Talk:1976 Tehran UFO incident

WP:FT/N

This article is undergoing a discussion on WP:FT/N. I TNTed the article, as it was a non-salvageable PROFRINGE article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at this article a number of times in the past year, and the vast majority of previous editions were plain old facts about what the witnesses reported. Whatever fringe theorizing was perceived therein, it could've been fixed with some tone correction. 174.119.165.111 (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. I see no reason why the pro-fringe theories could not have been removed while retaining basic claimed background information about the incident. As it stands, we have an article that includes almost no details of the claimed incident, but is chock full of skeptical rebuttals of details that are no longer included in the article itself. For a general reader, I would argue that the article is now rather confusing and would add little knowledge to their understanding of the claimed incident. And, for what it's worth, I don't believe that there is any credible evidence that UFOs are little green/gray men from outer space, and my guess is that there is a perfectly normal explanation for the incident. But I don't see how creating an article that barely discusses the incident, and has little but rebuttals of details that are no longer included in the article, is going to be helpful for the average person that reads this. I'm well aware of credible sources requirements, but I don't believe that listing some basic details as to why this is supposedly a "UFO event" (with careful use of words such as "claimed" or "supposedly"), and then including the rebuttals by skeptics, would be against Wiki policy, and it would surely improve the article. I definitely think the skeptical information should be included, but only after a basic background description of the claimed incident is given. Otherwise, this article will be of little use to the general reader, in my opinion. Basically, this article can be worded to present some basic claimed background details without being pro-fringe or advocating that the incident was caused by little green men. Just my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What's going on with this article? I came looking for a description of the incident (not being familiar with it) and there seems to be none here: just refutations and rebuttals by skeptics with no reference even to the claims they are rebuking. Very confusing, and not at all informative. I don't see why including witness accounts or a description of what occurred necessarily endorses or legitimizes a particular interpretation of the event. And I don't see the point of having the article at all if no description of the event is included. Can someone fix this? I looked for the discussion WP:FT/N but couldn't find it. Can we revert with some edits here? Abusepotential (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the two skeptics (Healthy Girl) who pushed for the major "edits" to this article was later banned when it was discovered that they were actually a sockpuppet for an already-banned poster, Anglo Pyramidologist. There is a push among some skeptics (but not all) over at the Wikipedia Fringe Theories Noticeboard to rewrite all UFO-related articles to include only skeptic-approved sources (such as Philip Klass), even though many of these skeptics are not themselves scientists (Klass was a journalist, not a practicing scientist), and to dismiss all other sources as unreliable, no matter how closely they conform to Wiki's reliable sources guidelines. This article is a great example of the result of this policy - nothing but skeptical rebuttals of details that are no longer mentioned in the article, and little in the article that's coherent in terms of describing why the incident was originally considered notable, or any background information. I don't "believe" that UFOs are interplanetary vehicles piloted by little green men, but you don't have to be a UFO believer to think that articles such as this should be well-organized and include some background information of what supposedly happened to make this a notable event, along with using qualifying words such as "claimed" or "supposedly" to avoid portraying the events as if they actually occurred as reported. It is possible, in short, to include the skeptical rebuttals and still include some background information of the incident. I'm not at all opposed to including the skeptical information, but for an article like this to be helpful or meaningful for a typical reader, it should also include some basic background description, with qualifiers. Otherwise, why even have articles like these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.243.201 (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent WP:TNT removals

Much of what was removed actually cited sources, and most of what remains is unsourced. I don't generally mess with WP:FRINGE articles, but this needs to be looked at more carefully, and some of the cited content needs to be restored. Scr★pIron^IV 15:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No it does not need to be restored because those references are entirely unreliable pushing fringe beliefs. Timothy Good is a well known conspiracy theorist who believes little green men exist, as is the book The UFO-Cover Up by Fawcett and Greenwood which promotes irrational conspiracy theories. Such references should not be cited on Wikipedia with such heavy weight, they are unreliable. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Philip J. Klass's UFOs: The Public Deceived (pp. 111-124) has in depth coverage of the incident, this reference should be expanded. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

