Talk:Trinity UFO Case

Presenting narrative as fact
I got a ping on my talk suggest I take a peek at this article. Yay! I've been expecting someone to create an article on this case, thank you! It's very hard to write about history that may or may not have actually occurred, and the current text isn't quite threading the needle, but we'll get there. Feoffer (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I see that partially reverted and partially improved some of the recent changes I made. To discuss: Thanks for writing this article, you put a lot of hard work in. Look forward to working with you. Feoffer (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Were the occupants not removed by the Army / is there some reason we shouldn't mention that?
 * What's the objection to a background section that mentions prior crash stories?  Vallee explicitly connects the case after all?  Why not mention Vallee's historic role in Ufology and film?
 * Why discuss metal testing, which occurred after publication, before we talk about publication?
 * Vallee is a reliable source on his own views, but we can't use his views alone to verify supposed historical facts like "Faustino Padilla worked for the WPA" unless we are clear that we're talking about potentially non-factual narrative.
 * "It was only in 2003, by simple chance, that the two friends would meet again. " isn't verifiable and isn't really encyclopedic in tone, unless it's part of the potentially-false narrative.  How could anyone know if they met 'by simple chance'?  We could say that they SAY it was simple chance or something, but we can't report it as a fact.
 * Oblivion section reports narrative as fact.
 * But also, lot of genuine improvements to my text: "demonstrated discrepancies" -> "alleged discrepancies" is a real improvment, as is "legend" -> "alleged events".


 * I do not want to enter in an editions war. I see your point is just treat the case as a hoax. Why do not you just erase the page? I don´t care.
 * You use the world ufologist as an insult and generally despise the witnesses. They are all nuts. And who is Brian Dunning? He likes to make personal attacks, but he himself is a crook.
 * Erase the page please.It is a favor youŕe doing me. Mcorrlo (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * your point is just treat the case as a hoax It's really not.  There are cases where we have RSes to show that it's a hoax, even putting hoax in the title -- this isn't one of them.  Wikipedia doesn't say this was a hoax.
 * generally despise the witnesses Why in the world would you think that?!?!  I don't know anything about them, least of all the truth behind their story.  There are 4,000 distinct religions on planet Earth, if I "despised people" for having different beliefs than me, I'd have to "despise" everyone.
 * You use the world ufologist as an insult I certainly don't mean to, I thought that's what Vallee and others prefer to be called.
 * who is Brian Dunning Just a famous skeptic, and we characterize him as such, so his opinion being included shouldn't disturb you.  Including one quote from him lets us justify including 22 full paragraphs of material drawn from Vallée & Harris. Feoffer (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Brian Dunning is not just a "famous skeptic", he is also a famous crook. Mcorrlo (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that (someone else added Dunning to the article, not me).  But apparently so!    I hope you'll reconsider about that  wish that the page just get erased (not how it work, of course, I honestly don't have the ability to get it deleted).    It's really just  one skeptic with (as you point out) a checkered past. Feoffer (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)