Misplaced Pages

Talk:Area 51

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jakec (talk | contribs) at 00:13, 6 September 2016 (Reverted edits by Majora (talk) to last version by MrX). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:13, 6 September 2016 by Jakec (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Majora (talk) to last version by MrX)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Area 51 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Aviation / North America / United States
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military aviation task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconParanormal
WikiProject iconThis article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNevada (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAviation: Airports
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the airport project.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on July 14, 2009.
Welcome to the English Misplaced Pages, please note that the only language allowed here is English, and that talk pages are for discussions towards improving the article. Xerxes1337 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Area 51. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 12:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Redundancy is redunant

By that, I mean this line, "Publicly available satellite imagery, however, reveals clearly visible landing strips at Groom Dry Lake, but not at Papoose Lake." under UFO and other conspiracy theories. The line right before that states how the "Cheshire Strip" is supposedly camouflaged, and can only be revealed when wet. Might I suggest the removal of this line? 2602:304:CDC0:C2A0:44CF:6F91:C31A:71AD (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Why? What is redundant? Moriori (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Moriori It's obvious the airstrip wouldn't be visible as is the airstrips at Area 51, or any other air strip. Saying "However, the Chesire Airstrip is not visible in public satellites imagery at Area 51, but not Papoose Lake" is the same as saying it doesn't exist. Well of course it's not going to appear to satellites if it is supposedly "camoflauged". The odds of a satellite that is taking photographs being over the Nevada desert when the Chesire Strip would be supposedly visible is very, very slim. 2602:304:CDC0:C2A0:3579:A016:666E:C69 (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The section in question is UFO and other conspiracy theories and the text reads: "Many of the hypotheses concern underground facilities at Groom or at Papoose Lake (also known as "S-4 location"), 8.5 miles (13.7 km) south, and include claims of a transcontinental underground railroad system, a disappearing airstrip (nicknamed the "Cheshire Airstrip", after Lewis Carroll's Cheshire cat) which briefly appears when water is sprayed onto its camouflaged asphalt, and engineering based on alien technology. Publicly available satellite imagery, however, reveals clearly visible landing strips at Groom Dry Lake, but not at Papoose Lake." All of this is cited to an archive of something called "www.serve.com" that appears to be someone's private musings about UFOs - and not a WP:RS so it should probably be pruned. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Illegal photos

US law is hardly my "lay opinion". You cannot photograph defense installations, or any part thereof without permission from the relevant authorities. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That is the text of the cited law, not an opinion. It's your opinion that these pictures run afoul of it. Cite reliable interpretations of that law that show that displaying these pictures is illegal. You can see these kinds of pictures on a number of American sites (news sites, stock photo collections, etc.), so I'm disinclined to agree with your interpretation. --Xanzzibar (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Really? Really? Your defense is "Well, I don't think it's illegal! *sticks out tongue*". I'd rather we simply made an effort to comply with US law instead of finding out the hard way one day. Perhaps the stock photo sites and news sites are also violating the law. I'll use an example with copyright violations, since it's the only form of illegal content that people here can be bothered to care about: when we see a copyright violation, do we just leave it there until someone files a DCMA notice because it's only our "opinion" that it's a copyright violation—or do we do the decent thing and take it down? Regardless, I decided last year that I will not participate in any website that flagrantly hosts illegal content. I left Commons for that reason, I would not want to leave Misplaced Pages for that reason too. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto does not sound like "everything" to me. This is a question where Wikilegal's input is necessary, IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
There's no valid reason for removing a photograph of a sign saying "photography is prohibited" immediately after the words "beyond this point". Such images have been broadcast on television programs and exist all over the internet. Although it is illegal to photograph some US military facilities ("certain vital military and naval installations") without permission, Misplaced Pages didn't take this photograph, so our concern should be limited to copyright status, as others have said. - MrX 16:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Somebody else breaking the law is not an excuse for us to do it. There are thousands of murderers, but that does not make it okay for me to go out and kill someone. And it certainly does not say "beyond this point", just that photography is prohibited, period. But whatever, I am done with this illegal website. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
You have not made a convincing argument that displaying the image is breaking in law. It would be shame if you quit editing Misplaced Pages because of this.- MrX 18:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Categories: