Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:27, 18 May 2023

2007 Alderney UFO sighting

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

2007 Alderney UFO sighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I was tagging this article for cleanup, but going through the sources made me realize that there is very little here on which to write an article. Credulous youtube videos, a paper published in the poorly considered Journal of Scientific Exploration and a lot of WP:PRIMARY sources seem to be the only thing this article is hanging its hat on. WP:TNT is necessary here, I think. jps (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. Examining the article prior to the appropriate, jps-mediated application of dynamite, one learns of a non-notable non-event ignored by WP:FRIND sources and reported (I should probably write "promoted") only by dubious, unquestionably pro-fringe sources (e.g., David Clarke; Leslie Kean; the pro-woo Society for Scientific Exploration and their laughable Journal of Scientific Exploration). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: plenty of hits on Google Books verify that this was a reported sighting. Most of those sources aren't particularly high-quality in determining whether it was real (that is, actually aliens), but that's not our concern; they're reliable enough as documents of the claims of the sighting. Also reported in the Evening Standard here and the subject of a TV documentary here. Also made it briefly into a government document here and local-ish news here, at least briefly. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which of those books do you think is reliable for accurately documenting the claims? Remember, too, that WP:SENSATION means that local press is not considered a reliable source for UFO claims. Additionally, if no one who isn't a believer in UFO absurdity has noticed, we probably cannot have an article on the subject. jps (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The books aside, we've got the Evening Standard, which is national news. Looking further, it's got SIGCOV by the BBC in this article, in the Register here, and here in the New Yorker. There's also this Times article hit on Google, but it's paywalled and might be a false positive) Again, I am not saying that it's a real UFO, but it's pretty undeniable that the claims of a sighting have been discussed in HQRS, and we report incidents of mass hysteria, hoaxes, cryptid "sightings" without giving credence to them. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SENSATION. You seem to have been taken in by a craze that is producing unreliable content in what are otherwise normally reliable sources. The problem is that even claims of UFOs need to be verified by people who are separate from credulous community because false positives abound to such an extent that there is a WP:NFRINGE question whether every single claim is worthy of an article. In general, we go by WP:FRIND to establish when a claim about UFOs is worthy of discussion in this reference work. That is what we are lacking here: any third-party evaluation. It's all WP:PRIMARY and breathless speculation. jps (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I've managed to get hold of the Times article from 2021; it certainly has SIGCOV, including a short interview with the pilot who allegedly saw the UFO. I'm going to have a go at knocking together a short article from the HQRS we do have; I should have the bones of something by the end of today. Hopefully we'll then be in a position to judge whether an article meeting WP:GNG is a possibility. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Did they interview anyone who wasn't a UFO believer? jps (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:GNG that the significant coverage in high-quality, independent, reliable sources has to be balanced; WP:GNG judges the quality of the source, not the article. I don't think WP:GNG has room to quibble the quality of the article, only whether its source is considered independent, published, reliable and secondary. Again, this is an article on a claimed sighting; it doesn't (any longer) engage with what, if anything, may actually have been seen. The BBC, the Telegraph, the New Yorker, the Times and the Evening Standard are all fairly unimpeachable, and all have WP's seal of approval of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. That's five good sources reporting on the claimed sighting, which means that it passes WP:GNG by just any standards. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Delete There is no academic or skeptical reception for this alleged UFO sighting, this means there is a serious lack of reliable sources and the neutrality issue of not having a balanced article but one that is overly supportive of fringe content. Journal of Scientific Exploration and YouTube videos are not reliable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  See my comment above: there's certainly coverage in reliable, non-fringe press sources. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete - if there isn't WP:SIGCOV on whether or not the sighting was real then there isn't WP:SIGCOV at all. All UFO claims are obviously just swamp gas but if it didn't even merit enough attention to get a full debunking it's just mindless media chatter, whatever passes for journalism these days should categorically not be considered a WP:RS for this sort of thing. - car chasm (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I've completely rewritten the article based on what I can find in undisputably HQRS. It's not going to be making FAC any time soon, but I think it fairly conclusively demonstrates WP:GNG, and I'm happy for the text to be picked apart to remove anything that isn't strictly factual or verifiable (note that the entire sighting is couched in "Bowyer reported..."). I think the adoption of this 'sighting', particularly given the shakiness of its evidence base (basically a chat between a pilot and an ATC guy), by ufologists is interesting, but that would require citing some less-reliable sources as WP:PRIMARY, which I don't think is a good idea when the overall notability of the subject is in question. There's also the (self-published?) 2007 book on the topic, which gets referenced in some dodgy places but actually seems remarkably level-headed: the authors seem to be fairly respectable folklorists, it avoids anything about aliens and all but calls the pilot a liar. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Carchasm, ජපස, JoJo Anthrax, and Psychologist Guy:: Since your comments, the article has been blown up and started over. Thinking of WP:HEY, could you see if you think it now shows that the claims of the sighting have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The Evening Standard and Daily Telegraph might be reliable for talking about someone's diet or if they own a pet dog but they are not reliable for fringe content. The article is unbalanced, there are no academic, scholarly or skeptical sources on the article. The Register is not a good source . The Evening Standard is a credulous tabloid source . For me I stick with what I voted, to delete. There are good and bad articles on Misplaced Pages, this in my opinion is still bad per lack of reliable sourcing. I am not a fan of the tabloid fluff. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this; I appreciate you taking a second look. I'd strongly dispute that label on the Telegraph; I'm not fan of it in general, but it's regarded as one of the UK's newspapers of record, and it's considered reliable on the perennial sources page. Leaving those three aside, though, we still have The Times, the BBC and the New Yorker. That's three good, reliable sources, which should be a clear GNG pass even if we totally reject the others (which, again, I think would be incorrect). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph is one of the three UK newspapers of record, alongside the Times and Guardian, all three are of equal quality. The Telegraph has repeatedly stated to be reliable at RS noticeboard. The Evening Standard is also a reliable source, if not as prestigious as the three aforementioned. There is no requirement whatsoever for RS to be "sceptical" in the sense that you mean it, being an ideological commitment to disprove claims of the supernatural, or in this case, claims that third parties might attribute to the supernatural. The articles record experiences that people claim to have undergone, in this case, multiple people, without taking a position on their explanation, or even their veracity. This looks very much like a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.--Boynamedsue (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV the article is not good because it is not balanced and is giving undue weight. Just because a website may be deemed reliable does not mean it is reliable per fringe content. Newspapers make their money by making sensational stories and that is all this article cites. Journalists are the last sort of people you would want to rely on for writing an article about UFOs and in this case we only cite journalists. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:SENSATION seems to be assiduously avoided by you. Why is that? Where in all these "impeccable sources" do you find the authors doing the due diligence of finding independent experts who are not in the sway of credulous belief in ufology? Yes, in this area, sources that are normally reliable seem to be wont to fall into sensationalism which includes the BBC, The New Yorker, and so forth. Rather than this being an exemplar of WP:HEY, I am inclined to find this to be more of an exemplar of how there seem to be no good sources for this subject. jps (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a fair reading of WP:SENSATION, which (to me) is warning against using low-quality journalistic sources, or using journalistic sources to support sensational statements. I don't see it as prohibiting the use of widely-acknowledged reliable journalistic sources to report statements made by people, where the fact of their having made the statement is not controversial or extraordinary (again, that's very different from saying that the statement they make isn't controversial). I appreciate that we may not agree on this one, though. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

