Talk:Varginha UFO incident

Untitled

This may be worthy of an encyclopedia article, but there are some rather gross deficiencies as it stands:

• No source(s) provided for an unusual claim
• Not NPOV (i.e., it's presented as fact)

I'm going to reapply the npov tag; if someone has some information to make this a balanced article, as well as sources, please add. I'm sure somewhere some government has blamed it all on weather balloons ;) I guess I should read more carefully... it's all blamed on a lack of growth hormone??? Anyway, still needs sourcesGwimpey 01:02, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Edited some spelling and grammar. --Poorpaddy 01:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was able to find about 2,000 references to this incident, but not a single objective source for any of the statements made on this page. These references cross-link between themselves, using each other as "sources". They prop up the ever-expanding story by claiming that all true sources of information were covered up by "the government." It is a perfect tautology: "The lack of proof for the conspiracy proves the depth of the conspiracy."

In fairness, I do not speak or read Portuguese, the language of origin for several hundred of the links. Another few hundred were in Spanish, which I read poorly. Someone fluent in one or both of these languages might be able to find a link to a news story or objective source that was lacking from every English page. Barring that, the only salvation I see for this article is the placement of "supposedly", "rumored" and "unsubstantiated" in innumerable places throughout the piece. - Kevin Wells 15:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm Brazilian, and haven't found any big difference between the common brazilian version and this one. In fact, it looks like a merely translated page instead of a new article. --Omega2 11:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Brazilian names

As a Brazilian, I'm surprised that the majority of the people involved doesn't have Brazilian names. Strange thing.

Those are real names, as far as I know. They were frequently mentioned when the case was still high on media. --Omega2 11:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Awful article.

This article reads as if it supports the UFO claim. And I'm pretty sure it has weasel words in the form of "some critics argue" etc.

The External Links are dead but they too only supported the UFO theory. Needs a complete re-write in my opinion. Eica 16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the military had big stakes in this, why would they even tell any truth. How about renaming this section to "offical reaction".

There were many more witnesses and they offered far more details. Why are tese not shown? Where is the detailed timeline with maps? This is poor and biased. As said, full rewrite is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A46D:7430:1:E91F:6B9D:3D46:15F0 (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

UFOs Might Not Need Craft and Fly By Themselves

The article says "Moffett writes that there have been over half a dozen sightings of the creatures, though "it is unclear how all of these beings could have fit into the minivan-sized spacecraft that was spotted here in January." It's more than possible that these bizarre creatures simply fly themselves by having hidden wings and a new way of flying. A vapor released could make them look at lot bigger than they really are for example. They may just look metallic and craft-like when in the air.

This is corroborated by this report: Months later, on October 8, the newspaper O LIBERAL launched the first in a series of reports, about the Chupa-Chupa (suck-suck) phenomenon. "Sucking animal attacks men and women in the village of Vigia: A strange phenomenon has been occurring for several weeks in the village of Vigia, more exactly in the Vila Santo Antonio do Imbituba about 7 kilometers from highway PA-140, with the appearance of an object which focus a white light over people, immobilizing them for around an hour, and sucks the breasts of the women leaving them bleeding. The object, known by the locals as "Bicho Voador" (Flying Animal), or "Bicho Sugador" (Sucking Animal), has the shape of a rounded ship and attacks people in isolation. One of the victims, among many in the area, was Mrs. Rosita Ferreira, married, 46 years old, resident of Ramal do Triunfo, who a few days ago was sucked by the light on the left breast, and passed out. Increasingly it looked like she was dealing with a nightmare, feeling as if there were some claws trying to hold her. She was attacked around 3:30 in the morning. Another victim was the lady known as "Chiquita," who was also sucked by the strange object with her breast becoming bloody, but without leaving any marks."

Source: http://www.think-aboutit.com/mutilations/Human_Mutilations.htm

176.24.226.120 (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey

video game

maybe it's too minor, but should the article mention a Brazilian video game by the name of The Varginha Incident, based off the UFO sightings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.64.66 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Revista UFO / Moment of Contact

Based on a translation of a reprint from "Revista UFO" [1], this organization/magazine seems to promote lunatic fringe views of the topic. Probably not a good source to base article text on. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

But it's an Explosive Report with one exclamation point. :) JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Related: our article on one of Revista's editors Ademar José Gevaerd. Really heavy with fringe and undue flavoring. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the article. Although I might try to edit it a bit, I fear I don't have the time to parse all those Portuguese sources. Is there a Brazilian editor in the house? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The Films and Documentaries section also seems to require pruning. I'll get back to it (and perhaps that Ademar guy) later today.... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Pruned. I'm hoping you'll get the ball rolling on the Ademar guy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I think 2022's Moment of Contact by film maker James Fox should be included in the Media section. ArdentMaverick (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the film is notable? Have there been any reviews of the film by notable media (not UFO websites or blogs)? If not, perhaps it is best to wait until such notability is achieved. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There are several reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, none of which are from UFO websites or blogs; [2]https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/moment_of_contact ArdentMaverick (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Those entries are not derived from notable sources like The Los Angeles Times, Variety, The New Yorker, AllMovie, etc. Two of the reviews seem written by actual film critics (others might disagree with that assessment, however), but the "review" from That Shelf reads more like a breathless press release than an objective review from a capable film critic (example prose: "a thought-provoking work examining a taboo topic with staggering implications"). Such a small number of reviews defines the film as both obscure and non-notable. I suggest that we hold off on mentioning the film until additional reviews, positive or negative, from unquestionably reliable sources become available. Not helping matters is the fact that the film's non-notable director/producer specializes almost exclusively in credulous, sensational, The-Extraterrestrials-Are-Here! material. There's certainly nothing wrong with that as a career choice, but the combination of pro-fringe and non-notable is a poor recipe for mentioning their output in Wikipedia articles. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Here are reviews from reputable sources Gizmodo and ScreenRant: Gizmodo, ScreenRant ArdentMaverick (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