These recent edits are absurd. The entire incident has been deleted, leaving nothing but a pre-emptive, terse, skeptical analysis rebutting details of the incident that are now not even recounted in the article itself. All of the factual information about what was reported by witnesses should be restored. Does the person who did this think Klass or Sheaffer would write anything this bad and incomplete? Was this edited by a teenaged Reddit user? 174.119.165.111 (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I've made a couple of comments in one of the other talk sections on this subject so far, where there was a fairly uncivil attack by a proponent of the current article on a user asking about changes. And I see in the subject above this one, that the user HealthyGirl was deleted as a sockpuppet of a previously deleted user. But they brought up the notion that the references for the details of the incident being unreliable. And I distinctly remember seeing US government websites in the references, so I thought that was a bit of a strange claim, and with only a few moments in Google I was able to find multiple specific, and detailed, declassified accounts of this incident on NSA.gov - however this was not the source I remember. If someone has more experience with US government archives, they might know where to look.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you could be talking about the DIA document released through FOIA. I hope anyone could read it and add it to the wikipedia page, a very detailed description of the entire incident. https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FOIA-Reading-Room-Iran/FileId/122011/Aleral Wei (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

What the hell happened to this article!?

I remember reading this two years ago or so and thought it was incredibly interesting. The article was easily 3x as long as it is now, with detailed reports of the incident, eyewitness testimony, a ton of intriguing facts and details... now I look at it and the whole article basically says "Nope, nothing happened, nothing to see here, move along."

Why was it censored? And why is Wikipedia tolerating the very obvious skeptic bias that now makes up the entire article? Answers demanded.

Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence

true. Who or what is censoring all this and.. why? --83.43.68.241 (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, Klass' account of what the technicians told him was wrong. How would a Westinghouse contractor know anything about the F-4E's electrical system, when the only system on that aircraft that he would have been an expert on was the AN/APQ-120 fire control radar? And how does the McDonnell Douglas contractor know in detail the AN/APQ-120 radar, which is a product of Westinghouse, when he would only know of the aircraft's electrical and mechanical systems? TOO MUCH WEIGHT, has been given to Klass who, evidently did not do his homework regarding the F-4E, and how US-trained air forces like the IIAF assign aircraft for Quick Reaction Alert duty. Any aircraft with reliability issues are never put on QRA, except in wartime. 58.164.15.240 (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Restore this article.

Restore this article. All that "skeptical" garbage explains NOTHING of the event. In fact, it is simply there as a skewed view and nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago Luque (talk • contribs) 04:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I've reviewed a previous version of the article, and I can see why it was so severely trimmed. Many people don't realize or accept that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. It is "not neutral" when it comes to offbeat claims and ideas. The encyclopedia has a lot of editorial policies we have to follow, and it prevents us from giving tabloid sensationalism, fringe conspiracy theories and speculations about aliens and UFOs undue or equal validity with mainstream coverage of those topics. Plus, it requires us to use reliable sources: those that are independent of the fringe topic. Sources like The UFO Cover-up, Above Top Secret, Beyond Top Secret, and Sightings are not independent of UFO proponents, and considered unreliable by our standards. In addition, a lot of the article was referenced to mentions in the press of a 2007 UFO proponent conference in Washington DC. However those mentions contain nothing about the Tehran incident. If you are a UFO proponent who feels short-changed, or simply think Wikipedia should challenge the status quo, be more open minded, or be entertaining or "intriguing" to read, I can understand your frustration. But there is nothing we can do as our policies are very specific. Also note we have policies discouraging using alternative accounts or canvassing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The implication you are making with this statement is quite directed, and seems to have nothing to do with the content of the arguments raised. Further, you appear to be in breach of WP policy, by even making implications like this, while portraying yourself as the apparent arbiter, on a volunteer run website.

Again ... further strong implications, in an article that's had sporadic comments over a long period of time in the talk section. I suggest that if you think this has happened, you present evidence, or retract that statement in full.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok. So I am going to have to say outright here that this statement is wholly and demonstrably false. I just found a declassified document on a US Government website (nsa.gov) that specifically refers to the name of one of the pilots involved in the Tehran incident. And I just found video of him speaking at the Washington Conference. I suggest you retract this statement in full as well.

