This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Travis Walton 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: 90 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Arizona may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
April 30, 2021 Mike Rogers appeared on a recording talking to Ryan Gordon about the alleged abduction of Travis Walton. On this call, Rogers makes claims about Walton and his brother creating a hoax.
After the confession aired, Rogers posted on social media claiming the phone call had been manipulated and the abduction wasn’t a hoax. He later retracted said claim of digital manipulation. “I am hereby retracting my accusation of Ryan Gordon’s manipulation of that call on 4-30-2021, although digital manipulation of anything is certainly possible.” - July 15, 2021
July 16, 2021 Mike Rogers agreed to an interview with Erika Luke’s for an episode of her weekly show “UFO Classified”. He clarified, "I didn't actually see Travis abducted," This goes against what Travis Walton has claimed, that all 6 men on the crew saw what happened. While this is by no means proof Travis Waltons story is a hoax, it has caused skeptics to further doubt the legitimacy of witness statements from the abduction. 2601:401:8280:3623:C493:5259:31FE:E076 ( talk) 22:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I brought this up earlier under the heading "recent near-confession by Mike Rogers". However, you are inaccurately characterizing a couple things here. First, it has never been claimed that the witnesses actually saw Walton get taken aboard the craft. All the 6 witnesses said is that they saw Walton get struck and knocked to the ground by a "beam of light" and that they then drove off, and this is all Rogers is saying now. His story hasn't changed. Second, while I personally don't by his excuse of "digital manipulation", I think it's only fair to note that Rogers only retracted his accusation after Gordon threatened legal action, but made it clear - both in the careful wording of his "retraction" and more bluntly in subsequent statements - that he still stood by the accusation and was only withdrawing it because he wanted to avoid the legal hassle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.112.219.95 ( talk) 05:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Regarding
this edit: "One source states that a polygraph operator believed he did not pass a polygraph test"
. It refers to
a particular TV show, and the premise of the show is that people take polygraph tests. The show uses descriptions such as "lying" and "telling the truth". The TV show is a primary source. Robert Schaeffer is a secondary source. Which source are referring to as "One source"?
- LuckyLouie (
talk) 15:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
[Walton] failed one [a polygraph test] on the 2008 TV show Moment of Truth.. Because the secondary source uses the word "failed" and provides no comment about a polygraph operator or said operator's beliefs, it is WP:SYNTH to state, as the article currently does, that "A polygraph operator believed he did not pass a polygraph test." That statement might be correct, of course, but it is not explicitly indicated by the source. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
state that he lied. Indeed the word "lied" is nowhere in the article. The word used, which is identical to that used in the reliable, secondary source, is "failed." Using that word is in no way "misleading." Thirdly, your desired prose is unambiguously WP:SYNTH, as I presented above, because nowhere in the reliable, secondary source is there any mention of a polygraph operator or their belief(s). If you have even a single, reliable, secondary source that explicitly reports about the polygraph operator during Walton's test and their beliefs, please include it to support your desired content. Otherwise, your content will remain inappropriate WP:SYNTH, and will continue to be reverted. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 19:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Saying that he did not pass the test should be uncontroversialWrong. Saying that without context would lend credence to polygraph tests, unless we also quoted a reliable source saying as a response to this specific situation that polygraphs are not reliable. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Saying that without context would lend credence to polygraph tests,That's like suggesting that a Dowser who doesn't find water in the desert lends credence to dowsing. It's nonsensical. Happy ( Slap me) 17:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying that if, in an article about a desert, we write that a dowser could not find any water there, that would not lend credence to dowsing?Yes and it is quite the leap to conclusions to assert otherwise, especially when said hypothetical desert article includes note of several dowsers who claimed to have found water when there was none.
