Talk:Pentagon UFO videos

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pentagon UFO videos article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 90 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Paranormal Mid‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

United States: Cinema / Military history Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Telecommunications Low‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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