Talk:Australian ufology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australian ufology was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 January 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 Feb 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Portal	Australian ufology is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	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.

Contents 1 Notable Criteria 2 Statistics 3 Common Criteria For Limits 4 A Editors Log 5 UFO Research New South Wales Stole my name. 6 Chalker - UFORNSW & UFOIC 7 Good Article nomination 8 The UFO Encyclopedia 9 Christopher Kenworthy created an experimental project 10 List cut by User JzG 11 Article issues 12 ACUFOS 13 AUFORN Private Company Page Deleted 14 Mr Chalker observation?

[edit] Notable Criteria

Some Wikipedians hold that articles need to be of sufficient importance to be included in Wikipedia.

An article is "Important or Notable" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:

1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
2. It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject.
3. Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.

See: Wikipedia:Importance

[edit] Statistics

Date	Citations	Images	Books	Sources
2006 Jan 23	22	1	12	8
2006 Feb 10	73	3	30	10
2006 Feb 14	75	4	30	10
2006 Apr 29	78	4	30	11

.

[edit] Common Criteria For Limits

Too keep the page within a workable state, reflect only historical events, groups and people, the cut off should be equal to the current Australian Government Copyright (Template:PD-Australia) - expired rules of 25 years. This will remove and or stop the large amount of current events from swamping the page.

Current limit is 1981

	This image was created in Australia and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired. According to the Australian Copyright Council (ACC), ACC Information Sheet G23 (Duration of copyright) (Sep 2005), generally copyright has expired as follows:
Type of material Copyright has expired if ...  A  Photographs or other works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown: taken or published prior to 1955-01-01  B  Photographs (except A}: taken prior to 1955-01-01  C  Artistic works (except A & B): the creator died before 1955-01-01  D  Published editions1 (except A & B): first published more than 25 years ago  E  Commonwealth or State government owned2 photographs: first published more than 50 years ago
1means the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work. eg. newsprint. 2owned means where a government is the copyright owner as well as would have owned copyright but reached some other agreement with the creator.

[edit] A Editors Log

• Some editor can have multi post. List only reflect their first edit. TimMU 10:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

1. 23 January 2006 Vufors <-orinator
2. 23 January 2006 Whouk
3. 23 January 2006 220.240.249.134
4. 26 January 2006 Bluebot
5. 26 January 2006 Brian0918
6. 31 January 2006 Ifnord
7. 04 February 2006 202.94.75.79
8. 05 February 2006 202.94.65.116
9. 05 February 2006 Can't sleep, clown will eat me
10. 05 February 2006 Academic Challenger
11. 05 February 2006 202.94.75.239
12. 05 February 2006 RexNL
13. 05 February 2006 Zeug
14. 05 February 2006 202.94.65.27
15. 06 February 2006 202.94.83.231
16. 10 February 2006 202.94.75.131
17. 10 February 2006 Auforn4u
18. 12 February 2006 144.134.48.110
19. 13 February 2006 202.94.77.250
20. 14 February 2006 144.134.48.43
21. 14 February 2006 202.94.65.232
22. 14 February 2006 Nlu
23. 14 February 2006 Astrokey44
24. 14 February 2006 Rich Farmbrough
25. 15 February 2006 202.94.85.253
26. 16 February 2006 202.94.65.95
27. 16 February 2006 202.94.83.23
28. 19 February 2006 Longhair
29. 20 February 2006 Cmdrjameson
30. 22 February 2006 Ulayiti
31. 27 February 2006 202.83.73.188
32. 01 March 2006 144.134.71.127
33. 01 March 2006 202.94.75.77
34. 20 March 2006 Moondyne
35. 27 March 2006 Apyule
36. 01 May 2006 203.2.218.145
37. 23 May 2006 Wknight94
38. 29 May 2006 Cydebot
39. 11 June 2006 Gimboid13
40. 23 June 2006 AKMask
41. 18 July 2006 Adzze
42. 30 July 2006 203.206.110.128
43. 21 August 2006 TimMU
44. 29 August 2006 SmackBot
45. 09 September 2006 RainbowCrane
46. 07 November 2006 Zagalejo
47. 22 November 2006 Welsh
48. 12 December 2006 58.106.75.184
49. 12 December 2006 Mantom555
50. 15 December 2006 58.106.74.164
51. 15 December 2006 Lucasbfr
52. 15 December 2006 JzG
53. 15 December 2006 Jreferee
54. 19 December 2006 Cydebot
55. 28 December 2006 58.106.74.32
56. 29 December 2006 144.134.71.110
57. 29 December 2006 144.134.48.191

