Talk:Phoenix Lights

message: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/15/us/clinton-has-knee-surgery-to-repair-tendon-after-fall.html?pagewanted=all
Bill Clinton slipped and fell at the home of professional golfer Greg Norman in Florida the night of March 13-14, 1997. The fall was severe enough to require surgery. This is more than a coincidence to me, and it adds to the legitimacy of the Phoenix Lights, since one scenario of how a president surrounded by Secret Service agents could slip and fall would be that the military was on high alert that night and the president was running for his limo with a Secret Service man's hand on his back, when he fell. It is plausible. I would love to ask Hillary Clinton how Bill really injured his knee that night. Consider adding some information about the coincidence, to the article, please. Thanks. 71.115.178.46 (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: According to one or more special sections of the DVD documentary The Phoenix Lights: Beyond Top Secret: the military alert had gone to DEFCON 3; a satellite that could observe craft approaching earth was knocked out of commission; and there were sightings of something astronomical that at first appeared outside of the solar system, and then apparently inside. All just coincidence? Misty MH (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bill Clinton]] knee injury

message: I took the box for npov off, since this entry here is the first on the talk page.  If there is a neutrality issue, please put the box back up, but also make an entry on the talk page to say what the issue is.
Jmlk17 20:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems to be written using UFO proponent websites as sources. I doubt they meet WP:VER. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources  There is plenty written by mainstream sources on the Phoenix Lights. Why not use those as sources instead? --- LuckyLouie 01:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to add more support to other explanations, but it still probably comes up short.Bubbles4sale 06:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: There is still ongoing activity going on in Phoenix. Go to the external links, such as the UFO Casebook link, and the Jeff Rense link. Martial Law 23:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The normal use of the phrase "The Phoenix Lights" refers to the particular phenomenon reported March 13 1997. I think there should be a specific article for that event, that can then link to article(s) about subsequent events.x 16:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing activity

message: I inserted the "disputed" tag on this article because it is so horrendously unencyclopedic. Examples? Let's look just at the second paragraph alone, which is as follows.
:At about 18:55 PST, (19:55 MST), a man reported seeing a V-shaped object above Henderson, Nevada. He said it was about the "size of a (Boeing) 747" [1], sounded like "rushing wind" [2], and had six lights on its leading edge. The lights reportedly traversed northwest to the southeast".
**This man is significant to this amazing story, but he is unidentified. Why isn't he named? Why isn't there a link to a reputable site that names him?
**A specific time is given for this man reporting something. Who did he make this report to at that specific time?
**He said (in that specific report) it was about the size of a 747? Where is there a copy of that report that can corroborate that description?
**He said it sounded like "rushing wind" and a link, supposedly in support of that claim, was given to an external site. But guess what! That specific site we are taken to says the following:
***"All witnesses agreed on several common factors ..... it moved silently......they distinctly had 'strained their ears' trying to detect a sound emanating from the object.  It was perfectly silent."
**All witnesses said it was silent. That's on the link which is supposed to corroborate a claim that it sounded like rushing wind.
**Did it traverse "northwest to the southeast", or from the northwest to the southeast?
The whole article is dodgy, and these anomalies I list here result from only one paragraph. I would attempt a fix, but knowing how quickly it would be reverted I won't bother. So I've attached the tag instead. Moriori 02:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The man that said it generated a sound which he equated to that of “rushing wind.” was the first person to see the lights.  The next witness, the one in Paulden AZ, was the one who said it was silent.  ONEder Boy 04:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow you missed the point. The article says  'sounded like "rushing wind" [2],' . Obviously, that [2] is intended to be a link to evidence supporting that quote. However, that link actually denies that quote, saying "All witnesses agreed on several common factors ..... it moved silently......they distinctly had 'strained their ears' trying to detect a sound emanating from the object.  It was perfectly silent."  OK? Moriori 04:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've figured out what you're saying and I attempted to make it better.  I'd appreciate any help you could give in rewriting the article to make it better.  ONEder Boy 22:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way this can ever be made better is by excising all supposition and unverified and unverifiable claims, and giving a bit of balance.  For instance, what would you say if I amended the reference to no sonic booms to read  "Although that was more almost three times the speed of sound, no sonic booms were reported which indicates the lights had no physical properties"? (The actual quote is in light italics and my addition in bold italics). Moriori 23:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea.  Actually, any help that you could offer would be great.  I haven't had a whole lot of help in writing this article save for Martial Law and some other people copyediting.  ONEder Boy 23:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "disputed" tag

