There have been attempts to
recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this page, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "
request for comment", a
third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
The result was keep. There are a few arguments here that are weak. When NOTNEWS and FRINGE are concerns, pointing only to the number of news sources covering a topic doesn't carry much weight. And there appears to be at least one argument suggesting we should have an article because this could be a "real" sighting, which may affect that editor's longevity in this community but carries no weight whatsoever here. Conversely, how often UFO sightings are reported is quite irrelevant; it's SIGCOV that matters.
Setting those arguments aside, there is clear consensus here that the topic has substantive coverage from reliable sources. However, those arguing for deletion generally contend that this coverage is insufficiently analytical to let us write an article compliant with WP:FRINGE; that is, even the best possible version would give undue credence to fringe viewpoints. This is a good argument in principle, but in this case it is outweighed by editors arguing that the improved version of the article does comply with WP:FRINGE, and specifically that writing that a pilot said he saw something does not make a fringe claim.
Please note that I'm not dealing with any of the allegations of canvassing here. Inappropriate behavior may have occurred; but this isn't the forum to deal with it, and closing this takes long enough without my needing to investigate other behavior. If concerns remain about canvassing or disruption, please take them up at AN. Vanamonde ( Talk) 04:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
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)
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)
received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 06:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
with the intent of attracting support for deletionHow, 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)
The audience you chose to advise is partisan, given the self-selecting nature of people concerned with removing Fringe Theories from wikipedia.Huh? Are you saying all the editors at WP:FTN are partisan? Or just some of them? Which ones? I've been volunteering at WP:FTN for several years and I'd love to know how you are able to determine the biases of all the editors that post there. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
"You know what [...] I think we should WP:TNT this". There's no way that's a neutral notice - it's clearly urging people to go and get this article deleted. A neutral notice would (at the very least) not advocate coming here to vote one way. I wouldn't suggest WP:ANI unless it becomes (is?) a pattern of behaviour but Boynamedsue is right to flag it up to the closer. FOARP ( talk) 10:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia article can't be constructed from our analysis of primary sources compiled by ufologists. Regards, Rjjiii ( talk) 04:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
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.”
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.’
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. The "unable to explain" quotation comes later in the paper.
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 Wikipedia editor's subjective judgement, which has all the problems of WP:OR. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 06:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Campbell's writings on UFOs, including his Twitter posts, in my opinion define everything he writes about the topic as unreliable, I searched his Twitter for the terms "UFO", "space", "alien", "vessel" and "Alderney". The only hit was this tweet, which is anything but credulous: note the scare quotes around "UFO". UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 16:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd suggest that it's best for the moment to treat it WP:PRIMARY, and so to use it only to point out direct misquotations or mischaracterisations of it from the secondary sources. Again, I don't see that we've got that there: could you give me a little detail as to what you meant?To be clear, I agree about the private research paper. I've brought it up because the secondary sources are using it. And additionally to be clear, I don't intend to vote on this one. I'm honestly not familiar enough with Wikipedia policy and otherwise it would pass the notability guidelines.
We are unable to explain the UAP sightings satisfactorily without either a) discounting at least some significant features of the reports, [...]and I think that snipping prior to "without" is rather huge. Eyewitness accounts are not 100% reliable. My reading of the statement is that 2 of the interpretations were considered plausible. Rjjiii ( talk) 04:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Are you saying that you don't think this article contains
data put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources? Otherwise, I'm struggling to see the policy-based objection you're making here, short of your expressed opinion that you want the article deleted: as that much-cited essay says,
such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 20:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. If you think that's not the case, could you provide some HQRS covering the subject matter from another perspective? Otherwise, if such "substantial skeptical coverage" does not exist in published, reliable sources, there's no break of WP:UNDUE. Likewise, WP:PARITY explicitly concerns
parity of sources: you haven't suggested any sources which aren't already included, so this would also seem to be a fairly clear misreading or misapplication of the guideline. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 17:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
any aerial object or optical phenomenon not readily identifiable to the observer. There's nothing non-mainstream about saying that people sometimes see objects or optical phenomena in the sky that they cannot readily identify. No non-mainstream explanation for the reported phenomena has been offered. I'm really not seeing the controversial viewpoint you're arguing against, unless you're saying that "UFO" automatically means something paranormal or alien, which would contradict the definition used by the (very) HQRS cited and indeed by practically everyone working in the field. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 21:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, [...]No matter how dispassionately an exceptional claim is presented, no matter how carefully we attribute statements ("Bowyer said" etc.), and no matter how many lay RS credulously cover it, it should not appear on WP if it cannot be appropriately contextualized:
The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.
