User:Filll/AGF Challenge 2:2.6 Other


 * 1) By WP:NPOV, we have to treat this theory neutrally, which means to describe who the proponents are of each POV and what they say, being careful to adhere to WP:V lest we accidentally misquote some of them. Bwrs (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) As per Bwrs we treat the the theory neutrally, but make it clear that there is a difference between a researched serious version of events and a speculative if widely quoted rumour that shows classic fringe symptoms. The edit warring will take some diplomatic interventions - but without seeing how uncivil or frequent its difficult to be more specific. Helpful suggestions especially to newbie editors may help build trust, and may even get people thinking "OK so X, Y and Z have all said this - but what sources have they quoted?" Also don't forget that Wikipedia is Global - so in an edit war between Americans and Moslems it might help to involve people who are neither......  ℑonathan ℂardy  (talk)  19:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Include a separate article about it, but since WP:UNDUE applies, we have to provide a lot of criticism. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  00:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Bwrs. -- Banj e  b oi   11:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) What Bwrs said. The GRAND Rans ✫Speak to Me!✫  04:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) We can concentrate on the question of the authenticity of the alien autopsy video — covering (per WP:NPOV) both those who believe the video is a fake and those who believe it's real. Then the conspiracy theory can and should be mentioned, along with an explanation of its ties to the alien autopsy video.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)