Talk:Pentagon UFO videos

Untitled

Note: Previous discussion is here: Talk:USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents. That article was merged to here, but not the talk page.

Non-neutral language and slant

The article seems to violate policy WP:NPOV for many reasons including tone.

Long ago I tried to correct at least the worst bias and omissions of the article because I think Wikipedia should be high-quality and reliable even when it comes to difficult subjects such as those associated with lots of pseudoscience etc.

One prime example of that is the wording and, as is typical in the context of such incidents, extraordinary speculations of alien spacecraft in the lead. I tried to change that in the edit linked above (see that for more examples) and when that was reverted by editors who are heavily involved in this particular subject and related subjects, I tried to add at least a few hatnotes and tags to caution the reader about potential issues with the article and that wording here. That was also reverted.

Now it seems like after several years, there was one editor – albeit a new user – who also saw that same issue with the lead wording and tried to correct the non-neutral tone and unjustified+unsourced derogative/subjective-tone dismissal, @GalacticGardener: here. I just want express support for his edit and his concerns and highlight again that this article is of very low quality and heavily biased.

Some of the recent edits don't seem to be of good quality so that doesn't mean I think they were all good, for example the sourcing wasn't good when much better WP:RS are available for many of these and other things. Nevertheless, TheCholla seems to be improving his/her prior edits and please consider Are the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN and Politico credible sources?. And no, WP:NPOV does not give you permission you to omit in non-neutrally slant articles just because there is WP:FRINGE – see WP:FRIND. I worry about Wikipedia a lot when I see articles in a state as this one or deletion of well-sourced non-substituted notable articles like this.

Instead of reverting or editing anything here, please just consider this elaboration of concerns about the article and that we're meant to adhere to policies and be reliable and neutral, respecting WP:RS – even when it comes to UFOs. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't backslide, my guy. I warned that you could be banned from this topic back in 2022 for WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY. There is a reason that article you wrote was removed from Wikipedia. If you read the archives and do not get an answer to your question, then I suggest that maybe you haven't quite digested how Wikipedia operates when it comes to fringe topics. jps (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey Proto, I had meant to reply to your earlier but jps beat me to it.

I want you to know, I'm with you in spirit / in principle / in theory. Our articles should be NPOV about Fringe theories, we shouldn't put our fingers on the scales. We are not "Snopes"-pedia, we don't exist to be hostile to extraordinary claims, especially not those that are based in faith, which certainly includes some UFO beliefs (though of course this particular article isn't about faith-based views).

But the devil is in the details. I'm completely with you when you talk about theory and ideals, but you don't actually cite any proposed changes that I can support.

For the past 80 years, strange sightings have led to "extraordinary speculations of alien spacecraft", that's not a biased statement,it's just true.

You wrote an article that got deleted. it may be FULL of really good stuff that we should incorporate, but it IS a POVFORK, no doubt. You actually should considered yourself very "welcomed", your article got far far more Keeps than I would ever have imagined given its NPOV issues. You only presented one side -- Ya can't do that!

Finally, I don't think you can actually be topic-banned just for stating a single sincere opinion on a talk page. Until you understand why your article was deleted, maybe stick to the talk pages on the relevant articles, but please don't be afraid to post suggestions, there's always room for improvement and good ideas can come from anywhere.

I'm a little surprised we don't have a dedicated article on Nimitz yet, there's certainly enough material out there to sustain one. My expertise is 1947-1952, but I think Nimitz is probably the most famous alleged UFO sighting ever. Meanwhile, can anyone explain what is supposedly anomalous about GOFAST? Isn't that exactly what a cruise missile video would look like?

Suffice to say, there's probably room for improvement here, and one of our pillars is that ANYONE can contribute. We're not going to "topic ban" you for proposing changes in good faith, but at the same time, jps isn't wrong -- until you can see why the article you wrote got deleted, you don't understand NPOV. Feoffer (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I cited two concrete changes but maybe your emphasis was on "that I can support", if that was the case I'd be more interested in roughly why.

For the past 80 years… you left out half of the sentence and didn't seem to have read my concern is with dismissive tone etc.

but it IS a POVFORK No it's about a major subject of research just like there is Cancer research and Research about Wikipedia. I notably wrote "non-substituted"; wouldn't care that much if it was incorporated into another article. The whole article and its deletion should probably be seen in the context of the substantial WP:NPOV violation of the ufology article which doesn't inform about a whole lot of well-sourced notable subjects and so on and may be a bit too broad to include more narrow information. And no, I didn't only present one side, provably false. Just go to the archived article and read the tons of criticisms included there and I encouraged people to add more if there's even more.

Yes, I don't think so either but on the other hand WP policies don't seem to be very adhered to when it comes to this subject. I don't have the time and breath to futily try to improve UFO-related articles on my own right now and if now jps brings up a topic-ban just for stating something on the talk page and supporting a small overdue edit there, then that does one thing: prove how absurdly bizarre things have become here. WP policies and pillars relate to all subjects and editors.

Also surprised about that on the one hand, on the other hand with the neutrality of articles as low as here, it's not really that surprising. a) UAP/UFOs are a notable research subject and b) 'UFOs as a research subject' is a major subject of reliable sources. That's what the article was about and both are not really covered within the much less-narrow Ufology. No need to link any WP:RS here since you can just go to the archived article and find tons of them but here is one two. Won't discuss the other article any further since I only mentioned it and 95% of my post was about concerns & recent changes to this article. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Please don't get defensive; You may not be able to see it but I was actually reaching out to you with a huge olive branch to you and trying to make you feel welcome. That didn't work out, so I'll make myself scarce, lol. Please feel free to suggest concrete changes on relevant talk pages in future -- wiki editing is like brainstorming, good ideas can come from anywhere, and we welcome them. Feoffer (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Your arguments aren't particularly convincing because the sources you are suggesting are indicating some sort of broad and notable research subject look to me like special pleading. To make matters worse, this sort of treatment is basically not something we find for any other subjects in Wikipedia. Like where is our article on Academic studies of botany? An article on that would be absurd. The place to discuss such things would be the article on botany. Likewise, if you want to discuss academic research on UFOs, ufology is an article that could use some clean-up and care. Happy to help with that task, but understand that the marginalization of this subject is necessarily going to take front and center. I know that bugs you, but we are here to report how it is and not right great wrongs. jps (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything allegedly-unknown about GoFast?

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, I'm not up to speed on this material. Has anyone ever alleged anything even theoretically inexplicable about GoFast? IF not, can we get that into the article somehow? Feoffer (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3] Enjoy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)