James Fox's documentary The Phenomenon (2020 film) is considered notable enough for its own article, and is even listed in the UFO Report (U.S. Intelligence) page. I don't understand why we can't link to his film Moment of Contact here. ArdentMaverick (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As above, Moment of Contact has not (yet) achieved notability. Additionally, per WP:RSPS and WP:Citing IMDb, IMDb is simply not a reliable source for the content some editors wish to add to this article. Also per WP:RSPS, the New York Post is not a reliable source for, well, pretty much anything: "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting [...] A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication." The film's director/producer is also not notable. For those editors who really, really feel compelled to add mention of this non-notable film to this article, I suggest you first gain consensus here at the Talk page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The New York Post did a article on it. I even Cited it. James Fox was also one Joe Rogan yesterday and promoted it. Also Moment of Contact has great reviews on IMDB and RottenTomatoes which are two independent websited. You're now literally playing around with what "Notability" is. In my opinion it doesn't even have to achieve notability because James Fox is know to reliable and trustworthy and he puts a lot of effort into his documentaries. JoJoAnthrax i would really appreciate it if you stopped removing it. BBB2021 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, your response was misplaced on this page. It was originally placed above my comment to which you were apparently responding - I have moved it to the proper location without removing/changing anything you wrote. Secondly, I suggest that you read my comment again, wherein I explained why IMDb and the New York Post are not considered reliable sources (again, please see WP:RSPS and WP:Citing IMDb). Thirdly, I suggest that you read the comments posted earlier in this section, which also address reasons for considering Moment of Contact and its director/producer as currently non-notable; my concept of notability is based not upon me literally playing around, but on the explicit Wikipedia policy on notability, which I suggest you read here. That a person promoted their material via Joe Rogan does not convey notability upon either the material or the promoter. Lastly, I will note again that if you can achieve consensus in favor of your desired content here, on this Talk page (please see WP:CONSENSUS), then your desired content will be added! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article."

Here you have it. Directly from the link about notability you sent. You're not making an article about Moment of Contact youre just adding a piece of Media that talks about this incident. Notability doesn't determine the content of articles. As i said you're literally playing around with the concept of notability because even the link you send doesn't support what you say. BBB2021 (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure 'nuff! Although I do not believe the film or director are notable, I should have simply stuck with WP:RS, and perhaps WP:DUE. Let's see if consensus favors your desired content... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If you feel like i am right, maybe even a little bit, i will leave it to you to add Moment of Contact as a piece of media. I hope you have a great day. BBB2021 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This has literally become a subject of opinion at this point. "Moment ot Contact" is a piece of MEDIA. A long, high budget and well done documentary by a notable director. The fact that a couple people here get to decide what is a "reliable source" is ridiculous, although i put 3 sources there and literally explained that IMDb alone is generally accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source for some information like this one. Have a great day. BBB2021 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It could probably have a sentence cited to Gizmodo and ScreenRant Gizmodo, ScreenRant. No need to include the release date in the text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Clearly this documentary is relevant to the topic and should be added in the media section. The article should state that it is a pro-aliens take on the incident and not an unbiased one. This is just yet another occasion of wikipedia editors refusing to let anything other than scepticism be included in their so called encyclopaedia. 2A00:23C6:3081:4501:25A5:BC48:F73E:E27D (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This ain't the place to rant about skeptics. We have a couple of reasonable sources to confirm the film exists, and that's about all that's needed here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Varginha UFO sightings

It was real I was of the many people that saw the monster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.204.65 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Brian Dunning

He had no involvement in the Brazilian Government’s inquiry. He is not an expert on the Brazilian Government’s inquiry. Furthermore, the provided opinion does not add new factual information or additional context relevant to the Brazilian Government’s inquiry. Make a separate section for “Media Commentary” if you want to include his personal opinion on this event. 73.88.147.250 (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Or include the information under “Notoriety”. But the opinion of a podcaster, with no real credentials and no relevance to the inquiry into this event, should not be included in the “Inquiry” section 73.88.147.250 (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

As a brand new IP user you wouldn't be expected to know the encyclopedia's byzantine editorial policies -- but you should look over WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY. Actual scientists don't bother refuting claims of UFO enthusiasts, so we look to independent WP:FRIND critique to satisfy WP:FRINGE. Also, you need to review our WP:BLP policies, particularly in light of your inflammatory edit summaries and your edits such as this.- LuckyLouie (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Providing free advertising for a monetized podcaster

At this point I am willing to bet that "skeptic Brian Dunning" will weigh in on every single UFO incident covered in Wikipedia. Someone, perhaps "Material Scientist" can enlighten me on whether this fact, in itself, constitutes a kind of hijacking of the UFO articles to serve the purpose of advertising. It seems LuckyLouie may have been ahead of me on this issue Werkentagen (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stick with one account (see WP:SOCKPUPPET). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, this page is for improving this article, not for expressing your feelings about general overuse of sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)