That is the situation here. We should not mention the dowser in the article about the desert, and we should not mention the polygraph test in the article about Walton.I don't recall "implies untrue things, even though other editors disagree that it actually implies those things" anywhere in WP:DUE as a reason to exclude reliably-sourced information. Besides, as jps points out below, this case is shot through with polygraphy claims and disbelief from otherwise credulous sources. All of that provides a context in which it would be bizarre for us not to include the most prominent incident of polygraph-taking (over which a noted skeptic watched, no less). If it takes a note about the unreliability of polygraphs to satisfy everyone, that's completely fine by me. But I don't see any merit to the argument to exclude this. Happy ( Slap me) 14:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Proposed revision below, all references are currently in the article. 5Q5| ✉ 13:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
In 2008, thirty years after the book's release, Walton appeared on the Fox game show The Moment of Truth and was asked by Michael Shermer if he in fact was abducted by a UFO on November 5, 1975, to which he replied, "Yes". [1] Later in the program, an announcer revealed that Walton had failed the show's polygraph test in which he was asked Shermer's question. [1] [2] [3] Shermer wrote about his experience on the show and Walton's reaction to failing its polygraph on that one question, after passing an earlier test question as to whether he believed he had evidence he was abducted, in an August 15, 2012 issue of eSkeptic. [1]References
- ^ a b c Shermer, Michael (15 August 2012). "Travis Walton's Alien Abduction". eSkeptic. The Skeptics Society. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
- ^ Sheaffer, Robert. "UFO Conspiracies at the UFO Congress". Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 39, no. 4. p. 20.
- ^ "(Untitled)". The Moment of Truth. Season 2. Episode 10 (Part 3). 2015-10-16. Fox Broadcasting Company – via YouTube.
"Failed the show's polygraph test", without any additional information and the universal rejection of the validity of the polygraph by the scientific community, is inherently misleading. It is generally equivalent, in terms of bias, to stating that he "failed to convince psychic John Doe". The most elegant solution is to remove any mention of polygraph because it puts Wikipedia in the position of reporting results of WP:FRINGE science as if it might have validity. An explanation that any polygraph results are not supported by scientific consensus is less biased, though not preferred over eliminating mention of the polygraph. Sundayclose ( talk) 00:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
A polygraph operator believed he did not pass a polygraph test.clearly is awkward and can't remain as is. Ping to @ LuckyLouie: who started this discussion. Let's finish this up with a decision, as I'm about done and this is getting long. 5Q5| ✉ 11:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
this isn't a BLPGood point. Don't know where I got the idea it was a BLP. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Travis Walton’s Alien Abduction Lie Detection TestThe next question, for $100,000, was refreshingly straight-forward: “Were you abducted by a UFO on November 5, 1975.” Without hesitation he barked “Yes.” The voice in the sky once again boomed: “That answer is…”
“False.” I couldn’t believe it.
Why would referring to the tester be synth?Because nowhere in the reliable, independent, secondary source (Scheaffer), or in the passage you quote above, is there any explicit reference to a polygraph tester/operator or said person's opinion/belief. If you can find any secondary source that explicitly refers to the operator or their opinions/beliefs (as opposed to a vague "voice in the sky," which could be anyone associated with the program), then please include it, but AFAIK there is no such source available. Per WP:RS, article content is based upon what is presented in reliable sources, not upon what we "think" the sources imply. Adding content to an article based upon what we "think," no matter how logical, is WP:SYNTH. The passage from the reliable source is brief and to the point: Walton
failed one [a polygraph test] on the 2008 TV show Moment of Truth. That passage no more provides undue credence to polygraph tests than your suggested "an answer that the show's polygrapher concluded to be false." In any case, the subsequent content from Shermer in your suggested edit adequately handles the credence issue, if there even is an issue. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 18:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Because nowhere in the reliable, independent, secondary source (Scheaffer), or in the passage you quote above, is there any explicit reference to a polygraph tester/operator or said person's opinion/belief.
The voice in the sky once again boomed: “That answer is… False.”AFAIK, polygraphs output measurements of skin conductivity, blood pressure, pulse and breathing rates, not voices in the sky. The voice in the sky was giving a determination of the truth or falsehood of the answer, not a polygraph result.
