|WikiProject Paranormal||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject United States / New Mexico||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dulce Base article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This base is allegedly targeted by the military, should aliens attempt a take-over, by using a nuclear tipped bunker buster. The latest models can allegedly go through several feet of granite, one of the hardest rocks known to Man. Martial Law 18:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC) :)
WTF! Please tell me why there is such an article in Wikipedia?!? This story is simply irrelevant. Have you drunk too much, to believe in aliens attempting a take over? Get a life! HAHAHA!
- He said allegedly. And besides, nobody can prove the base, or aliens for that matter, doesn't exist. --Kurotsyn 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody can prove that my actions aren't guided by invisible winged carrots either, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia needs an article about it. -- 126.96.36.199 20:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
In it's current form, this article should become a candidate for deletion. --Kieran Bennett 08:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
In its current form, the article needs checked for NPOV. "tell the tale..." 188.8.131.52 05:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The article should stay. IF the proponents are correct, expect to see a mushroom cloud over Dulce, New Mexico. Martial Law 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Entire Dulce article a hoax?
I've read a lot about Dulce, but I find it horrendously suspicious that one of the "official leaked documents" about the decontamination procedures contains a word-for-word plagerization from a section of the book "The Andromeda Strain" written a full 30 years before these documents were leaked.
- Who knows. The author of The Andromeda Strain may just as easily have taken that information from standard procedure documents from the government. Having worked in that field, I can attest to such documentation being fairly static and have noted professionals in that field citing such documentation in verbatim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see that I was not the only person to notice the similarities between what is being claimed by UFO believers and the contents of "The Andromeda Strain". If I can remember where it is on the web there is also a site quoting material from a role playing game handbook as proof of the Dulce base.Graham1973 (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Coast To Coast AM Guests
- Jeff Rense's guests
- Linda Howe's books, etc.
- Been to New Mexico myself, but that would violate WP:NOR, other protocol. Martial Law 21:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Both sites are registered personally to Michael Salla (via a P.O. box in Hawaii). Based on the site information (http://www.galacticdiplomacy.com/about.htm and http://exopolitics.org/about.htm) they exist to promote the existence of ETs and to sell services or raise money to enable others to contact ETs. The sites are self published, have no official affiliations and cannot be considered a reliable source, in any way independent or of academic interest. The sites fail WP:RS as a reference and WP:ELNO as a link. The sites might only be suitable for an article on Michael Salla or his company, the "Exopolitics Institute" based on the guidance of WP:SELFPUB.—Ash (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Academic interest"? You're kidding, aren't you? This article is about a paranormal topic, not hard laboratory science. Salla's opinion is as good as anyone else's. — QuicksilverT @ 10:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
This entire article is missing sources and all references are shady at best. Can this go up for deletion please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Your posting of anonymous, unsigned comments here is shady at best. Can you just delete yourself please? — QuicksilverT @ 10:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this article a joke?
There is not one part of this article that can be verified by anything closely resembling a "reliable, published source", which is a Wikipedia rule. There are plenty of internet forums out there for discussing alien conspiracy theories, articles like this just hurt the reputation of Wikipedia as a real Encyclopedia.
You can't quote 'guest on radio shows' as sources, or internet rumour and discussion, or blog/forums posts. And to be honest, reading some of the 'editors' justifications in the talk page smacks of 'Poe's Law' to the point I have to conclude the entire article is a hoax and the main editors of it are behind it.
This is completely different from articles about other 'secret' underground locations as Groom Lake, Raven Rock, Mt Weather or Cheyenne Mountain which are well documented and even officially acknowledged. It is their operation that is the secret, not their existence.
Plus, the justification that 'you can't prove that it's not true' is a ridiculous statement for an a Wikipedia article's existence. This is an encyclopedia, not a conspiracy theorists blog, burden of proof lays with those making the statement.
Just because a source is published does not mean it is true and just because a source is non published does not mean it is not true. Witness testimony is a source do verification, where there is clearly a problem with anything staying in publication due to intimidation or other reasons. The fact that people get so upset over something they can't imagine or see as true because they havent heard about it and can't figure out why is the reason it hasn't been published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see Bishop is given a one sentence mention by Michael Barkun - our one and only reliable academic source  for this article. Basically it establishes that Bishop and Hamilton wrote about the topic, but does not tell us any more than that, and considering that Barkun is the only RS this is mentioned in, it should not be given any weight. We're not obligated to include every trivial detail from a source, but if experienced editors agree it should be included I have no problem with it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)