Talk:Exopolitics/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Vfd discussion

Exopolitics was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to redirect

Exopolitics

Neologism, original research, dubious factuality, possible copyvio. - KeithTyler 20:50, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Resolved. I decimated, merged, and redirected to Extraterrestrial life, which I cleaned up and expanded a bit while there (so the merge wouldn't make it lopsided, which I hate). - KeithTyler 23:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Update: Given the amount of near-vandalism on this discussion, and the editing that is going on the article in the meantime, it's pretty clear that deletion will probably not work as an option, as the article will only be re-created. (I had no idea there were so many sock-covered hands watching this one. I won't speculate upon what metal they are wearing on their heads.) I will have to go ahead with some combination of decimate-merge-redirect, and then sit on this one, and look forward to a revert war. - KeithTyler 19:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Update 2: Can someone find a better place for a merge and redirect? Ufology is lacking, Extraterrestrial life also lacking, Astrosociobiology too focused to be appropriate. TIA - KeithTyler 19:28, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, "Exopolitics: A Decade of Contact" seems to say it all for me. -Vina 22:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep! - Its a real term, not neologism. -- Crevaner 23:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, then find me a dicdef at dictionary.com [1] or even Merriam-Webster [2]. Even WordSpy doesn't have it [3]. - KeithTyler 00:32, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Who boasts of an MEd? They come in the bottom of cereal boxes now. At any rate, when we get representation in the exoparliamentary bodies and can exoembargo the exostates, we will need to worry about exopolitics. For now, this is exorational. Geogre 00:21, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Good god, will we have to start worrying about losing our jobs to exoshoring? - KeithTyler
  • Keep, its a good article. Eventually more information will be added to make it better. -- Old Right 15:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The term does get over 4,000 Google hits, but the current content seems in need of, ummm, NPOVing? (Sigh) I'm trying not to mention tin-foil hats and I just failed. No vote at present. Andrewa 18:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Nearly all of those have to do with Michael Salla (who owns exopolitics.org), Alfred Webre (who wrote the book Exopolitics), Universe Books (who supposedly published the book), or are spams posted to mailing lists and forums. I dunno. Does two people, a website, and a book all on a dubiously factual and neological topic count as notable? Some of those links claim that exopolitics is just another word for ufology. - KeithTyler
      • Delete. Well put. Andrewa 07:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Semi-proprietary jargon. Jallan 16:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Beam it up, Scotty. - Tεxτurε 17:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • (Ineligible anon vote:) Keep! I just finished a course in Exopolitics. - Robert Colee - http://global33.com
  • Keep Exopolitics is a legitimate field of human knowledge and scholarly inquiry. There are many objective hallmarks of academic scholarhsip which demonstrate Exopolitic's legitimacy.

Exopolitics as a discipline is the study of politics, government and law in the Universe, and includes the politics of extraterrestrial contact by Off-Planet Cultures with Earth or with humans in space. As a science, Exopolitics derives its primary scientific data base via the scientific method from the following Categories of data: Category A – Voluntary Conscious Physical Contactees Category B – Involuntary Semi-Conscious Physical Contactees (Abductees) Category C – Voluntary Semi-Conscious Alter-physical Contactees (Star People) Category D – Voluntary Psychic Contactees (Channelers and Visionaries) Category E – Neutral Psychic Contactees (Remote Viewers and Shamans) Category F – Whistle-Blowers From Inside Secret Government Category G – Documentary Evidence From Government Category H- Superficial Excited Witnesses and Sightings Reports Category I – Astute Debriefers, Debunkers and Interpreters Category J – Alien Artifacts Category K – Independent Archeology Category L – Occult Societies Category M – Science Fiction Category N: Revelations authorized by Universe Governance Bodies. There has been, for example, an International Exopolitics Conference (http://www.paradigmclock.com/X-Conference/X-Conference.htm), held in Washington, DC in April 2004, at which many of the researchers writing in the field of Exopolitics participated. Alfred Lambremont Webre's book, Exopolitics: A Decade of Contact (http://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2004/07/exopolitics_a_d.html) (Universebooks, 2000; Brazil: EditoraMW, 2004), published in the year 2000, was the original book to define the formal field of Exopolitics (the study of law, governance and politics in the Universe)." Webre's first June 2000 book in the field of Exopolitics was followed two and one-half years later by Dr. Salla's initial January 20, 2003 article "Research Study #1 - January 20, 2003. "The Need for Exopolitics: Implications of the Extraterrestrial Conspiracy Theories for Policy Makers and Global Peace" (http://www.exopolitics.org/Study-Paper1.htm), which cited Webre's and many other scholar's prior work. Exopolitics7:29 PM, Sept 20, 2004 (UTC)

