Talk:2007 Alderney UFO sighting

Note

Two UFO videos supposedly taken in the south of France the day after the Alderney sighting,[1][2] have been proven to be hoaxed.[3][4]. JMK (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Rays ufo in a 1995 video?

In 1995 tim edwards filmed a ufo in salida colardo that looks just like what ray described. This video is on the net and youtube. 118.208.116.32 (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Tags

I have tagged the article due to it being of pretty poor quality. I think the tags speak for themselves, but note that I have also started a thread on WP:FTN to discuss what to do about the cleanup that is required. jps (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Tags were removed without discussion. I have included a new tag just to make sure that the problem is made abundantly clear. Even if this article survives AfD, I see no WP:FRIND sources. jps (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Peacocking(?)

The sentence below has been tagged as peacocking:

According to The Times, Bowyer's report is "regarded as one of the most impressive and perplexing testimonies to have found its way into MoD archives"

WP:PEACOCK gives the following as an example of good practice to fix peacocking:

Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation"

The edit summary from User:ජපස read "The editor in question (you?) chose this quote to highlight. Why this quote? Why not another that was less puffy?". To answer that question, reporting subjective judgements from reliable sources is a normal device to help establish a subject's notability, as well as to demonstrate to the reader why an article's subject might be of interest to them.

Per WP:BRD, I'm seeking consensus as to the proper interpretation of WP:PEACOCK here, and whether the tag should stand. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Or... can you explain why this particular quote ought to be included twice in this article? What makes it worthy of inclusion? jps (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It is mentioned once in the body and once in the lead. That does seem reasonable, as the lead should follow the body. It clearly merits inclusion in the article as a judgment on the case's significance published in a newspaper of record. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Who cares whether a "newspaper of record" dropped the ball with careful vetting? Did any experts weigh in? jps (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The standard you're applying here is idiosyncratic, and I'd suggest bordering on WP:OR. If a source (such as the BBC, The Times, the New Yorker, the Telegraph...) is recognised by broad consensus as reliable, and you want to say that its contents are untrue, you need to find a high-quality reliable source that shows as much. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The standard you are suggesting is paraphilic and bordering on the idolatrous. Just because a newspaper is generally known to do good reporting does not mean that everything it has ever printed is beyond reproach. There are plenty of sources which identify this problem with mainstream media. It is why WP:NFRINGE and WP:SENSATION are written the way they are. jps (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a problem with User:ජපස tag-bombing on this page, as what seems to be part of an attempt to influence voting on a deletion discussion. Tagging of reliable sources such as the BBC and Evening Standard as unreliable is pretty bad. Tagging the pilot's statements as "contradictory" when they consist of direct quotations is unfathomable. This tag is intended for when the body text contradicts itself, not to highlight perceived differences between accounts of an event. This article's purpose is not to decide if these accounts are "true", but to relate what has been said about them in reliable sources. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

They are unreliable in this instance. We can see that because there are multiple sizes claimed. It's not my fault that the WP:SENSATION got the better of them. jps (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a misuse of the tag, though: it's a cleanup tag, and means that the article contradicts itself. Bowyer made contradictory statements. The contradictions come from him, not the sources, and are reported as such in the article. There's no contradiction between saying that Bowyer reported seeing something the size of an aircraft, and that Bowyer reported seeing something the size of a city: he made both claims at different times. I've been careful in the article to signal as precisely as possible when each claim was made.

The fact that Bowyer's account was contradictory is verifiable and important, because there's a fairly obvious explanation as to why his story doesn't stack up. If we "fix" that problem by removing the sources that show the contradictions, we make his narrative seem far more plausible, and would definitely have problems re. WP:DUEWEIGHT. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The article contradicts itself because it says that Bowyer reported seeing many different sizes and there is no source which identifies how to square that circle. Our job isn't to make his narrative sound pluasible nor implausible. Our job is only to report on the narrative inasmuch as reliable sources have noticed it. The fact that reliable sources did not vet this claim even to the basic fact-checking that one would do to determine plausibility means we are stuck with a contradictory set of quotes. The fact that this is left unadorned means we are in territory of the absurd. We can either find a source which resolves the situation or we can remove all mention of any size whatsoever. I don't see any alternative. jps (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That is an idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:RS. The article does not contradict itself, it shows that the language used by Bowyer changed. Both you and UndercoverClassicist find the statements on size to be contradictory, I find them potentially contradictory. A large town, to a Guernseyman, is not much different to the size of 5 battleships. Furthermore, it is well-established that witnesses' memories of events change with time, and are shaped by the process of remembering and recounting, as well as the questions they are asked. These are our opinions, which have no place in the article.

