Talk:Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act

2022:

and we should always try to contain the conversation FIRST on the talk page of the article under question. And it can take weeks to get answers and an agreement to move forward. You have questions and are frustrated not to get quick responses, I get that, I also have that personality to move along and finish tasks before starting the next one. But this is confusing to people who would like to discuss this issue. Once the discussions start getting multiple responses then it is hard to remember where you read something or who to respond to or what was the point of the topic you were trying to make. VPP you did this also with the Luis Elizondo article and I asked you please not start multiple conversations in various places and yet you are doing so again. Please be patient, it only frustrates people who are attempting to answer your questions. I do not have an opinion on this article at the moment, am following the discussions and hope there is a clear answer of how to move forward. Kudos for remaining a VeryPolitePerson.

2060:

different but peer name/article in place of the one I'm working on and think it though that way. For example, this is about a law, yep that seems like it would be something that would be Knowledge (XXG) notable. But is it? Does this specific law stand out from other laws? If so is there enough reliable sources to back that up? And from different opinions, people who should be experts. What are some laws that have passed but have not been in the public and getting those important reliable sources, probably a ton of them, we don't know about them because the media hasn't written about them. As I said here in the post above. Keep discussions to one place so that everyone will have one discussion and we can sort these out. I understand your frustration, you have done a lot of work and it might just be all deleted, been there and done that. This is how we learn.

514: 256: 235: 825: 2075:

resources (which?) for notability beyond any other article (why?) and all I have apparently gotten is crickets. We have a year of unique mainstream news media discussion of this law, over dozens of sources. I get some people... are passionate about this 'sort' of topic, but passion is irrelevant as is ego, right? I was just a bit flabbergasted to see someone on the other venue straight up make up what amounts to disinformation that this article is all OR, primary sourced, and fringe sourced.... which is patently

411: 384: 1086: 421: 266: 564: 546: 841: 1104: 574: 869: 1025: 1014: 1003: 992: 981: 953: 710: 887: 204: 897: 782: 771: 760: 738: 668: 640: 1662:? I mean, Gillibrand when walking back some of her more credulous commentary more-or-less said that she was concerned that paranoid conspiracy theories could be rooted in the Defense Department. Stuff like this is absent from the article because, well, this provision is so unimportant to everyone but the UFO true believer. 749: 2359:

favor exposure then burning the bridges to the Blumenthals and the Keans when the heat in the kitchen gets too hot. We're stuck dealing with a list of compromised, second-rate reporting from the perspective of ludicrous credulity while the rest of the world basically ignores the situation due to its absurdity.

2074:

I see not a single issue with notability here against any verbiage of any policy anyone has linked here or on the Fringe page, being bluntly and transparently honest. I have asked as well repeatedly for this apparently mythical policy that says some articles (which?) require specific classes/types of

3217:

policy) conflict here between something that is notable and the desire by Knowledge (XXG) to limit exposure to certain things on-wiki given there's (I regret looking at those "Arbcom" dumpster fires last night) a long history of apparently dickheads brawling in every conceivable direction (including

3200:

We are not required to hyper-contextualize everything. We have a conundrum here as the law and remarks specifically talk about 'non-human'. I'm 100% fine with leaving that bit commented out, but if we can't quote the law that itself has it's own definition of 'non-human', and we cannot by any metric

2764:

In National Review, Andrew Stuttaford criticized the usage of eminent domain in the UAPDA, arguing that while there may be legitimate reasons to restrict access to "recovered technologies" subject to Second Amendment considerations, he opposed eminent domain for non-weapons technologies, saying that

2698:

It's a valid question, right? To me, CT is perpetuating the full "Aliens are Real" with all that it entails: telepathy, grays, abductions, implants, etc. In contrast, quite a lot of people in government are having non-FRINGE conversations about balloons, drones, and other objects moving in ways

2358:

source which has all the gloss and veneer of legitimacy while actually hiding behind a complete absence of editorial care. This has plagued even erstwhile "reliable" and "mainstream" outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post who alternately pass on factchecking and careful reporting in

2059:

I totally get that VPP. I find editing frustrating at times and getting a clear answer with chapter and verse is not always going to happen. I've learned that you sometimes have to take a step back when dealing with some topics and say maybe I'm not getting the full picture here. I will substitute a

1252:

The Background section doesn't say this and is based completely on content from the other stable articles. The UAP Disclosure Act section/lede is just straight from sources and about introduction of the bill and two overview/summary sentences from sources and the note of an alternative proposal. The

2793:

Out of the first 5k hits, a total of 1987 are for "talk:" pages, and 431 are from "Knowledge (XXG):" pages. 312 are "User:", but I didn't differentiate for User vs User talk and so on, so conservatively 2106 aren't from articles, and the rest are as sources. The breakouts on the next 5k results are

2021:

Please VPP, do not continue to open up discussions on multiple places. This article is only a few days old, the talk page discussion is from September 16 and already you have opened up a discussion on fringe theories on September 16. The same people are having a conversation in two different places

1468:

show them going on about it. I followed more by that Matt Laslo DC reporter after reading the now-redudandant source of his that we removed, to see if there was anything worth adding here (still looking!). I have to admit a remark from the South Dakota Senator made me frankly curious, where he said

2188:

Tags don't worry me, but I'm inclined to believe notability _is_ met. Lots of bad sourcing, lots of work to do but we do need to help readers get to the bottom of this topic, as best we can. This law reminds me of the mathematician who learned about Euler's Identity who said something like: 'I

2852:

Prior to joining National Review and National Review Institute, Andrew, who qualified as an attorney in the U.K., worked in the international financial markets for nearly four decades, latterly as the CEO of the U.S. subsidiary of a Nordic investment bank. Andrew has written for a wide range of

1463:

It--the UAPDA--has been consistently in the mainstream news for one year now, and NARA is forcing compliance from government agencies already. My, and your, personal views on the law are not even really tertiary. That says it is of interest to the United States of America's Federal government,

1439:

I think that the lack of coverage may say something about whether this is just the equivalent of a stale hot potato of an issue. There was a brief excitement over Grusch's testimony, but it turned into a lot of nothing and now the hastily drafted "act" is not of interest to anyone but the most

3045:

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in

3185:

As jps says -- without coverage in a RS, it's really impossible for us to know what that definition means, what effects it will have (if any), or how to weight it. Bureaucracies are funny things, and their words aren't straightforward to interpret. In any case, we certainly can't go from a

2844:

Andrew Stuttaford has been writing for National Review since the early 1990s. He took up full-time positions with National Review and National Review Institute in March 2020 and is now the editor of National Review Capital Matters, an initiative focused on financial and economic

2487:

is apparently not optional. Please desist from being abusive or insulting toward any parties going forward. I look forward to working with you on this article and expect your tone to stay as respectful and polite as mine. Let's move forward without any 'hot takes'. --

1698:

fast. Congress does not do things by accident of this scale, to where a Senate Majority Leader and the entire Senate Intel committee drops a bomb like this. I don't know why you keep bringing up your personal views and takes on UFO believers, enthusiasts and such. --

2040:

matter which I had seen was subject to not worrying about "local" consensus due to it's real-world impacts on living people. I respectfully do not regret asking for eyes on that scenario as it unfolded, as multiple people were putting negative unsourced material in

3087:

Non-human intelligence.--The term "non-human intelligence" means any sentient intelligent non-human lifeform regardless of nature or ultimate origin that may be presumed responsible for unidentified anomalous phenomena or of which the Federal Government has become

1253:

Review Board and NARA sections are just secondary sourced about the two main components of the law. The voting/passage section is just what happened in Congress with the law, and the Reactions section is just that, quotes from stakeholders in Congress and similar.