    • Sockpuppet, first/only edit is this discussion. - KeithTyler
  • Keep There is enough credible evidence pointing to the fact that we are not alone in the Universe. Former CIA remote viewers (http://www.courtneybrown.com/publications/cosmic.html / http://www.davidmorehouse.com & many more...), to former government/military whistleblowers (http://www.disclosureproject.org), to experiencers (http://www.centerchange.org/passport) to contactees (http://www.eceti.org) We need to evolve a potential political understanding of law in the Universe to better understand how we fit within its possible hierarchy of higher intelligence. Alfred Webre was the head investigator of President Carter's proposed ET/UFO investigation study in 1977 through Stanford Research Institute and has credentials. Our world is clearly being engaged by a higher intelligence and we need to find ways to establish diplomacy by first understanding how the Universe culture is organized. --Pierre2012 17:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

DELETE! It's Salla's proprietary term, mostly meaningless to other UFO researchers.

Unfortunately, to be fair, also a sockpuppet (User:Luciuspym). - KeithTyler

KEEP--there is certainly a great deal of evidence, even physical, that we are not only not alone in the universe, but have been visited many times over the centuries. The US Govt and military know this very well! We need to have intelligent dialogue, not denial and cover-up! Acknowledgment of the existence of another is the first step toward communication, in all types of relationships. (User celestialleo)

  • KEEP!!! This is a new term that may have many uses in the future. I observe that there is much infighting among UFO researchers, but that is no reason to remove a perfectly logical word that exactly describes the subject matter. I note that most delete votes include comments that either ridicule or invoke 'the giggle factor', rather than valid reasons for deletion. In any event, it is a new term in use in our language, and should have a definition listed here for the curious. Our belief in extraterrestrial intelligence is NOT a prerequisite for their existence. I imagine we'll eventually need to use this term, whether we like it or not. -Marilyn, Sept. 21, 2004
Sockpuppet (User:Mrlynt1), who also for some reason edited some junk into my opening comment. - KeithTyler
  • Delete - Even ignoring possible copyright vios, it's impossible to have a political dialogue with species and civilizations that we cannot even prove exist. No "giggle factor", this just plain cannot exist. Maybe worth something if slashed to the bone and rewritten as a purely theoretical article (but even then, pretty much worthless and not very encyclopedic). Rewrite it when aliens visit the UN. ClockworkTroll 06:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If anything, decimate, merge, and redirect (to Ufology). - KeithTyler 06:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • In spite of my deepest respect for "UFO researchers", I'm afraid this is as obscure as it is speculative. I agree wholeheartedly with KeithTyler above. This isn't a repository for pseudoscience. Sorry, I meant to say "open-minded science". Binadot 14:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Harvard Medical School professor Dr.John Mack has done much research about alien/human encounters and has even met the Dalai Lama in this regard in 1999. --Pierre2012 18:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Second comment: Former Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, the 6th man to have walked on the moon, confirms the ET/UFO cover-up: http://www.soultravel.nu/2004/040813-Mitchell/ and http://www.sptimes.com/2004/02/18/Neighborhoodtimes/Astronaut__We_ve_had_.shtml Also, former astronaut Gordon Cooper also confirmsthe UFO cover-up. Indeed, this is not pseudoscience but a reality that we need to address and exopolitics will help humanity to better understand what all of this means. --Pierre2012 18:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's too bad he doesn't think to put any of this socially critical information on his webpage, else there's a glimmer of a chance that I might buy it. - KeithTyler