[edit] UFO Research New South Wales Stole my name.

Dec 8 1991

Please understand that I have nothing what so ever to do with the new UFO Research (NSW) I did not expect this new group, which had its inargural meeting in November, 1991, to take my group name!

[edit] Chalker - UFORNSW & UFOIC

This is a letter from the net on his so call above claim?

Bill Chalker I have been associated with UFO Research (NSW) since 1977 when I helped form it from the UFO Investigation Centre (UFOIC). During the latter part of the 1980s & up to now I have kept it going as its director on an intentionally low profile and informal networking basis, mainly because of the lack of keen workers and my distaste for UFO group politics. During that time I have preferred to network my group and my own research findings through other wider networking facilities such as the Australian Centre for UFO Studies (ACUFOS) and UFORA, rather than publish my own newsletter. I found this to be a good working arrangement and a great deal of useful information was circulated this way. Unfortunately UFO politics have taken a rather negative turn lately with a new style of ACUFOS which seems to prefer to promote the claims of Bieleck, Lear, Cooper etc. I have made my views clear to the current ACUFOS management (Martin Gottschall) and have completely dissociated myself from its activities. Perhaps related to this, the new ACUFOS set about trying to get a UFO group (of its persausion) going in New South Wales (NSW). Although I do not agree with much of what the new ACUFOS and UFO Research (Queensland) are doing, this is a democracy and new breakthroughs are possible through all sorts of avenues, no matter how bizarre. So I was not concerned about a new group in NSW - plenty of room for that. However I did not expect this new group, which had its inargural meeting in November, 1991, to take my group name! This is what they have done and they have registered it as a business name, something I found unnecessary to do since 1977! This leaves me with not much room to move re group names. A name change has been forced on my informal NSW network group. This message is designed to alert you to these confusing and rather disappointing developments. As of November, 1991, my UFO Research (NSW) group (formerly known as UFOIC), will be known as the UFO Investigation Centre (UFOIC), the ORIGINAL UFO RESEARCH (NSW). Please understand that I have nothing what so ever to do with the new UFO Research (NSW). My UFOR(NSW) activities span 1977 to 1991 and my UFOIC involvement goes back to 1969. UFOIC itself goes back to 1955, when it was reformed from theoriginal Australian group AFSB then run by Edgar Jarrold. Some of the principles of the NEW UFO Research (NSW) group are Bryan Dickeson, Moira McGhee and Paul Sowiak-Rudej. I repeat I have no connect with this group and they have no connection with my UFOR(NSW) (1977-91) activities, other than brief and limited involvement from some of their members. They did not maintain any involvement since the early 80s. I should point out that my group has close ties with the national network UFORA. I can be contacted via this folder, through my box address: P.O. Box W42, West Pennant Hills, NSW, 2125, AUSTRALIA Regards from Bill Chalker.

• This section was edited out by Revision as of 08:55, 29 December 2006

144.134.48.191 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_ufology&diff=97106151&oldid=97101120

UFOIC eventually disintegrated under Mr Fred Phillips and Bill Moser and UFOIC lapsed into silence. But the old power troubles remained right up and into the 90's. In 1991 a new breed of New South Wales group emerged under the name of UFO Research New South Wales (UFOR(NSW)). This caused problems when Mr Bill Chalker who claimed that the new group had ‘stolen’ the name from him ^[1], however, Chalker was unable to justify his rights to the name, to counter this action Chalker registered the defunct UFOIC name for his independent private use.

