Talk:Mariana UFO incident

Disc-shaped UFO at Malmstrom AFB in 1967

In the 2002 UFO documentary Out of the Blue former SAC launch controller Lt. Col. Robert Salas gives his testimony about an incident in 1967 were a disc-shaped UFO hovered above the gates of the air force base and apparently temporarily rendered two of the Minuteman silos inoperable. I don't know if this incident currently has an article of its own, but it should be mentioned in this article nonetheless. __meco (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Major issues

This article lacks support from independent mainstream citations. Thus is does not have evidence of notability, and much of it appears to constitute original research promoting a fringe point of view. The article needs to be totally revamped, with reliable sourcing added where possible and unsourceable material removed. It may then become clear whether there is even sufficient notability to justify an independent article. Locke9k (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The article contains cited references from Dr. Roy Craig, a noted physicist and UFO skeptic who worked on the Condon Report. It also contains cited references from Edward J. Ruppelt, who was the head of the Air Force's Project Blue Book program and was hardly a "pro-UFO" advocate. Jerome Clark is a respected UFO historian - read his Wikipedia article - and his works are often consulted by both UFO "skeptics" and "believers". As for promoting a "fringe point of view", the article clearly notes that Mariana's lawsuit was dropped and that Roy Craig did not believe Mariana's claims that the film was clipped by the Air Force. The article also notes that the Robertson Panel dismissed the Mariana film. Unless the article is rewritten to include a biased point of view for either side - which would be a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality requirement for articles - I don't see how the article can be viewed as promoting only a "fringe" point of view. The Mariana event is notable in UFO history as one of the first times (if not the first) that a UFO was reportedly captured on a motion picture camera, and the Air Force deemed the film worthy enough to investigate and analyze, not once but twice. IMO, the article presents both sides of the debate over whether the film is "authentic", has citations from both pro-and-con UFO writers, and should stand as written.

Given that the article's sources are from "mainstream" sources including a physicist and Air Force officer (both of whom were UFO skeptics), and the fact that this incident is notable in UFO history as the first known occasion on which a UFO was filmed by a motion picture camera (and subsequently analyzed by the Air Force) I am removing the "lacks notabilty" tag. If someone disagrees, they may add information using the "mainstream" sources they discover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Populism (talk • contribs) 03:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree! I have therefore expanded the sources section greatly. I have included links to original source material and documentation, as well as the major scientific analyses. I will also attempt to trim away the NPOV parts of this article, leaving further expansion to a later time or other interested editors. Clotten (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"UFO"

I believe the author is insinuating that "UFO" is an alien space craft and not he common definition of "unidentified flying object". It has not been verified to have been an alien spacecraft, so there should be some clarification in the first paragraph. --119.193.155.93 (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The opening paragraph has been rewritten to provide the most common skeptical explanation for the images on the film and to be more balanced. As for the rest of the article, it includes citations from Dr. Roy Craig, a prominent physicist on the Condon Report and a UFO skeptic, and from US Air Force Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt, who was also skeptical of UFOs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.175.4 (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I've given the opening paragraph another rewrite, essentially cutting it to a shorter version. I have also expanded the sources section to include the original Blue Book case files and film as well as Dr. Baker's analysis. I think rather than discussing "the most common skeptical explanation", the article should discuss the specific analyses and explanations offered by the specific individuals involved. For example I added a reference to Donald Menzel's discussion of the case. It would be better to attribute a skeptical view to a specific skeptic than to the community at large. I personally think this whole article needs reworking and expanding, so I welcome your help in that regard. I also think we could use more sources, skeptical, analytical, and historical alike.Clotten (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the material! I think discussing the specific investigators and investigations of the Mariana case is a great idea. I will say, however, that I think the article as written is well-organized and laid-out, and does an excellent job of covering all aspects of the case without being too wordy or lengthy. One of the issues I have with many Wiki articles is that they are too long, too wordy, and become increasingly disorganized and filled with irrelevant trivia as they expand. Again, I think your additions are excellent and do add substantive material to the article, but I am hesitant to do a major rewrite or lengthy expansion, given the reasons I mentioned above. Cheers! 70.145.229.162 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)