No one is disputing the fact that the pilots made a claim. What is unaccounted is the context for this claim. People see shit all the time. For whatever reason, pilots who see shit end up getting noticed by sensationalized news services (probably because there is money to be made by such reporting). WP:NFRINGE deals with this sort of problem and explicitly calls out those outlets which are otherwise normally perfectly reliable. The problem is and always has been when it comes to this subject that it is in the same league as stories about Marian apparitions, haunted houses, or sightings of Bigfoot. It's all the same soft-ball journalistic game given to third-string reporters who either begrudgingly do the assignment or are themselves so compromised by credulity as to not be able to simple things like, say, fact check straightforward physical claims. Anyway, we have these WP:PAGs like WP:FRIND for a reason. There absolutely do exist sightings reports which have been noticed enough by third parties that you can write a WP:NPOV article on the subject. But this article has only the pilot's say-so breathlessly repeated in what I would describe as "clickbait articles". Misplaced Pages is not meant to be indiscriminate, and that is what I see this "improved" article still suffering from. jps (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to agree here, though I appreciate your time and effort in continuing this discussion in good faith. I'm sympathetic to a great deal of what you say, but I don't think it constitutes a reasonable interpretation of the acceptable reasons to delete an article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a single source cited that I would consider reliable for this sort of thing. News sources are categorically bad for aliens per WP:SENSATION. - car chasm (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This is relevant to User:Psychologist Guy's point as well: each AfD is different, but a useful comparison might be Flight 105 UFO sighting, which is a GA on a similar topic. There's plenty of use of newspaper sources there, and indeed I can't see a meaningful difference between the sourcing for this article and that one (the GA has books, but of the sort cleared out in previous edits as unreliable). On a related topic, we have Cottingley Fairies, an FA, which heavily uses news source as well.

It's a valid belief to hold that Misplaced Pages shouldn't have articles on claims that are almost certainly untrue, but that ship has rather sailed. Similarly, the idea that news sources should be automatically discounted as HQRS in an article on a UFO sighting simply doesn't fit with WP:HQRS, or indeed the established practice across the encyclopaedia.

WP:CONLEVEL is important here: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Saying that well-regarded news outlets cannot be used as sources for reports of a UFO sighting runs against the large-scale community consensus. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd support an AFD for that article as well. I don't think the ship has sailed or ever will sail on platforming nonsense. - car chasm (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

At least the Flight 105 article has the benefit of a reliable, independent third-party evaluation of the pilot's claim. This article doesn't even have that. The UK authorities just dismissed the report out of hand. jps (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:SENSATION is hardly "local consensus". jps (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

No, but the interpretation of it you and other users seem to be attempting to implement here certainly is. The idea seems to be that reports on the topic of UFOs in reliable sources must, in all circumstances fall under WP:SENSATION, which is completely unfounded. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

If you think that UFO reports are not WP:SENSATIONal, I think you are out on a limb far away from the reality of this subject. jps (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I strongly suggest that no loophole in WP:GNG exists for reports of moving objects in the sky which the witness does not recognise. We have articles on many things which empirically are not real, and many more which may not be real. If UFO reports were somehow an exception to this, it would have been mentioned in the guidelines. --Boynamedsue (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

You think GNG is magic sauce of some sort that automatically confers necessary to be an article status on every topic? You are mistaken. GNG is a standard by which one can judge the possibility of whether an article should exist. It is not a suicide pact. I can point to many subjects for which I can find sources that satisfy GNG which are not articles because, perhaps, they are part of another article or there are extenuating circumstances which prevent the article from being written with adherence to WP:5P. There are plenty of subjects that are covered by such awful souring that they just do not belong in Misplaced Pages. jps (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @UndercoverClassicist: for the ping. I remain unconvinced that this article should be retained. What follows are two on-wikipedia examples that might help illustrate that opinion. In the first, the Varginha UFO incident, we have an "incident" involving a fairly large number of witnesses/observers to nothing unusual, and although nothing actually happened there is a large number of reliable, WP:FRIND sources that, for better or worse, establish its notability. The Alderney event has a small number of witnesses (and based on my readings, perhaps only one), and despite happening 16 years ago it has not generated anything close to the Varginha level of reliable sourcing, which I consider to be a bare minimum for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I also note that the Alderney event has attracted almost no reliably-sourced attention whatsoever since 2007. The second example involves events that occurred during the 1980s, in which dozens, if not hundreds, of people observed UFOs flying in the vicinity of the Hudson River in New York (see the Black triangle (UFO) page). Those events, which were hoaxes perpetrated by pilots of ultra-light aircraft, do not have (or merit) a stand-alone page in part because, like the Alderney event, the attention it has received is dominated by WP:SENSATIONAL, unreliable sources written by unquestionably pro-fringe ufologists. The Alderney event seems to me similarly dominated by unreliable articles/books from credulous, pro-fringe writers, including the currently-cited David Clarke and Matthew Campbell. Such attention does not signify notability. Perhaps the Alderney incident does merit brief attention in another article, such as here. Perhaps. But it remains insufficiently notable to have its own article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you: I appreciate your taking the time to set this out. What are your objections to David Clarke (not currently cited in the article, except in Further Reading) and Matthew Campbell? Clarke is an academic at Sheffield Hallam University who works on the folklore of UFO sightings (not a Ufologist), and Campbell is a senior foreign correspondent for the Times. Those are both positions that carry with them a strong assumption of being WP:HQRS. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion Clarke's long list of credulous, sensationalist writings and activities related to UFOs speaks for itself, and I note that having an academic position does not automatically qualify one's published works as reliable. Campbell's writings on UFOs, including his Twitter posts, in my opinion define everything he writes about the topic as unreliable. Assumptions of reliability are appropriate, but those assumptions go only as far as the actual material. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep: Observation by two pilots who went public, two passengers who went public, besides a sighting from land, and radar observations that seem to corroborate the sighting. So, visually observed from three directions, and from a fourth if you include radar traces, which also provided exact coordinates of two objects (now removed from article). Subject of a study by David Clarke. Something happened. As with the Tunguska event we don't know what caused it, but it happened. On a par or better substantiated than the 2006 O'Hare sighting. Does anyone want to delete that also? JMK (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

