Talk:Malmstrom Air Force Base

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


non-POV[edit]

The section on the alleged UFO event is non-POV: "Regarding the failure of all ten missiles at the flight, Jamison apparently has no direct knowledge of that alleged "fact", having participated in the restarting of only 3-4 missiles." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.144.151 (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-POV? Non point of view? What does that entail? Usually when we discuss POV we use the abbreviation NPOV which means neutral point of view. Could you clarify your grievance? __meco (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent complete deletion of all UFO report references[edit]

I just have a couple of things to note:

1. Since I started trying (since July 2012) to get you people here at Wikipedia to refrain from publishing the UFO nonsense that you have liberally littered the internet with, there is one very consistent complaint that you have have continuously assailed me with: you repeatedly insisted that any editorial changes I've made must also have an associated summary detailing the changes I've made and why they were necessary.

After a series of communications from last night, I've noted that editors apparently found it necessary to delete the entire discussion of The Oscar Flight UFO Incident from this article (general article on Malmstrom AFB), and to delete about two-thirds to three-fourths of the contents of another article, "List of UFO-related hoaxes" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO-related_hoaxes#Hoaxes_involving_military_incidents. I couldn't help but notice that no justification for or detailed explanation of these sweeping changes has been posted. It seems more like someone simply deleted what they didn't like (or didn't want to justify) and refused to explain it -- and these were HUGE changes, large swaths of the articles in question simply REMOVED.

Is this simply more arbitrary bullshit that you don't feel needs to be explained? I have to tell you, the dancing that Wikipedia editors have forced me to go through this past year without reason or real cause, and without bothering to even examine the materials I've presented to justify the claims I've made and the changes I've requested you to assert have left me with a really sour taste in my mouth. To note that other editors seem to have no respect for the detailed negotiations and regulations that I've been forced to abide by tends to lessen the casual respect the lot of you labor under the impression you actually deserve. So my question is: do you believe that the protocols you've instituted serve as a means to enforce good order and consistent change, or is just a way to discourage people from correcting the most egregious errors and blatant lies that you've chosen to promote?

2. If you had simply deleted the single paragraph regarding an alleged Oscar Flight UFO incident from this one general article about Malmstrom AFB as I had originally requested nearly a year ago on the grounds that it represented a complete lie that never occurred and that those attempting to publish had failed to substantiate, you might have saved yourself a lot of grief, poor publicity, and a growing reputation based on the disdain of those who now see that you really don't stand for much of anything in the line of high principles until somebody craps all over your parade. You could have saved yourself from all of this by simply examining the references that were included with the original paragraph you decided to publish when it was first submitted, or when I asked you to do so in July 2012.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm thankful you finally decided to do just that, something I put a lot of effort in trying to convince you to do, but it's a little hard to ignore the fact that it took you nearly a full year, and that you seem to have adopted this remedy simply to avoid the chore of actually examining the somewhat lengthy repercussions of allowing publication of that original paragraph in the first place.

The past couple of days I've been informed that self-published works do not qualify as a valid reference. The primary references of that original paragraph were all self published works. I've been informed that references that do not have a reputation for error-checking and the substantiation of claims addressed do not qualify as a valid reference. None of the references to that original paragraph can assume that reputation, and all, in fact, have been properly assessed as sources that have no published assertion of such ethical admission and -- by their noted failure to apply such rules -- have been charged regularly with publishing completely false and misleading accounts. I've also been informed -- and this is the funniest thing -- that an article should represent the views of the mainstream academic community towards the subject of the article and does not present original research ideas and concepts of the Wikipedia editors or others whose ideas are outside of the standard academic and scientific views of the subject. The standard academic views in regard to a UFO taking out 20 missiles at Malmstrom AFB are NOT on the side of those making such a claim. In fact, the standard view of the mainstream academic community is universal: IT IS BUNK THAT HAS NO BASIS IN HUMAN REALITY. When these ridiculous assertions were made in Washington, DC, the only comment coming from the "Washington Post" reporter who was present as the ONLY representative of those evincing the standard academic and scientific views of the subject was that the cookies they served were good!

Why did it take nearly a full year for you people to address these issues?