(Sockpuppet, first/only edit is this discussion:) KEEP:This is a subject that is not only important now but will be of more importance in the future.--Agondonter 21:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

(Sockpuppet, first/only edit is this discussion:) KEEP! Perhaps there is much to learn from the field of exopolitics that is broadly regarded as an erroneous measure of ultra-terrestrial dealings. As our civilization decays, why underestimate the countless witnesses and findings from credible sources within government bodies (re: http://www.disclosureproject.org/), these ones being human. What limits our understanding of higher intelligences is our stronghold on age-old beliefs that humans are and have always been in control of its evolution. If there has ever been a time where man needs assistance, I couldn't think of a better time than now. I, for one believe that the research in exopolitics will bring much truth to the upcoming space threat or space terrorism era that we are entering. "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).--Chameleon2012 21:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

delete posibly give it a passin mention on one of the UFO pagesGeni 21:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes but which one? - KeithTyler
    • Sockpuppet comment: I know it's hard to track, but if someone has just registered to wikipedia because of the threat of exopolitics being deleted from the encyclopedia, it doesn't make them a sockpuppet. For example, an accused suckpuppet called Marilyn is actually Dr. Marilyn Rossner of the International Institute of Integral Human Sciences, a non-governmental organization affiliated with the United Nations DPI, promoting educational programs for the 21st century. --Pierre2012 22:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Calling all of your friends over to vandalize this page with spew is hardly any different than sockpuppetry. Furthermore, Wikipedia Is Not A Megaphone. - KeithTyler 22:52, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

KEEP! What sort of totalitarian language fascists try to expunge a word from the English lexicon just because the people who normally use it are so much more intelligent than they are? That said, why should anyone care what the Neanderthal language police think about a subject they know absolutely nothing about? Exopolitics Researcher

People who registered after the creation of the Votes for deletion page are considered sock puppets and their votes are not counted. People who do not sign in with registered names are not counted. RickK 23:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete... it's a sock puppet party going on here! func(talk) 00:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alien sock puppets must die. FWIW, I have heard the term 'exopolitics' before, but its too obscure (non-notable) at this point to justify its own article. I am willing to admit that I'm wrong if I can be shown as such. Sadly, the alien sock puppet invasion force has made the case worse by providng nearly worthless citations. I may have a go at this when I have more time. --Viriditas 01:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, am I the only one now receiving hate mail from these people? - KeithTyler 03:37, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


Keep. "Exopolitics" is a viable study, a useable term concerning government ops and hidden knowledge, and something that your children will not believe you tried to squelch. User:marykmusic 18:27, Sept 22, 2004 (PDT)

KEEP this is the 21st century and only a mentally handicapped person or someone who is interested in fomenting trouble can argue against it. The following is just one example of something that provides solid scientific proof that craft from other worlds are visiting this planet.

The question of whether or not we are alone in the universe has been answered for many years. Unless you believe that we have the ability to put saucer shaped motherships the size of independence day craft up there, because that is what is on official NASA space shuttle mission videos that you can order at ufonasa.com The scientific proof of extraterrestrial vehicles in this size range has now been made available thanks to the near ultraviolet cameras that NASA took aboard the space shuttle during the tether experiment which was an experiment that involved the dragging of a 12 mile long tether of wire behind the space shuttle to see if it would generate electric current when moved through the earths magnetic field. It did and it broke away as a result and was glowing in the dark like a neon sign from up to 100 miles away. As the shuttle was looking back and recording it with a special camera that could see into the ultraviolet it picked up about 50 craft that had moved in to investigate what to them was a 12 mile long object that was glowing like a neon sign. As they traveled around and behind the now free tether we could still observe the tether as being in front of these objects.