The contents of the discussion continues below from before my interjections--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Not everyone who thinks this is a poorly-written and organized article is a UFO proponent or believer. Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia, and is thus written for general readers who come to these articles to learn about a given topic. As several posters have pointed out, this article gives almost no background details of the claimed incident, is poorly-written, and would add almost nothing to a general reader's knowledge of the topic. The skeptical rebuttals are fine, except that they have no context, since there is no background information given. Given that, and given that any edits are apparently out of the question, I am left wondering exactly why this article exists at all, given its present state. There is a difference between "trimming" (in this case, gutting with no thought to the overall organization or coherence of the article), and editing an article so that it still reads coherently and makes some sense, while removing the dubious sourced material. Additionally - as was also pointed out - at least one of the posters (Healthy Girl) who made substantial edits to the article was later banned when it was discovered they were simply a sockpuppet for an already-banned poster, yet their edits have been allowed to remain. Again, there is a difference between adding "Above Top Secret" or "The UFO Coverup" to an article as a source, and material from UFO skeptics like Robert Sheaffer and Curtis Peebles, or accounts from mainstream newspapers, or people like J. Allen Hynek or Jerome Clark. Not all sources are alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree there. A very clear summary of the incident is included twice; once in the article lead, and again in the "explanation and analysis" section. The Gallery section includes images of the Air Force newsletter containing detailed and dramatized descriptions of the incident. Our EL section contains a link to the Air Force report, which also describes the incident in scrupulous detail. Do you have some specific suggestion for how to improve the article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The article has been edited since my post, and while the article lead does provide an (extremely) concise (four sentence) description, I'd have to disagree that the "explanation and analysis" section is clear. It continues to feature skeptical rebuttals of "UFOlogist" views and claims that are not mentioned or referenced at all in the article. For example, it states that "Bridgstock criticized UFOlogists reports as "not a reliable account of the Iran UFO incident", yet the "UFOlogist reports" are not discussed at all, so there is no context for what Bridgstock is rebutting. What did UFOlogists say about the incident that Bridgstock, Klass, and Dunning believe needed rebutting? There is a reference to meteor showers being responsible for "bright objects", but the statement is not placed into any kind of context for a general reader unfamiliar with the incident (Ufologists implied that the "bright objects" were possible UFOs, skeptics believe the meteor shower is responsible). The section states that "Dunning criticized UFOlogists and UFO-themed television programs like Sightings for describing all the events related to the incident "from the context of a presumption that the light was a hostile and intelligently guided alien spacecraft". Yet again, we have a rebuttal of Ufologist claims that are not mentioned or discussed anywhere in the article, and thus have no context for a general reader.

In short, the body of the article continues to consist largely of skeptical rebuttals that have little in the way of context to guide a general reader as to what, specifically, is being rebutted. The section clearly implies that Dunning believed that the case has been explained as little more than "planes chasing celestial objects and having equipment failures", yet in his final paragraph on his blog entry Dunning writes: "in this case, we don't have enough information to know what it is. So even if any of the six elements is not otherwise explained, all we're left with is "I don't know", not "I do know and it was an alien spaceship." What was the Tehran 1976 UFO? I don't know, but there's insufficient evidence to convince me to get excited about it." In other words, Dunning is quoted in the article as basically explaining the sighting, yet in his blog entry he states that "I don't know" what happened. Which is it? As for suggestions, I know that in some other UFO articles (such as the Levelland UFO Case) you created a separate Ufologist section to describe their version of the incident. I fail to see why such a section could not be included here, which would provide many of the (claimed or alleged) details that the skeptics are rebutting. I do not believe that Wikipedia guidelines forbid any inclusion of Ufologist viewpoints (which is the case in this article), only that they clearly be labeled as fringe viewpoints and do not pretend to represent mainstream scientific consensus or thought on the subject. For a general reader, I would argue that such a separate section would clarify the skeptical arguments being made in the body of the article, and would provide some much-needed context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above user. I came back to reference the contents of this article, to another UFO sighting, not because of some fringe belief in aliens or whatnot, but because I wanted to see if there were similarities in the witness testimonies between this incident and one the US Navy recently released video of. In my view, it could've indicated a similar aircraft type. Or astrological phenomenon. But the article now has had the vast majority of it's encyclopedic content removed, and reads more like an opinion piece.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The article's content has been severely whitewashed - not merely "trimmed", or "brought in line with mainstream POV". The central problem with the current text is the following: it "analyzes", "explains", or even "rebuts", but it does not even attempt to describe in any detail the very event in question.