1713:

I haven't seen any sources that discuss these matters. As such, I don't think we have anything to go on but inexact claims and nonsensical verbiage. "Congress does not do things by accident of this scale" is a total joke. They do things by accident at this scale

1693:

Report what the sources say and leave it at that? We're not supposed to insert ourselves, I thought...? As to how it got there, we can chatter about it (and as a law/science nerd, law a bit more, it's fascinating as hell how this ran from SCIF to law and

2373:

Is this your opinion or something backed by policy that any sourcing related to UFOs, even if covering factual things the government is doing, require a different level of scrutiny? Is this a neutral encyclopedia or are some animals more special? --

2044:

My initial frustration here was the (to me) strange extreme vagueness about the "NPOV" concerns. If someone has an issue, they should be prepared to explain it in detail, upfront, from the initial engagement. That's what I try to do at all times. --

1902:

The claim that "aliens are on Earth" is "plausible" is totally fringe. Whether it is "possible" is irrelevant - it is "possible" that Santa brings presents to everybody if you bend over backwards, and it is equally "possible" that aliens are visiting

1408:

There is basically no news on the 'drafting' that I have found past the limited discussion of David Grusch having input on the legislation from his role in the Intelligence community. The law seems to have basically burst forward full speed from the

832: 650: 2336:

a few weeks ago (it was the source, now gone, that mentioned Elizondo had influenced the UAPDA) which made me realize there was no article for this. I guess it may have 'read' that way to some people from just hewing almost Xerox-close to the raw

848: 654: 166: 1766:? I'd be happy to integrate what you have. I spent a few hours running searches on all these related terms and came across nothing science-related that I remember seeing about the laws outside of things like forums, subreddits and similar. -- 1464:

because the United States Congress and United States President said it was, so we report that. Scientists perhaps can complain about the law, but that doesn't change that it exists, and from trivial if not Article-level inclusion today sources

1292:. The subject of the article, which I will politely repeat no matter how many times contested, is the law known as the "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act", not aliens and such. Reality is not presently subjective, surely. -- 3212:

It needs to be asked and answered: are we not supposed to talk about when the media starts covering things like "Why is the US Senate holding confirmation hearings for a UFO committee that the US President nominated?" We have a guideline

2669:

For my part, I'd say Semivan is a proponent of the full UFO CT, making him a convenient person to quote for that POV. There are any number of people we could replace him with -- Elizondo, Danny Sheehan, I could go on literally forever.

1986:

Hey all, thanks for the help. I'm honestly stuck how to proceed here as I seem to have exhausted all sources about what this article is about, and do not see a solution to the asks on the attached new templates. I raised a question here:

1653:

Context still seems a bit difficult to suss out here. How did concepts which have no precedent in jurisprudence end up in the text? What are we supposed to do with a law that talks about things which are not clearly defined and which the

2327:

The 'conspiracy' thing most definitely was not my intention; my articles are very dry (I think!) that I have written. I'm not really super familiar with this mess, or wasn't until starting on it after following breadcrumbs from a

1841:

But that is neither here nor there. It is not our job to say "there is no reasonable reason" and conclude that nonsense belongs in the article. UFOs are fringe, and the people who look at fringe do not believe that alien stuff.

1624:

We could start with whether and how the act defines a non-human intelligence. Or extraterrestrial biological material. Any sources discuss that? If no, maybe we shouldn't highlight that less-considered part of the statute?

1509:

and you can stop saying this sort of thing repeatedly, because repetition does not really influence anything. Let's focus on article content and sources against policy. Our personal views on the subject matter as little as

57: 2562:

I don't think we should use "socials"; the skeptic folk have an entire ecosystem of for-profit and non-profit publications I can look through as well. We just need to make sure any commentary or criticism is about the

3235:

Just leave the few token mentions of "non-human" as is, and call it a day until UAPDA 2024 moves forward or not to whatever end. This article as-is may be simply done and stable now once we tune the Reactions section

1476:

obviously think it's important, and it was important enough to pass a law which is heavily sourced, so that's where we are. Where we'll end up is TBD, but that's not a concern for today's Knowledge (XXG) article. --

2189:

don't understand it, I don't know what means, but it means something.' Maybe it just means whole swaths of the US govt are falling for the UFO CT, and we've handled that before with Qanon and climate denial.

2173:

Agree with VPP in all respects. The article, in my view, covers a notable law that has considerable sourcing. Those who disagree should nominate it for deletion. The tags, again in my view, should be removed.

2907:

Tyler Cowen, writing for Bloomberg News, argued meanwhile to exercise caution and that the government may have valid and legitimate reasons to maintain secrecy around the topics of UFOs, UAP, and non-human

2122:

I think it's a fine policy; I don't care for vague silliness or acronyms as answers. The level of sourcing in this article would make any other article on any other topic virtually a lifetime resident of

160: 3444: 2548:

I just notice the vote counts are in the sidebar. We'd prefer in a RS, but we have some latitude since we're balancing fringe -- Mick West or other famous skeptics twitter would probably work.

3205:

to take an all-of Federal government action in that collection effort, we can't pretend it doesn't exist in deference to any (I don't know how to term this so I just need to say it) 'delicate'

2641:

Why should it matter if USA Today thought this CIA veteran (seriously, why does that matter?) thought someone was notable enough. Does he have expertise in these matters? We need more context.

3454: 1188:

as to be eye-rolled at by the relevant scientific community is an important point to get across to readers and the article does not sufficiently do that. Please fix prior to removing the tag.

3041:

is actually himself notable on Knowledge (XXG), and there are no noted concerns on fact checking/editorial. There is no conflict of interest here--with whom, in any event? Aliens? Congress?

1838:

is maximum. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that beings from another star system are here. The planets in our star system are uninhabitable. The evidence for alien visitation is all crap.

1639:

I've adjusted it already to focus on the legalities around it all if this is concerning; see the lede now. I am fine with this! Like I said, this is an article about a law, not aliens. --

3439: 3404: 3394: 2530:

Getting into those Congressional weeds was still on my to-do, I can dig it out tomorrow or the day after I should think. I don't recall seeing any negative Congressional commentary in any

528: 451: 3449: 3229:

no one normal wants to spend all day arguing over stupid repeated micro-debates about a stray vowel or syllable and wants to get a stable article and move on to more interesting things.

2593:

problem at the moment. I mean, who care if Jim Semivan (who?) think a revlation could be coming that "we are not alone"? Having a real expert like West could help de-fringe-ify things.

