Talk:Scaled Composites 401

Non-officially-sourced information on the 401

I have attempted to include the following four pieces of information about the 401. They are all sourced from a reputable publication (The Drive), but not from official press releases, since the 401's operations are not officially reported on.

1. The Scaled ARES displays an official piece of artwork indicating that it is the "father", in a design sense, of the 401 aircraft.
2. The 401 has been nicknamed "Son of Ares" in the press.
3. The 401 has been photographed wearing a highly reflective coating.
4. Aviation journalists believe this coating may have to do with anti-laser defense tests.

Another user (Ahunt) has reverted my edits, claiming "speculation and rumor" and "non-encyclopedic content." I contend that WP:SPECULATION and WP:RUMOR (which are the same thing) only apply to speculation on the part of the Wikipedia editor, not speculation by experts which has been reported on in the press. For an experimental and secretive project like this, there will exist no official sources to describe the project in satisfactory depth. Reputable unofficial sources, like those I cited, are the best that we can get. Moreover, while I can to some extent sympathize with skepticism regarding the encyclopedic nature of points 2 and 4, points 1 and 3 are pure fact, and I can see no conceivable objection to including them. --Jtle515 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't remove it due to the veracity of the source, but because it is just wild speculation and rumour, and thus not encyclopedic content. I never invoked WP:SPECULATION or WP:RUMOR, that was your leap. This sort of wild speculation about aircraft, regardless of source, do not belong in an encyclopedia. I have asked for additional editor input from WikiProject Aircraft to help some to a WP:CONSENSUS here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If containing "wild speculation and rumour" rules out a source from providing "encyclopedic content," would you point out the rule that says so? It seems to me like you're relying on your own personal definition of "speculation and rumour" rather than any actual rule. --Jtle515 (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG, per my comment below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I wholly endorse AHunt here. Just because some unreliable scally posts wild conjectures about something does not mean we should include them in our encyclopedia. In fact, very much the reverse. If certain aspects of the 401 are sufficiently documented in reliable sources (i.e. industry and other reputable journals, and not just the gutter press), then by all means restore them with sufficient cites to establish both significance and reliability. Otherwise, time to move on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Speculation is admissible if it comes from a WP:RS. The WarZone is a sensationalist, car-fanboy online magazine ("stories which reached prominence relating to ... UFO encounters"), not a reputable aviation media. It would be OK if it came from Jane's, AviationWeek or FlightGlobal.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Have you looked at the citation for the UFO story that you scoff at? It's an ABC news affiliate, and they apparently consider The War Zone to be a decent source. Or is ABC 6 Philadelphia also a "sensationalist online magazine"? --Jtle515 (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG for how to interpret their reliability. I checked out your source and much of what you claim is merely journalistic opinion. You really do need better sources than that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the key takeaway from WP:NEWSORG is: The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value ... Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors. The claims that were proposed for addition just do not belong in an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how points 1 and 3 could be construed as rumors. --Jtle515 (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Mostly because any possible factual claims were convoluted by rumour-level text. What your text actually said was:

Artwork seen in 2018 on the fuselage of the Scaled Composites ARES lent credence to spotters' speculation that the design of the 401 was influenced by that of the ARES; the 401 has been nicknamed "Son of Ares" in the press.

and

The operations of the 401 aircraft have not been made public. In June of 2020, one of the two craft (N401XD) was photographed in flight wearing a highly reflective coating on much of its fuselage, leading to speculation that it might be involved in tests of anti-laser defenses.

The only non-speculation/non-rumour/non-wild-guess in that would be that one of the aircraft was seen with a reflective paint scheme. The trouble is that the inclusion of the rest of the speculation discredits this as a source for even basic factual information.

Given that the consensus is that the source is not WP:RS and to not include this, I think we are into WP:DEADHORSE territory now. - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)