The broadcast is available from multiple sources on YouTube (including [Spanish captioned versions)
Anyhow, from watching this silly video, it's evident that the "voice in the sky" is a synthesized female announcer, not a real person whose "beliefs" could be attributed.
I've already supported deleting the mention higher up this page on Apr 11. I would feel differently if at least we could identify the polygrapher. The show won't do it. The polygrapher won't do it.
Walton appeared on a TV show and was asked a question specifically relevant to the article topic, so I can't quite understand the arguments for not including mention of it.
I also can't understand why people are obsessed with ID'ing the show's polygrapher Nick Savastano. Such WP:OR doesn't support WP:SYNTHetic commentary describing who "believes" Walton failed the test.
The article should have information on the polygraph tests administered by the sheriff's office to the 6 loggers while Walton was missing, and to Walton immediately after he returned. (IMO, there should be a whole section on the immediate investigation of the incident including that the 6 loggers were accused of murdering Walton.) These tests would seem to be more credible than the mentioned polygraph tests by a tabloid and a second-rate game show 30 years later. Unforgettable fan ( talk) 12:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding [5], it's not a definitive fact that the other loggers saw Walton zapped by an alien spaceship and as a result were frightened and drove away. At least according to our cited sources, it's ambiguous why they left, so I have reverted and copyedited appropriately. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm concerned that new material being added is weighted heavily on WP:SELFPUB sources such as threedollarkit.weebly.com, badufos.blogspot, Youtube, etc. There may be a valid WP:PARITY argument for using blog posts by experts like Robert Scheaffer in small doses, but I think basing whole sections on them is rather excessive. Also the WP:TONE of some additions ("Gentry Tower as UFO?") is way too WP:PERSUASIVE, and in general, more suited to magazine feature writing than an encyclopedia. The focus of article writing should be to create a solidly sourced reference work rather than weave a fascinating narrative. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Travis Walton 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: 90 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Arizona may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
April 30, 2021 Mike Rogers appeared on a recording talking to Ryan Gordon about the alleged abduction of Travis Walton. On this call, Rogers makes claims about Walton and his brother creating a hoax.
After the confession aired, Rogers posted on social media claiming the phone call had been manipulated and the abduction wasn’t a hoax. He later retracted said claim of digital manipulation. “I am hereby retracting my accusation of Ryan Gordon’s manipulation of that call on 4-30-2021, although digital manipulation of anything is certainly possible.” - July 15, 2021
July 16, 2021 Mike Rogers agreed to an interview with Erika Luke’s for an episode of her weekly show “UFO Classified”. He clarified, "I didn't actually see Travis abducted," This goes against what Travis Walton has claimed, that all 6 men on the crew saw what happened. While this is by no means proof Travis Waltons story is a hoax, it has caused skeptics to further doubt the legitimacy of witness statements from the abduction. 2601:401:8280:3623:C493:5259:31FE:E076 ( talk) 22:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I brought this up earlier under the heading "recent near-confession by Mike Rogers". However, you are inaccurately characterizing a couple things here. First, it has never been claimed that the witnesses actually saw Walton get taken aboard the craft. All the 6 witnesses said is that they saw Walton get struck and knocked to the ground by a "beam of light" and that they then drove off, and this is all Rogers is saying now. His story hasn't changed. Second, while I personally don't by his excuse of "digital manipulation", I think it's only fair to note that Rogers only retracted his accusation after Gordon threatened legal action, but made it clear - both in the careful wording of his "retraction" and more bluntly in subsequent statements - that he still stood by the accusation and was only withdrawing it because he wanted to avoid the legal hassle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.112.219.95 ( talk) 05:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Regarding
this edit: "One source states that a polygraph operator believed he did not pass a polygraph test"
. It refers to
a particular TV show, and the premise of the show is that people take polygraph tests. The show uses descriptions such as "lying" and "telling the truth". The TV show is a primary source. Robert Schaeffer is a secondary source. Which source are referring to as "One source"?
