Talk:Lloyd Pye

Is Doubtful News RS for death info
I have restored a reference Doubtful News. Is this news aggregator/blog RS for death info? My position is probably, but if consensus is otherwise, by all means remove it once again. This is minor enough I think consensus (or a grounded position) here is adequate without resorting to RSN. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a self-published blog - "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." also applies to recent and unconfirmed-by-reliable-sources deaths, per WP:BDP. --McGeddon (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Self reverted. Should the content go? or at least be tagged cn? - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like you've found a published obituary to use as a source instead. Good work. --McGeddon (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am an RS advocate, willing to do some research to improve sourcing on WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Intro
The intro was biased and insulting to a recently deceased person so I replaced it with the quick bio from his own website, which is brief, to the point, and does not attempt to validate (or invalidate) any of his claims. Vadagh (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

My edit was reverted almost immediately. The current intro is incorrect based on a quick reference to the official website for the topic. The people promoting the "starchild" skull may or may not be nuts, but the intro actually misstates their claims in the first place, as they are not currently saying its a human-alien hybrid. The intro also misstates that the latest genetic testing proved it was human. Vadagh (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I only partly reverted it - his "work with" the skull seemed more neutral than saying he "promoted" it, and a more accurate summary of the article (which says nothing about its promotion), so I left that in, but the rest seemed better stated by secondary sources. If the Starchild Project are no longer claiming the skull to be an alien-human hybrid, this doesn't change the fact that Pye gave this interpretation while alive, and was widely known for it, and that this is an article about Pye rather than the Starchild Project. --McGeddon (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fully reverted to stable lead that was supported by consensus and sources. If you want to change the lead get consensus here first. Read the archives this has been extensively discussed already. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Where exactly is this discussed? I can't see anything obvious that explains why the lede should talk of how Pye is "best known for his promotion of the Starchild skull" while the article body says nothing about "promotion", only that he obtained it and had a belief about it. And the source attached to the sentence only says that Pye has "dedicated his working life to the 'Starchild' skull". --McGeddon (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Independent sources on the subject are are few to none, however a WP:FRIND source, Pseudoscience: a critical encyclopedia (original from Pennsylvania State University) by Brian Regal uses the word promote to characterize Pye's "work" with the skull. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "'Alien skull' star attraction" really you don't think promote is a fair summary of what that article describes? Isn't a "star attraction" promoted? Do we need a sentence in the starchild section to say, "He brought a replica of the skull to a fringe conference in England making bold statements that have not been supported by the evidence."? I'll add the source LL provided which directly supports the lead. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading the source neutrally, it just says he's been on a European lecture tour and is speaking at a UFO conference. It's unclear who is promoting the skull as a "star attraction", but seems as likely to be the newspaper or the conference as anyone else. And yes, I'd say we do need a sentence in the Starchild section giving this context, if it's one of the very few independent sources to have described what Pye was actually doing. (Again, if you can point to the archive thread where this has already been discussed, please save us all some time by doing that.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Check the source that has been added Regal 2009 it uses promote specifically to describe Pye's activities with the "starchild skull". I'll check the archive when I get a chance. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I thought this was almost dead, can see now it's still a hot topic. I watched a video lecture yesterday in which he, still alive, was discussing the things I mentioned. In other words, while still alive, he had changed his opinion and appeared to believe the skull was 100% alien. To me that's crazy, but I still contend that the intro is insulting in that it pretty much calls him a liar, whereas the available evidence is not conclusive. DNA work is ongoing, but the evidence quoted in the intro goes back more than 10 years. My concern is that the intro is not the place to attack the subject and his opinions. Most Wikipedia articles have a "controversy" section for that. A major complaint about this website is that it's full of biased and inaccurate information. If the article is about a person, why wouldn't the intro consist of a simple bio, rather than immediately jumping into discussion and refutation of the person's views? It's particularly offensive to me because the person has recently passed away, show some respect! Vadagh (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead section of a Wikipedia article should explicitly "be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". Saying that he found a skull and thought it was an alien dot dot dot would not be a standalone overview of his work and its context. The lede could certainly be improved, but we should not remove the wider context of his most significant work. --McGeddon (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Holy bleep you responded faster than I could even type that. The intro, lead or whatever has incorrect information. He also didn't contend aliens created life on earth, only that they intervened in human development. A short intro is better than a false one, isn't it? Vadagh (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The choice isn't "short or false", though. And sometimes truth loses out to verifiability, if Pye only attracted press coverage for his "alien-human hybrid" theory and not his later "100% alien" one. But I've corrected the point you raise. --McGeddon (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge into Starchild?
Why would one merge a biography of Lloyd and place it under Starchild, as it would seem to me that it should be the other way around, if done at all? I say leave it alone as is.--Craxd (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Lloyd Pye and an anomalous skull are not the same thing. Enough said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.111.252 (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lloyd Pye. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317081025/http://www.tulanegreenwave.com/msfitz/committee.html to http://www.tulanegreenwave.com/msfitz/committee.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317081044/http://www.tulanegreenwave.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/081710aac.html to http://www.tulanegreenwave.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/081710aac.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317081137/http://www.tulanegreenwave.com/msfitz/fitz-article-5.html to http://www.tulanegreenwave.com/msfitz/fitz-article-5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lloyd Pye. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227063642/http://theviralpost.com/lloyd-pye-starchild-skull-interview/ to http://theviralpost.com/lloyd-pye-starchild-skull-interview/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)