message: Go to UFO Casebook's homepage to see a TUBE shaped UFO. Martial Law 20:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UFO pix

message: Due to the still ongoing activities, see Re.:UFO Pix above, the article should be titled, The Phoenix UFO Incident to reflect this fact. The incident started in 1997, and, in spite of what others have stated, the incident is still ongoing, Jeff Rense is also getting pixes of UFOs photographed over Phoenix, Arizona. Martial Law 21:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just rename it the Phoenix Flares, so everyone knows what it was? Skeptic2 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename article

message: I have personally investigated this incident while getting a $60,000 trailer fixed. The "flare explanation" is a true farce.  Was also trying to locate one Peter Gersten, who was running CAUS at the time. I have caught a UFO on "film" as it was passing a auto dealership. That pix is now my Wall Paper, and seen one near Willcox, Arizona as well. I did not find "The UFO Lawyer" at all. One witness I had discussed this matter with stated that the(polite)
expletive had flown over her house. Another stated that armed jets were seen chasing, yes, chasing UFOs, not dropping (polite) expletive flares, and that the govt. had better quit the expletive and tell the expletive truth. Only being honest, yet complying with Wikipedia:Profanity and WP:NOR. By the way, the UFO was one of those "classic lights". I have also seen on TV (Have Satellite TV) the farce that was perpetrated when two DPS officers had a BIG "Alien" in handcuffs and shackles placed on TV. Martial Law 06:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Investigation

message: There were alleged reports of air force planes being launched to intercept the object but actually provable reports that say the military was active that night. as well as the air force saying there were only a couple of calls to report the object,  However on the contrary the police stations and millitary base were flooded with calls from people and this triangular craft was seen by thousands of people some air force pilots themselves that say "these were not flares" as well as pilots who say the same thing. Also one has to think, the air force would never release flares over civillian cities. 
For more information on the investigation go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiEPbTBm60I
:I was in the Marine Corps stationed at Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma AZ at the time of this event.  I saw it and didn't think too much of it at the time.  I thought it was strange though.  It is not unbelievable that it would have been flares because that whole area from around southern California all the way past the east side of Phoenix is a training area for the Air Force as well as Marine Pilots; however, based on the speed and the perfect formation over such a large area of land, I don't believe they were flares.  I also don't believe in aliens so I wouldn't call it a UFO made by extraterrestrials either.  It was definitely an Unidentified Flying Object of some sort though. (Derik) 72.135.6.78 23:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Military activity

message: Should we not have a section of this page devoted to the theory that the Phoenix Lights were a secret military airship, as described in this article:  http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/black_triangle_020805.html
:Unless someone gives a good objection, I am going to remove this section from the article.  The above linked article does not specifically mention the Phoenix Lights and is therefore not relevant to this article.  128.223.131.109 (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stealth blimp theory

message: another sighting of the phoenix lights has returned in the past week and close up footage was taken by residents and also fox skycam also captured the lights during a video
:The new videos look much different.  I wouldn't be so quick to group it with the '97 Phoenix Lights.  The new ones can be explained as flairs.  The sightings in '97 seem to be much different.  For instance, they lasted longer.  They were in a still line, not free falling on a parachute.  They are much different.-Slipgrid 02:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly convincing.  I agree with Slipgrid. Jmlk17 07:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phoenix lights returned in 07

message: The article says that the lights were observed by an amateur astronomer with a "TELEVUE 32mm Plossl telescope" however the Televue item described is an eyepiece and not a telescope.  Picky maybe but lack of technical accuracy tends to undermine credibility.   Maryyugo 23:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TELEVUE 32mm Plossl telescope is not a telescope 

message: Fox 10 News in Phoenix, Arizona just aired a report about someone who videotaped a sighting of the Phoenix Lights, 11 years, and 1 week after the original date of 03.18.97. I can't find reports anywhere. I am going to look it up and report back. Just wanted to put the word out there. Layalzebub (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  03.21.08 sighting 

message: Should this page be tagged as a current event?72.198.2.87 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent event? 

