Talk:1976 Tehran UFO incident

message: This article is undergoing a discussion on WP:FT/N. I TNTed the article, as it was a non-salvageable PROFRINGE article. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 11:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at this article a number of times in the past year, and the vast majority of previous editions were plain old facts about what the witnesses reported. Whatever fringe theorizing was perceived therein, it could've been fixed with some tone correction. 174.119.165.111 (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. I see no reason why the pro-fringe theories could not have been removed while retaining basic claimed background information about the incident. As it stands, we have an article that includes almost no details of the claimed incident, but is chock full of skeptical rebuttals of details that are no longer included in the article itself. For a general reader, I would argue that the article is now rather confusing and would add little knowledge to their understanding of the claimed incident. And, for what it's worth, I don't believe that there is any credible evidence that UFOs are little green/gray men from outer space, and my guess is that there is a perfectly normal explanation for the incident. But I don't see how creating an article that barely discusses the incident, and has little but rebuttals of details that are no longer included in the article, is going to be helpful for the average person that reads this. I'm well aware of credible sources requirements, but I don't believe that listing some basic details as to why this is supposedly a "UFO event" (with careful use of words such as "claimed" or "supposedly"), and then including the rebuttals by skeptics, would be against Wiki policy, and it would surely improve the article. I definitely think the skeptical information should be included, but only after a basic background description of the claimed incident is given. Otherwise, this article will be of little use to the general reader, in my opinion. Basically, this article can be worded to present some basic claimed background details without being pro-fringe or advocating that the incident was caused by little green men. Just my two cents.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What's going on with this article? I came looking for a description of the incident (not being familiar with it) and there seems to be none here: just refutations and rebuttals by skeptics with no reference even to the claims they are rebuking. Very confusing, and not at all informative. I don't see why including witness accounts or a description of what occurred necessarily endorses or legitimizes a particular interpretation of the event. And I don't see the point of having the article at all if no description of the event is included. Can someone fix this? I looked for the discussion WP:FT/N but couldn't find it. Can we revert with some edits here? Abusepotential (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the two skeptics (Healthy Girl) who pushed for the major "edits" to this article was later banned when it was discovered that they were actually a sockpuppet for an already-banned poster, Anglo Pyramidologist. There is a push among some skeptics (but not all) over at the Wikipedia Fringe Theories Noticeboard to rewrite all UFO-related articles to include only skeptic-approved sources (such as Philip Klass), even though many of these skeptics are not themselves scientists (Klass was a journalist, not a practicing scientist), and to dismiss all other sources as unreliable, no matter how closely they conform to Wiki's reliable sources guidelines. This article is a great example of the result of this policy - nothing but skeptical rebuttals of details that are no longer mentioned in the article, and little in the article that's coherent in terms of describing why the incident was originally considered notable, or any background information. I don't "believe" that UFOs are interplanetary vehicles piloted by little green men, but you don't have to be a UFO believer to think that articles such as this should be well-organized and include some background information of what supposedly happened to make this a notable event, along with using qualifying words such as "claimed" or "supposedly" to avoid portraying the events as if they actually occurred as reported. It is possible, in short, to include the skeptical rebuttals and still include some background information of the incident. I'm not at all opposed to including the skeptical information, but for an article like this to be helpful or meaningful for a typical reader, it should also include some basic background description, with qualifiers. Otherwise, why even have articles like these?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.243.201 (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FT/N]]

message: Much of what was removed actually cited sources, and most of what remains is unsourced.  I don't generally mess with WP:FRINGE articles, but this needs to be looked at more carefully, and some of the cited content needs to be restored. Scr★pIronIV 15:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No it does not need to be restored because those references are entirely unreliable pushing fringe beliefs. Timothy Good is a well known conspiracy theorist who believes little green men exist, as is the book The UFO-Cover Up by Fawcett and Greenwood which promotes irrational conspiracy theories. Such references should not be cited on Wikipedia with such heavy weight, they are unreliable. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Philip J. Klass's UFOs: The Public Deceived (pp. 111-124) has in depth coverage of the incident, this reference should be expanded. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  These recent edits are absurd. The entire incident has been deleted, leaving nothing but a pre-emptive, terse, skeptical analysis rebutting details of the incident that are now not even recounted in the article itself. All of the factual information about what was reported by witnesses should be restored. Does the person who did this think Klass or Sheaffer would write anything this bad and incomplete? Was this edited by a teenaged Reddit user? 174.119.165.111 (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so I've made a couple of comments in one of the other talk sections on this subject so far, where there was a fairly uncivil attack by a proponent of the current article on a user asking about changes. And I see in the subject above this one, that the user HealthyGirl was deleted as a sockpuppet of a previously deleted user. But they brought up the notion that the references for the details of the incident being unreliable. And I distinctly remember seeing US government websites in the references, so I thought that was a bit of a strange claim, and with only a few moments in Google I was able to find multiple specific, and detailed, declassified accounts of this incident on NSA.gov - however this was not the source I remember. If someone has more experience with US government archives, they might know where to look.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you could be talking about the DIA document released through FOIA. I hope anyone could read it and add it to the wikipedia page, a very detailed description of the entire incident. https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FOIA-Reading-Room-Iran/FileId/122011/Aleral Wei (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent [[WP:TNT]] removals 

message: I remember reading this two years ago or so and thought it was incredibly interesting. The article was easily 3x as long as it is now, with detailed reports of the incident, eyewitness testimony, a ton of intriguing facts and details... now I look at it and the whole article basically says "Nope, nothing happened, nothing to see here, move along."
Why was it censored? And why is Wikipedia tolerating the very obvious skeptic bias that now makes up the entire article? Answers demanded.
Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: true. Who or what is censoring all this and.. why? --83.43.68.241 (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Also, Klass' account of what the technicians told him was wrong. How would a Westinghouse contractor know anything about the F-4E's electrical system, when the only system on that aircraft that he would have been an expert on was the AN/APQ-120 fire control radar? And how does the McDonnell Douglas contractor know in detail the AN/APQ-120 radar, which is a product of Westinghouse, when he would only know of the aircraft's electrical and mechanical systems? TOO MUCH WEIGHT, has been given to Klass who, evidently did not do his homework regarding the F-4E, and how US-trained air forces like the IIAF assign aircraft for Quick Reaction Alert duty. Any aircraft with reliability issues are never put on QRA, except in wartime. 58.164.15.240 (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell happened to this article!? 

message: I'm going to end all of this and add detailed description of this incident with an official source released by DIA through FOIA, so people who think any description is being dramatized to support fringe theories can be quiet. 
Source: https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FOIA-Reading-Room-Iran/FileId/122011/
This description in this document seems to be even weirder than it is generally perceived. Let's all admit that this is a case of high strangeness.Aleral Wei (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t think you should do this. Choosing details you feel are indicative of “weirdness” and “high strangeness“ from a WP:PRIMARY source is WP:OR. For analysis and summary of fringe claims such as UFOs, we need to use secondary reliable sources to do that analysis of primary documents. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess this is Wikipedia gang just doing their thing, nobodies in real life acting tough and authoritative on Wikipedia!! IDGAF really, this is still somewhat better than articles on topics like history and politics, but I just wanted to say what a giant joke this article is! "Here is a bunch of reasons why this claim is BS, oh btw, we are not telling you what the claim is, just trust these random people... and please give us money"! I guess Wikipedia has such high standards (LOL) that referencing an official report by the Department of Defense is not good enough. The structure of this article could easily be "1. Here is the claim, as reported by US DoD and the witness, 2. Here is why it's BS", but NOPE! L(° O °L) 76.89.137.226 (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed and Official Account of the Incident