We absolutely know what happened at Tunguska. Bizarre that you would claim otherwise (and concerning since competence is required). This seems to be a sort of WP:ADVOCACY for you rather than a dispassionate approach to a subject which is rightly maligned as full of credulity and lacking rigor as the analysis presented still in the article seems to do. jps (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep, and a fairly obvious one at that. The article as it exists now is impeccably sourced. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep The article is full of reliable non trivial coverage so it meets WP:GNG. It also has WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Bruxton (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Canvassing jfs has posted this AfD on the Fringe Theories noticeboard with the intent of attracting support for deletion. While it may be considered relevant given their objections relate in part to WP:FRINGE, the way the notice is framed not neutral. That board is also something of a meeting point for users who identify as "sceptics", who they might reasonably believe would support their arguments. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a severe violation of WP:AGF and a complete misapprehension of the rules for dealing with WP:FRINGE content. jps (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

with the intent of attracting support for deletion How, praytell, did you divine the intent of my notice to WP:FTN? Do you think you have psychic powers? jps (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Because you use the term WP:TNT in both your nomination and your canvas at the WP:FRINGE noticeboard. This indicates your desired outcome. My psychic powers were quite unnecessary here. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Just because I see cause for an article to be deleted doesn't mean my intent is to attract support for said deletion. Again, this is a massive abrogation of WP:AGF. jps (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

As you seem intent on arguing the toss here, I would refer you to WP:INAPPNOTE. You fall foul of 3 out of 4 categories here.

1. Message. Your initial message on the noticeboard was not to ask opinion but to advise the board of what you believed to be a bad article. You then stated you had referred it to AfD and that "I think we should WP:TNT this."At no point were you asking for the opinions of others, you were canvassing their support. This is clearly what is advised against as a "biased message".

2. Audience. The audience you chose to advise is partisan, given the self-selecting nature of people concerned with removing Fringe Theories from wikipedia. It is exceptionally unusual to find users ready to state that mainstream newspapers are not reliable sources, this is an extreme minority position. Yet 3 have visited this page, yourself and two posters who are regular visitors to the Fringe theories noticeboard, attracted by your canvas. There are several other noticeboards which might be interested in this AfD, you did not notify them.

3. Transparency. No notification is visible on this page advising that you have posted this AfD there with your opinion on the article.

So, AGF dictates that I assume this lack of care does not relate to any deliberate malice on your part, rather to a misunderstanding of WP:CANVASS. However, it does not require that I refrain from pointing out that your behaviour has contradicted this policy. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

If you think I am behaving badly, take it up with ANI. I reject your made-up rules about how people are supposed to frame messages. I have an agenda, I trust that others who read my posts can be competent enough to make their own decisions without parroting my own. My intent is to inform about what I think is best for the website and the public-facing content, nothing more.jps (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I was merely making the closer aware of your canvassing, so it can be taken into consideration. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence of canvassing here. None. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There is very strong evidence, given the non-neutral message, the partisan forum, and the fact that of 8 commenters on this RfC, 4 have voted keep, and 4 have voted delete. All of the latter are regular posters at Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - Roxy the dog 15:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC) (unsigned comment, that breaks page fornatting, removed. I came here from FTN, a noticeboard dedicated to improving the project by discussion about good, and piss poor articles, of which this is one. You need to refresh your understanding about WP:Canvass. Please avail yourself, whoever you are, of my helpful link. - Roxy the dog 15:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC))

Ok, perhaps you could have a look at WP:CIVIL while you were at it? Just to clarify, I believe that your post here kind of makes my point about WP:CANVAS, you are here because of a non-neutrally worded post in a forum with a strong bias against articles relating to topics similar to this. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Topics about unsourced nonsense and based on unreliable sources, defended by frankly WP:CIR people, indeed. This is a prime example. - Roxy the dog 16:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