In any case, if, as you recognise, the inconsistency is in Bowyer's testimony as reported by reliable sources, there should be no clean up tags. I think we are done with regards to this question. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have little to add to User:Boynamedsue's points there, with which I agree almost fully: Guernsey's pretty small, but he flew to Southampton, which is a lot bigger than a few ships!

I feel as though we have a circular no true Scotsman situation here: first, JPS has suggested that there are no reliable sources for the claims made, then reliable sources have been found, then JPS has argued that no source which reports a claimed UFO sighting without also debunking it can be considered a true reliable source. As I've said many times in this discussion, JPS is putting forward a legitimate point of view, but one which contradicts the policies, guidelines and large-scale consensus of this site.

We have plenty of articles on events and phenomena with debated or contradictory testimony (see Interpretations of quantum mechanics or Resurrection of Jesus), and to hammer those into a single, coherent narrative would be intellectual dishonesty and, frankly, straightforward vandalism. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Re. Southampton, true, but Southampton is the biggest city on the South coast, rather than a "large town" :). Settlement classifications in the UK is a fascinating topic. I once walked 100 metres from St Helens town centre and asked someone the way to a certain place, I was told "you'd have to go into St Helens for that"! Boynamedsue (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

What you are missing here is that unlike the resurrection of Jesus or interpretations of quantum mechanics, we have almost no independent analysis of the ideas proposed for inclusion here. The standard for inclusion seems to be, "oh, it's a quote in the newspaper, so we can reprint it." That's a terrible standard when it comes to WP:FRINGE ideas that have otherwise been ignored. jps (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Does not include all significant viewpoints

I have removed the "does not include all significant viewpoints" tag, as I am unaware of any other viewpoints held in reliable sources that are not included. If a user is aware of any other viewpoints held on this UFO-sighting account by a reliable source which are not included in the article, they should add them. Or, alternatively, post them here and I will endeavour to add them myself. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

We're going to be on the horns of a dilemma here: multiple explanations have been discussed for this, but not in sources of the same quality as those currently used. To be specific, we're going to need to engage with David Clarke's work, as he has written and published widely on the topic: other editors have dismissed him as unreliable, though I must admit to not fully understanding the rationale for that judgement. Essentially, if we're going to insist on using the very highest of HQRS, we can't do much discussion as to attempted explanations; equally, if we're going to fully balance the article (and include some quite important details as to the events), we're going to need to include sources that have previously been controversial. My view is that those sources fit WP:HQRS and can be integrated, if used properly, but I think this conversation is best left until after AfD, particularly as some of the as-yet-unsettled points of contention at AfD are important to it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So there is a secondary question of whether viewpoints can be considered reliable, and if they are, whether WP:FRINGE etc. might come into play? Boynamedsue (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

More or less: it'll be clearer to work this out when there are some concrete examples, and I'm reluctant to do the leg-work of writing them all out in present circumstances, partly for the reasons above, and partly seeing the possibility of having it all deleted. However, the present issue in AfD as to the distinction between "a source good enough to report that a claim/interpretation has been made and is notable" and "a source good enough to prove the truth of that claim" will have a substantial bearing on how many of these theories can be included. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The truth of the claim actually is immaterial. The question is whether there has been third-party notice of the claim to the extent that would be required to have it properly evaluated. That is the whole point of having WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with a great deal of that. More precisely, the standard of this website is WP:VERIFIABILITY:

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight. ... All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.

In other words, we need to establish whether reliable sources have reported the claim to the extent that we can verify that the claim was made. It sounds to me like you're saying that we can't report a claim unless we can also solidly report whether that claim was true or not: if that's correct, it's a higher standard than used here. It would also have a rather chilling effect on articles about inherently unfalsifiable claims, such as God, the ultimate fate of the universe, natural rights and so on, so it's fairly clear that it isn't and can't be the way that Wikipedia operates.