TimMU 10:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination

The Good article nomination for Australian ufology has failed, for the following reason:

I am failing the good article nomination for this article for a number of reasons.

1. First it is not particularly well written or organized.
2. It is in violation of WP:POV. Sentences like "The strange twist to this event was the person who should have had the chance to see all the files, the past President of CAPIO & VUFORS, Mr Peter Norris, had departed ufology just under 17 months prior to the changes in policy." or "The subject came under attack by bureaucrats in an attempt to stifle the Australian public debate. " (among others) are clearly pushing an underlying conspiracy theory hypothesis.
3. I am concerned about the fact that very few users are contributing to the page. Vufors (talk • contribs) probably has half the edits. This is not a healthy way to build an article and I think explains the POV problems. It also makes the whole article look like a violation of WP:NOR.
4. The depiction of the agencies is dubious to say the least.
5. A number of urls are dead. A bunch of references are dubious. I don't think that any book entitled "Awakening: How Extraterrestrial Contact Can Transform Your Life," can pass as a reliable source.
6. The talk page has been moved to Vufors (talk • contribs) talk page but concerns about his management of the article have been erased by the user himself.
7. Not only is this as clear-cut a failure for GA-status as can be but it's also clear that it should not have been nominated in the first place: surely a page that has been nominated twice for AfD in its six-month existence (with a non-consensus the first time around) should not be nominated so soon. As the nominator Vufors most certainly knows this page has a long history of edit wars. I am tempted to view the nomination as a disingenuous attempt to provide an undeserved credibility to the article.

Pascal.Tesson 03:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• • You may try and use this form of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php citation with the government documents. I thing it would cleanup the text and make it less clutted. I found this type of NOTE reference as a good way of doing this.Many pagers at Wiki have this proble, when trying to cite a lot of pages. 220.240.249.134 07:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a particularly well written and organized article. But may need some time. 220.240.249.134 07:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The book entitled "Awakening: How Extraterrestrial Contact Can Transform Your Life," is not in the "reliable source" cat of the page its in the listed Books that one can read, thats for Wiki readers to judge.220.240.249.134 07:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Pascal.Tesson seems to have picked up on the problems with this article. My own concerns with this article were raised in a detailed article published in the "Australian Ufologist" magazine. It has been placed on the web at: www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_38.htm Make you own mind up, but I see the "Australian Ufology" article as a poor example of the objectives of Wikipedia. Given the games "vufors" has played with "controlling" edits on this article, few serious researchers would bother with trying to add or correct content. Any attempts to do so usually get edited out, so why bother.Regards, Bill Chalker

[edit] The UFO Encyclopedia

Readers should also reference the whole story with all its flavoures... try The UFO Encyclopedia : The Phenomenon from the Beginning (2 Volume Set) by Jerome Clark.

Hardcover: 1178 pages

Publisher: Omnigraphics; 2nd edition (June 1998)

ISBN: 0780800974

"Quite simply, this is THE book to buy if you're interested in learning about the UFO phenomenon. Unlike many UFO books, which are written by true believers with dubious credentials and which have little or no research, Jerome Clark, a respected UFO historian, has packed this encyclopedia with a massive amount of research and plenty of references to back up his arguments. And this is a true encyclopedia - the 273 essays cover, alphabetically, almost every major UFO sighting since the 1890's, as well as the major theories which are used to explain UFO sightings, and biographies of almost every major ufologist and skeptic in the field. Although Clark is a "believer" and tends to side with those who believe that UFOs represent something real and extraordinary, he is fair to the skeptics and debunkers and does include their explanations for each sighting, even though he often disagrees with it. If you want a handy reference book that will answer almost any question you have about UFOs, then this is the only book you'll ever need. And, as a rebuttal to those who believe that UFOs are "nonsense" and not to be taken seriously, Clark's "UFO Encyclopedia" presents a mighty challenge. If you could only buy just one UFO book for your personal library, then the "UFO Encyclopedia" is by far the best choice - I have no doubt that it will be the standard reference book for years, if not decades, to come." Amazon Reviewer.

"This is a landmark book and a remarkable achievement. The entries are very detailed, balanced and extremely well-referenced. Many of Clark's entries are worth the equivalent of an entire book boiled down to a few pages. I have suggested to several sociology colleagues that they get their libraries to order it. When a case is in doubt, Clark tends to land on the side of possible ET visitation. While I disagree such interpretations and assessments (because I require absolute proof), Clark is certainly within his rights to do so because he bases his views on evidence, and he backs up his argument with quality references and lucid reasoning. No matter where one stands on the UFO debate (and I am a sympathetic skeptic), this 2 volume set clearly stands as the most thorough ever written for the 273 entries covered. Jerome Clark should be congratulated for an almost superhuman effort." Amazon Reviewer.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0780800974/sr=8-4/qid=1153640910/ref=sr_1_4/104-3044411-7268740?ie=UTF8

France's Space Agency To Post UFO Database

Archive of 1,600 reported sightings will be available online by February.

By Gregg Keizer InformationWeek

Dec 29, 2006 11:31 AM

The French space agency will publish its UFO sightings archive online in early 2007, the Reuters wire service reported Friday.

According to Reuters, the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) will post a database of some 1,600 UFO sightings to the Web in late January or early February. Names, however, will be redacted from the database for privacy reasons.

The 6,000 documents -- primarily reports made to the police or filed by airline pilots -- stretch back 30 years, and will be available from the CNES's Web site. http://www.cnes.fr/

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196800040

[edit] Christopher Kenworthy created an experimental project

In ref to this:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_ufology&diff=94526194&oldid=94511151

In the Summer of 2006, Perth film director Christopher Kenworthy created an experimental project to test the gullibility of Australian UFO investigation groups.^[2] Kenworthy posed as a teacher in posting on the internet about 30 clips of UFO sightings between April and mid-August.^[2] "Australian UFO Wave 2006" video clips were attributed to people and places around the country.^[2][3] Emails were answered by people with assumed identities.^[2][3] The whole process was recorded for the documentary Watch The Skies, which received $15,000 from the Australian Film Commission.^[2] After spending considerable time in researching the sightings, the Australian UFO Research Network, AUFORN, became embarrassed on discovering that they relied on faith rather than evidence in their UFO investigation.^[2][3] Rather than criticize Kenworthy's project, AUFORN attacked the government for sponsoring Kenworthy.^[2] AUFORN national director Diane Harrison, of Jimboomba, said she had written to John Howard, Kim Beazley and federal Arts Minister Rod Kemp in disgust at the exercise's being funded by taxes.^[2]

I have many problems with this input:

[1]. The project was a HOAX.

[2]. It will bring back this commercial company (AUFORN) and its spammers to again spam the pages. It would be common sense to leave the 'AUFORN Hydra' hunt in other commercial pastures.

[3]. It does not work with the spirit of this page, the 25 year rule (see Above) will keep current events out and stop clogging.

[4]. Also it was not an "experimental project" but an "immersive artwork". Para 3 at http://www.australianufowave.com/

[5]. Not only did AUFORN fall for the Hoax, Mr Christopher Kenworthy also reported that the Australian skeptics fell for the hoax.

It would be better to discuss this outside the page at this location. TimMU 03:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List cut by User JzG

[1]. Prominent Australian ufology administration http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_ufology&diff=94510029&oldid=94509973

• I agree with this action. The list serves no real help to the article. It also seem to be the attraction point of the spammer called commercial company called AUFORN. TimMU 03:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[2]. Bibliography of Australian UFO literature http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_ufology&diff=94510659&oldid=94510029

• Now I am not happy with this action, but I can see a way out of it, so at this time I am leaving it as it is, until I take some council on the move.TimMU 03:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• I also take issue with the editor JzG for the reason for the cut - "A sample finds vanity presses, out of print, non-existent. Please bring back only verifiably significant books." This is not an issue all the books are avaliable at one of the Australian or US librarys - the vanaty press jibe is not helpful and wrong. TimMU 03:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article issues