1245:

Apologies, could you point out where it says that now after your edit of that one bit of verbiage in the lede that I based on the actual raw language in the legislation itself from the

2931:

Tyler Cowen ... is an American economist, columnist, and blogger. He is a professor at George Mason University, where he holds the Holbert L. Harris chair in the economics department.

1260:

to insert any of my own judgement into the veracity of it all, so I just tried to spell out the facts about the law itself. It's not an article on UFOs/aliens, it's about a law? --

3409: 2227:

thing that we have any additional law that carves holes or limits our ability to over-classify everything under the sun. I do not even see this article the more I think about it as

1491:

No one in the mainstream news has really cared that much about this stuff. That's the entire point. It's all niche bloviating from lazy reporters and cultists as far as I can tell.

2223:

exist, then the government is now compelled to apparently tell everyone and they aren't eligible to be as easily classified. To any sane metric or standard, that is an objectively

1410: 468: 2915: 723: 680: 1956:

I'm not certain how any of our views on "aliens" matter on Knowledge (XXG) in general, as our views don't matter for article content, only our policies and sources? We have "

3399: 3143:

Also, note that no secondary reliable sources has commented on this attempt to say aliens without saying aliens. I don't think this term deserves mentioning on this page.

2655:

I will instruct you to provide what policy says we now apparently need contextual framing/sourcing for... sourcing? Explain yourself in plain English, please. Thanks. --

2159:

Again, because there is no need for the same discussion to happen repeatedly -- I encourage you to nominate this article for deletion if you think it's not notable. --

1184:

The article is written rather credulously as though there is anything plausible about "biological material" and "non-human intelligence". The fact that this stuff is so

523: 504: 394: 342: 337: 322: 966: 952: 709: 1562:

The article is about the law, its background, development, politics and passage, not the topic of UFOs or "Ufology", surely. By all means edit along those lines for

3474: 3379: 1599: 1156: 333: 37: 2853:

publications over the years including The Wall Street Journal, The New Criterion, The Weekly Standard, and Standpoint on political, economic, and cultural matters.

3389: 3374: 2572: 494: 312: 1162: 458: 2090:

Asking genuinely: are we supposed to worry about or consider the personalities of others editing as to what gets on the Article page, or only our policies? --

92: 1732:

I am not here to socialize or pontificate. I'm here to improve Wikipeda, and certainly not to 'right wrongs'. Do you have any policy-based things to add? --

181: 1418: 148: 3414: 463: 288: 3434: 353: 349: 2858:

Does this qualify as a reliable source to speak to questions of eminent domain against new technologies or is there a policy-based reason to retain the

1274:

The article as currently written does not sufficiently frame the subject which is, facilely, a giant hypothetical and a nearly laughable one at that.

365: 361: 357: 675: 645: 3479: 3424: 616: 2765:

without private property, technologies such as hydraulic fracturing could not have advanced had landowners not controlled their own mineral rights.

1992: 1132: 98: 3384: 3369: 3242:

I can stick that quote into the References section as a unique ref name/cite object and we call it a day and bury the definition in the footnotes.

622: 142: 3464: 434: 389: 279: 240: 684: 3021:

Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent

1780:"The article is written rather credulously as though there is anything plausible about "biological material" and "non-human intelligence". " 138: 3469: 3102: 1505:

I don't how to say this without saying it, but noted, and not relevant as one persons take. Nominate it for deletion if you think it fails

43: 1111: 1091: 188: 3459: 446: 1906:

You are trying to base the article on your own preconceptions instead on how reliable scientific sources are treating the subject. --

112: 3429: 3061:

Why do we need a better source for a high level summary analysis like this? By what policy standard and section of said policy? --

1920:"You are trying to base the article on your own preconceptions instead on how reliable scientific sources are treating the subject." 927: 3209:

sensibilities, or their apparent counterparts who want to write like aliens are holding rallies at the United Nations or something.

909: 874: 117: 33: 1425:. Which is fine, and doesn't really matter, but it would be nice to turn up a few reputable mainstream sources covering this. -- 1457:

I think that the lack of coverage may say something about whether this is just the equivalent of a stale hot potato of an issue.'

442:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

1394:

Not really. The only action of Congress being reported is the voting. I do not see much reporting on the drafting, for example.

87: 215: 154: 3054:

Predatory open access journals are considered questionable due to the absence of quality control in the peer-review process.

1999: 1288:

Whether or not its hypothetical or laughable (I do not disagree), our individual/personal views don't really matter, right?

78: 2304:

As others have said, lots of problems here with tone, credulity, quotefarm, and others. It's written from a background of

3419: 3033:

or Washington Spectator. The newspaper actually rates HIGH for Factual Reporting and HIGH CREDIBILITY for MBFC rating per

2309: 2142: 1131:

related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3294: 3252: 3174: 3132: 3098: 3066: 2999:, Dave Troy compared the UAPDA's gated time limits to an "ultimatum" for President Joe Biden to release classified data. 2964: 2941: 2866: 2689: 2660: 2632: 2580: 2539: 2493: 2461: 2379: 2345: 2236: 2203:

That's how I see this as someone who tends to closely follow topics around classification, if it wasn't obvious from my

2164: 2132: 2095: 2050: 2011: 1965: 1771: 1737: 1704: 1644: 1615: 1575: 1519: 1482: 1430: 1422: 1356: 1297: 1265: 1231:

The fact the article takes at face value claims that the US government had in its possession alien material/technology.

1222: 2861:

tagging? If we wish to retain that, based on what specific passage from what specific policy, with a link to same? --

2515:

Do we know the vote tallies? Can we find any statements from opponents of the bill, people calling it nonsense, etc.

587: 551: 2936:

Is there any reason this person here in this context is an unreliable source? If so, why and against what policy? --

3148: 3118: 2795: 2646: 2475: 2447: 2396: 2364: 2150: 2113: 1723: 1667: 1630: 1589: 1496: 1445: 1399: 1311: 1279: 1193: 3006: 2788:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=50000&offset=0&target=nationalreview.com

3352: 3336: 3330: 3319: 3298: 3276: 3256: 3195: 3178: 3152: 3136: 3122: 3070: 2968: 2945: 2870: 2728: 2708: 2693: 2679: 2664: 2650: 2636: 2602: 2584: 2557: 2543: 2524: 2497: 2479: 2465: 2451: 2437: 2400: 2383: 2368: 2349: 2321: 2287: 2240: 2198: 2183: 2168: 2154: 2136: 2117: 2099: 2069: 2054: 2031: 2015: 1993:

Knowledge (XXG):Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act, NPOV, FRINGE and UNDUE

1969: 1935: 1915: 1880: 1851: 1826: 1812: 1798: 1775: 1741: 1727: 1708: 1671: 1648: 1634: 1619: 1593: 1579: 1555: 1523: 1500: 1486: 1449: 1434: 1403: 1389: 1360: 1329: 1315: 1301: 1283: 1269: 1240: 1226: 1212: 1197: 914:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of 3127:

I don't disagree, but we are irrelevant in our personal takes. We follow where the sourcing and policy leads. --

122: 2456:

Do you have to use perjoratives repeatedly like cited here? Is civility a mandate on all of us at all times? --

2798:

it seems fine to use in our context here as background/analysis on one specific aspect (eminent domain) for the

513: 3201:

exclude the text string 'non-human' from the article because the law explicitly addresses it and has commanded

1236: 1208: 915: 3029:

There is no evidence I can find online of any concerns of fact checking from any reputable sources for either

2087:

like that. Every response seems to be a new acronym, and trivial reading of each shows this article is 'fine'.