This means that the objects were at least a hundred miles away and that they could be estimated to be at least 2 miles across if they were right up on the tether. If they were farther back then they could have been as large as 10 times or more that. The video does not lie and these were broadcast on CSPAN back years ago and then the objects were discovered well after this and then brought up to NASA's attention. They claimed the objects were dust that light was bouncing off of it near the shuttle but we know this is impossible since the objects passed behind the tether which was at least 100 miles away. When an object passes in front of an object you no longer can see the object in back. The tether was completely visible at all times indicating that the object as it passed by was in fact on the opposite side of the tether further out away from the shuttle.

So there you incompetent morons whose world will obviously come crashing down because the world is no longer FLAT like your head I dub thee el stupido. By the way its precisely because of this type of thing that they no longer show the space shuttle missions live on TV.


KEEP! The only ones that will be alone in the universe is those that do not believe. But it is no wonder they don't. It is hard to see anything with your head shoved down in the sand. It is even worse when people do this intentionally. Better to embrace new possibilities so as to lessen the reaction you could have when those new possibilities turn into fact and decide to embrace YOU!!!

--Anonymous visitor 03:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep It may mean nothing (to some people) now, but so have many things in & of their time in past decades.... Leave it alone & let it grow. If it has no substance it will decrease & eventually die of its own accord

--Praminasava 14:30, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Keep !! - This is a great word and should be used in speculative scientific discussions. It keeps the mind creative and thinking outside of earth's (let alone our own country's) limited political think-boxes.

Keep - Interesting stub that will probably become more relevant later on. For some reason, someone seems very keen on not allowing this to be here. I suppose I'll get accused of being a sock puppet now. Tohya 17:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

what a joke

This kind of page give wikipedia a bad name. I was reading the 'alien' page and noticed multiple reference to the 'emminent doctor Salla'. Under the guise of make-believe academic excellence, he (or one of his fans) are promoting a book on his website, which topic has very little to do with 'exopolitics' and much more with a tragi-comic version of the x-files (I quote: "overwhelming amount of evidence conclusively points to as an extraterrestrial presence on Earth that is known by clandestine government organizations who keep official knowledge of this presence secret from the general public and elected political officials.") DELETE! Adidas 6 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Deletion

Better delete this artical. even if we do politics with ET. I think we will call it Interstellar politics or somting like that not Exopolitics.


Keep. If this page is still being nominated for deletion, I say to keep it. Although it's on a theoretical topic, that doesn't make it any less noteworthy. What would politics be like when dealing with an alien society? Maybe we should connect this to Outside Context Problem or Alien Invasion. The article does need to be cleaned up tho. Baiter 04:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Needs lot of work especially in External links. But worth it. Srinivasasha 10:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is not a deletion vote. - Keith D. Tyler 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

exopolitics

An encyclopedic listing should inform. This is a complex concept which is emerging in real time. It has profound implications and people need to know about it. Every word in the current definition is accurate. There is information which people can use. Edits based upon informed understanding of this concept are, of course appropriate. Expansion of factual information is wonderful. Attempting to describe this concept in a few sentences unacceptable.

"The Civil War was a conflict between American states." is not an encyclopedic article.

One last point. There are people who know a great deal about exopolitics. It would be constructive if those who know next to nothing about the subject would defer to those who are devoting their working lives to the subject.

StephenBassett 10:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Date?

I didn't want to change anything because I don't really know anything about the subject, but isn't "September 2006" supposed to be 2005-- for the Canadian guy?

Wrong date.

Yes indeed. Correction made. StephenBassett 09:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Debunkers, pelicanists, disinformationists, government ops boys and the just plain stupid

Let me be clear. I will not allow the definition of this term to be debunked by people who know absolutely nothing about UFO/ET phenomena and exopolitics. Governments, particularly corrupt governments, thrive on people who can neither reason nor understand new ideas and who cannot and will not question the torrent of lies and propaganda which increasingly fill our lives. Such people are wasting their time on this article. Their ignorance and simple minded acceptance of government fabrications will not stand here. StephenBassett 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

First, please read this: WP:NPA. Save your personal attacks, in edit summaries, talk posts, and otherwise.
Let's assume for the sake of NPOV (read that too, WP:NPOV, if you haven't) that we ought to be agnositic regarding the "alien presence". We can't say things like "such phenomenon include"; that's a truth statement. I'm going to re-edit and I'd suggest you take a deep breath. Marskell 16:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Now we're making progress

I have read the WP:NPA and was returning to edit my comment in the History section. That said, this is an explosive topic; few in Wikipedia will prove more controversial when all is said and done.