For what ever reason, those who have contributed to this article have not addressed the issues raised in July 2006 in Talk:Australian_ufology#Good_Article_nomination. This article has had other identified serious problem that have not been addressed. I've been asked to fix this article and will proceed doing just that. However, I think it is better to give those having an interest in this topic a chance to fix the article before I make significant cuts. The main problem with this article is that it is trying to include everything about UFOs in Australia. Ufology is the study of unidentified flying object (UFO) reports, sightings, alleged physical evidence, and other related phenomena. There appears to be desire that only items older than 25 years be included in this article. I revised the lead paragraph accordingly. All items not related to the act of studying UFOs in Australia on or before 1982 need to be moved from this article. You may want to move them to new articles, such as The History of UFO encounters in Australia. -- Jreferee 15:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Before you start any major or "significant cuts" discuss them in this location. Your word "significant" sounds too strong...Mmmmm? So add you needs to this page and someone in the community will try and help you with a reference etc. TimMU 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
2. The current text has been set to represent events, pre 1982, so I am not too sure what you aiming at(?), the text/events that establish a history of groups etc, are as per the intro. TimMU 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
3. The only items that report "UFO encounters" are in BOX layout. TimMU 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
4. A "Intro" is as per Wiki ""Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow."Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout - it is NOT an effort to reduce the number of words. TimMU 02:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Good_Article_nomination is DEAD, that chapter is over - end of story! TimMU 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
6. There is no rush, Wiki has no rule on speed or time limits. I expect that this entry will "evolve" over time, after you and I have gone, without the need of rushers, speeders, mass cullers, 'less is best' mantras, reductionism or Occam razer philosophers.TimMU 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
7. I have added some refs and fixed some links.Fix Mr Peter Norris/POV [[1]]
8. "identified serious problem" Ok this is great... list them for discussion so we can take a look. TimMU 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACUFOS

144.134.48.115 - Please do not change this data [2]. The referenced ACUFOS history is recorded as so see http://www.acufos.asn.au/index.html. I believe it is under Dr M. Gottschall.TimMU 13:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• TimMU Yes the current manifestation of ACUFOS is under Mr. Gottschall, but with respect to the period involved with UFOIC in the document, the early 1980s, he was not an active part of it. Your editing out of the networking connection between UFOIC with UFORA and characterising UFOIC's networking with the early version of ACUFOS (1980-1984) as part of a Gottschall ACUFOS is tpotally incorrect and completely misrepresents the picture. UFOIC had no connection with Gottschall's version of ACUFOS.

M. Gottschall resurrected his version of ACUFOS in 2003. It had been largely defunct since 1992. Mr. Gottschall gained control of ACUFOS in the late 1980s by which time it was not supported in any serious way. He used it as a vehicle to promote his own take on the phenomenon, largely through his "ACUFOS position statement" document during 1991. ACUFOS was already a shell of its former self by the mid 1980s and under Gottschall's later direction it became defunct. The ACUFOS web site you link to doesn't even get ACUFOS history correct. ACUFOS was not formed as CUFOS in 1974. The Australian Co-ordination Section (ACOS) of the US based Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) was formed in 1974. ACUFOS was formed in 1980 from this arrangement, reflecting its direction as an Australian organisation independent of the US CUFOS group. This version of ACUFOS history has been published in a special Australian research document collection edited by Mark Moravec (himself an ACUFOS coordinator at one time)published originally in Spanish in 1997-98 in the journal Cuadernos de Ufologia, then reprinted in the UK journal Fortean Studies in 1999 (Issue No.6), and most recently in a special two part issue in the Australasian Ufologist as "The UFO Phenomenon in Australia" during 2003. Thus I have attempted to re-edit this section to reflect the correct picture. Please refrain from re-introducing your incorrect picture.