221: 2951:

I removed the tag yesterday (no one seemed to object still) on this one as it seems this person is fine as a

3290: 3248: 3170: 3128: 3094: 3062: 2960: 2937: 2862: 2685: 2656: 2628: 2576: 2535: 2489: 2457: 2375: 2341: 2305: 2232: 2204: 2160: 2128: 2091: 2046: 2007: 2006:

approach. Thanks for opening up this new class of policy pages to me; I wasn't aware of a few of these. --

1961: 1767: 1733: 1700: 1640: 1611: 1571: 1515: 1478: 1426: 1352: 1293: 1261: 1246: 1218: 679:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 591:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the 2816: 1679:

What are we supposed to do with a law that talks about things which are not clearly defined and which the

1217:

What undue credence after those edits by you from the intial draft? Is a Federal law itself 'fringe'? --

824: 284: 3144: 3114: 3022: 2794:

similar, so presumably we've got at minimum 4000 usages of National Review as a source in Articles. From

2642: 2590: 2471: 2443: 2392: 2360: 2146: 2109: 1719: 1663: 1626: 1585: 1492: 1441: 1395: 1340: 1307: 1275: 1189: 68: 3046:

articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

2836: 2598: 2231:

and think that needs to be carefully considered. The law makes no statement that "aliens are real!" --

1911: 1859: 1847: 1808: 287:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2484: 2391:

definitely requires a different level of scrutiny. I don't know why you seem to foreget that so often.

2003: 1886: 255: 234: 83: 1923:

The article, as currently written, is about a law duly passed by Congress and signed by the president.

2996: 2976: 2955:

to discuss this broad remark here/analysis. I am happy to hear why we may not want this in under the

426: 271: 3322: 3268: 3239:

Uncomment that bit and leave it as-is to give readers context, or we can leave them to read the law.

2429: 2279: 1927: 1872: 1835: 1818: 1790: 1547: 1381: 203: 3326: 3272: 3165:. You also complained on the discussions that readers had no context for "non-human intelligence". 3080: 2433: 2283: 1931: 1876: 1822: 1794: 1567: 1551: 1385: 1232: 1204: 174: 3307:

Feoffer, in the description he provided to his deletion of the actual language in the UAPDA, wrote

3206: 2388: 2228: 2105: 1979: 1185: 2776: 2721: 2179: 1831: 1337: 3014: 2980: 2956: 2083:. I truly don't see any policy-level issues with this policy, and no one can cite what there is 1957: 1890: 921: 410: 383: 3348: 3191: 2704: 2675: 2553: 2520: 2317: 2194: 2065: 2027: 64: 2272:

is an attempt to get some answers on what, if anything, the government knows on this subject.

1607: 1606:. I will require/need to know what specific actionable passages/sources in the article are a 1563: 1257: 2594: 1907: 1895:

Whether you have any idea and whether it is "possible" in your opinion is not relevant. See

1843: 1804: 1348: 1103: 1085: 2534:

level stuff. I am assuming Twitter and similar won't count, even if I found something? --

2470:

Are you upset by any of these descriptions? If so, does it prevent you from collaborating?

2329: 2037: 1506: 1325: 3038: 3034: 2828: 2771: 902: 3289:

for what gets in. We don't need side distractions. "Just the facts, ma'am," and all. --

3282: 2952: 2809: 2531: 1896: 1289: 3186:

definition in a bill to any broader claims: aliens can't be legislated into existence.

1203:

Added a fringe tag, to warn readers of the undue credence the article gives UFO rumors.

3222:

anti UFO sides) in this subspace for seemingly an entire human generation on this site.

2892: 2876: 2824: 2820: 3286: 1762:

Do you have any sources I can integrate from mainstream scientific sourcing about the

3363: 2832: 2714: 2333: 2175: 1124: 1120: 439: 2567:, not 'little green men'. Or else (to me) that would read like putting critiques of 3344: 3187: 2700: 2671: 2549: 2516: 2313: 2190: 2061: 2023: 2124: 1998:

You guys have me scratching my head how this would be addressed without utilizing

886: 868: 840: 563: 545: 2887: 2880: 2614:

if Jim Semivan (who?) think a revlation could be coming that "we are not alone"?

2568: 573: 2810:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Andrew+Stuttaford%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org

1584:

You think a law about UFOs is not within the topic of UFOs or ufology? How so?

2263:

There is great (I don't think that is an exaggeration) interest in this issue.

1128: 892: 579: 569: 416: 261: 3169:

concerns have been addressed. Our goalposts should be firmly glued down. --

2623:

determined this CIA veteran was notable enought to quote as an expert on it?

1306:

This is not an individual/personal view. This is simply what the subject is.

3108:

Is a chimpanzee sentient? Do they cause anomalous phenomena? How do we know?

2624: 2620: 438:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 3161:

were the one who put the "specify" template there in the first place with

3261:"we certainly can't go from a definition in a bill to any broader claims" 2354:

The problem is that this topic in particular attracts a certain type of

2340:

Re quotefarm, isn't that most 'reaction' sections on most articles? --

1116: 1469:

the repeated inclusion of the term "non-human" was "no accident". Why?

2919:. Using this version here as the Bloomberg side version is basically 1865:

I have no idea whether beings from those systems have visited Earth.

1570:

what remains that has NPOV concerns against the listed sources? --

3013:

Author Dave Troy there is flagged as needing a "better" source per

1343:, no matter how many times it comes up. This is not the article on 667: 639: 2799: 2080: 1763: 3343:

to alert editors there that the article needs better sourcing.

2275:

VPP has done a great job of stating relevant facts about the law.

1380:

Huh? The article is merely reporting actions in the US Congress.

3202: 3081:

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/uap_amendment.pdf

1960:" linked up there. Let's focus on article text and sources. -- 1543:

the article accurately reports actions taken by the US Congress.

1344: 3030: 2312:

where a foreign spy-platform traversed the nation unreported.

2141:

We aren't talking about any other article on any other topic.

592: 197: 28: 15: 1789:

but there is no reasonable reason to reject its possibility.

3007:

The Wide Angle: Is a UFO Hoax a Ticking Time-bomb for Biden?

2571:

spiritual or whatever religious beliefs into something like

951: 839: 823: 708: 512: 2442:

Do you have a point that will help us improve the article?

3267:

Please don't read too much into the language in the bill.