I've seen this elsewhere before, typically when articles covering paranormal or fringe topics get taken over by skeptics who then try to make the article all about rebutting the fringe claims, while not even bothering to describe what these fringe claims are. Springing straight into debunking is beyond violating WP:WEIGHT, it cripples the content. GregorB (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see editors complaining about "skeptics" instead of suggesting specific improvements to the article. The lengthy description of "the incident" that existed in previous versions was cut back because what was written either failed verification, its sourcing pushed a ufology POV and was not independent or objective. If someone wants to draft a new section that better conforms to our editorial policies, feel free to do so. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm in turn sorry if my comment sounded harsh. I described my earlier experiences, perhaps unfairly implying that the same applied to this article. Your initial comment did, however, refer to making the article more neutral, and I don't think that can't be achieved by cutting out the description of what (purportedly) happened, leaving just the (one-sided, if mainstream) analysis.

Since the US Government produced official reports, surely these are RS for describing the general background of the case and what the eyewitnesses reported? GregorB (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, government reports are reliable, yet WP:PRIMARY sources. Right now, they are included as External Links which anyone can click on to read them in their entirety. But pasting the entire text of these into the article isn't appropriate. That's why we need secondary sources and independent third party analysis to know which details are actually notable and what kind of WP:WEIGHT to give them. Otherwise we run into WP:OR territory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these reports are primary sources - if they were written by persons who were not directly involved in the events, then they are not. That put aside, secondary sources may still not be necessary. Per WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. In our case, a primary source is eminently usable if one simply rephrases what it says without venturing into any interpretation, just as if it were a movie plot. (Incidentally, this is also why plot sections in film articles generally do not require secondary sources.) Also - just like movie plots - we don't need outside sources to know which details are actually notable. (An unfortunate use of the word - here "notable" does not mean "Wikipedia-notable" but rather "pertinent" - something else entirely.) GregorB (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

We have to worry about WP:FRIND which is to say that explanations of what occurred delineated by people who are true believers in the UFO phenomena are not the gold standard for inclusion of content at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If we use US Government sources, WP:FRIND does not apply, and we need not worry. It does not apply for two reasons: 1) US gov sources are independent sources, and 2) US gov sources describe what happened, as reported by people involved (IIRC), without providing any theories or explanations. GregorB (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, you're advocating that a section containing "background of the case and what the eyewitnesses reported" (as in a a previous version) be created. What source are you suggesting be used, how much weight would the source be given, and how exactly would you "rephrase" material contained in the source?

Regarding WP:PRIMARY: last time I read policy I recall it said something like "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". So I'm sorry, I don't agree that we should treat primary sourced government files and reports like we use movies to build plot summaries from. Imagine if the background and description of Shooting of Trayvon Martin were sourced only to police reports. Luckily we have secondary sourcing available for analysis and context. - LuckyLouie (talk)

An appeal to authority will not insulate us from WP:FRIND. I have read enough material coming out of the US government with various agendas to know that you have to evaluate government reports on a case-by-case basis. Just because the government says it doesn't mean it's not a WP:FRINGE idea. jps (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: yes, a section that describes the event should be restored in some form. I suggest US gov sources. As for the weight - why, 100% weight for that section obviously (if there are no other sources that describe the event, that's the only possible weight). I cannot say how exactly a source should be rephrased, just as I cannot say how exactly would I retell a movie plot. Also, once again: a primary source cannot be "misused" if straightforward, descriptive statements of facts are made based on it - I've quoted WP:PRIMARY already.

@jps: indeed, if government sources are unreliable and/or biased, it's chiefly because a government always has an agenda. Surely US gov does not have an agenda in promoting UFO theories - quite the contrary. If US gov sources are deemed unreliable for UFO topics, then pretty much all sources might be deemed unreliable, and we might as well delete all these articles.

Also, it is important to distinguish reliability from credibility. If the NYT reports David Icke said the Queen is a shape-shifting reptile, it is surely reliable (I believe Icke said it), but it may not be credible (I don't believe that's true). The converse applies to skeptic sources: just because they may be seen as credible (since they espouse the mainstream view), they are not necessarily reliable. Wikipedia's business is verifiability, and not the "truth". So, if the witnesses say they saw an alien spaceship, our only concern is whether they have actually said it or not, and definitely not whether what they think is the truth or not, as long as their statements are properly ascribed to them. GregorB (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nah. We don't need to include the uninformed opinions of "witnesses" about what the origin of what they saw is. They are not experts in object identification, obviously. jps (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic here? Fighter pilots are not experts in object identification?

