| Revision as of 13:29, 19 May 2005 edit198.93.113.49 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:33, 21 May 2005 edit undoDr Fil (talk | contribs)1,528 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| ==POV== | ==POV== | ||
| This article is heavily slanted toward the idea that there was an alien crash and cover up at Roswell in 1947. It is structured in such a way that dissenting viewpoints are immediately rebutted and often unfairly. For instance it was noted that the the governement has suggested that people who claim to have seen bodies may be remembering the bodies of dummies used in the 50's and 60's and mistakely associating them with the Roswell crash. The article then claim that this is at odds with the original report which does not mention bodies. But how was a report written in '''''1947''''' supposed to mention events that would not occur until the 1950s! The article is full of these problems to the point that fixing it will be a very involved process. The article also ingnores any significant problems with the conspiracy theory.--] 13:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC) | This article is heavily slanted toward the idea that there was an alien crash and cover up at Roswell in 1947. It is structured in such a way that dissenting viewpoints are immediately rebutted and often unfairly. For instance it was noted that the the governement has suggested that people who claim to have seen bodies may be remembering the bodies of dummies used in the 50's and 60's and mistakely associating them with the Roswell crash. The article then claim that this is at odds with the original report which does not mention bodies. But how was a report written in '''''1947''''' supposed to mention events that would not occur until the 1950s! The article is full of these problems to the point that fixing it will be a very involved process. The article also ingnores any significant problems with the conspiracy theory.--] 13:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ---- | |||
| The "original report" referred to was the Air Force's 1994 report, not 1947. I thought this was clear but apparently not. (BTW, there was no 1947 public investigation and "report", just brief press releases, which are something else entirely.) Regardless, a minor edit was added to remove any ambiguity. I've also added some language to make it clearer that other counterarguments presented elsewhere represent the POV of some. | |||
| The 1994 report did indeed skirt the issue of bodies, instead saying it wasn't necessary to consider because the crash was caused by a Mogul balloon, which didn't have an alien crew therein. That was how the Air Force in 1994 (not 1947) worded it and dealt with it. | |||
| I felt the article as originally written was heavily slanted towards the skeptical viewpoint, and for balance, opposing arguments were presented while leaving the skeptical viewpoint in place. E.g., there really is zero historical evidence to support Roswell as a "broken arrow" atomic accident--there were no bombs in the atomic arsenal then and no records of such a crash. Why not point that out? Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be based on facts, not mere speculation. (Incidentally, the first "broken arrow" air crash in the U.S. was near Albuquerque in 1950, not Roswell in 1947.) | |||
| Regarding a Mogul crash, why not point out that there are also serious objections with that theory. It is just another POV of some and certainly not a given. There is another side to this. | |||
| Unlike many encyclopedia articles, Roswell is not a neutral subject and there are strong viewpoints on both sides, which need to be presented in as factual a way as possible while trying to maintain a sense of overall neutrality. Some point/counterpoint is essential when dealing with such topics. I do have a POV but did strive for balance and to let both sides have their say. | |||
| If you think a brief counter to the "conspiracy theory" is warranted, go ahead and add it. | |||
| BTW, labeling something a "conspiracy theory" is already loaded and expressing a strong POV, as are some who label legitimate researchers as "believers" or "UFO buffs" or "conspiratorialists." These are propaganda terms and have no place in an encyclopedia article. Simply say something like, "An argument against this theory is..." or "Advocates of this position believe ...", or similar neutral wording to that effect. | |||
| Incidentally, the presented theories from Pflock's book, such as the burned bodies from an aircraft accident years later or "the blunder of a particular officer suffering from an attack of hubris" are best described as highly biased, wild-assed speculation rather than fact-driven. They probably don't even belong in an encyclopedia article. I considered editing them out entirely, but left them in without rebuttal so that a particular skeptical POV could be presented. ] | |||
Revision as of 19:33, 21 May 2005
I believe that specifically the paragraph that starts with "If, though, it was ..." is far too insinuating. It should not be the purpose of an encyclopedia to imply that the US government is lying, as much as this paragraph does. Especially the sentence that US military might hold 'alien' weapons is beside the purpose of an encyclopedia article. Still... I didn't change the text because I'd like to hear other opinions about this first... Hwebers 6 Jan 2004
This article makes a couple of logical leaps that cannot be supported. You say that if it were ever established that the thing that crashed at Roswell was indeed an alien craft, this was would prove that (a) the film of the purported autopsy of an alien would be verified as true, and (b) it would be proven that the USA has adopted alien technology.
