Talk:McMinnville UFO photographs
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the McMinnville UFO photographs article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that a freely-licensed image or photograph be included in this article to replace copyrighted images in order to better comply with our policy for non-free content. Many copyright-free image sources are listed at our public domain image resources, or you could create your own. Alternatively, you may request permission from the copyright holder of the original images to release them under a free license. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Oregon may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Post the Photos?
Given that the article concerns photographs, I'm wondering if someone who knows how could post one of the photos in the article - it would enhance the article, IMO. I believe that the photos are in the public domain and thus can be posted. Just a thought.
- Agreed. I mean, they're sort of like the Dewey Defeats Truman photo at this point. They (or at least one of them) needs to be featured in the article. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it should be included... there seems to be a practical joke about this incident. People formed a Firefox logo in a field just outside of McMinnville. It is visible on Google Earth or Google Maps on this location: 45° 7'25.87"N 123° 6'48.97"W
You can view it by clicking on this Google Maps link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rediretihw (talk • contribs) 19:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hehe, neat. Not sure how it's related to this incident though, besides the fact that it's in the same town.
- btw, if you zoom in closer, just below the crop circle there's a 'FX?' spelled out with a plane, some cars, and a group of people... what I wanna know is.. how did they know when the satellite would be passing overhead?? -- œ™ 10:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt this article's claims that "To many skeptics, however, the photos are likely hoaxes and/or fakes." as well as the related statement in the first paragraph. This sounds like a dubious statement intended to dismiss the claims of skeptics without actually acknowledging them. I think the article may benefit from a source skeptical of the incident. This article feels less than neutral at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
What specific reason (beyond vague claims such as "sounds like") is there to doubt the statement you are referring to? It certainly sounds neutral enough, and in no way dismisses the skeptic's claims regarding the incident. The article itself DOES have several sources that are skeptical of the incident, including an extensive discussion of Philip Klass and Robert Shaeffer's debunking of the case, as well as a discussion of IPACO's debunking, and it also provides links to both debunking articles. As such, I don't see how the article can be accused of not "actually acknowledging" the claims of skeptics. The skeptic viewpoint is indeed discussed quite thoroughly. Unless the article is rewritten to openly favor the debunking point of view (which would of course end its neutrality), I don't think the article is biased for either side. 2602:304:691E:5A29:9906:D558:A559:30B8 (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has clear rules regarding article neutrality, POV, and fringe sources. To use the word "proved" regarding the statements of a UFO "believer" or advocate such as Brad Sparks, instead of the more neutral words "asserted" and "argued" is, I should think, a clear violation of those policies. To use the word "proved" regarding Sparks claims (which, after all, are only his claims) would clearly take the side of a ufologist over that of a skeptic, instead of a neutral stance. I believe that Sparks comments should be included in the article, but presented in a fashion that complies with Wiki standards. That's my position in regarding word usage in the article. Populism (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
To Populism: While I agree that "proved" is not the best, WP:SAY specifically advises against "asserted". I'd go for "stated" and "argued", respectively. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)