There is room for compromise and the present edit is not unreasonable. The emphasis should be on adding new factual material, which I will be doing over the coming weeks.

This must be kept in mind: The truths behind exopolitics are being suppressed by government interference with the truth process itself. That makes this listing of a special kind.

The extraterrestrial presence has been proven, but due to extraordinary circumstances, formal acknowledgement of this fact is withheld. But that is not the fault of the reader or (likely) those who attempt to edit this article.

I will confine my arguments for the proof status of the key issues to the Discussion section and allow the use of "putative" and "alleged" while the process of disclosure continues.

I would suggest that before anyone starts tossing around phrases like "quack info" they need to have read a significant portion of the outstanding bibliography behind this subject matter. The largest bibliography in print is in the back of the The UFO Encyclopedia (2nd Edition) by Jerome Clark (approximately 5000 listings). The largest bibliography on line is at: http://www.paradigmclock.com/bibliography.html

It is estimated (by me) that the total bibliography for the field of UFO/ET phenomena and exopolitics is approximately 10,000 books, articles and papers. StephenBassett 19:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If the extraterrestrial presence has been proven I suggest you show us where, with a citable source. Otherwise, "putative" and "alleged" remain. Of your 10,000 articles, would a single one make it to the pages of Nature or Science? If not, I don't think we should use the figure (or any figure). Deardoroff, 2005, wound up on the British Interplanetary Society journal and we use it on the extraterrestrial life page. All well and good. But Michael Salla posting his own paper on exopolitics.org (his own site) is not "published" for the purposes of Wikipedia. Indeed, I hesitate to include Weber and Salla as they stand. Finally, I don't think the Hellyer paragraph is warranted. It's just an ex Can gov official without much profile. Marskell 22:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
1) I already agreed that "putative" and "alleged" would remain. Did you not read the section? 2) 10,000 is an estimate and therefore should be removed. I will come up with a better way of describing the available literature. 3) Those are published BOOKS by Salla and Webre, not papers, and they are essential to the HISTORY of exopolitics. 4) As for the matter of proof, let's just agree to keep that out of the article. But you are in for a very big surprise. 4) If you do not think that a former Minister of Defense and Deputy Prime Minister of a first world nation making such statements is not particularly relevant, you are living in a parallel universe of which I am not familiar. StephenBassett 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Hellyer was apparently deputy PM in Trudeau's first cabinet... It is a stretch to call it especially relevant. And at the end of the day, disclosing beliefs in ETs isn't particularly earth-shattering. We could include similar opinions from Jimmy Carter or Tom Cruise.
As for the available literature, a glance shows it be a mixed-bag (Flying Saucer Review alongside the New York Times) and it doesn't all appear to be exopolitical per se. Marskell 18:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The research into the UFO/ET question is the foundation for exopolitics. If there is not an extraterrestrial presence, then exopolitics would be a niche area with limited scope. Since the research has confirmed an ET presence, exopolitics is now emerging as a powerful new area of study. You are waiting for the government or CNN to tell you that an ET presence has been proven. I have reviewed the research and talked with hundreds of researchers and first-hand witnesses. I don't need to wait. The question you must ask yourself is this, what are the political implications if the U.S. government has indeed withheld this information from you and the rest of the public for 59 years? Big?
Ok, since you seem to have an interest in this subject, allow me to suggest you read the following three books: UFOs and the National Security State by Richard Dolan, Missing Times: News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-up by Terry Hansen and The Day After Roswell by Col. Philip Corso. It's just a taste, but it will get you to the heart of the matter pretty quickly. I have checked your user page. Your are clearly well read and intelligent. But you are not well read on this subject. Not yet. StephenBassett 19:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)