- LuckyLouie (
talk) 15:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
[Walton] failed one [a polygraph test] on the 2008 TV show Moment of Truth.. Because the secondary source uses the word "failed" and provides no comment about a polygraph operator or said operator's beliefs, it is WP:SYNTH to state, as the article currently does, that "A polygraph operator believed he did not pass a polygraph test." That statement might be correct, of course, but it is not explicitly indicated by the source. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
state that he lied. Indeed the word "lied" is nowhere in the article. The word used, which is identical to that used in the reliable, secondary source, is "failed." Using that word is in no way "misleading." Thirdly, your desired prose is unambiguously WP:SYNTH, as I presented above, because nowhere in the reliable, secondary source is there any mention of a polygraph operator or their belief(s). If you have even a single, reliable, secondary source that explicitly reports about the polygraph operator during Walton's test and their beliefs, please include it to support your desired content. Otherwise, your content will remain inappropriate WP:SYNTH, and will continue to be reverted. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 19:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Saying that he did not pass the test should be uncontroversialWrong. Saying that without context would lend credence to polygraph tests, unless we also quoted a reliable source saying as a response to this specific situation that polygraphs are not reliable. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Saying that without context would lend credence to polygraph tests,That's like suggesting that a Dowser who doesn't find water in the desert lends credence to dowsing. It's nonsensical. Happy ( Slap me) 17:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying that if, in an article about a desert, we write that a dowser could not find any water there, that would not lend credence to dowsing?Yes and it is quite the leap to conclusions to assert otherwise, especially when said hypothetical desert article includes note of several dowsers who claimed to have found water when there was none.
That is the situation here. We should not mention the dowser in the article about the desert, and we should not mention the polygraph test in the article about Walton.I don't recall "implies untrue things, even though other editors disagree that it actually implies those things" anywhere in WP:DUE as a reason to exclude reliably-sourced information. Besides, as jps points out below, this case is shot through with polygraphy claims and disbelief from otherwise credulous sources. All of that provides a context in which it would be bizarre for us not to include the most prominent incident of polygraph-taking (over which a noted skeptic watched, no less). If it takes a note about the unreliability of polygraphs to satisfy everyone, that's completely fine by me. But I don't see any merit to the argument to exclude this. Happy ( Slap me) 14:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Proposed revision below, all references are currently in the article. 5Q5| ✉ 13:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
In 2008, thirty years after the book's release, Walton appeared on the Fox game show The Moment of Truth and was asked by Michael Shermer if he in fact was abducted by a UFO on November 5, 1975, to which he replied, "Yes". [1] Later in the program, an announcer revealed that Walton had failed the show's polygraph test in which he was asked Shermer's question. [1] [2] [3] Shermer wrote about his experience on the show and Walton's reaction to failing its polygraph on that one question, after passing an earlier test question as to whether he believed he had evidence he was abducted, in an August 15, 2012 issue of eSkeptic. [1]References
- ^ a b c Shermer, Michael (15 August 2012). "Travis Walton's Alien Abduction". eSkeptic. The Skeptics Society. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
- ^ Sheaffer, Robert. "UFO Conspiracies at the UFO Congress". Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 39, no. 4. p. 20.
- ^ "(Untitled)". The Moment of Truth. Season 2. Episode 10 (Part 3). 2015-10-16. Fox Broadcasting Company – via YouTube.