message: Please tell me why, because the article linked to the A-10 Warthog does not, why on earth a high-speed, close-support, military aircraft, one of the most advanced in our arsenal, would ever be dropping flares over civilian populations in a clearly discernable, slow-moving pattern? To cite this as a reference requires, to my mind, at least a comparable assertion in the article on the A-10 itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.187.73 (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, the flares were dropped over the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range.  There have been more recent repeats of such flares being mistaken for UFOs, e.g., on February 6 and 22, 2007:  http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/lightintheskyparttwo0222-CR.html Lippard (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The thing about flares is that they are designed to stay up in the air for as long as possible (either so they illuminate a large area - or so they continue to disrupt missiles for as long as possible).  They often have little parachutes on them (See Flare (pyrotechnic): "Flares may be...parachute-suspended to provide maximum illumination time over a large area.").  Hence when you see them out there, they don't appear to be falling.  When you're a long way away and the are dropping from tens of thousands of feet - they appear to just sit there for a long time, slowly drifting as a group in the wind.  That seems very much like the motion described in this case...and what's more, that's been conclusively proven by the technique of overlaying the video footage over an identically framed and tracked daylight shot of the same scene.  You can see the lights wink out as they drop behind distant hills that are invisible in the nighttime footage.  Hence these lights are further than the hills - and the illumination they are casting on the ground is blocked from view.  This also shows how far away they are - and at those distances, the effect of visual perspective is such as to make them look like they are moving very slowly.  They aren't being dropped over civilian populations - this exercise is going on a LONG way away - but flares are amazingly bright - and when dropped from high altitude - they take a surprising amount of time to reach the ground. SteveBaker (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flares?! 

message: Collective thought is our future  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchofaz (talk • contribs) 06:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More questions? 

message: im thinking that using that phrase is a way to forced(akward) attempt at "neutrality". lets break this down. the lights were flying, they are yet to be identified, and we can assume that they are some sort of object. UFO will do. Using the phrase UFO does not imply little green men from mars. it implys that its flying and we dont know what it is. only the ignorant attach the little green man part. 74.192.29.148 (talk)im too lazy to sign in thanks  —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Optical phenomena

message: All, don't you think after the Stephenville Texas sighting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_Blimp) we can safely conclude the "flares" explanation is bunk? This object was picked up on radar. Flares don't generate a radar return. Those entries should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyper formance (talk • contribs) 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a more likely explanation for the radar return - when an A10 is doing anti-missile training, they drop flares to confuse heat-seeking missiles mixed with "chaff" (a cloud of thin strips of aluminum foil or something similar) which is designed to produce a strong radar image to confuse radar-guided missiles.  If you check our A10 Warthog article, you'll see that it carries an "SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys and chaff dispenser pod"...when the pilot deploys the SUU-42 device, both flares and chaff would be dispensed.  Since the entire purpose of this device is to fool people into thinking that there is something just like a much larger and slow moving aircraft present (to distract a missile from the A10) - I'd say this gizmo did exactly what it was designed to do.  So if the flare-dropped-in-training-exercise explanation is true - I'd actually be rather surprised if there WASN'T a substantial radar return! SteveBaker (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No flares! 

message: In the "explanations and skepticism," it is correctly noted that the second part of the 1998 event was explained by the USAF as being "slow falling, long burning flares."
It incorrectly suggest that this source concludes "[m]ore recent investigations have come to the same conclusion."  It's true that more recent investigations, of more recent events, have come to the same conclusion, but that source does not suggest that the event in 1998 was flares.  The source specifically talks about a January 9, 2007 event, that is not even reference in this article. The bad block is below:
The second event has been more thoroughly covered by the media, due in part to the military's backing of the explanation. The USAF explained the second event as slow falling, long burning flares dropped by an A-10 Warthog aircraft on a training exercise over Luke Air Force Base. An investigation by Luke AFB itself also came to this conclusion and declared the case solved.[23] More recent investigations have come to the same conclusion.[24]
24.209.227.186 (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad or misused source 