I sincerely hope I never have cause to correct your grievous errors again. I have been told that I never should have been involved in the first place, because MY attempts to correct YOUR admitted errors constituted a Conflict of Interest. In light of the facts addressed above, perhaps you should reexamine that Conflict of Interest clause, because it looks to me that if someone has no exceptional reason to desire the correction of your numerous errors of fact, application, and irresponsible need to publish claims that have no redeeming characteristics at all and cannot possibly be asserted without the publication of blatant lies and false conclusions, you would today be known as the publishers of a UFO account that has been claimed by one man who has been selling it and denounced by dozens who were actually there. In such a case, YOU would become the perpetrators of the fraud simply because YOU refused to conduct any of the fact checking you expect of the references used by your editors, something you could have avoided had you merely examined those references in the first place as I repeatedly asked you to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.70.229 (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your claims of no explanation are incorrect. The edit summary associated with the edit explains the policies "WP:UNDUE and generally massive fail of WP:RS". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the removal of the material for the reasons of WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. FWIW, many UFO-related articles on Wikipedia have suffered from similar problems, and some remain for years with unreliably sourced fringe claims being presented as fact. Volunteer editors can only do so much. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with it too, and a year ago I offered numerous reasons why it should be removed in line with the very same points of WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. And even though I removed it myself a couple of times and left a summary statement explaining why, it was always put back with the admonition that my opinion coupled with the many reasons I had offered was still insufficient. Your insistence that "Volunteer editors can only do so much" seems to have more in common with an excuse for laziness. It's a point of fact that while the claims being made were indeed "unreliably sourced fringe claims being presented as fact", any review of the references would have immediately shown you how insufficient they actually were. And yet, even though I pointed out word-for-word what those deficiencies were, the underlying attitude of "volunteer editors" unwilling to voluntarily examine any of the points raised resulted in an increasingly amateurish attempt to create a fact-based article. When the references given are insufficient to confirm the claims made, and that aspect of the issue is completely ignored for an entire year because nobody insisting that it remain published and inviolable is willing to actually look at it, you have a problem that needs attention. And the fact that every time I've made this point, I've been given excuses that cannot possibly apply is both discouraging and sickening. Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad you've seen the light, but it would be more helpful if people quit making excuses, and instead advanced changes where necessary. In any case, that's my last word on the subject. I seriously doubt there will ever be another case with issues that are so personally insulting to my family as this one has been, and since that's the only reason I would ever go through crap like this for an entire year, it's a pretty safe bet that I'm now finished with Wikipedia. Thank you for finally deleting the offending paragraph.--69.247.70.229 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help was always available for issues such as this at WP:HELPDESK and at noticeboards such as WP:RSN and WP:FTN. Sorry for your frustration, but you should be aware that these sorts of rants are considered disruptive, and Wikipedia isn't a "service". It doesn't guarantee user satisfaction, or any level of performance whatsoever, much less one that meets your personal needs and expectations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malmstrom Air Force Base. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malmstrom Air Force Base. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UFO episode[edit]

I think the article should have at least a paragraph about the UFO incident(s) at/near the air base. There are reliable sources that can be cited:

A paragraph, or even two, isn't WP:UNDUE.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that even RS can indulge in WP:SENSATIONAL reporting, and it's up to editors to evaluate how much weight (if any) to give WP:FRINGE claims, especially those that are reported uncritically and taken at face value in the media. The sources above all repeat the claims of UFOlogist Robert Hastings (www.ufohastings.com) and fellow disclosure advocates, so any text would have to be strictly attributed (i.e. "According to UFOlogist Robert Hastings..." etc). In my opinion, the principle of WP:ONEWAY applies here. The Malmstrom UFO story might more appropriately have a paragraph at List of reported UFO sightings, or, if Hastings claims are the key element, at UFO conspiracy theory. Best regards - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LuckyLouie Can this be added to the article?
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/10/19/air-force-veterans-who-are-ufo-true-believers-return-newly-attentive-washington.html KHarbaugh (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's about claims regarding many locations and only mentions Malmstrom in passing (and you probably know military.com is a website and not the actual military) but some of the info could be noted at UFO_conspiracy_theories#Disclosure as a continuation of the existing text there. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't identify what source classification Wikipedia assigns to government records. I'm also not sure how you guys verify whether or not a government document is real or doctored.
I found these two government documents [1]https://sb0396.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Maelstrom-Report.pdf?time=1704103537 related to the Malmstrom Air Force Base UFO incident. The first describes the bases plans to investigate sightings called in and the second describes the unexplained shutdown of 10 ICBM's. The first document does not provide an exact date beyond 3/67.
Can this source be used to add a paragraph to the main article? 24.161.60.232 (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malmstrom_Air_Force_Base&oldid=1208744210"