Talk:McMinnville UFO photographs

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the McMinnville UFO photographs article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Paranormal

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Photography: History

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Post the Photos?[edit]

Given that the article concerns photographs, I'm wondering if someone who knows how could post one of the photos in the article - it would enhance the article, IMO. I believe that the photos are in the public domain and thus can be posted. Just a thought.

Agreed. I mean, they're sort of like the Dewey Defeats Truman photo at this point. They (or at least one of them) needs to be featured in the article. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, could someone find a link to decent scans of the photos? The photos on the sites in the External Links section are pixel city. MrBook (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Joke[edit]

I'm not sure if it should be included... there seems to be a practical joke about this incident. People formed a Firefox logo in a field just outside of McMinnville. It is visible on Google Earth or Google Maps on this location: 45° 7'25.87"N 123° 6'48.97"W
You can view it by clicking on this Google Maps link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rediretihw (talk • contribs) 19:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, neat. Not sure how it's related to this incident though, besides the fact that it's in the same town.

btw, if you zoom in closer, just below the crop circle there's a 'FX?' spelled out with a plane, some cars, and a group of people... what I wanna know is.. how did they know when the satellite would be passing overhead?? -- œ ^™ 10:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed?[edit]

I doubt this article's claims that "To many skeptics, however, the photos are likely hoaxes and/or fakes." as well as the related statement in the first paragraph. This sounds like a dubious statement intended to dismiss the claims of skeptics without actually acknowledging them. I think the article may benefit from a source skeptical of the incident. This article feels less than neutral at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.9.18 (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What specific reason (beyond vague claims such as "sounds like") is there to doubt the statement you are referring to? It certainly sounds neutral enough, and in no way dismisses the skeptic's claims regarding the incident. The article itself DOES have several sources that are skeptical of the incident, including an extensive discussion of Philip Klass and Robert Shaeffer's debunking of the case, as well as a discussion of IPACO's debunking, and it also provides links to both debunking articles. As such, I don't see how the article can be accused of not "actually acknowledging" the claims of skeptics. The skeptic viewpoint is indeed discussed quite thoroughly. Unless the article is rewritten to openly favor the debunking point of view (which would of course end its neutrality), I don't think the article is biased for either side. 2602:304:691E:5A29:9906:D558:A559:30B8 (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has undergone significant edits recently to bring it more in line with Wikipedia policy. Two major skeptical sources on the claimed incident, including Robert Sheaffer's website The Debunker's Domain and IPACO's analysis website, are now cited numerous times, and the hoax explanation is given prominent, detailed coverage. The Ufologist information has been confined to a single section at the bottom of the article and is clearly labeled as such. Additionally, any pro-fringe wording in the body of the article has been replaced with more neutral, encyclopedia-appropriate wording. Also, other reliable sources, including The Oregonian newspaper and The Condon Report, are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Yeeeah. Neither the late Klass nor Shaeffer (or anyone else associated with CSI) has ever let any inconvenient facts or evidence get in the way of a good debunking. I'd like to know where the suspension thread was placed on a similar object photographed IN FLIGHT by a French Armee d' la Air pilot near Rouen in 1954. ^[1] Must have been from a USAF crash dummy dropped from a weather balloon.[User:Tonybaldacci|Tonybaldacci]] (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that photo was even taken in France. It looks like the McMinnville photo with a slight difference in quality. Fake. 2603:6081:6D01:E3:FC57:6C1F:D45A:14E3 (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://aenigmatis.com/rouen-ufo-1954/rouen.htm

Edit Warring[edit]

Stop edit warring and removing sourced content without reasons. Discuss the differences here. Bali88 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has clear rules regarding article neutrality, POV, and fringe sources. To use the word "proved" regarding the statements of a UFO "believer" or advocate such as Brad Sparks, instead of the more neutral words "asserted" and "argued" is, I should think, a clear violation of those policies. To use the word "proved" regarding Sparks claims (which, after all, are only his claims) would clearly take the side of a ufologist over that of a skeptic, instead of a neutral stance. I believe that Sparks comments should be included in the article, but presented in a fashion that complies with Wiki standards. That's my position in regarding word usage in the article. Populism (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the page is protected now! Woohoo! Bali88 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Populism: While I agree that "proved" is not the best, WP:SAY specifically advises against "asserted". I'd go for "stated" and "argued", respectively. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll adjust the wording accordingly. Populism (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weasel words from another world[edit]

In the first paragraph you're trying to say something, but the weasel words render it completely nonsensical.

"...are often considered to be among the most famous photographs ever taken of a UFO." You mean sometimes these photos are not considered to be among the most famous? By whom? That's absurd...famous is famous, and these are extremely famous, maybe even the most famous, however you'd measure that.

"Most UFO skeptics believe that the photos are a hoax..." In other words, there are a few UFO skeptics who don't believe they are a hoax. What then? OK, maybe weather or other natural phenomenon, although they hardly look like it. You can't mean that there are UFO skeptics who think they're real. Well, maybe you do because it sure sounds like it. 74.104.189.176 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://aenigmatis.com/rouen-ufo-1954/rouen.htm

[1]