Right now we lack sources that evaluate the legitimacy/interpretations of the sighting from the perspective of the mainstream skeptical stance on UFOs, by people qualified in the relevant fields. Per PARITY, criticism of the event could even come from non-academic secondary RS. But what we can't have is a simple summary of what the witnesses said they saw and their interpretations of it, because what they said they saw is plainly under the purview of FRINGE and thusArticles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance
just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. Basically all we have is quotes, and basically none of them are appropriately contextualized. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that this article covering an undeniably FRINGE topic merely describes the event and quotes witness testimony without providing any context from HQRS representing the prevailing stance of experts in the relevant fields (scientists, academic skeptics: if there is material from HQRS representing sceptical views, it should be included, but there's no policy-based reason to delete an article based on the assertion that "there must be sources" which express a particular view, particularly when that article's subject already passes GNG from the material available. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
a major misreading of both WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY here." The above description by JoelleJay is right on point. In fact it is well said. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 22:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, it doesn't require that those claims have to have already been explicitly debunked. The claims of the pilot defy the mainstream understanding of atmospheric and physical sciences, and the event's characterization by the media as a "UFO sighting" puts it squarely in the category of FRINGE just as a sasquatch sighting would be. The section on attribution makes it clear that even when a quote about a FRINGE topic is accurately reproduced and verifiably attributed (as in the given Bigfoot example), it must not be included without contextualization making it clear that any claims therein are at odds with prevailing consensus. WP:FRINGELEVEL states
Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.It adds
Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.If there are not RS available to provide that context, the material should not be in the article. Since this article is almost entirely sourced to (even secondary repetition of) a primary recounting of a FRINGE experience, it cannot comply with this direction. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
An unidentified flying object (UFO) is any perceived aerial phenomenon that cannot be immediately identified or explained., and echoing the comment made below by User:North8000, I really don't see anything exceptional, fringe or, again, even particularly controversial. I think you might be assuming that "UFO" means "alien spacecraft" or even "physical entity". Note in particular the word perceived in the definition. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 06:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
any aerial object or optical phenomenon not readily identifiable to the observer. As many commenters here have pointed out, it's certainly not fringe or extraordinary to say that sometimes people see or report seeing aerial objects or optical phenomena that they cannot readily identify. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 06:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
...not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia [and]...most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Also this sighting has no historical significance (also per NOTNEWS).
The contents of the Journal reflect a wide range of professional concerns and theoretical orientations. Articles present significant research findings and theoretical analyses from folklore and related fields." --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 22:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
There have been attempts to
recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this page, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "
request for comment", a
third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
The result was keep. There are a few arguments here that are weak. When NOTNEWS and FRINGE are concerns, pointing only to the number of news sources covering a topic doesn't carry much weight. And there appears to be at least one argument suggesting we should have an article because this could be a "real" sighting, which may affect that editor's longevity in this community but carries no weight whatsoever here. Conversely, how often UFO sightings are reported is quite irrelevant; it's SIGCOV that matters.
Setting those arguments aside, there is clear consensus here that the topic has substantive coverage from reliable sources. However, those arguing for deletion generally contend that this coverage is insufficiently analytical to let us write an article compliant with WP:FRINGE; that is, even the best possible version would give undue credence to fringe viewpoints. This is a good argument in principle, but in this case it is outweighed by editors arguing that the improved version of the article does comply with WP:FRINGE, and specifically that writing that a pilot said he saw something does not make a fringe claim.
Please note that I'm not dealing with any of the allegations of canvassing here. Inappropriate behavior may have occurred; but this isn't the forum to deal with it, and closing this takes long enough without my needing to investigate other behavior. If concerns remain about canvassing or disruption, please take them up at AN. Vanamonde ( Talk) 04:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
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)
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)
received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 06:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
with the intent of attracting support for deletionHow, 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)
The audience you chose to advise is partisan, given the self-selecting nature of people concerned with removing Fringe Theories from wikipedia.Huh? Are you saying all the editors at WP:FTN are partisan? Or just some of them? Which ones? I've been volunteering at WP:FTN for several years and I'd love to know how you are able to determine the biases of all the editors that post there. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
"You know what [...] I think we should WP:TNT this". There's no way that's a neutral notice - it's clearly urging people to go and get this article deleted. A neutral notice would (at the very least) not advocate coming here to vote one way. I wouldn't suggest WP:ANI unless it becomes (is?) a pattern of behaviour but Boynamedsue is right to flag it up to the closer. FOARP ( talk) 10:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia article can't be constructed from our analysis of primary sources compiled by ufologists. Regards, Rjjiii ( talk) 04:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
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.”
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.’
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. The "unable to explain" quotation comes later in the paper.