"Failed the show's polygraph test", without any additional information and the universal rejection of the validity of the polygraph by the scientific community, is inherently misleading. It is generally equivalent, in terms of bias, to stating that he "failed to convince psychic John Doe". The most elegant solution is to remove any mention of polygraph because it puts Wikipedia in the position of reporting results of WP:FRINGE science as if it might have validity. An explanation that any polygraph results are not supported by scientific consensus is less biased, though not preferred over eliminating mention of the polygraph. Sundayclose ( talk) 00:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
A polygraph operator believed he did not pass a polygraph test.clearly is awkward and can't remain as is. Ping to @ LuckyLouie: who started this discussion. Let's finish this up with a decision, as I'm about done and this is getting long. 5Q5| ✉ 11:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
this isn't a BLPGood point. Don't know where I got the idea it was a BLP. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Travis Walton’s Alien Abduction Lie Detection TestThe next question, for $100,000, was refreshingly straight-forward: “Were you abducted by a UFO on November 5, 1975.” Without hesitation he barked “Yes.” The voice in the sky once again boomed: “That answer is…”
“False.” I couldn’t believe it.
Why would referring to the tester be synth?Because nowhere in the reliable, independent, secondary source (Scheaffer), or in the passage you quote above, is there any explicit reference to a polygraph tester/operator or said person's opinion/belief. If you can find any secondary source that explicitly refers to the operator or their opinions/beliefs (as opposed to a vague "voice in the sky," which could be anyone associated with the program), then please include it, but AFAIK there is no such source available. Per WP:RS, article content is based upon what is presented in reliable sources, not upon what we "think" the sources imply. Adding content to an article based upon what we "think," no matter how logical, is WP:SYNTH. The passage from the reliable source is brief and to the point: Walton
failed one [a polygraph test] on the 2008 TV show Moment of Truth. That passage no more provides undue credence to polygraph tests than your suggested "an answer that the show's polygrapher concluded to be false." In any case, the subsequent content from Shermer in your suggested edit adequately handles the credence issue, if there even is an issue. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 18:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Because nowhere in the reliable, independent, secondary source (Scheaffer), or in the passage you quote above, is there any explicit reference to a polygraph tester/operator or said person's opinion/belief.
The voice in the sky once again boomed: “That answer is… False.”AFAIK, polygraphs output measurements of skin conductivity, blood pressure, pulse and breathing rates, not voices in the sky. The voice in the sky was giving a determination of the truth or falsehood of the answer, not a polygraph result.
The broadcast is available from multiple sources on YouTube (including [Spanish captioned versions)
Anyhow, from watching this silly video, it's evident that the "voice in the sky" is a synthesized female announcer, not a real person whose "beliefs" could be attributed.
I've already supported deleting the mention higher up this page on Apr 11. I would feel differently if at least we could identify the polygrapher. The show won't do it. The polygrapher won't do it.
Walton appeared on a TV show and was asked a question specifically relevant to the article topic, so I can't quite understand the arguments for not including mention of it.
I also can't understand why people are obsessed with ID'ing the show's polygrapher Nick Savastano. Such WP:OR doesn't support WP:SYNTHetic commentary describing who "believes" Walton failed the test.
The article should have information on the polygraph tests administered by the sheriff's office to the 6 loggers while Walton was missing, and to Walton immediately after he returned. (IMO, there should be a whole section on the immediate investigation of the incident including that the 6 loggers were accused of murdering Walton.) These tests would seem to be more credible than the mentioned polygraph tests by a tabloid and a second-rate game show 30 years later. Unforgettable fan ( talk) 12:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding [5], it's not a definitive fact that the other loggers saw Walton zapped by an alien spaceship and as a result were frightened and drove away. At least according to our cited sources, it's ambiguous why they left, so I have reverted and copyedited appropriately. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm concerned that new material being added is weighted heavily on WP:SELFPUB sources such as threedollarkit.weebly.com, badufos.blogspot, Youtube, etc. There may be a valid WP:PARITY argument for using blog posts by experts like Robert Scheaffer in small doses, but I think basing whole sections on them is rather excessive. Also the WP:TONE of some additions ("Gentry Tower as UFO?") is way too WP:PERSUASIVE, and in general, more suited to magazine feature writing than an encyclopedia. The focus of article writing should be to create a solidly sourced reference work rather than weave a fascinating narrative. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)