1803:

Yes, there are such reasons. You just do not know them. --

2308:, rather than the more relevant, if mundanely-Earthly, 2269:

The law, passed by Congress and signed by the President,

1683:

of the bill have admitted in interviews might not exist

1658:

of the bill have admitted in interviews might not exist

283:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 3340: 3162: 2987: 2920: 2899: 2787: 2756: 2104:

You have not gotten crickets. You just didn't like the

1038: 2916:

Government Secrecy About UFOs Isn't Always a Bad thing

1610:

concern if I am to remediate them against policy. --

173: 3310:"we can't just pull quotes out of the bill ourselves" 2986:

This is in the "Reactions to the 2024 UAPDA" section

1411:

United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

1115:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 721:

This article has been checked against the following

3445:

North American military history task force articles

2257:"Does this specific law stand out from other laws?" 963: 806: 720: 187: 3455:United States military history task force articles 1330: 1161:This article has not yet received a rating on the 964:This article has not yet been checked against the 621:This article has not yet received a rating on the 3440:C-Class North American military history articles 3405:Low-importance United States Government articles 3395:C-Class United States articles of Low-importance 2913:The citation goes to his Bloomberg piece titled 2108:policy or didn't understand what we are saying. 46:for general discussion of the article's subject. 3450:C-Class United States military history articles 3335:Thanks for alerting me to the problems over at 3037:. For the Spectator, it's published and editor 1604:Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act 1600:Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act 38:Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act 2755:The article uses this fellow like this in the 2575:, which would be obviously inappropriate. -- 2573:Headley v. Church of Scientology International 3410:WikiProject United States Government articles 3313:In fact, Knowledge (XXG) does that regularly. 1377:"undue credence the article gives UFO rumors" 1064:assessing the article against each criterion. 8: 3076:UAPDA definition of 'Non-human intelligence' 1419:sensitive compartmented information facility 693:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history 2926:From Cowen's own Knowledge (XXG) article: 1871:Nothing credulous about that possibility. 1868:But that, IMO, is certainly a possibility. 1256:It seemed like it would be a violation of 1080: 1060:| b5 1056:| b4 1052:| b3 1048:| b2 1044:| b1 960: 863: 833:North American military history task force 803: 717: 634: 540: 378: 229: 3400:C-Class United States Government articles 849:United States military history task force 479:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States 297:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject U.S. Congress 1041:the following code to the template call: 908:This article is within the scope of the 673:This article is within the scope of the 3232:So it seems like our options here are: 3111:This is not a definition. This is joke. 1082: 865: 636: 542: 380: 231: 201: 3475:Unknown-importance Skepticism articles 3380:Unknown-subject U.S. Congress articles 1598:I didn't say that; I said the article 1141:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Skepticism 926:. To use this banner, please see the 683:. To use this banner, please see the 3390:Low-importance United States articles 3375:Low-importance U.S. Congress articles 3075: 2805:Going by this for Andrew Stuttaford: 2751:National Review and Andrew Stuttaford 696:Template:WikiProject Military history 7: 3004:The citation goes to Troy's article 2839:. The National Review lists him as: 1109:This article is within the scope of 936:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Aviation 585:This article is within the scope of 432:This article is within the scope of 277:This article is within the scope of 2428:"brains rolling around the floor". 2422:This is the level of your rhetoric. 1885:Still neither here nor there. Read 1037:To fill out this checklist, please 595:and the subjects encompassed by it. 220:It is of interest to the following 36:for discussing improvements to the 3415:WikiProject United States articles 2684:What is "CT" in this context? -- 1546:That is not a rumor, but reality. 1335:Tooltip Public Law (United States) 482:Template:WikiProject United States 300:Template:WikiProject U.S. Congress 14: 3435:C-Class military history articles 3264:You are absolutely right on that. 2770:The citation there links to this 2300:Important topic, problematic text 2266:Far more than in many other laws. 2207:. It's basically a law that says 2036:Thanks. The Elizondo thing was a 63:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 1102: 1084: 1023: 1012: 1001: 990: 979: 895: 885: 867: 780: 769: 758: 747: 736: 666: 638: 572: 562: 544: 419: 409: 382: 264: 254: 233: 202: 58:Click here to start a new topic. 3480:WikiProject Skepticism articles 3425:Unknown-importance law articles 3247:I am fine with any of 1-3. -- 1144:Template:WikiProject Skepticism 601:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Law 499:This article has been rated as 317:This article has been rated as 3385:C-Class United States articles 3370:C-Class U.S. Congress articles 3353:23:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 3331:09:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 3299:17:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 3281:We should stick explicitly to 3277:16:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 3257:14:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 3196:06:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 3179:18:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3153:18:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3137:18:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3123:18:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3103:16:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3071:16:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2969:18:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2946:15:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2871:15:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2729:14:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 2713:I think CT=conspiracy theory. 