message: It seems that the phenomenon has occured two more times : November 2010 and November 2011. Should we talk about this in the article ? Workingonwp (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phoenix events 2010 and 2011 

message: The last paragraph of this section currently reads:
:Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer, observed high altitude lights flying in formation using a Dobsonian telescope giving 43x magnification. After observing the lights, he told his mother, who was present at the time, that the lights were aircraft.[17] According to Stanley, the lights were quite clearly individual airplanes; a companion who was with him recalled asking Stanley at the time what the lights were, and he said, "Planes". When Stanley first gave an account of his observation at the Discovery Channel Town Hall Meeting with all the witnesses there he was shouted down in his assertion that what he saw was what other witnesses saw. Obviously Stanley was seeing the Maryland National Guard jets flying in formation on their way to drop high-altitude flares at the Barry M. Goldwater bombing range south of Phoenix. His account as to the nature of the lights that moved in formation that night is contradicted by several thousand Phoenix residents without high powered telescopes, however, and no military or civilian aircraft formations were known to have been flying in the area at that time[citation needed]. Of course, the Maryland National Guard jets were not known about at that time because their mission was a classified military mission.
# Sentence 1 appears to accurately reflect the information in the sourced article in the Phoenix New Times.
# Sentence 2 appears to accurately reflect the information in the sourced article in the Phoenix New Times.
# Sentence 3 appears to also be in the sourced article, although Stanley's mother is referred to here as 'a companion'.  The cited article is clear that Stanley and his mother Linda were the only people present.  Therefore the words 'a companion who was with him' should be replaced with 'Linda Stanley'--otherwise the impression is created that there was a third person present during the observation.
# Sentence 4 about the town hall meeting isn't mentioned in the cited article, so as written this is simply an unsourced claim and either should be removed or should be marked as needing a citation.
# Sentence 5 (beginning with the word 'obviously') is a serious problem.  Stanley claims to have seen planes flying in formation.  They may have been the A-10s involved in the flare-dropping exercise or they may have been some other planes.  Exactly who is remarking on the obviousness of this conclusion?  This is not sourced, and just reflects an author drawing his or her own conclusions.  That's really not what we should be doing here.  If there are a number of sourced pieces of information that suggest what the author is concluding is 'obvious' then those pieces should be listed and the conclusion should be up to the reader to make.  Present the facts only, and if you are posting opinions, they should be sourced.  Otherwise, the article's neutrality can be legitimately challenged as it has been in the past.
# Sentence 6 definitely needs a citation, as noted.  But why not just remove it?  It's already clear from the rest of the article that there is a contradiction between Stanley and other observers.
# Sentence 7 shouldn't begin with 'of course'.  Once again the author is inserting the opinion of 'obviousness' into what is supposed to be merely an accounting of sourced facts and opinions surrounding the event.
Given the lack of neutrality in this paragraph, I recommend:
* Sentence 3 should be modified to remove the implication that a third person was present during the observation.
* Sentences 4-6 should be removed altogether--none of them are sourced, and they are drawing conclusions that betray the bias of the author.
* Sentence 7 should either be removed, or (provided a source can be found as to the classified nature of the mission) amended to remove the 'Of course'.
This would render the paragraph as follows:
:Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer, observed high altitude lights flying in formation using a Dobsonian telescope giving 43x magnification. After observing the lights, he told his mother, who was present at the time, that the lights were aircraft.[17] According to Stanley, the lights were quite clearly individual airplanes; his mother, Linda Stanley, recalled asking Stanley at the time what the lights were, and he said, "Planes". The Maryland National Guard jets were not known about at that time because their mission was a classified military mission[citation needed].
This would be much cleaner and more neutral.  The town hall meeting sentence (#4 in the paragraph) is certainly very interesting, and if a source can be found for it, it should probably be kept.  If it was actually televised it seems like getting a citation for it shouldn't be that hard. 174.63.118.131 (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem in Explanation / First event section? 

message: Hello to all watchers of this page. I am about to attempt an improvement of this article. Mainly, I want to smooth out the way the text reads and improve both the number and quality of the references cited. I see it has been several years since there has been significant activity on the talk page here, but if anyone has suggestions I would be very grateful for the help.VaDawn (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful news VaDawn, this page has been needing help.Sgerbic (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Smoothing out text; improving references