NB that "directly supports the material" in this context would mean "directly supports that the claim or statement was made", not "directly supports the truth of the claim". After all, we have important articles on claims that are known to be untrue - Holocaust denialism springs to mind - where we report the verifiable facts that the claims have been made, without giving credence to them or presenting them in the encyclopaedia's voice.UndercoverClassicist (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Just because a statement was verifiably made does not mean we are under any obligation to publish that fact. The point is that there is an editorial decision to be made about which of the many, many verifiable quotes from this pilot should be included in this article or in Wikipedia in general. Simply parroting everything the pilot said is obviously absurd, but choosing particular statements needs to be done on the basis of third-party notice. This goes beyond simple reporting of the quotations. In the case we are outlining, we have a lot of indications that the pilot has said contradictory things, but essentially no reliable source that has done the simple matter of pointing this out. As such, we do not have good evidence that this particular verifiable fact is WP:PROMINENT enough for inclusion. jps (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You are starting from two false premises here. The first is that the event can't have happened, therefore unless a source states it didn't it can't be included in wikipedia. What happened here is several reliable witnesses made a claim, that is what the RS are reporting. The second is that WP:GNG can be suspended in cases relating to unexplained phenomena, even when no fringe theories are mentioned. In this case, no fringe theories are mentioned, UFO does not mean "alien spacecraft", it means "Unidentified Flying Object". Boynamedsue (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, little to add, but I think it's worth reemphasising that the article does not say that Bowyer saw aliens, and no editor here would suggest that he did. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Subtext, of course, is that UFOs are always WP:FRINGE whether we would like that to be the case or not. It's kinda a WP:RGW situation here. I have no doubt that the erstwhile attention paid to this pretty anodyne report is due to the sensationalism surrounding UFO claims in general. That's my biggest concern here: that we don't fall into the traps that caused otherwise high-quality sources to end up overemphasizing testimony that lacks any context whatsoever. jps (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

stationary object

Kelly further noted that a stationary object would not have shown on radar, but been filtered out as background noise. What a terribly cherry-picked and leading question answer to include! Do you know what else does not show up on radar? Nothing at all. Fix this or I'll put on a toofewopinions/NPOV tag. jps (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• It's important given that Bowyer claimed that Kelly had told him it was on radar; Kelly is pretty clearly saying that he didn't say that, or at least not as straightforwardly as Bowyer suggested. That part of the article follows HQRS; {{too few opinions}} means that there are other opinions expressed in HQRS that aren't included. If you've found some, edit them in and cite them. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you just identified the two opinions here: Bowyer saying he was told by Kelly it was on the radar and Kelly saying that he told Bowyer that it wasn't. And once again we are faced with the lunacy of trying to write an article based on interview testimony. Wouldn't it just be easier to say that there was no reported radar detection and leave it at that? The back-and-forth is just way too in the weeds for this sort of non-thing. jps (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No; we've got (here) two versions of the same story. It would be WP:OR to try to hammer them into a single narrative that makes sense without a source that does so. It might be that Kelly told Bowyer something slightly different (that he had a radar contact, but not that it was what Bowyer thought: indeed, in Clarke's transcript in his book, Kelly says he's got something on his radar that he thinks is metereological). It might be that one or both of them lied, or misheard: unless we have a reliable source that can resolve the contradiction, it's WP:OR to attempt to do so ourselves. Remember, the point of this article isn't to establish whether an alien vessel flew or didn't fly over Alderney, it's to describe the events and significance of a reported sighting of an unidentified object or phenomenon. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You're missing my drift. What we have are multiple versions of the same story. What we don't have is an accounting that multiple versions even exist (no source actually acknowledges the contradictions). In situations like this, surely the best approach is to excise the prose completely since no source seems to be bothered enough to actually do the work of comporting the accounts. We cannot do WP:OR, but we are under no obligation to report obvious contradictions uncritically when the option is there to simply remove the detail. jps (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying that we need a single source containing both versions; I don't see that anywhere in the policies or guidelines. The most relevant document I can see is WP:DUEWEIGHT, which has Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Since both versions are significant, and both are found in published, reliable sources, both should be included. I share your frustration that we don't have more, more thorough sources, but the current approach is the correct one given the source material currently available and the policies and guidelines governing this website. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how to put it any more plainly: we can simply cut down the prose. We don't need to go into detail including everything that everybody said about radar. We can just say, "there was no radar detection reported". All the sources we have agree with that. e.g. jps (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you've gone a bit far: we can't simplify the whole thing to 'no contact was reported', because that isn't true: Bowyer reported that there was radar contact, and it's clear enough in Clarke's transcript that Kelly did tell him that something was on his radar, but that he wasn't sure what it was (and so could neither say that it was or wasn't an aircraft). With that said, I've cut the background noise comment: there's trade-offs to doing so, but it may be the right balance between completeness and avoiding giving false impressions of certainty or uncertainty. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have seen no account of radar contact in the MoD report. Can you point to it? jps (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Because you reverted my edit, I am re-introducing the excessive detail tag. You claim that these accounts by non-experts over radar are "significant viewpoints". They are not. They are ludicrous machinations by outlets sensationalizing stories that no one bothered to fact check. Congrats. jps (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear on the "content no longer exists" (this is the place to discuss it, not my user talk page; it's about this article): the sentence Kelly further noted that a stationary object would not have shown on radar, but been filtered out as background noise is no longer part of the article. I'm afraid you got your response above in while I was typing my explanation here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