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 Wikipedia editor's subjective judgement, which has all the problems of WP:OR. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 06:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Campbell's writings on UFOs, including his Twitter posts, in my opinion define everything he writes about the topic as unreliable, I searched his Twitter for the terms "UFO", "space", "alien", "vessel" and "Alderney". The only hit was this tweet, which is anything but credulous: note the scare quotes around "UFO". UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 16:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd suggest that it's best for the moment to treat it WP:PRIMARY, and so to use it only to point out direct misquotations or mischaracterisations of it from the secondary sources. Again, I don't see that we've got that there: could you give me a little detail as to what you meant?To be clear, I agree about the private research paper. I've brought it up because the secondary sources are using it. And additionally to be clear, I don't intend to vote on this one. I'm honestly not familiar enough with Wikipedia policy and otherwise it would pass the notability guidelines.
We are unable to explain the UAP sightings satisfactorily without either a) discounting at least some significant features of the reports, [...]and I think that snipping prior to "without" is rather huge. Eyewitness accounts are not 100% reliable. My reading of the statement is that 2 of the interpretations were considered plausible. Rjjiii ( talk) 04:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Are you saying that you don't think this article contains
data put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources? Otherwise, I'm struggling to see the policy-based objection you're making here, short of your expressed opinion that you want the article deleted: as that much-cited essay says,
such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 20:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. If you think that's not the case, could you provide some HQRS covering the subject matter from another perspective? Otherwise, if such "substantial skeptical coverage" does not exist in published, reliable sources, there's no break of WP:UNDUE. Likewise, WP:PARITY explicitly concerns
parity of sources: you haven't suggested any sources which aren't already included, so this would also seem to be a fairly clear misreading or misapplication of the guideline. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 17:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
any aerial object or optical phenomenon not readily identifiable to the observer. There's nothing non-mainstream about saying that people sometimes see objects or optical phenomena in the sky that they cannot readily identify. No non-mainstream explanation for the reported phenomena has been offered. I'm really not seeing the controversial viewpoint you're arguing against, unless you're saying that "UFO" automatically means something paranormal or alien, which would contradict the definition used by the (very) HQRS cited and indeed by practically everyone working in the field. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 21:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, [...]No matter how dispassionately an exceptional claim is presented, no matter how carefully we attribute statements ("Bowyer said" etc.), and no matter how many lay RS credulously cover it, it should not appear on WP if it cannot be appropriately contextualized:
The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.
Right now we lack sources that evaluate the legitimacy/interpretations of the sighting from the perspective of the mainstream skeptical stance on UFOs, by people qualified in the relevant fields. Per PARITY, criticism of the event could even come from non-academic secondary RS. But what we can't have is a simple summary of what the witnesses said they saw and their interpretations of it, because what they said they saw is plainly under the purview of FRINGE and thusArticles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance
just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. Basically all we have is quotes, and basically none of them are appropriately contextualized. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that this article covering an undeniably FRINGE topic merely describes the event and quotes witness testimony without providing any context from HQRS representing the prevailing stance of experts in the relevant fields (scientists, academic skeptics: if there is material from HQRS representing sceptical views, it should be included, but there's no policy-based reason to delete an article based on the assertion that "there must be sources" which express a particular view, particularly when that article's subject already passes GNG from the material available. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
a major misreading of both WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY here." The above description by JoelleJay is right on point. In fact it is well said. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 22:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, it doesn't require that those claims have to have already been explicitly debunked. The claims of the pilot defy the mainstream understanding of atmospheric and physical sciences, and the event's characterization by the media as a "UFO sighting" puts it squarely in the category of FRINGE just as a sasquatch sighting would be. The section on attribution makes it clear that even when a quote about a FRINGE topic is accurately reproduced and verifiably attributed (as in the given Bigfoot example), it must not be included without contextualization making it clear that any claims therein are at odds with prevailing consensus. WP:FRINGELEVEL states
Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.It adds
Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.If there are not RS available to provide that context, the material should not be in the article. Since this article is almost entirely sourced to (even secondary repetition of) a primary recounting of a FRINGE experience, it cannot comply with this direction. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
An unidentified flying object (UFO) is any perceived aerial phenomenon that cannot be immediately identified or explained., and echoing the comment made below by User:North8000, I really don't see anything exceptional, fringe or, again, even particularly controversial. I think you might be assuming that "UFO" means "alien spacecraft" or even "physical entity". Note in particular the word perceived in the definition. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 06:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
any aerial object or optical phenomenon not readily identifiable to the observer. As many commenters here have pointed out, it's certainly not fringe or extraordinary to say that sometimes people see or report seeing aerial objects or optical phenomena that they cannot readily identify. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 06:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
...not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia [and]...most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Also this sighting has no historical significance (also per NOTNEWS).
The contents of the Journal reflect a wide range of professional concerns and theoretical orientations. Articles present significant research findings and theoretical analyses from folklore and related fields." --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 22:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)