Talk:Belgian UFO wave

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: Following your suggestions, I've reverted his edit (after much more than a month or two). As there was a reference, the  template wasn't really appliable, I suppose. Victão Lopes I hear you... 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References dispute 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Photograph Section - native Belgian speaker help required 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prominents scholars 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Refernces - "The sightings" section 

message: "In April 1990, a photo of a triangular object upon which three lights are visible at each corner was taken by Patrick M. Since then, Patrick M. came out and stated publicly that the picture was a hoax by him."
Whether or not it is a hoax, the accompanying picture does not seem to be the one described. In the picture there is clearly only one light visible at each corner, not three. Hundovir (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Belgian UFO wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128025219/http://home.comcast.net:80/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_4.pdf to http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_4.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.bnd.com/2013/07/13/2692946/althoff-grad-writes-book-about.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Belgian UFO wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140824010135/http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc404.htm to http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc404.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Belgian UFO wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117015630/http://ufos.about.com/od/trianglecasefiles/p/belgium.htm to http://ufos.about.com/od/trianglecasefiles/p/belgium.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: tried a quick tidy up, as there are virtually no refs, and the few there are seem to be ignored. People just posting whatever they want with no proof at all it seems  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:216:7400:B1C3:6C2:D9AF:ED91 (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  tidy up 

message: The article has accumulated a lot of unsourced commentary, asides to the reader, and fringe argumentation. I've  removed a great deal of it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup, November 2023