Talk:1952 Washington, D.C., UFO incident
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1952 Washington, D.C., UFO incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Photos edit
Can someone add some photos to this? I've seen several shots with the UFOs and the Capitol building in the same frame.
The UFO Book edit
Good article, easy to read, thanks for the info, but ... aren't there any other sources than "The UFO Book" on this incident? Some additional readings or external links would be helpful. Thanks! 75.8.234.102 12:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Much of the information from "The UFO Book" are direct quotes from primary sources. There is a reference section at the bottom of the article which lists other sources and additional readings. User: Populism
I agree with the OP here: this article is almost entirely dependent on the writings contained within one book–24 quotes by my count, with only two from one other source (and one of those is just a reprint of a newspaper headline)-and that's unacceptable. This article is simply an extension of one individual's work, which renders it poorly sourced. The judicious use of third-party accounts in Grant's book is neither here nor there. To be blunt: filtering a thousand third-party accounts through one person only results in one person's output. Grant chooses the quotes, how they are presented, the context they are placed in, even the people whose quotes are used. He has entire control over the sources of information, and the way that information is passed on. In essence, this article asks us to trust the opinion of an individual they've most likely never met, and will never meet. So, it becomes an exercise in faith and belief, and not objectivity based on empirical evidence. SiR GadaBout (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The article has been updated to include other sources besides Jerome Clark. Currently, Clark's book is mentioned 14 times, Ruppelt's book is mentioned 13 times, Peebles is mentioned 8 times, and Michaels is noted twice. Peebles is an aviation historian for the Smithsonian and a prominent UFO skeptic, Ruppelt was an Air Force officer who supervised the Air Force's Project Blue Book from 1951-53, and Clark is a UFO historian whose work "The UFO Book" won the 1998 Benjamin Franklin Award from the Independent Book Publishers Association. In other words, all three would appear to be credible sources. Also, such mainstream publications as the Associated Press, The Washington Post, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and a CIA report are sourced as well. Thus, since the article does now use a variety of sources, the "one source" tag has been deleted. 71.49.183.31 (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The article has undergone a major edit of its sources. Jerome Clark is now cited only 3 times. Instead, mainstream news media sources such as The Washington Post, congressional testimony using transcripts taken from the website of the well-known skeptical organization National Capital Area Skeptics, and the Condon Report, are now used in place of Clark. The 3 remaining citations from Clark all appear to be reliable, given as they are taken from newspaper sources.2602:304:691E:5A29:E5C3:C37C:1156:2BB9 (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- You screwed up the article with a bunch of misattributed or outright fabricated quotes. Stop doing that. Schierbecker (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Many, many misquotes in the article edit
This article is the Jonah Lehrer of misquotes. I found a bunch that were misattributed, or even partially fabricated. I pinpointed most of these problematic additions to a string of IP edits in June 2016. I did my best to correctly attribute the quotes and reproduce them more accurately. Schierbecker (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Linked to proper Michael Wertheimer edit
It was previously linked to wertheimer the mathematician, has now been properly linked to wertheimer the psychologist as in the condon committee article.Chantern15 (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
Todo list edit
1947 is priority #1, but at some point the article should have a background section summarizing July 1947 to May 1952. Feoffer (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Problems edit
There are several problems with this article, the greatest of which is repeatedly presenting the opinions of the ufologist Ruppelt in Wiki-voice, which runs directly afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Additionally, much of the "background" material here - some of which is sourced to Ruppelt - seems to have little or nothing to do directly with the article topic, with such links being WP:OR. So please be prepared for some incoming editing. And please keep WP:OWN in mind. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)