2709:00:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 2694:23:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2680:07:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2665:18:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2651:18:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2637:15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2603:05:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2585:04:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2558:04:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2544:04:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2525:04:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2498:18:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2480:18:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2466:18:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2452:18:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2438:15:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2401:18:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2384:13:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2369:12:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2350:04:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2322:03:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2288:14:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 2241:14:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2199:07:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2184:04:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2169:18:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2155:18:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2137:13:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2118:13:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2100:03:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2070:03:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2055:03:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2032:02:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2016:20:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 1970:02:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1936:15:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1916:15:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1881:11:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1852:11:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1834:. All stars are far away, and 1827:12:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1813:20:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 1799:16:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 1776:16:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 1742:18:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1728:18:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1709:14:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1672:13:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1649:02:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1635:00:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1620:00:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1594:00:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1580:16:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 1556:11:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1524:18:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1501:18:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1487:14:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1450:13:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1435:02:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1404:00:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1390:17:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 1361:18:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1316:13:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1302:02:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1284:00:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1270:16:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 1241:16:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 1227:16:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 1213:15:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 1198:15:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 1: 3465:WikiProject Aviation articles 2923:(was working the other day). 2332:rescue/research deep dive on 2310:2023 Chinese balloon incident 1135:and see a list of open tasks. 939:Template:WikiProject Aviation 521:This article is supported by 291:and see a list of open tasks. 55:Put new text under old text. 2699:we can't precisely explain. 1783:Of course that is plausible. 1602:is about the law called the 1514:do, on Knowledge (XXG). -- 1440:unreliable of commentators. 1423:United States Senate chamber 1320:The subject of the article, 676:Military history WikiProject 3470:C-Class Skepticism articles 2815:He is cited as a source on 1786:I don't know if it is true, 524:WikiProject U.S. Government 3496: 3337:Title I of the Patriot Act 3320:Title I of the Patriot Act 1163:project's importance scale 984:Referencing and citation: 741:Referencing and citation: 623:project's importance scale 505:project's importance scale 323:project's importance scale 3460:C-Class aviation articles 2783:National Review itself: 2777:"UFOs and Eminent Domain" 2413:"the heat in the kitchen" 1413:as far as I can tell; it 1160: 1097: 880: 847: 831: 802: 699:military history articles 661: 620: 557: 520: 498: 435:WikiProject United States 404: 331: 316: 280:WikiProject U.S. Congress 249: 228: 93:Be welcoming to newcomers 22:Skip to table of contents 3430:WikiProject Law articles 2485:Knowledge (XXG):Civility 1978:Posted for follow up on 1566:! With the few edits by 604:Template:WikiProject Law 440:United States of America 21: 2627:is quoted now too. -- 2589:Definitely a bit of an 2306:UFO conspiracy theories 995:Coverage and accuracy: 807:Associated task forces: 752:Coverage and accuracy: 2817:Bridge of Spies (book) 1112:WikiProject Skepticism 1028:Supporting materials: 956: 844: 828: 785:Supporting materials: 713: 517: 485:United States articles 303:U.S. Congress articles 285:United States Congress 210:This article is rated 88:avoid personal attacks 3058:Not applicable here. 3050:Not applicable here. 3035:Media Bias/Fact Check 2837:Philip Michael Thomas 2774:piece by Stuttaford, 2416:"ludicrous credulity" 2410:"burning the bridges" 2278:We should thank him. 1860:List of nearest stars 1417:went directly from a 955: 843: 827: 712: 516: 214:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 113:Neutral point of view 3420:C-Class law articles 3225:Like most of you, I 3093:It's on page 6. -- 3023:conflict of interest 2997:Washington Spectator 2977:Washington Spectator 2000:WP:Original Research 1328:compliant subset of 911:Aviation WikiProject 427:United States portal 272:United States portal 118:No original research 2143:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1817:Please state them. 1568:User:Allan Nonymous 1147:Skepticism articles 1017:Grammar and style: 970:for B-class status: 774:Grammar and style: 727:for B-class status: 453:Articles Requested! 3291:Very Polite Person 3249:Very Polite Person 3171:Very Polite Person 3129:Very Polite Person 3095:Very Polite Person 3063:Very Polite Person 2961:Very Polite Person 2938:Very Polite Person 2863:Very Polite Person 2686:Very Polite Person 2657:Very Polite Person 2629:Very Polite Person 2577:Very Polite Person 2536:Very Polite Person 2490:Very Polite Person 2458:Very Polite Person 2376:Very Polite Person 2342:Very Polite Person 2233:Very Polite Person 2161:Very Polite Person 2129:Very Polite Person 2092:Very Polite Person 2047:Very Polite Person 2008:Very Polite Person 1962:Very Polite Person 1832:Special relativity 1768:Very Polite Person 1734:Very Polite Person 1701:Very Polite Person 1641:Very Polite Person 1612:Very Polite Person 1572:Very Polite Person 1516:Very Polite Person 1479:Very Polite Person 1427:Very Polite Person 1353:Very Polite Person 1294:Very Polite Person 1262:Very Polite Person 1219:Very Polite Person 957: 845: 829: 714: 681:list of open tasks 518: 348:The options are: " 216:content assessment 99:dispute resolution 60: 3316:See, for example, 2796:WP:NATIONALREVIEW 2757:Reactions section 1177: 1176: 1173: 1172: 1169: 1168: 1079: 1078: 1075: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1061:= <yes/no: --> 1057:= <yes/no: --> 1053:= <yes/no: --> 1049:= <yes/no: --> 1045:= <yes/no: --> 942:aviation articles 928:full instructions 862: 861: 858: 857: 854: 853: 798: 797: 754:criterion not met 685:full instructions 633: 632: 629: 628: 539: 538: 535: 534: 377: 376: 373: 372: 369: 332:This article has 196: 