My objection goes further than that. I think all the discussion of radar is over-WP:WEIGHTed. As I pointed out above, there is no discussion of radar in the report and I fail to see why we should dwell on it at all since, well, there was no reported radar detection by anyone. You say that Bowyer "reported that there was radar contact", but I cannot verify that this is true. I can only verify that he said that this was the case. That is hardly "reporting". jps (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

1409:54, AL: Roger, I've got a very bright object, er, [unintelligible word], well, as I say it's
difficult to say how far, extremely bright yellow, orange object, straight ahead,
er, very flat platform, looking at it through binoculars as we speak.
1410:10, JZ: A-Line 544, rog, I do have a, er, primary contact now, er, very faint primary
contact, just to the left probably to your 11 o'clock this time and a range of, er,
about 4 track miles.
1410:31, AL: Roger.
1411:07, AL: A-Line 544, any more information on that aircraft please?
1411:11, JZ: A-Line 544, er, negative, there's just a primary contact [that/but?] we
sometimes get anaprop on the radar. There is something possibly your left, er,
10 o'clock at a range of 3 miles this time.
1411:26, AL: I've got a definite contact, my 12 o'clock, very bright yellow object looking
like, well, a cigar.
1411:38, JZ: A-Line 544, er roger, nothing at all in your 12 o'clock, erm, for the next 40
miles or so.

I realize the radio transcript is a primary source but this appears to be the interaction that is mentioned in various sources (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2KOrjmsDRc 1:12). Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This ambiguous exchange gets repurposed into all our sentences about a radar detection (or lack thereof)? Sigh. I'm sure the UFO-excited read this and say, "SEE! A DETECTION BY RADAR!" while I read the same transcript and say, "wut." Yet another reason why we probably shouldn't be going into any detail whatsoever about this. WP:SENSATION has really gone out of its way on this one. jps (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Slow motion edit war

I have gone back to a version that doesn't include what I argue is essentially a WP:PROFRINGE quote trumpeting the beliefs of a UFO believer who happens to write for The Times as worthy of essentially top-billing at Wikipedia. I reject that completely and, no, I do not think it suffices as a HQRS requiring some sort of quote. "OOOH THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING SHIT EVER!" said the journalist who is hoodwinked by UFOs is not the direction I think is productive for Wikipedia. YMMV, but if it does, I think we ought to have it out. jps (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a rather clear case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. And classifying Matthew Campbell as a "UFO believer" is almost certainly a BLP violation, that policy also applies to talk pages. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

As noted on the AfD, WP:HQRS is primarily based on the editorial systems of the publication, and the number of people reviewing it for factual accuracy and legal compliance, not individual Wikipedia editor's judgements of an individual journalist. Discounting a journalist writing for a publication overwhelmingly considered reliable, on the basis of personal opinion or investigation, is simply WP:OR. The comments from numerous users at AFD make clear that the sources currently cited are considered reliable by both local and Wikipedia-wide consensus; removing those sources in the absence of consensus to the contrary is a straightforward violation of WP:DUEWEIGHT. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is possible for a journalist's judgement to be colored by new or old unconscious biases. This journalist may be known for having these biases, and producing content based on those biases. So, I have to agree with jps in this instance. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

From the lead: The sighting was mentioned in stories published by the BBC, The Daily Telegraph, The New Yorker and The Times... Unless a third-party source has published this list of 'who covered the story', this isn't something we'd showcase in the lead. The sentence goes on to highlight that the UK Times described it as "one of the most impressive and perplexing testimonies to have found its way into MoD (Ministry of Defence) archives". Unfortunately the story is behind a paywall, but from the visible subheads it seems clear that they are describing the UFO believers testimonies as impressive in their commitment, devotion, single-mindedness, etc. and not any expert commentary or analysis of evidence. I would remove that whole sentence from the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Gotta agree with removing that sentence. This list is not published by a third party source and not suitable for the lead, or even in the body of the article. Also, the quoted "...impressive...perplexing" statement is not expert commentary from an independent third party and should also be removed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