• • "Mr. Gottschall gained control of ACUFOS in the late 1980s" Ok thats would mean Dr Gottschall has been with it for 2006-1984=22 years it sound like he now has precedence see [3].TimMU 05:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks to a Wiki member I have now placed a referenced source to this entry. Thanks TimMU 07:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Another very big thanks to all those in the wiki community who gave me the new sourced data for input. Great work. TimMU 10:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AUFORN Private Company Page Deleted

They failed the wiki selection and are deleted as a commercial spamer SEE REASONS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AUFORN - TimMU 14:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

1. 28 December 2006 58.106.74.32 - SEE [4]
2. 2 January 2007 Mantom555 - SEE [5]
3. 3 January 2007 Mantom555 - SEE [6]
4. 6 January 2007 Mantom555 - SEE [7]
5. 6 January 2007 Mantom555 - SEE [8]

• I would suggest that is is you that needs to work within the framework of wiki rules. AUFORN, vufors (and pra) do not have a seperate entry in wikipedia. So with your line of reasoning, are you suggesting that vufors and pra entries be promptly deleted from the Aust UFOlogy article? if the answer is no you don't want them removed from the article then AUFORN legitimately belongs there ! So this matter is closed... unless you have another "line of reasoning" you would like to share with us as to why AUFORN should not be in the article.Mantom555 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Read the above link. TimMU 15:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Chalker observation?

Extracted Post:

"No clear and unambigious picture had emerged about the role the RAAF played in the UFO controversy in Australia. In 1982, UFO Researcher Bill Chalker (B.Sc. Hons.) was the first civilian researcher to gain direct access to the previously classified RAAF UFO files at the Canberra headquarters of the Directorate of Air Force Intelligence. His review provided a detailed understanding of official involvement in Australia. Mr Chalker concluded that two polarised positions had emerged. The RAAF was covering up its high level involvement in an international "cover-up" of UFO facts, perhaps in concert with the US Air Force. Or, the RAAF was bureaucratically locked into a responsibility it had long since decided was a waste of time, but contined as a service to the general public."