195: 79:Assume good faith 56: 27: 26: 3487: 3017:, which states: 2726: 2719: 2425:And in the past, 2081:UAPDA#References 1349:little green men 1336: 1332: 1149: 1148: 1145: 1142: 1139: 1106: 1099: 1098: 1088: 1081: 1065: 1031: 1027: 1026: 1020: 1016: 1015: 1009: 1005: 1004: 998: 994: 993: 987: 983: 982: 961: 944: 943: 940: 937: 934: 905: 900: 899: 898: 889: 882: 881: 871: 864: 814: 804: 788: 784: 783: 777: 773: 772: 766: 762: 761: 755: 751: 750: 744: 740: 739: 718: 701: 700: 697: 694: 691: 690:Military history 670: 663: 662: 657: 646:Military history 642: 635: 609: 608: 605: 602: 599: 582: 577: 576: 566: 559: 558: 548: 541: 487: 486: 483: 480: 477: 429: 424: 423: 422: 413: 406: 405: 400: 397: 386: 379: 347: 305: 304: 301: 298: 295: 274: 269: 268: 267: 258: 251: 250: 245: 237: 230: 213: 207: 206: 198: 192: 191: 177: 108:Article policies 29: 16: 3495: 3494: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3360: 3359: 3078: 3039:Hamilton Fish V 2984: 2884: 2829:Mister Sterling 2772:National Review 2753: 2722: 2715: 2302: 2125:Knowledge (XXG) 1984: 1334: 1182: 1180:Undue credulity 1146: 1143: 1140: 1137: 1136: 1036: 1029: 1024: 1018: 1013: 1007: 1002: 996: 991: 985: 980: 941: 938: 935: 932: 931: 903:Aviation portal 901: 896: 894: 812: 786: 781: 775: 770: 764: 759: 753: 748: 742: 737: 698: 695: 692: 689: 688: 648: 606: 603: 600: 597: 596: 588:WikiProject Law 578: 571: 484: 481: 478: 475: 474: 473: 459:Become a Member 425: 420: 418: 398: 392: 302: 299: 296: 293: 292: 270: 265: 263: 243: 211: 134: 129: 128: 127: 104: 74: 12: 11: 5: 3493: 3491: 3483: 3482: 3477: 3472: 3467: 3462: 3457: 3452: 3447: 3442: 3437: 3432: 3427: 3422: 3417: 3412: 3407: 3402: 3397: 3392: 3387: 3382: 3377: 3372: 3362: 3361: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3317: 3314: 3311: 3308: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3265: 3262: 3259: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3240: 3237: 3230: 3223: 3210: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3112: 3109: 3091: 3090: 3077: 3074: 3056: 3055: 3048: 3047: 3027: 3026: 3002: 3001: 2983: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2934: 2933: 2911: 2910: 2896: 2895: 2893:Bloomberg News 2890: 2883: 2877:Bloomberg News 2874: 2856: 2855: 2848: 2847: 2825:Walter Duranty 2821:Fairy painting 2813: 2812: 2791: 2790: 2768: 2767: 2752: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2711: 2667: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2426: 2423: 2420: 2417: 2414: 2411: 2408: 2407:Your rhetoric: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2338: 2301: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2276: 2273: 2270: 2267: 2264: 2261: 2258: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2211:this class of 2186: 2088: 2042: 1996: 1995: 1983: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1924: 1921: 1904: 1900: 1893: 1869: 1866: 1863: 1857: 1839: 1836:light velocity 1787: 1784: 1781: 1778: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1544: 1541: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1472:Beats me, but 1470: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1378: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1254: 1250: 1233:Allan Nonymous 1205:Allan Nonymous 1181: 1178: 1175: 1174: 1171: 1170: 1167: 1166: 1159: 1153: 1152: 1150: 1133:the discussion 1107: 1095: 1094: 1089: 1077: 1076: 1073: 1072: 1069: 1068: 1066: 1063: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1021: 1010: 999: 988: 974: 973: 971: 958: 948: 947: 945: 907: 906: 890: 878: 877: 872: 860: 859: 856: 855: 852: 851: 846: 836: 835: 830: 820: 819: 817: 815: 809: 808: 800: 799: 796: 795: 793: 791: 790: 789: 778: 767: 756: 745: 731: 730: 728: 715: 705: 704: 702: 671: 659: 658: 643: 631: 630: 627: 626: 619: 613: 612: 610: 584: 583: 567: 555: 554: 549: 537: 536: 533: 532: 529:Low-importance 519: 509: 508: 501:Low-importance 497: 491: 490: 488: 472: 471: 466: 461: 456: 449: 447:Template Usage 443: 431: 430: 414: 402: 401: 399:Low‑importance 387: 375: 374: 371: 370: 346: 330: 327: 326: 319:Low-importance 315: 309: 308: 306: 289:the discussion 276: 275: 259: 247: 246: 244:Low‑importance 238: 226: 225: 219: 208: 194: 193: 131: 130: 126: 125: 120: 115: 106: 105: 103: 102: 95: 90: 81: 75: 73: 72: 61: 52: 51: 48: 47: 41: 25: 24: 19: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3492: 3481: 3478: 3476: 3473: 3471: 3468: 3466: 3463: 3461: 3458: 3456: 3453: 3451: 3448: 3446: 3443: 3441: 3438: 3436: 3433: 3431: 3428: 3426: 3423: 3421: 3418: 3416: 3413: 3411: 3408: 3406: 3403: 3401: 3398: 3396: 3393: 3391: 3388: 3386: 3383: 3381: 3378: 3376: 3373: 3371: 3368: 3367: 3365: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3321: 3318: 3315: 3312: 3309: 3306: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3263: 3260: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3241: 3238: 3234: 3233: 3231: 3228: 3224: 3221: 3216: 3211: 3208: 3204: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3113: 3110: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3089: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3073: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3059: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3024: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3016: 3011: 3009: 3008: 3000: 2998: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2989: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2932: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2924: 2922: 2918: 2917: 2909: 2908:intelligence. 2905: 2904: 2903: 2901: 2898:We use Cowen 2894: 2891: 2889: 2886: 2885: 2882: 2878: 2875: 2873: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2854: 2850: 2849: 2846: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2838: 2834: 2833:Ricardo Tubbs 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2811: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2803: 2801: 2797: 2789: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2781: 2779: 2778: 2773: 2766: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2758: 2750: 2730: 2727: 2725: 2720: 2718: 2712: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2668: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2619: 2615: 2613: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2486: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2424: 2421: 2418: 2415: 2412: 2409: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2357: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2334:Luis Elizondo 2331: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2299: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2274: 2271: 2268: 2265: 2262: 2259: 2256: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2217:types of life 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2187: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1994: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1981: 1977: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1922: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1898: 1894: 1891: 1888: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1867: 1864: 1861: 1858: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1840: 1837: 1833: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1785: 1782: 1779: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1697: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1542: 1539: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1508: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1462: 1458: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1376: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1339: 