My "alien spaceship" example was just an illustration of proper encyclopedic reasoning: reporting the facts also means "report someone said it was a spaceship" (if it's true that sources say so). In practice, and in this particular case, it's up to the source: if the opinions of witnesses are considered relevant, they might as well be relevant for the article. GregorB (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope, fighter pilots are not experts in identifying aerial phenomena. They simply are not. jps (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any data or detailed evidence to support that statement jps, or is just it your personal opinion? Using common sense, I would think that professional pilots (especially experienced commercial airline pilots and military pilots) who spend their careers flying in the air would have some knowledge of "aerial phenomena", and enough experience to know when they've seen something unusual or out of the ordinary. That doesn't mean, of course, that what they saw was an alien spacecraft, but to argue that an experienced military or commercial airliner pilot wouldn't know anything about "aerial phenomena" is a stretch. Just saying. 76.0.165.200 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Experts in identifying aerial phenomena are scientists who study aerial phenomena and observe as a matter of profession. Pilots are trained to be experts in flying. That's not to say that they cannot identify aerial phenomena relevant to flying, but pilots are not experts in atmospheric physics, astronomy, etc. Many UFO reports by pilots (look at Kenneth Arnold to start and move forward) come with dubious arguments about the physical characteristics of the UFOs that are not only impossible to verify, they are simply implausibly claimed. The distance, size, or speed of a UFO is not something that someone can judge on the basis of looking, for example. If you want to learn more, read about the problems with eyewitness testimony, which is essentially what we are claiming is good evidence. jps (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is absolutely useless. It's essentially a collection of quotes from skeptics without describing the actual event or any details.24.111.55.146 (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying that this is the perfect Wikipedia UFO article? Sadly, I must agree. Cover as few details of the incident as possible, include only comments from debunking sources, and eliminate any source - no matter how credible or mainstream or reliable - that even hints that the incident has not already been explained as something mundane and perfectly normal. No objectivity and no neutrality. It looks as if Wikipedia's famous "guerrilla skeptics" group has won the day yet again, and general readers are once again left with an article that is mostly useless in covering any details of the case or why it was even considered notable in the first place. Most of these UFO articles at this point should just be deleted, as it's clear that any attempts to clarify or augment them from even reliable or credible sources will be quickly deleted, and editors who attempt to do so will be quickly banned or blocked from editing the article in question by UFO skeptics, who completely dominate and control the content posted on these articles now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:C402:2A45:A08C:14F2:DF8C:621 (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Skeptics run wikipedia, don't you know? This is their safe space. To hell with neutrality on topics they don't agree with. Skeptics are one reason why I'd never financially contribute to wikipedia when they put up their silly ads/pop-up screens asking for money! 58.164.15.240 (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Lucky there's YouTube. The fundamentalist extremist sceptics can't edit that with such ease. I've ceased donating to wikipedia because of these fanatics. 59.102.14.53 (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Detailed and Official Account of the Incident

I'm going to end all of this and add detailed description of this incident with an official source released by DIA through FOIA, so people who think any description is being dramatized to support fringe theories can be quiet.

Source: https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FOIA-Reading-Room-Iran/FileId/122011/

This description in this document seems to be even weirder than it is generally perceived. Let's all admit that this is a case of high strangeness.Aleral Wei (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think you should do this. Choosing details you feel are indicative of “weirdness” and “high strangeness“ from a WP:PRIMARY source is WP:OR. For analysis and summary of fringe claims such as UFOs, we need to use secondary reliable sources to do that analysis of primary documents. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess this is Wikipedia gang just doing their thing, nobodies in real life acting tough and authoritative on Wikipedia!! IDGAF really, this is still somewhat better than articles on topics like history and politics, but I just wanted to say what a giant joke this article is! "Here is a bunch of reasons why this claim is BS, oh btw, we are not telling you what the claim is, just trust these random people... and please give us money"! I guess Wikipedia has such high standards (LOL) that referencing an official report by the Department of Defense is not good enough. The structure of this article could easily be "1. Here is the claim, as reported by US DoD and the witness, 2. Here is why it's BS", but NOPE! L(° O °L) 76.89.137.226 (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Images from Dastan Gallery art show not WP:RS

There have been a couple of attempts [1], [2] to cite text to this blurry image. However it's not a reliable source, since it's a piece from an art gallery exhibition [3] promoting the idea that "the object was an extraterrestrial craft" [4]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, there is nothing remarkable about US intel agencies distributing copies of reports to other parts of the US government (as well as intel agencies of allied governments) particularly when reports having anything to do with Iran, which the US considers a hostile nation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

[5] Seriously? A WP editor is looking at which boxes were checked on a form [6] and basing article text on that? - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I replaced the 'art gallery' photographic images on DIA documents with links to same declassified DIA documents on nsa.gov [7] ... in less than two hours after you claimed that the source wasn't good enough. So there shouldn't be any complaints about that any more.