PS. Are you going to complain about this? and this? oh dear me- Roxy the dog 16:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's quite unpleasant, isn't it? I think that the competence issue seems to be coming from the canvassed posters here. WP:GNG and the perennial sources list are pretty clear that The Times, Telegraph and BBC are reliable sources. We don't get to disqualify them when they say things we don't like, more's the pity. --Boynamedsue (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You seem to think that the list of perennial sources is somehow more important than content guidelines which identify when otherwise reliable sources can go astray. That is the fundamental difference in editorial philosophies here. The fact of the matter is that we do get to disqualify sources when it comes to notability tests when there are problematic contexts for a particular subject. Just because a source is generally reliable doesn't make it a magic talisman for article writing in defiance of WP:NPOV (which is exactly what has happened here). jps (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The document mentioned in the New Yorker is available from NICAP. The appendices—all primary sources for this article—don't quite match the news coverage. The MoD respond saying, The position reported is outside of the UK radar coverage and in fact inside French airspace for air defence. We had no reports from the French that the object was seen or detected on radar. We believe the ATC radar at Jersey is secondary only and therefore unable to achieve a primary radar contact (if the object was capable of producing one). The contact was reported as stationary again making radar detection unlikely and no further reports indicated that the object had a heading towards the UK. Therefore, we conclude that there was no threat to the UK from this observation and will not be taking the investigation furhter. The other pilot account says visibility was fairly poor due to haze. Ray Bowyer gives a really thorough interview regarding weather and visibility. Bowyer says the BBC has the flightpath wrong. The account from the passenger sounds atsmospheric: Ray then dropped the nose of the plane down. I could then see something through the windscreen. It looked like the sun reflecting off glass. What I was looking at was a very bright light over the sea below us. It could have been sunlight reflecting off something. There were two lights. The second was roughly where I was expecting the airport to be (over Alderney). The lights persisted for a few minutes. I realize that a Misplaced Pages article can't be constructed from our analysis of primary sources compiled by ufologists. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  @UndercoverClassicist: Thanks for the work improving the article. I want to give a specific issue with the sources. The New Yorker article seemed the most reliable, so I checked it out. It cites an in-depth private research paper linked above. The passage cited to the paper, seems quite a bit off. The source seems to conflate unexplained with unexplainable and misrepresent the ufo researchers. Take a look at each:

  • The times says: The “Report on Aerial Phenomena Observed Near the Channel Islands, UK, April 23 2007” was drafted with the coöperation of dozens of domain experts—meteorologists, oceanographers, harbormasters—and various French institutes and British ministries, and it culminated with sixteen prevailing hypotheses, ranked by plausibility. Largely ruled out were such atmospheric aberrations as sun dogs and lenticular clouds, and an exceedingly rare and poorly understood seismological phenomenon known as “earthquake lights,” in which tectonic distress expresses itself in bluish auroras or orbs. The report concluded, “In summary, we are unable to explain the UAP sightings satisfactorily.”
  • The ufo research paper says: It proved possible to eliminate a number of theories with a fairly high level of confidence, but we were unable to conclusively identify the UAPs observed. We found that two theories had some potential to explain at least a majority of the features observed and might be the basis of a future explanation. But we are sensible that a potential to explain is not an explanation. These two theories involved atmospheric-optical phenomena (specular sun reflections on a haze layer capping a local temperature inversion) or geophysical phenomena (related to ‘earthquake lights’ or EQL). But each theory has some interesting problems. As we state in our Conclusions (Section 7): ‘It may prove possible for other investigators to adapt these theories and so improve the fit with observation, or further work might thoroughly rule out one or both of them.’

  The New Yorker is generally reliable but that's an example of the kind of error I see in that specific article. I can try to take a look at The Times later. The other articles all seem to have come within the news cycle. Also, JoJo Anthrax, I hope you don't mind if I ping you to get your input on the above. Rjjiii (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, User:Rjjiii. There's two things here: I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction you describe: the New Yorker (not the Times, I don't think) uses Largely ruled out were, which is a decent summary of It proved possible to eliminate a number of theories with a fairly high level of confidence. As I read both sources, they're saying that the researchers were unable to explain the sighting, not that the sighting could never be explained. There's also a bit of a have-our-cake-and-eat-it problem here: if the research paper is reliable, it's evidence that the article passes GNG; if it's not reliable, we can't use it selectively to fact-check sources we don't like. At the very most, it's WP:PRIMARY, so I'd suggest the only way to use it is to point out direct misquotations or mischaracterisations from the secondary sources.

  There's a broader point on the meaning of "reliable source" here that's relevant to User:JoJo Anthrax's point: while an individual author's authority does have a bearing on WP:HQRS, the more significant point is that in general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. This is why we don't generally consider blogs, tweets or self-published works particularly reliable, even if their writers are generally considered knowledgeable and honest; conversely, when we trust a source like The Daily Telegraph, that's based on the fact that a reputable newspaper has editors and an approval process to catch and correct errors, has a large enough body of readers willing to make complaints against it, is subject to regulation that requires it to report with integrity and issue corrections when those complaints are upheld. Personally assessing each journalist through their own work (as opposed to secondary sources on it) is missing the point, and also essentially relying on a Misplaced Pages editor's subjective judgement, which has all the problems of WP:OR. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Science and technology)
• AfD debates