Talk:Travis Walton incident

Recent edits

Regarding [1], it's not a definitive fact that the other loggers saw Walton zapped by an alien spaceship and as a result were frightened and drove away. At least according to our cited sources, it's ambiguous why they left, so I have reverted and copyedited appropriately. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: You split the paragrahp in a way that left the first pargraph (the one that ends with "...other six men were frightened and drove away.") without a citation. Where's the citation for that paragraph? Nightscream (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about this diff? That's user:Vandergay's edit, and he is the one that had split the paragraph. Which I reverted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources, and observations on tone

I'm concerned that new material being added is weighted heavily on WP:SELFPUB sources such as threedollarkit.weebly.com, badufos.blogspot, Youtube, etc. There may be a valid WP:PARITY argument for using blog posts by experts like Robert Scheaffer in small doses, but I think basing whole sections on them is rather excessive. Also the WP:TONE of some additions ("Gentry Tower as UFO?") is way too WP:PERSUASIVE, and in general, more suited to magazine feature writing than an encyclopedia. The focus of article writing should be to create a solidly sourced reference work rather than weave a fascinating narrative. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree and I removed the ones in the "Missing person investigation" section. WP:USERG and WP:RSSELF are not reliable sources and shouldn't be used. The guideline states: "Never use self-published sources as independent sources about other living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I should add that Youtubers like this one are also not reliable sources, especially for statements of fact made in Wikipedia's voice. And again, on the subject of editorialized section titles, its not clear that the phrase "Two-hoaxed-five hypothesis" has been attributed to any particular source. It seems something that an editor made up on their own. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The "Two-hoaxed-five hypothesis" section wasn't distinct from the "Waltons as UFO buffs and pranksters" so I combined them. I removed more WP:USERG and WP:RSSELF references and content. We need more than blogs and YouTube videos to reference theories. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Good feedback, thank you. I've tried to address tone (e.g. chopped descriptors like "bumpy, dirt road", cut interrogative heading), have removed the objectionable supplementary refs, and provided inline attribution. As for the "Theory of Everything" Youtube Clip about Travis's Jr High friend -- I think our readers would benefit from some neutral, objectively worded summation of the clip, as Walton admits recalling the friend and conversations about faking a UFO, but attributes the idea to the friend rather than himself. But on the other hand, we do have plenty of sourcing for Walton's affinity for UFO and pranks. Feoffer (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSPYT. Selecting comments from interviews found on non-notable Youtube channels is WP:OR unless some third party independent source has taken notice. I should add, good job working to expand the article and your obvious understanding of WP:FRIND, WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:MAINSTREAM. Your efforts are appreciated. Just try to resist the urge to leverage every obscure detail you can find to create a narrative others will find as fascinating as you do. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead Section and Neutrality

It seems the lead section of this article contains little information regarding the events leading up to and during the incident. Be aware that this section, as per WP:LEAD, may be the only thing that a user will read. As such, the lead should be given appropriate weight across the topics that are discussed in the article in a way that is neutral. As of now this section gives the impression of an editorial piece due to the lack of information being given to the user about the incident.

Further, putting The UFO Incident information immediately preceding the explanation of how this incident occurs is absolutely unacceptable (read WP:NPOV). The purpose of articles on wikipedia are not persuasion, they are for information.

If those with extensive knowledge about the topic can add detail regarding the events of incident it would be appreciated. Viiz1 (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for taking the time to write this. The biggest feedback is that we shouldn't begin the narrative in the lead with the UFO Incident tv movie... But Walton has spoken / written about his pre-existing desire to be taken aboard a flying saucer as potentially causative. Vallee, a UFO believer, argues pre-existing cultural expectations shape encounters. Whichever way you slice it, hoax hallucination or CE3K, the story seems to begin with the UFO Incident tv movie. Feoffer (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I took a stab at making the lead more neutral. It now starts with the forestry job not the TV movie, explicitly mentions that they watched the movie and discussed it. I tried to "de-snark" the link between the TV movie and Travis's disappearance by adding intervening text, I suspect that's the biggest thing you were picking up on as potentially non-neutral. We also now mention the 2021 Rogers confession and retraction in the lead. Feoffer (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: If you have room on your plate, I wonder if you might take a peek at the article's lead and see if you summarize it better than I or otherwise improve it. the version of the lede that Viiz1 saw probably wasn't as neutral or as complete as we should strive to be; but I worry I've gone too verbose now as an overcorrection. I'll see what others think. Feoffer (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer: absolutely and thanks for reaching out. I was just listening to a podcast about this guy while driving out to a client in another parish this past week. @Viiz1: If reliable sources describe his story as based on or inspired by "The UFO Incident", then NPOV would be to have that in the lead (WP:DUE). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer: I took a shot at shortening the lead some. Feel free to revert or partially revert anything that is not helpful. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks!! Feoffer (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The first section still has problems. "It is widely regarded as a hoax, even by believers of UFOs and alien abductions." There are three citations given. All of them support the statement that it is widely regarded as a hoax, but none of them supports the statement that it is regarded as a hoax by believers of UFOs and alien abductions. 2601:41:200:5260:4433:CD98:FE2E:EFEF (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Robert Sheaffer or Charlie Wiser?

It's Charlie Wiser who argues for the lookout tower as the source of the UFO, not Mr. Sheaffer. He clearly merely reports her research on his blog. This needs fixing. Scherben808 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)