As for Iran and USA relations, they went south only after the Shah died in 1979. I doubt all material on Iran, or UFOs for that matter, were sent to all leaders of important military & intelligence agencies, and even to allies in Europe.

I found this wiki article couple days ago and was shocked by its lack of information and bias. Was even nominated for wikipedia awards in 2007. Then apparently someone deleted pretty much the entire article, leaving and adding only to the skeptic side of things. Now, after my couple additions I think it looks much better. It would still need a longer paragraph on actual events that occurred, or were claimed to have occurred. Perhaps that DIA 4-page would be most relevant source for that... Mrmarble (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S. You claim on those art gallery images "promoting the idea that the object was an extraterrestrial craft" sounds a bit odd, considering they are photographs of the very same official US Department of Intelligence Agency document I subsequently linked on nsa.gov. And the 'DIA form' (or the text I added from it) doesn't even mention "extraterrestrial" - so wonder where you got that from? Mrmarble (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we are biased against credulous ufology. Sorry. jps (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mrmarble. See my previous postings for links to the art gallery show description, which includes claims such as “ Various high-ranking Iranian military officers directly involved with the events have also gone on public record stating their belief the object was an extraterrestrial craft”. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Louie, The 'extraterrestrial craft' part which you quote is not from the 'gallery photograph' which I initially posted as a source for 'DIA form'. So I don't see how that's relevant. You complained to Fringe theories noticeboard about it AFTER I had replaced the 'gallery photograph' with actual nsa.gov document. You didn't inform me on your post there despite posting about I, which I believe is against Wikipedia rules. Nor did you care to inform me on this talk topic. Later, well after I had provided the nsa.gov document, you finally reverted my edit with a comment "We don't need UFOlogical pandering at Wikipedia" which doesn't make any sense since my edits on the article were quoting official declassified government documents. Also, it seems that you have claimed ownership of this article for years, not letting anyone to add more detailed description on the events or other 'analysis' on the incident apart from few skeptic points of view. All this makes it very hard to assume good faith on your part regarding your actions on this article, especially when it comes to my edits.

I do believe that the official government analysis on credibility of the incident is very important to this article, as are the claimed events of the incident don't you agree?

Louie, I think you have excellent chance still to show good faith by undoing your/jps's removal of my edits, and then work with myself and other editors to further improve the article. Cheers, Mrmarble (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

...Still waiting. Does anyone have legit objections to why my edits on Defense Intelligence Agency analysis [8] on the incident should not be included in the article? Mrmarble (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• What you are proposing is WP:OR: adding analysis of selected portions of content from WP:PRIMARY documents (e.g. which boxes are checked on a form, who is on the distribution list of a document, etc.) which, for whatever reason, you feel should be highlighted on Wikipedia. We rely on WP:SECONDARY independent sources to make those assessments. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't add selected portions from DIA form, but rather entire content of the short document. If you feel something is missing/incorrect it can always be modified later on. My addition can't be WP:OR since it's not my opinion on the content but what DIA had in their document. As for primary/secondary sources: Primary source would be Iranian eye-witness & technical data. US government ANALYSIS (DIA form) on that data is of course secondary source. Surely you must understand this? Mrmarble (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no magic exception for government documents containing research and analysis. Declassified government documents are primary sources [9], [10], [11]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

So what does that make Iranian eye-witness reports then? First you complained that the 'gallery photographs' were not a reliable source. When I provided the original government document you now try to Wikilawyer that government documents should not be approved as a source. That's against common sense and frankly ridiculous.

Certainly government/army analysis on the incident would be less biased than analysis from some random skeptic who has made a career out of inventing explanations for the phenomena. Yet this page has only the latter which is rather silly.

The current 'analysis' you find in this article seems to be that two separate army pilots were chasing Jupiter and neither knew how to use their radar etc. That's of course quite amusing but I'm not convinced that these kook explanations should receive the attention they do in this article. And surely they shouldn't be preferred over what US military says. I'm sure most Wikipedia editors would agree.

