiable sources say. Youtube is neither reliable nor verifiable - how can you verify that that is the exact footage for instance? You first said you only wanted to bring the claim to people's attention, I gave you a reliable source, and that isn't enough for you now? And please, none of us have a 'right to put a controversial subject on Wikipedia', we all must work within the collaborative framework of policies and guidelines. dougweller (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I take "claim" as the "point of view" (in wikipedia terminology). If I can present any "claim"/"point of view" neutrally, it has right to survive, that's what I'm saying. If there are more than one "points of views" then there may arise controversies, wikipedia can't satisfy everybody. As I read through policies and guidelines of wikipedia, I see no objecting bit in adding such an information into the article STS-48. Since you provided me a reliable source, now I can add that other section referring the reliable source once again.Lyckey (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:NPOV again, I think you've misunderstood it. Not all claims, however neutrally presented, have a right to survive. dougweller (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Despite it's not a perfect place, List of UFO sightings seems to be the most appropriate article for this material. --Logos5557 (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional conversation copied from [[User talk:A new name 2008]]