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Phoenix Lights. 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  tag to http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=9&num=11448
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902033115/http://brumac.8k.com/phoenixlights1.html to http://brumac.8k.com/phoenixlights1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070320204243/http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272612175.shtml to http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272612175.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101022185918/http://www.prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=43304&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=&S=1 to http://www.prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=43304&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=&S=1
*Added  tag to http://www.timespublications.com/nov06-feature1.asp
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) 15:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Is it at all relevant to add actor Kurt Russell's involvement in this article? He has gone on record multiple times stating he was the one general aviation pilot who reported the incident while flying from California to Arizona.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkclaw1256 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kurt Russell]] involvement 

message: Where are the original photo's in this article??
All is only text here. That is really sad.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.161.86.195 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has no photos 

message: I just manually reverted 4 edits from February by 2003:dd:3f30:b700:e0e4:9020:7f20:6c24 (talk) (I mangled the IP address in the edit desription). The edits were blanking a referenced section, modifying a referenced section to change its meaning and adding an unreferenced claim. I'm pretty certain they should have been reverted. — Marvin talk 19:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edits from February 

message: This citation reads: '"Phoenix Lights". Spartechsoftware.com. Retrieved 2011-03-23.'
However, the link to spartechsoftware.com reaches a 404 page, and I could find no reference to the quotation at that url/domain. Al Begamut (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 13 (ref. "Phoenix") link dead 

message: This suspicious edit changed the names of the witnesses from "John Kaiser" to "Devon Lorenz and his Aunt Jamie Lorenz". It could be someone adding the names of people they know, or it could be a revert of such an edit. The source is offline, so I can't check what is correct. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ”Nuforc.org” is a site anyone can submit a report saying anything they want, so it’s not a RS for fact. Of course, they rule out all mundane explanations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I deleted the whole paragraph. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old IP edit changing names 

message: Not WP:FRIND WP:RS sources. Citations like this, this, this, and this need to go. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Started to edit out some of the unFRINDly material. I'll return to do more later. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article does need help. It seems to be originally a UFO friendly narrative that's had NPOV patches put on it over the years. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

text:  Fair amount of WP:FRIND sources need integrating: , ,  - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

text:  Done for the moment. I shouldn't be surprised at how the Symington claims were emphasized and the A-10 aircraft exercises downplayed. The "photos and videos" section seems a holdover from an old believers vs. skeptics edit war, but I left a fair amount of it in that was adequately sourced. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

text:  A little more cleanup done today. (My favorite was a professionally airbrushed illustration with a visible artist byline —credited to one of the witnesses ) Condensed the repetitive back and forth in the "photo and videos" section, and removed the non-notable Dilettoso argumentation. I don't think Symington belongs in the lead because his comments are clearly far-out fringe and appear to be included as an argument from authority, however I left them in for now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFOevidence.org, YouTube, nuforc.org, paramountnetwork.com, etc. 

message: Wikipedia states all these phoenix lights were "military aircraft" flying in formation and/or " flares", as if this is the indisputable truth. This view is also word for word  the unashamed lies from officialdom about the incident- a position which has since been descredited by the original proponents themselves (Phoenix Mayor at the time, independent pilots, airmen,etc) under FOI recent disclosures.  That the view is (as time of writing) still on this page,  sadly puts the credibility of this platform as a reliable source of unbaised kmowledge in doubt. For crying out loud, how can flares/known aircraft remain near stationary in the air, or fly in inch-pefect formation for over 3 hours and 300 miles, and without making even a whisper of sound. Genuine science alone tells you that is an impossibility, if you may still discount the multitudes of videos and witness reports at hand. I do believe I am not alone in feeling this is an uncharacteristic (so far as i thinK) laxity of  standards, hopefully the article can be recast to change the view. Joseph S. Mawejje (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How you, I, or any other editors "feel" about a topic is irrelevant. What matters for Wikipedia articles is, per WP:RS, reliable, independent, secondary sources. If you have any such sources to support your desired content (really, read WP:RS), then it can be included in the article. If not, then you are in the wrong shop. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality