This article was nominated for deletion on 14 September 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This may be worthy of an encyclopedia article, but there are some rather gross deficiencies as it stands:
I'm going to reapply the npov tag; if someone has some information to make this a balanced article, as well as sources, please add. I'm sure somewhere some government has blamed it all on weather balloons ;) I guess I should read more carefully... it's all blamed on a lack of growth hormone??? Anyway, still needs sources
Gwimpey 01:02, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Edited some spelling and grammar. -- Poorpaddy 01:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was able to find about 2,000 references to this incident, but not a single objective source for any of the statements made on this page. These references cross-link between themselves, using each other as "sources". They prop up the ever-expanding story by claiming that all true sources of information were covered up by "the government." It is a perfect tautology: "The lack of proof for the conspiracy proves the depth of the conspiracy."
In fairness, I do not speak or read Portuguese, the language of origin for several hundred of the links. Another few hundred were in Spanish, which I read poorly. Someone fluent in one or both of these languages might be able to find a link to a news story or objective source that was lacking from every English page. Barring that, the only salvation I see for this article is the placement of "supposedly", "rumored" and "unsubstantiated" in innumerable places throughout the piece. - Kevin Wells 15:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As a Brazilian, I'm surprised that the majority of the people involved doesn't have Brazilian names. Strange thing.
This article reads as if it supports the UFO claim. And I'm pretty sure it has weasel words in the form of "some critics argue" etc.
The External Links are dead but they too only supported the UFO theory. Needs a complete re-write in my opinion. Eica 16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Obviously the military had big stakes in this, why would they even tell any truth. How about renaming this section to "offical reaction".
There were many more witnesses and they offered far more details. Why are tese not shown? Where is the detailed timeline with maps? This is poor and biased. As said, full rewrite is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A46D:7430:1:E91F:6B9D:3D46:15F0 ( talk) 18:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The article says "Moffett writes that there have been over half a dozen sightings of the creatures, though "it is unclear how all of these beings could have fit into the minivan-sized spacecraft that was spotted here in January." It's more than possible that these bizarre creatures simply fly themselves by having hidden wings and a new way of flying. A vapor released could make them look at lot bigger than they really are for example. They may just look metallic and craft-like when in the air.
This is corroborated by this report: Months later, on October 8, the newspaper O LIBERAL launched the first in a series of reports, about the Chupa-Chupa (suck-suck) phenomenon. "Sucking animal attacks men and women in the village of Vigia: A strange phenomenon has been occurring for several weeks in the village of Vigia, more exactly in the Vila Santo Antonio do Imbituba about 7 kilometers from highway PA-140, with the appearance of an object which focus a white light over people, immobilizing them for around an hour, and sucks the breasts of the women leaving them bleeding. The object, known by the locals as "Bicho Voador" (Flying Animal), or "Bicho Sugador" (Sucking Animal), has the shape of a rounded ship and attacks people in isolation. One of the victims, among many in the area, was Mrs. Rosita Ferreira, married, 46 years old, resident of Ramal do Triunfo, who a few days ago was sucked by the light on the left breast, and passed out. Increasingly it looked like she was dealing with a nightmare, feeling as if there were some claws trying to hold her. She was attacked around 3:30 in the morning. Another victim was the lady known as "Chiquita," who was also sucked by the strange object with her breast becoming bloody, but without leaving any marks."
Source: http://www.think-aboutit.com/mutilations/Human_Mutilations.htm
176.24.226.120 ( talk) 04:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey
maybe it's too minor, but should the article mention a Brazilian video game by the name of The Varginha Incident, based off the UFO sightings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.64.66 ( talk) 16:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Based on a translation of a reprint from "Revista UFO" [1], this organization/magazine seems to promote lunatic fringe views of the topic. Probably not a good source to base article text on. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
As above, Moment of Contact has not (yet) achieved notability. Additionally, per WP:RSPS and WP:Citing IMDb, IMDb is simply not a reliable source for the content some editors wish to add to this article. Also per WP:RSPS, the New York Post is not a reliable source for, well, pretty much anything: "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting [...] A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication." The film's director/producer is also not notable. For those editors who really, really feel compelled to add mention of this non-notable film to this article, I suggest you first gain consensus here at the Talk page. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 13:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
literally playing around, but on the explicit Wikipedia policy on notability, which I suggest you read here. That a person promoted their material via Joe Rogan does not convey notability upon either the material or the promoter. Lastly, I will note again that if you can achieve consensus in favor of your desired content here, on this Talk page (please see WP:CONSENSUS), then your desired content will be added! JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
It was real I was of the many people that saw the monster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.204.65 ( talk) 15:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
He had no involvement in the Brazilian Government’s inquiry. He is not an expert on the Brazilian Government’s inquiry. Furthermore, the provided opinion does not add new factual information or additional context relevant to the Brazilian Government’s inquiry. Make a separate section for “Media Commentary” if you want to include his personal opinion on this event. 73.88.147.250 ( talk) 17:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
At this point I am willing to bet that "skeptic Brian Dunning" will weigh in on every single UFO incident covered in Wikipedia. Someone, perhaps "Material Scientist" can enlighten me on whether this fact, in itself, constitutes a kind of hijacking of the UFO articles to serve the purpose of advertising. It seems LuckyLouie may have been ahead of me on this issue Werkentagen ( talk) 20:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 14 September 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This may be worthy of an encyclopedia article, but there are some rather gross deficiencies as it stands:
I'm going to reapply the npov tag; if someone has some information to make this a balanced article, as well as sources, please add. I'm sure somewhere some government has blamed it all on weather balloons ;) I guess I should read more carefully... it's all blamed on a lack of growth hormone??? Anyway, still needs sources
Gwimpey 01:02, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Edited some spelling and grammar. -- Poorpaddy 01:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was able to find about 2,000 references to this incident, but not a single objective source for any of the statements made on this page. These references cross-link between themselves, using each other as "sources". They prop up the ever-expanding story by claiming that all true sources of information were covered up by "the government." It is a perfect tautology: "The lack of proof for the conspiracy proves the depth of the conspiracy."
In fairness, I do not speak or read Portuguese, the language of origin for several hundred of the links. Another few hundred were in Spanish, which I read poorly. Someone fluent in one or both of these languages might be able to find a link to a news story or objective source that was lacking from every English page. Barring that, the only salvation I see for this article is the placement of "supposedly", "rumored" and "unsubstantiated" in innumerable places throughout the piece. - Kevin Wells 15:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As a Brazilian, I'm surprised that the majority of the people involved doesn't have Brazilian names. Strange thing.
This article reads as if it supports the UFO claim. And I'm pretty sure it has weasel words in the form of "some critics argue" etc.
The External Links are dead but they too only supported the UFO theory. Needs a complete re-write in my opinion. Eica 16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Obviously the military had big stakes in this, why would they even tell any truth. How about renaming this section to "offical reaction".
There were many more witnesses and they offered far more details. Why are tese not shown? Where is the detailed timeline with maps? This is poor and biased. As said, full rewrite is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A46D:7430:1:E91F:6B9D:3D46:15F0 ( talk) 18:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The article says "Moffett writes that there have been over half a dozen sightings of the creatures, though "it is unclear how all of these beings could have fit into the minivan-sized spacecraft that was spotted here in January." It's more than possible that these bizarre creatures simply fly themselves by having hidden wings and a new way of flying. A vapor released could make them look at lot bigger than they really are for example. They may just look metallic and craft-like when in the air.
This is corroborated by this report: Months later, on October 8, the newspaper O LIBERAL launched the first in a series of reports, about the Chupa-Chupa (suck-suck) phenomenon. "Sucking animal attacks men and women in the village of Vigia: A strange phenomenon has been occurring for several weeks in the village of Vigia, more exactly in the Vila Santo Antonio do Imbituba about 7 kilometers from highway PA-140, with the appearance of an object which focus a white light over people, immobilizing them for around an hour, and sucks the breasts of the women leaving them bleeding. The object, known by the locals as "Bicho Voador" (Flying Animal), or "Bicho Sugador" (Sucking Animal), has the shape of a rounded ship and attacks people in isolation. One of the victims, among many in the area, was Mrs. Rosita Ferreira, married, 46 years old, resident of Ramal do Triunfo, who a few days ago was sucked by the light on the left breast, and passed out. Increasingly it looked like she was dealing with a nightmare, feeling as if there were some claws trying to hold her. She was attacked around 3:30 in the morning. Another victim was the lady known as "Chiquita," who was also sucked by the strange object with her breast becoming bloody, but without leaving any marks."
Source: http://www.think-aboutit.com/mutilations/Human_Mutilations.htm
176.24.226.120 ( talk) 04:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey
maybe it's too minor, but should the article mention a Brazilian video game by the name of The Varginha Incident, based off the UFO sightings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.64.66 ( talk) 16:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Based on a translation of a reprint from "Revista UFO" [1], this organization/magazine seems to promote lunatic fringe views of the topic. Probably not a good source to base article text on. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
As above, Moment of Contact has not (yet) achieved notability. Additionally, per WP:RSPS and WP:Citing IMDb, IMDb is simply not a reliable source for the content some editors wish to add to this article. Also per WP:RSPS, the New York Post is not a reliable source for, well, pretty much anything: "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting [...] A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication." The film's director/producer is also not notable. For those editors who really, really feel compelled to add mention of this non-notable film to this article, I suggest you first gain consensus here at the Talk page. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 13:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
literally playing around, but on the explicit Wikipedia policy on notability, which I suggest you read here. That a person promoted their material via Joe Rogan does not convey notability upon either the material or the promoter. Lastly, I will note again that if you can achieve consensus in favor of your desired content here, on this Talk page (please see WP:CONSENSUS), then your desired content will be added! JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
It was real I was of the many people that saw the monster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.204.65 ( talk) 15:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
He had no involvement in the Brazilian Government’s inquiry. He is not an expert on the Brazilian Government’s inquiry. Furthermore, the provided opinion does not add new factual information or additional context relevant to the Brazilian Government’s inquiry. Make a separate section for “Media Commentary” if you want to include his personal opinion on this event. 73.88.147.250 ( talk) 17:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
At this point I am willing to bet that "skeptic Brian Dunning" will weigh in on every single UFO incident covered in Wikipedia. Someone, perhaps "Material Scientist" can enlighten me on whether this fact, in itself, constitutes a kind of hijacking of the UFO articles to serve the purpose of advertising. It seems LuckyLouie may have been ahead of me on this issue Werkentagen ( talk) 20:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)