• You seem to have now gone the other way, in a big time way, thus I see no reason to believe that this entry is that important? I would say many others got to see the RAAF files not just Mr Chalker and many others made similar observations & comments. I now see no reason to think that ONE mans comment or observation should NOW dominate. Thus it is not Wiki "Important" or "Notable". TimMU 10:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Other way" ? what other way !?? Mr Chalker was the first civilian to access the files in Canberra. Once again the word "first". A "first" deserves a place in any wiki article. Mr Chalker (who has academic credentials) has for DECADES investigated the ufology field and published books/articles, most certainly deserves a place in this article. Speaking of the 'ONE' as you put it, I don't see what purpose it serves to heavily publicize VUFORS and PRA and all the people associated with it. They are NOT the only organisations (nor their research) that should deserve so much attention in this article. It serves no purpose that a wiki article like this is unbalanced when it comes to providing a FULL account of the history of ufology in Australia. Finally, AUFORN is legitimate organisation in Australia. Please refrain from deleting it as you are violating the wikipedia policy.Mantom555 09:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If you can cite a RAAF or DoD ref that states that he was the "first" then that would be fine.TimMU 10:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • During my access to the DOD files between 1982 and 1984 I extensively reported on what I found to the wider UFO community and the general public through a variety of publications. As VUFORS and PRA (or its earlier variants) had not undertaken any similar sort of publication or circulation of the data they allege they accessed at earlier dates, it was a general consensus at the time that my access was the first of its type. I'm happy to vary that statement to the effect that it was the first of its type that was backed up by extensive documentation, publication and sharing with the wider research community and the general public. Perhaps the more appropriate question here should be for the editors "TimMu" or "vufors" etc to show the published or accessible evidence for similar efforts by VUFORS or PRA (or its earler variants). As VUFORS or PRA et.al. didn't seem to make the wider UFO research community or the general public aware of their efforts prior to 1982 it is hard for researchers like myself to cite their efforts. If I had seen such evidence (and I still haven't seen any to this day, other than Ken Llewelyn's acknowledgement in "Flight of the Ages" (1991) pg. 130, re VUFORS) I would be glad to acknowledge it. Instead we have anonymous proclaimations given in this article, that are not backed up by any accessible documentation. For example re Brian Boyle's 1961 document "The Early Years: From Saucers to UFOs" or John Auchettl's 1985 document "The Roots of Australian Ufology", I'm sure they are fascinating, but has anyone outside the PRA or VUFORS circles actually seem them. These are quote as references to the Wikipedia article and yet they are not generally accessible. I would have thought that any credible article on Wikipedia that cites references, should have the capacity for those references to be accessed by any interested parties. The same argument can go for many of the other proclaimations made in the article. My views on this article are expressed at www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_38.htm and given the ongoing editorial biases shown in the editing of this Wikipedia article, I have no reason to change my opinion. Indeed the reason round of "editorial wars" on this article over the last couple of weeks simply reconfirm the same problems. Making contributions to this article in the spirit of Wikipedia policy seem to be a waste of time, as they are quite often edited out for often the most disingenuous reasons and biases, incorrect statements and outright misrepresentations are allowed to remain, Regards, Bill Chalker - FROM: 12:15, 3 January 2007 144.134.48.10 SEE: [9]
        • Wiki runs very well thank you without your views on its operation. However, as we are only talking about this entry by Mantom555 - Do you have a RAAF or DoD ref that states that you were the "first"? That would clear up the problems with Mantom555 edit. TimMU 13:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Responding to "TimMU". Who empowered you to state that "wiki runs very well thank you " !??? who ??? Tell all the readers out there..who? WE ALREADY know wiki runs just fine. you are NOT the 'gatekeeper' of this article. Stop acting as one ! Why have you failed to address my observation in my previous posting about deleting AUFORN?? Lets do this again shall we? Why do YOU delete AUFORN from the list of Australian UFO organisations !!! again WHY ?? I have noticed that you are STILL violating Wiki policy. You are deleting LEGITIMATE information! Also, Bill Chalker has been included as ref 66 with simply "Chalker". I've added his full name under that reference, and now it's back to simply "Chalker". You really do have thing against Bill Chalker don't you ? Refrain from cutting out the man's FIRST name and credentials. That sort of SUBJECTIVE so-called "contribution" has to stop now! It will not be tolerated. There is no room for politically motivated (one sided) views in ufology and if you refute that you are of one sided, then simply stop deleting valid Australian UFOlogy items in the article. Mantom555 14:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please work within the wiki rules. So before you start this cut & past process, again, can you or do you have a RAAF or DoD ref that states that you were the "first"? That would clear up the problems with Mantom555 edit. The auforn problem is in the section above. Regards, TimMU 14:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In regards to ref66, that is the way you do a book citation... however for you I have produced the longer version - as - Chalker, Bill, The Oz Files, Duffy & Snellgrove, 1996, pp246, ISBN 1-875989-04-8 TimMU 14:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I believe it is you that needs to work within the framework of wiki rules. Again refrain from subjective cutting of legitimate info. Regarding your "cut and paste process" comment.. please read (entirely) Bill Chalkers' comments above regarding "firsts". With the lack of definitive and ambiguous sources about vufors and pra's INITIAL or "first" involvement in RAAF ufo records, then those sections relating to vufor's and pras involvement should promptly be deleted. Otherwise, and again i stress wiki rules, do not delete legetimate information.Mantom555 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • TimMU seems to be operating by his own rules. If he bothered to read my January 3 2007 comments about "firsts" etc he will understand my comments. I have RAAF DOD documentation which confirms my visits & research in the 1982-84 period. None of it talks about "firsts", but as I stated above what is more relevant is what can be substantiated through published material and documentation. I apreciate what Mantom555 is trying to do and I admire his persistence. With the editing excesses of TimMU & "vufors" et.al any serious researcher is put off contributing to this article as they realise that their time is wasted because TimMU etc simply impose their own biases and unfathomable criteria to reinstate biased, incorrect or misrepresentative materials. Until this problem ends this article will be seriously impaired and its credibility and realability will be legitimately questioned. While referencing my material is appropriate, I don't think credientials such as B.ScHons are necessary. I had tried to edit Mantom's contribution myself to state my own conclusions re the two polarised RAAF positions, but TimMU's censoring efforts made such efforts redundant. I won't bother attempting any edits until this "edit war" stops and TimMU et.al starts showing less bias and censorship activities. Regards, Bill Chalker - By 09:58, 7 January 2007 144.134.48.114 - [10]
    • "I have RAAF DOD documentation..." can you give us an official DoD reference to these doc. TimMU 12:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I find it disturbing that you and your partner Mantom555 lower yourself into such a caustic, threatening and verbose reply(s) in what should be a professional discussion. Again I make the following observations: 1. The fact that these "B.ScHons" entries exist is outrageous. 2. This entry ”… was the first civilian researcher…” is absurd in the extreme. What independent proof have you that states you were the first? And, "3. The fact that you use your own book to reference your own quote is startling! It is an entry that is outright egotistic and vanity laden. And will not, nor should it, survive the Wiki administrations notice. TimMU 12:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