No objection to the removal of the list, unless there is a source which gives a similar list. The case for the removal of Campbell's statement hasn't been made. If it describes Campbell's opinion it should stay, I don't think we can come to the conclusion it doesn't from the basis of section headings. It would be helpful if UndercoverClassicist could link the relevant text. --Boynamedsue (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The way it's written, it sounds like the editorial board of the Times concluded this was one of the most impressive and perplexing testimonies to have found its way into MoD archives. A superlative like this would need to be WP:SUBSTANTIATEed, e.g. ("According to Matthew Campbell..."). If it describes Campbell's opinion it should stay. We work by WP:CONSENSUS here. I'm not convinced this single journalist's opinion must be showcased in the lead. Does it represent the opinion of the majority of journalists or experts? And whose "testimony" is he referring to? Is it one person in particular or many people? And what is the substance of such testimony? Without context, Campbell's opinion is misleading. I don't think it should go in the lead. It would be perfectly fine to go in the article body with appropriate attribution and context. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

In context, the quotation is An exception is Ray Bowyer, a civilian pilot who saw peculiar objects as he was flying from Southampton to Alderney in the Channel Islands on April 23, 2007. The report he filed is regarded as one of the most impressive and perplexing testimonies to have found its way into MoD archives, along with the famous Rendlesham Forest incident in 1980 in which US airmen stationed at RAF Woodbridge claimed to have seen a UFO. In a sense, the editorial board did (through their delegated representatives) do exactly what User:LuckyLouie describes, in that they signed off on that sentence being printed in their newspaper in its own voice: not as an opinion "I think that this is..." but as if a straight statement of fact. The "is regarded as" fairly unmistakeably means that the writer and the editors who signed off on the piece) regard this as a widely-held belief, not simply Campbell's own judgement.

Edited to add: I would likewise support the removal of the list of sources: no secondary source has said "it has been reported in...", and so it's editorialising to say so. For the same reason, as a HQRS has said that it's regarded as in the quote above, that should be included. There's simply no way to dismiss it as an individual's personal opinion without dismissing The Times (not just this article) as a reliable source, which would be rather iconoclastic and require much broader consensus than we can generate here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing the Times as a reliable source. However someone said something in The Times doesn't guarantee inclusion in the lead of an article. Especially if it's a one-of-a-kind opinion that isn't widely supported (or even repeated) in the rest of the mainstream press. Also, I'm not sure how you come up with a newspaper writer's opinion automatically represents the entire editorial board of the newspaper, but I certainly don't agree with that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

For further context, one of the BBC articles quotes an MoD source as saying This is one of the most intriguing sightings I've heard about in recent years. So we've got the Times reporting it as a widely-held view, and the same view in a second national source: I don't think we can therefore call it a "one-of-a-kind opinion that isn't widely supported or repeated in the rest of the mainstream press", since it's both supported and repeated by the most mainstream source in the UK. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info,UndercoverClassicist. I think on balance this is enough evidence to keep the quote. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Until there is notice of this quote by someone else, I fail to see why it should exist in the lede. I have removed it from the lede. I am toying with removing it from the article entirely. The arguments in favor of including it look vaguely like an attempt to put WP:PEACOCK in the article sheltered by quotes. jps (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted that change: there's quite clearly no consensus here to remove, so that move should not be made unilaterally: WP:BRD goes in that order, after all.

WP:PEACOCK applies to the words chosen by editors, not our sources, which are not required to maintain a neutral tone. In fact, WP:WORDSTOWATCH explicitly includes: Strive to eliminate flattering expressions, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view unless those expressions are part of a quote from noteworthy sources (emphasis mine). As for why the quotation is in the lead: MOS:LEAD is fairly clear:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead ...

