Talk:Falcon Lake Incident

NPOV language
Much of Michalak’s account was written to give factual credibility to Michalak’s claims in Wikipedia's voice, e.g. "the craft appeared", "Michalak saw", and "Michalak interacted" etc. — while skeptical analysis is expressed as "skeptics believe". This runs afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. I've begun some edits, but more are needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's my mistake, I am new to writing articles of this nature, and made sure to cite my sources the best I can when writing the article, unaware there were rigid guidelines to make sure the language was proper. When writing the article I tried to keep the language as neutral as I personally could, without taking a side (I didn't consciously write the article with any intention to give credence to Michalak/disprove his critics). I do appreciate the feedback and hopefully the fixes can be done to get the article to a better state! Ornithoptera (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. As is often the case, local government sources and even established WP:RS tend to give WP:SENSATIONAL treatment to these kinds of subjects. WP editors assume that if these sources take such WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims at face value, WP must report them as factual and credible. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to give a written thanks to you LuckyLouie for pointing these issues out on the talk page! Since you stated that "more [edits] are needed" please feel free to discuss any areas that are of concern here so I can make the necessary edits at my earliest convenience and make sure it is on par with the standards set, or feel free edit them yourself if it is convenient for you. Ornithoptera (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This article seems to require many edits, and at some point I will begin to provide some. Before diving into that process, however, you should know, Ornithoptera, that your comment please feel free to discuss any areas that are of concern here so I can make the necessary edits displays a hint of article ownership, which runs afoul of the Wikipedia policy WP:OWN. All editors - you, me, everybody - are free to edit any articles without first acquiring "approval" from any other editor(s) (please see WP:BRD). Of course this Talk page is available to discuss those edits as they emerge, and I suspect it will be used frequently as we go forward. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, it is always important to assume good faith when reading comments like this. In this case, I do believe that you have been reading a bit too much between the lines, as I was only expressing my willingness to help out and improve the language to avoid bias. As I was unaware of how to do so earlier and was interested in looking for areas within the article to improve upon and learn from. I do not believe I own the page, and please try to keep WP:AGF in mind before throwing accusations such as this. I am well aware that Wikipedia is a platform for all, and I do not own this article in any way shape or form. I just wanted to learn what places that I had displayed implicit bias in my own language for future reference and self reflection. I do want to thank you for your willingness to get this page in line in light of the NPOV concerns, and I hope we can work together constructively, but I needed to stress that I never had the ill intention in the first place, I am simply trying to learn from people much more experienced and familiar with the rules than I am. Ornithoptera (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This is one of those articles where we don't have RS sources that provide any expert analysis of the claims aside from Chris Rutowski, who, let's face it, is invested in emphasizing the "astonishing" and "unexplained" angle regarding the subject, and of UFOs in general. The majority of RS sources rely on Rutowski's POV of what Michalak experienced - rather than do any analysis themselves. For example, the RCMP officer's report tells a very different story and casts more than a little doubt on Michalak’s claims. However, I guess we'll have to wait until some independent RS sifts through such primary sources to create a more thorough skeptical analysis. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Read this over recently and the article still leans towards UFO enthusiasts version of events rather than NPOV. Basically this is the story of a guy who stumbled into his motel parking lot, was assumed drunk by a police officer and the motel people, called his wife and told her there’d been an accident, got her to come pick him up and take him to a hospital, where he told the docs the ufo tale to explain his injuries. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Object shape
The article says '... he looked up to see two cigar-shaped objects hovering around 45 meters (150 ft) away from him and emitting a reddish glow.[2]'. The cited reference [2] says the object was 'oval' which is in no way synonymous with 'cigar-shaped'. The same reference describes the colour as 'intense scarlet' which according to my dictionary is a bright or vivid red so how does this become 'reddish'? Furthermore the reference [2] doesn't mention how far away it allegedly was at all let alone explicitly 45 m or 150 ft.

Although described as both cigar and cigarette shaped in the text the 'reconstruction' image in the article and Michalak's own sketches (eg [10]) show an object which can hardly be described as either by anyone who has ever seen a cigar or cigarette.

In addition 'the craft then turned counter-clockwise, revealing a panel with a grid of holes, and was struck in the chest by a blast of heated gas that burned Michalak' is very poor grammar. It seems unlikely that it was the alleged craft which was struck in the chest which is the meaning of this sentence.

130.246.57.110 (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The 45m in paragraph 3 under Claims is a citation from reference [4], which I added.
 * The cigar-shape quote in that same paragraph cites reference [3] at the end of this sentence: "He described the objects as "cigarette-shaped things with humps in the middle." The exact quote is '“two cigarette-shaped things with humps in the middle” floating in the air.' I have removed the first mention of cigar-shaped so it is now clear which citation includes that description.
 * A couple of sentences further on we read "One of the objects landed on a nearby rocky platform, and took on a disk shape..." Whether it was the perspective, the vehicle turned, or whether it expanded, Stephen saw it as cigar-shaped in the sky and oval on the ground.
 * “two cigarette-shaped things with humps in the middle” floating in the air.
 * On the question of color, reference [2] paragraph 10 includes "Chipping away at a quartz vein, he looked up and saw two oval objects in the sky, glowing in an intense scarlet." Then in paragraph 13 "Still kneeling with pick-hammer in hand, Michalak watched through the protective goggles on his face. The scarlet red of the craft faded to a stainless-steel sheen..." His goggles faded the color intensity.
 * nce [2] paragraph 10 says "Chipping away at a quartz vein, he looked up and saw two oval objects in the sky, glowing in an intense scarlet." Then in paragraph 13 it says "Still kneeling with pick-hammer in hand, Michalak watched through the protective goggles on his face. The scarlet red of the craft faded to a stainless-steel sheen." So that solves that mystery. His goggles acted like sunglasses, fading the intensity.
 * The grammar you pointed out has been corrected. Gotta love when a badly worded sentence has an avocado cooking dinner or an infant burping itself. Grammar mistakes are hilarious sometimes.
 * Thanks for pointing out the rough spots so we can make the information clearer. It's late at night here, so if I messed up my intended edit, let me know and I'll correct my corrections. Cheers. History Lunatic (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)History Lunatic