1338:118–31 (text) 1333: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1248: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1179: 1164: 1158: 1155: 1154: 1151: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1125:pseudohistory 1122: 1121:pseudoscience 1118: 1114: 1113: 1108: 1105: 1101: 1100: 1096: 1093: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1067: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1042: 1040: 1035: 1022: 1011: 1000: 989: 978: 977: 976: 975: 972: 969: 968: 962: 959: 954: 950: 949: 946: 929: 925: 924: 919: 918: 913: 912: 904: 893: 891: 888: 884: 883: 879: 876: 873: 870: 866: 850: 842: 838: 837: 834: 826: 822: 821: 818: 816: 811: 810: 805: 801: 794: 792: 787:criterion met 779: 776:criterion met 768: 765:criterion met 757: 746: 743:criterion met 735: 734: 733: 732: 729: 726: 725: 719: 716: 711: 707: 706: 703: 686: 682: 678: 677: 672: 669: 665: 664: 660: 656: 655:United States 652: 651:North America 647: 644: 641: 637: 624: 618: 615: 614: 611: 594: 590: 589: 581: 575: 570: 568: 565: 561: 560: 556: 553: 550: 547: 543: 530: 527:(assessed as 526: 525: 515: 511: 510: 506: 502: 496: 493: 492: 489: 476:United States 470: 467: 465: 462: 460: 457: 455: 454: 450: 448: 445: 444: 441: 437: 436: 428: 417: 415: 412: 408: 407: 403: 396: 391: 390:United States 388: 385: 381: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 344: 340: 339: 335: 329: 328: 324: 320: 314: 311: 310: 307: 294:U.S. Congress 290: 286: 282: 281: 273: 262: 260: 257: 253: 252: 248: 242: 241:U.S. Congress 239: 236: 232: 227: 223: 217: 209: 205: 200: 199: 190: 186: 183: 180: 176: 172: 168: 165: 162: 159: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 140: 137: 136:Find sources: 133: 132: 124: 123:Verifiability 121: 119: 116: 114: 111: 110: 109: 100: 96: 94: 91: 89: 85: 82: 80: 77: 76: 70: 66: 65:Learn to edit 62: 59: 54: 53: 50: 49: 45: 39: 35: 31: 30: 23: 20: 18: 17: 3226: 3219: 3214: 3166: 3158: 3092: 3086: 3079: 3060: 3057: 3049: 3028: 3012: 3005: 3003: 2994: 2985: 2935: 2930: 2925: 2914: 2912: 2906: 2897: 2859: 2857: 2851: 2843: 2814: 2804: 2792: 2782: 2775: 2769: 2763: 2754: 2723: 2716: 2611: 2609: 2591:WP:ARSEHOLES 2564: 2514: 2355: 2303: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2085:specifically 2084: 2076: 1997: 1985: 1716:all the time 1715: 1695: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1659: 1655: 1603: 1540:My dear sir, 1511: 1473: 1465: 1456: 1414: 1321: 1183: 1110: 965: 922: 916: 910: 722: 674: 607:law articles 586: 522: 500: 464:Project Talk 452: 433: 336: 334:not yet been 318: 278: 222:WikiProjects 184: 178: 170: 163: 157: 151: 145: 135: 107: 32:This is the 2975:Dave Troy, 2888:Tyler Cowen 2881:Tyler Cowen 2595:Bon courage 2569:Scientology 2419:"absurdity" 2260:Absolutely. 2205:focus areas 2004:WP:COATRACK 1982:noticeboard 1908:Hob Gadling 1887:WP:NOTFORUM 1844:Hob Gadling 1805:Hob Gadling 1030:not checked 1019:not checked 1008:not checked 1006:Structure: 997:not checked 986:not checked 923:task forces 763:Structure: 593:legal field 161:free images 44:not a forum 3364:Categories 3341:added tags 2921:broken now 2356:unreliable 1856:Please see 1415:apparently 1138:Skepticism 1129:skepticism 1092:Skepticism 917:open tasks 580:Law portal 395:Government 3323:KHarbaugh 3269:KHarbaugh 3207:WP:FRINGE 3163:this edit 3157:Hold on, 3031:Dave Troy 2900:like this 2845:coverage. 2625:Mick West 2621:USA Today 2430:KHarbaugh 2389:WP:FRINGE 2337:sourcing. 2280:KHarbaugh 2229:WP:FRINGE 2106:WP:FRINGE 1980:WP:FRINGE 1928:KHarbaugh 1873:KHarbaugh 1819:KHarbaugh 1791:KHarbaugh 1548:KHarbaugh 1382:KHarbaugh 1186:WP:FRINGE 101:if needed 84:Be polite 34:talk page 3339:. I've 3218:the pro 3015:WP:NOTRS 2981:WP:NOTRS 2957:WP:RULES 2717:Schazjmd 2612:who care 2610:I mean, 2176:Jusdafax 1958:WP:FORUM 1681:sponsors 1656:sponsors 967:criteria 933:Aviation 875:Aviation 724:criteria 338:assigned 69:get help 42:This is 40:article. 3345:Feoffer 3188:Feoffer 2995:In the 2701:Feoffer 2672:Feoffer 2550:Feoffer 2517:Feoffer 2314:Feoffer 2191:Feoffer 2062:Sgerbic 2024:Sgerbic 2002:or the 1608:WP:NPOV 1564:WP:NPOV 1421:to the 1331:Pub. L. 1324:, is a 1258:WP:NPOV 1117:science 503:on the 364:", or " 343:subject 321:on the 212:C-class 167:WP refs 155:scholar 3088:aware. 2979:, and 2835:, and 2724:(talk) 2330:WP:BLP 2219:do in 2213:things 2127:. -- 2077:untrue 2041:there. 2038:WP:BLP 1926:Stop. 1685:at all 1660:at all 1507:WP:GNG 1351:. -- 1326:WP:GNG 1247:source 469:Alerts 366:Events 354:People 350:Person 218:scale. 139:Google 3283:WP:RS 3236:more. 2953:WP:RS 2800:UAPDA 2532:WP:RS 1897:WP:OR 1764:UAPDA 1466:still 1341:(PDF) 1322:again 1290:WP:OR 362:Thing 358:Place 182:JSTOR 143:books 97:Seek 3349:talk 3327:talk 3295:talk 3287:WP:V 3285:and 3273:talk 3253:talk 3227:hope 3203:NARA 3192:talk 3175:talk 3167:Your 3149:talk 3133:talk 3119:talk 3099:talk 3067:talk 2988:here 2965:talk 2942:talk 2879:and 2867:talk 2705:talk 2690:talk 2676:talk 2661:talk 2647:talk 2633:talk 2599:talk 2581:talk 2554:talk 2540:talk 2521:talk 2494:talk 2476:talk 2462:talk 2448:talk 2434:talk 2397:talk 2380:talk 2365:talk 2346:talk 2318:talk 2284:talk 2237:talk 2225:good 2221:fact 2195:talk 2180:talk 2165:talk 2151:talk 2133:talk 2114:talk 2096:talk 2079:per 2066:talk 2051:talk 2028:talk 2012:talk 1966:talk 1932:talk 1912:talk 1889:and 1877:talk 1848:talk 1823:talk 1809:talk 1795:talk 1772:talk 1738:talk 1724:talk 1705:talk 1668:talk 1645:talk 1631:talk 1616:talk 1590:talk 1576:talk 1552:talk 1520:talk 1497:talk 1483:talk 1474:they 1446:talk 1431:talk 1400:talk 1386:talk 1357:talk 1345:UFOs 1312:talk 1298:talk 1280:talk 1266:talk 1237:talk 1223:talk 1209:talk 1194:talk 1127:and 920:and 360:", " 356:", " 352:", " 175:FENS 149:news 86:and 3220:and 3215:not 3159:you 3145:jps 3115:jps 3010:. 2959:-- 2802:. 2643:jps 2565:law 2472:jps 2444:jps 2393:jps 2361:jps 2215:or 2147:jps 2110:jps 1903:us. 1720:jps 1664:jps 1627:jps 1586:jps 1493:jps 1442:jps 1396:jps 1347:or 1308:jps 1276:jps 1190:jps 1157:??? 1039:add 617:??? 598:Law 552:Law 495:Low 313:Low 189:TWL 3366:: 3351:) 3329:) 3297:) 3275:) 3255:) 3194:) 3177:) 3151:) 3135:) 3121:) 3101:) 3069:) 2990:: 2967:) 2944:) 2902:: 2869:) 2831:, 2827:, 2823:, 2819:, 2780:. 2759:: 2707:) 2692:) 2678:) 2663:) 2649:) 2635:) 2601:) 2583:) 2556:) 2542:) 2523:) 2496:) 2478:) 2464:) 2450:) 2436:) 2399:) 2382:) 2367:) 2348:) 2320:) 2286:) 2239:) 2209:if 2197:) 2182:) 2167:) 2153:) 2145:. 2135:) 2116:) 2098:) 2068:) 2053:) 2030:) 2014:) 1991:: 1968:) 1934:) 1914:) 1879:) 1850:) 1842:-- 1825:) 1811:) 1797:) 1774:) 1740:) 1726:) 1718:. 1707:) 1696:so 1670:) 1647:) 1633:) 1618:) 1592:) 1578:) 1554:) 1522:) 1512:we 1499:) 1485:) 1448:) 1433:) 1402:) 1388:) 1359:) 1314:) 1300:) 1282:) 1268:) 1239:) 1225:) 1211:) 1196:) 1123:, 1119:, 813:/ 653:/ 649:: 531:). 393:: 368:". 341:a 169:) 67:; 3347:( 3325:( 3293:( 3271:( 3251:( 3213:( 3190:( 3173:( 3147:( 3131:( 3117:( 3097:( 3065:( 3025:. 2963:( 2940:( 2865:( 2703:( 2688:( 2674:( 2659:( 2645:( 2631:( 2597:( 2579:( 2552:( 2538:( 2519:( 2492:( 2474:( 2460:( 2446:( 2432:( 2395:( 2378:( 2363:( 2344:( 2316:( 2282:( 2235:( 2193:( 2178:( 2163:( 2149:( 2131:( 2112:( 2094:( 2064:( 2049:( 2026:( 2010:( 1964:( 1930:( 1910:( 1899:. 1892:. 1875:( 1862:. 1846:( 1821:( 1807:( 1793:( 1770:( 1736:( 1722:( 1703:( 1687:? 1666:( 1643:( 1629:( 1614:( 1588:( 1574:( 1550:( 1518:( 1495:( 1481:( 1444:( 1429:( 1398:( 1384:( 1355:( 1310:( 1296:( 1278:( 1264:( 1249:? 1235:( 1221:( 1207:( 1192:( 1165:. 930:. 687:. 625:. 507:. 345:. 325:. 224:: 185:· 179:· 171:· 164:· 158:· 152:· 146:· 141:( 71:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index