The quotation is an important point of the article and a pithy statement of the topic's noteworthiness. As discussed above, it echoes a view expressed in other sources cited. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I see no third-party notice of this quote. Until you provide this, you have no attestation to the significance of the quote excepting your own prejudice. jps (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no requirement in any policy for a quotation from a secondary source to be cited elsewhere before it fits in the article. However, the status of the source (as the UK's newspaper of record) does add to the arguments for including the quotation in the lead: it's an interesting judgement made by an influential and well-respected publication. As has been mentioned further up, the Times vouches for it as a widely-held perspective, and indeed the same point of view is expressed in a BBC article. You can't simply dismiss points of view that oppose yours as "prejudice", and removing verifiable, NPOV-keeping and cited material against consensus is a violation of the WP:PRESERVE policy. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You are the one asserting that this quote is "important". That is your own blinkered position. That is no basis for inclusion in the lede of any article.

• I've set out the reasons for inclusion under MOS:LEAD here, here and here. As the one proposing the removal of cited material, the onus is on you to show why it should be removed, and to provide some sort of policy, guideline or consensus in favour of that. At the moment, the quotation is already under discussion and the consensus is fairly clearly not that it should be removed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That's got to be the most twisted reinterpretation of WP:ONUS I've seen here. jps (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there any indication that the Ministry of Defense person who was impressed by the sighting has any expertise in the sort of things that are routinely taken for UFOs? Any indication that the Times reporter has any expertise on fringe subjects? Any indication that they have insight into how "widely held" which UFO beliefs are? Widely held within which population?

The quality of journalism on fringe ideas in any venue is usually much lower than that of the average journalism in the same venue. Skeptics know this. jps knows that, and LuckyLouie knows it. You do not seem to know it, and that is why you are overestimating the quality of that Times source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The BBC's source was responsible for handling all the UFO reports that came to the MoD, so I don't think anyone else has greater expertise on the sort of reports generally made to the MoD. It's perfectly reasonable to have a low opinion of the quality of a journalist's article, but when using it as a source, we need to consider the claims it makes on their inherent plausibility (is it implausible that this is considered one of the more interesting UFO reports?) and on the systems present in the source to catch mistakes or indefensible claims. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"Interesting" is inherently subjective and does not belong in an encyclopedia anyway. And reports generally made to the MoD is a very broad category. The subject of UFOs requires a very specific expertise that is virtually non-existent in journalism. Reliability of a source depends on the subject --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

True, a straightforward judgement that something is interesting is not encyclopaedia - however, saying that something is "regarded as [subjective judgement]" by a source or by a certain group of people is completely standard. Remember that WP:PEACOCK gives the following as an example of good practice:

"Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".

UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"Regarded as interesting by a certain group of people" is progress relative to your earlier "considered one of the more interesting", if the certain group of people is unweaseled by actual naming. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed explanations

I reached out to the Alderney Journal, a local newspaper, and they very kindly sent photocopies of issues 872 (containing the article on the UFO report) and 873 (containing Maunder's explanation). As this is a newspaper, I think it's a more reliable source than the newsletter which is essentially self-published. Maunder is an astronomer (and also a chemist and author of science books for a lay audience), but not a meteorologist. I've tried to clarify this in a recent edit. I'm not sure how wikipedia should handle this, but it is worth noting that, Bowyer was aware of the sundog explanation and rejected it, and the New Yorker (2021) explicitly claims that a sundog was ruled out in the private research paper. (The New Yorker also seems to imply that other optical phenomena and EQL were ruled out, but the paper leaves those 2 explanations as potentially plausible). Let me know if there's any questions about the Maunder article, Rjjiii (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on preferring a newspaper vs. the newsletter: a newspaper has an editorial body and public regulation, which counts for a lot in WP:HQRS. As long as it's not being used to demonstrate notability or substantiate anything sensational or controversial (indeed, it seems to be doing the opposite), there's no issue with WP:FRINGE, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:SENSATION etc arising from its status as a local paper rather than a national one. In the previous version, I'd mixed Maunder up with Lillington, who is the meteorologist and gave largely the same explanation later in Sagittarius; there might be an argument for building that back in, but the source is primary, so not a particularly strong one.

It might help to find an additional source (on sundogs in general) to substantiate or challenge Maunder's idea that sundogs "always" come up at this particular angle: at the moment, it's framed as a matter of opinion (and probably has to be, given that it's a step in his own argument), which seems odd for what he clearly intended as a statement of fact.