TimMu it is your editing that is outrageous. You make "straw man" innuendos such as Mantom555 as being my partner. I don't know who this person is, and once again if you bothered to read my comments rather than read into them bizarre and spurious connections you would realise I tried to edit his comments myself deleting the B.Sc reference. However in your editing zeal you deleted these efforts as well. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia articles was to provide users with reliable information about the subject matter irrespective of who was involved. If one is directly involved in some of the content of an article and has extensively written and published about it, is it not likely that referencing of that material might occur, particularly given when it is more accessible to the general reader than the some of referencing already in use. eg. Auchettl's 1985 ufology article or Boyle's 1961 roots article available to nobody other than people in the PRA or Vufors circles. If you know to the contrary perhaps you can cite where these two articles are readily available to the average Wikipedia reader. Readers should be able to access these references in order to assess the veracity of the material in the article based on them. If you have one standard of relatively uncritical rules for the likes of PRA, Vufors and Victorian ufology and another more hostile and more onerous set of editing rules for anything that comes from elsewhere including particularly material connected to me, from AUFORN etc, it should not be surprising to have your editing record on this article called into question. Given the record todate with "vufors" and "TimMu" editing with this article do you really expect me to waste my time assisting your "editing". I think it might be best to see how this article develops and the ongoing record of editing evolves. So far the picture looks rather bleak. Regards, Bill Chalker - 12:59, 7 January 2007 144.134.48.77 [11]

• Another side track. “Me thinks you protests too much”, Sir . And screen under verbose indignation. TimMU 13:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• SIGH TimMu is at it again. Your "caustic, threatening and verbose reply(s)" comment is really of your very own doing. You simply won't accept the fact that you are absolutely and intentionally biased towards your beloved vufors and pra. Can't you get the hint when people tell you on NUMEROUS occassions to read THOROUGHLY Bill Chalkers comments on 3rd January. Again, read the comment carefully and you will understand how you and your group are outright biased. Oh, and WE are ALL waiting for you to reply to Mr Chalkers' question to you timmu. In case you didn't read it thoroughly, here it is again:

"Auchettl's 1985 ufology article or Boyle's 1961 roots article available to nobody other than people in the PRA or Vufors circles. If you know to the contrary perhaps you can cite where these two articles are readily available to the average Wikipedia reader. Readers should be able to access these references in order to assess the veracity of the material in the article based on them." Now, I sincerely hope that your answer was not in your last childish remark: "me thinks you protests too much". If that is your 'educated' answer then you fail miserably in the context of YOUR very own editorial guidelines....to quote YOU: "...in what should be a professional discussion". Eitherwise, cite the 2 articles which Mr Chalker has asked you. Cite them! P.S. Childish remarks don't count. Mantom555 16:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well I agree with the other user, a statment with the word "First" in it, needs a ref/citation, if non is given then it should go. And it should be independent, not from the text of the author in question, this entry should go. The whole entry does not add anything new to the text. L\LanceBaker 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)