Neither of these outcomes follows at all.
If the film was bogus rather than a true record of an actual alien autopsy, then any proof that whatever crashed was alien would not suddenly convert the film from being bogus to being true. The same argument for the alien technology - because just because the US govt could be proven to have had contact with alien life forms does not of itself prove that they have been able to adopt any of their technology. Cheers JackofOz 10:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I call Six Days... a "semi"documentary because some of the framing elements are staged. The Maysles Brothers, it ain't. Will elaborate in a separate entry on the film at some point. LazloNibble 29 Apr 2004
POV
This article is heavily slanted toward the idea that there was an alien crash and cover up at Roswell in 1947. It is structured in such a way that dissenting viewpoints are immediately rebutted and often unfairly. For instance it was noted that the the governement has suggested that people who claim to have seen bodies may be remembering the bodies of dummies used in the 50's and 60's and mistakely associating them with the Roswell crash. The article then claim that this is at odds with the original report which does not mention bodies. But how was a report written in 1947 supposed to mention events that would not occur until the 1950s! The article is full of these problems to the point that fixing it will be a very involved process. The article also ingnores any significant problems with the conspiracy theory.--198.93.113.49 13:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The "original report" referred to was the Air Force's 1994 report, not 1947. I thought this was clear but apparently not. (BTW, there was no 1947 public investigation and "report", just brief press releases, which are something else entirely.) Regardless, a minor edit was added to remove any ambiguity. I've also added some language to make it clearer that other counterarguments presented elsewhere represent the POV of some.
The 1994 report did indeed skirt the issue of bodies, instead saying it wasn't necessary to consider because the crash was caused by a Mogul balloon, which didn't have an alien crew therein. That was how the Air Force in 1994 (not 1947) worded it and dealt with it.
I felt the article as originally written was heavily slanted towards the skeptical viewpoint, and for balance, opposing arguments were presented while leaving the skeptical viewpoint in place. E.g., there really is zero historical evidence to support Roswell as a "broken arrow" atomic accident--there were no bombs in the atomic arsenal then and no records of such a crash. Why not point that out? Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be based on facts, not mere speculation. (Incidentally, the first "broken arrow" air crash in the U.S. was near Albuquerque in 1950, not Roswell in 1947.)
Regarding a Mogul crash, why not point out that there are also serious objections with that theory. It is just another POV of some and certainly not a given. There is another side to this.
Unlike many encyclopedia articles, Roswell is not a neutral subject and there are strong viewpoints on both sides, which need to be presented in as factual a way as possible while trying to maintain a sense of overall neutrality. Some point/counterpoint is essential when dealing with such topics. I do have a POV but did strive for balance and to let both sides have their say.
If you think a brief counter to the "conspiracy theory" is warranted, go ahead and add it. BTW, labeling something a "conspiracy theory" is already loaded and expressing a strong POV, as are some who label legitimate researchers as "believers" or "UFO buffs" or "conspiratorialists." These are propaganda terms and have no place in an encyclopedia article. Simply say something like, "An argument against this theory is..." or "Advocates of this position believe ...", or similar neutral wording to that effect.
Incidentally, the presented theories from Pflock's book, such as the burned bodies from an aircraft accident years later or "the blunder of a particular officer suffering from an attack of hubris" are best described as highly biased, wild-assed speculation rather than fact-driven. They probably don't even belong in an encyclopedia article. I considered editing them out entirely, but left them in without rebuttal so that a particular skeptical POV could be presented. Dr Fil