For me, the Clarke et al paper is a very dicey one: it doesn't look to me like it's been peer reviewed (in fact, it's not totally clear to me exactly where its 'home' publication was, if indeed it ever had one), so we should be very careful about using it as a source for anything other than itself. I certainly don't think we can use it to say that any explanation is ruled in or out unless we can find evidence that someone other than the authors signed off on it: otherwise, it's got the same status as a self-published source, blog, tweet etc. Likewise, I don't think we can cite a claim that a certain explanation is possible/impossible in a secondary source if that claim explicitly relies on that paper. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I figured it was a mix up but didn't say so in case that came off rude. That's a good point about attributing something that should be presented as fact. The Wikipedia article uses this source for 22 degrees: https://atoptics.co.uk/halo/dogfm.htm It has some solid illustrations for anybody checking up on sources. Oh, and agreed that this article should not cite the research paper. Rjjiii (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I've gone and put in a book source, which has a similarly nice diagram, purely because I can't immediately see any information about what that website actually is: the fact seems entirely non-controversial, but always good to use published, reviewed, reliable sources where we can. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That is much clearer, thanks. I'm thumbing through the Alderney Journal's initial article right now. It gives a few extra details like "Malcolm Hart, Aurigny managing director," saying that Bowyer made the correct decisions, and some descriptions of air space and island location, but I don't see anything significant that wasn't picked up by the national news. Rjjiii (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Other sources

These are not things that would really change the article. The sources in the bibliography are higher quality. And I don't think these offer much additional information:

• old ITV broadcast or archive.org link requires Adobe Flash and has no (broken?) audio text from ITV quote in multiple forums: "Pilots and aircraft passengers have confirmed sightings of two large Unidentified Flying Objects off the coast of Guernsey. ¶The mysterious shapes were spotted earlier in the week and are described as long objects that measured up to a mile wide. ¶Radar screens picked up some activity in the area and pilot witnesses are now preparing reports for the relevant authorities. Aurigny Pilot Ray Bowyer (pictured) is a professional pilot who has been flying for 20 years. He said: "In my years of experience I've never seen anything like this and frankly I'd be perfectly happy not to ever again. It's a pretty chilling thing and from my first sighting of it - it appeared to be fairly small but it must have been fairly huge." To see Mr Bowyer's diagram of the object, click to watch the full report, above. [dead link: http://www5.channelonline.tv/news/templates/guernseynews2.aspx?articleid=9013&zoneid=1]"
• Richard and Judy interview: Bowyer says that the press approached him for interviews, and he's not sure who first went to the press. They show Bowyer an illustration of his UFO as a kind of pair of golden flying saucers, Richard asks "Is that kind of what you saw?", and Bowyer says, "no" then laughs. They show Bowyer lenticular clouds, Richard asks, "Could it have been some very, very strangely formed cloud?", and Bowyer says, "Well, no." They show Bowyer a couple of vintage flying saucer photos. He explains again what he saw. Then they ask him outright if it could be "something from outer space", and he reiterates that he doesn't know what it was. He mentions in his answer talking to David Clarke who is heading a team that's "looking into this". The interview rules out the commons image from other language versions ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alderney_VVVs_van_23_April_2007,_a.jpg ) and potentially provides information if someone ever attempts a faithful illustration of Bowyer's account.
• ITV, Dutch NPO, Richard and Judy, UWE news: These seem to be the major broadcast pieces on the sighting. His explanation in NPO gives a very clear explanation of the colors on the object. On UWE News, Bowyer describes the UFOs as machines and says "I suspect they're exoplanetary". He's still pretty clear though that he can't say what they are.
• Smithsonian Channel: highlighting this because of the source below.
• This Is Why (using Smithsonian Channel footage, but not related to SC?: This might look like S.C. but they appear to have just borrowed the Smithsonian footage leaving in their watermarks.
• minimal coverage, connection to hoax, don't use this
• Evening Standard, original article contains a photo of an unrelated sighting

Rjjiii (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

14:09 pm

This edit reintroduced the timestamp for the 2007 air traffic control call into the WP:LEDE... which I think violates WP:DETAIL especially given that there is some ambiguity in the sources about precisely when. I don't think there is anything to be gained form this level of precision in the lede. jps (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

All else being equal, precision is a virtue, not a vice: all of the sources are within three minutes of that time, so "around 14:09" seems eminently fair, and certainly better than the proposed "the afternoon of" (that is, 12pm-about 5pm). Magnifying (at most) a three-minute uncertainty to a five-hour one is not sensible. WP:DETAIL is about the quantity of information we ask the reader to process: replacing two precise words with three imprecise ones is not what it's about. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

??? Why is precision a virtue? Why is naming this arbitrary time "better"? What standards are you applying here? What possible significance does the precise time have so that it belongs in the lede? What service are we doing the reader by pretending that the timestamp matters? I don't see any source that makes any analysis of this. jps (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD is pretty clear that the point of the lead is to serve as a short version of the article, particularly for people who won't read the whole thing. If we can use the same number of words to be more precise, we should. The rationale for including something in the lead is that it's in the article and it's important: I think it's pretty uncontroversial that when X happened is fairly high on the list of what people who visit an article about X want to find out. The time of the sighting is given in multiple HQRS, which is the rationale (WP:DUEWEIGHT) behind treating it as an important part of the article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You didn't really answer the question. The precise time is not an important detail (none of the sources dwell on it) and by including it in the lede you are implying that it is. What is important is that it was daytime. And that's about it. jps (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we have different readings of MOS:LEAD: I've answered as best I can why I think the MOS would support "around 14:09" by preference to "the afternoon of", and why I don't think WP:DETAIL changes that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with replacing the time with "daytime" in the lead. And the lead is much better at this point than it was before. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Owing to the bolditis edit (that I approve of), I reintroduced the offending "in the afternoon" phrase. Apologies. jps (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Overly detailed lede

[5] The constant reverting is getting annoying. Short and sweet ledes are preferred. WP:SUMMARY does not mean we need to include every irrelevant detail in the lede. What is this WP:OWNership? jps (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:OWN is what I have seen up to today. We'll see if anything about that changes. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, please leave out the name of the air traffic controller and the location of the tower. This is trivial and unnecessary. Also, UndercoverClassicist seems to be engaged in what's known as wikilawyering, while editing this page. See talk page comments and the page editing history. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Overly detailed other sections

I am seeing stuff in the body of this article that is overly detailed, such as "...one of whom had tapped him on the shoulder to ask about it;[3] Bowyer handed the passenger his binoculars to observe the apparent object..." This information is trivial and does not contribute to encyclopedic value. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Please, redact. I would be thrilled to see a slimmed down article. jps (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It has begun! [6]. A work in progress. Feel free to tighten some more. Also, feel free to list deficiencies here as needed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I think, due to the nature of the sourcing, all that is needed is what is in the intro and in the last section "Proposed explanations". And then affixing the relevant inline citations to the last paragraph in the intro and the relevant citations to the last section. Most all of what is in this article based on the Captain's reporting of events. I think it was JolieJay who summed it up in this way in the AfD and the ANI. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

In any case, before reverting my edits and user:jps' edits please discuss here first per WP:BRD. And please avoid wikilawyering. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The heading Variations on the reported sighting is probably original research. It seems to imply that the reports vary or are inconsistent. Maybe the sources should say this, but I don't think that they do say it.Rjjiii (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely is OR, come on people, you've been here too long to be making mistakes like that! Boynamedsue (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

With that subheading ("Variations on the reported sighting") I was referring to how Boyer's description of the object changed over time according to different sources. In light of this, I don't agree that the subheading was WP:OR. Nevertheless, I like and agree with the new subheadings. I just want to let you know what I was thinking with that subheading that I edited in.

Next, with this edit, Boynamedsue is rightly adhering to sources [7]. Also, I didn't edit in the word "suggestions" in the first place. Just wanted to let you know that too. And I agree that attribution is better than saying it in Wikvoice in this instance [8]. However, maybe this blurb is too much clutter. Just throwing that out there - feel free to discuss. Good job by Boynamedsue, Rjjiii and jps. Thanks everyone for your work. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Steve, glad we have a version we can agree on and are moving forward. I think the problem with the heading was that it suggested discrepancy in the accounts. While the wording is different, in my view the difference between "5 battleships" and "reasonably-sized town", in the southern-English/Channel Islands context is not actually a significant variation. Obviously, the language is vague and I'm aware that the opposite point of view is possible and legitimate, but we need to be careful about putting that in wiki-voice.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Thanks and let me second, Good job by Boynamedsue, Rjjiii and jps. Thanks everyone for your work. and add in yourself as well. Don't know if you looked at the version of the article before jps blanked it (BLP, plagiarism, original research, and copyright infringement) and UndercoverClassicist did a rewrite (more thanks), but this is a massive improvement, Rjjiii (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yNqQUh24cg http://www.nicap.org/reports/070423channel_islands.pdf https://bufora.org.uk/Alderney-Channel-Islands-UFO-Incident.php. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Rjjiii (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)