And jps; claiming "ufological pandering" is not a legit reason to undo my edits. Can't dismiss government documents only because of one's own confirmation bias. Mrmarble (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey I get it; all the ufological literature and even some clickbait sites promote the Tehran thing as The Most Important Unsolvable UFO Event In History, and the checked boxes and distribution lists on that 43 year old downgraded and declassified DOD message center memo are supposedly the Smoking Gun that proves it all, and OMG The World Must Know The Truth, etc. But unless these whimsical beliefs can be sourced to independent non-fringe scholars who discuss those beliefs at arm’s length, Wikipedia won’t be including them here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

So you think US Defense Intelligence Agency is 'whimsical' and 'fringe'. I see. Somehow fringe nonsense didn't seem to prevent 'UFO expert' Philip Klass's amusing opinions to be included in the article.

Btw, it's very much arguable if UFO/UAP phenomenon even can be characterized as fringe nowadays... after Obama, Brennan etc confirmed existence of UAPs, and US congress is awaiting report from Pentagon. Mrmarble (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record... Louie, you reversed my edit and complained about my edits/sources to Fringe theories noticeboard on false pretenses slightly after I had already replaced the 'gallery photograph' with government link. You didn't notify me of posting to that noticeboard which is against the rules. Your intent was likely Meatpuppetry, which as well is prohibited in Wikipedia. It worked and 'jps' came here to further revert my edits using rather questionable arguments, if you can call his couple one liner comments on 'ufology' that.

After this I tried to discuss with you/jps here. You had already made this topic here, of which you didn't inform me. You continued criticizing my US government sources by Wikilawyering about 'primary/secondary sources' and 'non-fringe scholars' etc... ending our discussion on a note that the official government document [12] I used as a source is not good enough for you and it will never be accepted as a source for the text in the article... despite this very same document actually having been linked in the article on External links [13] even before my edits.

Furthermore, you have some nerve to argue about government sources & academia since the current gutted version of the article has your edits [14] [15] which cite skeptics as sources, such as Klass who is a college graduate and Dunning, who quit college and is a convicted criminal. Furthermore, Dunning quotes are linked to a darn PODCAST! Some of your additions have no sources at all ('Oberg'..., 'Ufologists claim'...). Ironically the reason this article was gutted originally was supposedly poor sourcing - and now all is left is skeptic opinions with terrible sourcing.

In this talk page ALL posters/editors have been in favor of adding event details etc to the article; except Louie, jps and HealthyGirl (who apparently got banned for sockpuppetry). So you two have stopped any significant improvement to the article for years, even when government sources on the event details were offered. So it seems to me that it's time to finally implement some improvements, using those aforementioned declassified US government documents on the case, which were released due to requests based on Freedom of Information Act...

1. I will immediately reinstall my previous edits based on US government analysis on the credibility of the incident (& distribution list).
2. Probably tomorrow I will add the much wanted detailed description of the sightings, citing the DIA 1976 report ad verbatim.
3. When I find time, I will try to clean up the current skeptic analysis from poor sourcing.
4. Might add a couple extra images to the article

Please no more edit warring guys, let's see how the article looks after my edits, thank you. Mrmarble (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You came here and turned the article upside-down. You were reverted. You reinserted your edits. But the correct pattern is WP:BRD, not WP:BRRD. It is you who is edit-warring. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

You call that an article? As for edit warring... you do realize that one has to first have text in order to link the source? We did discuss this, the other guy thinks felon podcast is better source for Wikipedia than official government investigation on the event.

Don't you guys understand that reading what actually happened (or was claimed to have happened) is more convincing than 'it was Jupiter' debunks. You don't need someone to tell you for example that Travis Walton incident is not very credible... his claims debunk themselves (the film is creepy though). However, Louie did voice his concern on Fringe Noticeboard that these DIA documents might lead to conclusion that it wasn't Jupiter the pilots were chasing across Tehran - god forbid! After all we don't want people to know actual details of the event, we have skeptic podcast to tell us what to believe. Mrmarble (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you deny, then, that you are toeing a ufological line ala WP:PROFRINGE? Because all I see is plaintive support for credulous and breathless awe about poorly vetted UFO claims (which is not out of the ordinary). jps (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)