Talk:Mutual UFO Network

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mutual UFO Network. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014022924/http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/local_story/Have-you-seen-a-UFO-Hoosier-in_1349999210/ to http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/local_story/Have-you-seen-a-UFO-Hoosier-in_1349999210/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why has there been given outsize space including news about members of MUFON having far-right views? Should we discuss how MUFON members have political viewpoints across the spectrum? Large organizations, for example, the US government have members with diverse viewpoints, but when I look at the US government page, I don't see any mention of viewpoints of its members. It only mentions politics to the extent of the nature of its civics. "Federal", "States", etc. Perhaps we should go to only that extent when describing MUFON as well. There was a mention earlier of one of its members being a pedophile, which has now been removed. There isn't a mention of pedophiles or molesters in the US government (Roy Moore https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/roy-moore-is-not-a-pedophile/2017/11/19/1a9ae238-cb21-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html, teen molester). There is not much present discussion of its work, or the cases that it has solved, of what its organizational structure is (in detail), etc. This is reminiscent of the "debunkery" and "ridicule" present on Wikipedia of UFOlogists in general, except this of course seems more targeted, and I would say this because in some articles about UFOs when I tried to insert what was considered news, I was redirected to put it under "responses" in another article (Pentagon UFO videos v Pentagon UFO Report). So, this piece of news seems unnecessary and counterproductive to maintaining NPOV on this article. I hope that we can work some way around this to improve the quality of this encyclopedia in general and this article in particular and not seemingly try to undermine people, institutions , ideas, etc, just because we don't like them.Chantern15 (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that all the content in the "Officers and donors with far-right viewpoints" section, as well as the content regarding Jan Harzan's arrest, is supported by reliable, independent, verifiable secondary sources. There is no violation of WP:RS, WP:DUE or WP:NPOV here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like to agree with you, but in absence of much of the work which MUFON has carried out and half the article is criticism, I'd like to think that whoever wrote this article wanted it to seem as if MUFON was just some organization full of kooks and provocateurs.Chantern15 (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: WE go with what RS consider significant.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

text:  On enWiki content is determined by what is reported by reliable, independent secondary sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Chantern15. I think you misunderstand WP:NPOV. NPOV doesn't require we avoid too much criticism from RS's because it makes an organization look bad. NPOV isn't "balancing" criticism from RS's by referencing an organization's web site for cases they say they solved or detailed descriptions of their organizational structure. WP:NOTNEUTRAL is a good essay that helps explain Wikipedia's definition of neutrality. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  So in the spirit of neutrality and proportionality, 3/4ths of the criticism of MUFON is on a few of its members having far-right views? Wouldn't it be a better service as an encyclopedia to flesh out the pseudoscience section, or its history section?223.236.202.200 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be better service to the encyclopedia, Chantern15, to include content derived from reliable, independent secondary sources, whatever its topical focus. Such content is currently in the article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't Wikipedia have some policies about news? Why is just this piece of news about MUFON mentioned and not any other?Chantern15 (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean wp:notnews, and this does not mean we can't use news sources. Now if you have some RS that discuss MUFON present them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have anything at this current moment.Chantern15 (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the Newsweek source mentions some of the group’s activities aside from the scandal. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no info about that, I leave it to your discretion.Chantern15 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt To Discredit MUFON? 

message: the animals are mainly cows
The reason is that the cows organs are similar to a humans they use the organs to reproduce and fluids for feeding them selves 2001:8003:33E9:BE00:91FD:6892:150A:5AB6 (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That David MacDonald, Jan Harzan, et alia engage in cattle "mutulation" in order to reproduce and feed themselves is ... well, that's exciting, if not actually stunning, news to me. That information would certainly merit inclusion in this article, but only if it was supported by reliable, secondary sources. I eagerly await learning more about this. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal mutulations 

message: I have pictures and video of ufo over vail around 2016. At that time there was a posted video and 1 other same sighting. All history of this has been wiped off all websites or Google searches. Why? How? Onecrazywingnut (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You would need to ask them, not us. We are not a wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ufo 

message: Did anyone see a ufo in Cornwall last night? As I did 92.15.112.42 (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not a wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ufo