Talk:Shag Harbour incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Shag Harbour incident was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-03-22

I understand that there is a stamp issued regarding this incident. I would love to see it.

[edit] pathetic

this page looks to have been done by the same numbskulls who wrote Unidentified Submerged Object and desperately needs cleanup. Joeyramoney 19:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it was done by different numbskulls, a lot of it by me. You are totally nonspecific as to why it needs "cleanup" and what isn't verified. The sources are all provided, primarily the Styles/Ledger book (which includes some of the Canadian government documents) and articles from the Halifax newspaper, with dates given. It is possible to get more specific, such as the exact page numbers from the book, but why bother? The event is quite real and fully documented. There was a search by the Canadian RCMP and military and several Canadian government documents do refer to the crash object as a "dark object" and a "UFO". The cause of the crash was never identified. Those are the historical facts. Dr Fil 23:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should be Shag HarboUr

What is the style here? In Canada, this location is spelled as Shag Harbour, with the "u." This is how the place is spelled on maps and a quick check on Google Earth, elsewhere on Wikipedia confirms that local varations on spellings are retained.

The Chronicle's headline says "Harbor," but that was Canadian Press style back then, to save lead.

Funny thing, I never heard of this incident, yet I was living up the coast in Portuguese Cove at the time!

Canada Jack 16:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the spelling here to the usage in Canada - Shag Harbour. I've kept in the text the American usage when speaking of "harbor" in a generic sense. Also, the Halifax headline which was using Canadian Press style at the time - dropping the "u."

Not sure how to change the article title to reflect the proper spelling, though.

Canada Jack 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not too put too fine a point on it, but both spellings are used. The Halifax paper used both spellings in the body of it text (primarily "harbor") in various articles on the incident, so it wasn't just a matter of saving one letter in the headline.

Don Ledger and Chris Styles, both Nova Scotia residents, use "harbor" in their book on the incident (maybe out of deference to the primarily U.S. readership). On the other hand, Canadian documents on the incident seem to use "harbour" as do Google searches, which show a preference for "harbour." Rather than rename the article, just leave it alone. You could add a "Shag Harbour incident" redirect if you like.Dr Fil 19:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, we should use the local variant spelling here - which would be "Harbour." That's how the arbritrar of Canadian placenames renders it, it's how it appears on any map I've seen, it's even how Goople Earth renders it.

Some authors may spell it that way, but THEY aren't the arbritrars for the spellings of localities. And their American editors may have simply reverted to the American spelling.

As for the Halifax Chronicle, as I noted previously, until recent years Canadian Press Style was to OMIT the "u," as it reduced the lead required for copy. Other variant spellings (like "centre") were CP style as there was no additional lead required, though some longer variants were CP style (like "cheque.")

All that being said, the newspaper style was NOT the "official" rendering for most here.

I know it's a picky point, but to Canadian eyes, seeing it spelled that way looks very strange. And since the arbritrars here include the "u," so should we.

Canada Jack 15:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article comments

Greetings and salutations! I have looked over the article, and I am afraid to say that I do not think it is GA standard yet. Here is a criterion-by-criterion commentary (numbered as per WP:WIAGA):

1. The prose is fine, and I can't find any problems with the grammar and vocabulary. However, the lede is not nearly long enough - a single simple sentence to describe the whole incident? I would expect at least a paragraphy of summary. And, please do link all the dates, to make sure that they will display in people's preferred format!
2. Referencing is my major sticking point here. There is a single source for the -whole- article. No page numbers, no anything. In the article, a History Channel documentary is mentioned, and according to the article, there was a good amount of press coverage at the time. I don't mind relying on a small number of authoritative sources, but please do cite page numbers to make it easier to verify. Especially in parts like the first paragraph of "Alleged military search", where there is a lot of quoting and paraphrasing witnesses, it would be very nice to have a footnote per witness quotation, even if it is only 'Ibid, pp 98'. Also see about the 'allegations' in the subsequent point.
3. Seems somewhat broad, covering the incident, responses, and reporting. Did the incident have a big lasting impact? Perhaps that could be mentioned more explicitly. Also, there is a lot of 'alleging'. This makes it sound like the government tried to cover it up. If they didn't, stand by your sources and remove all the 'allegations' flying about. More elaboration on the government's official stance would be nice. See comment above about the lede, too.
4. Article doesn't strike me as being anything but NPOV once there is sourcing for the 'allegations'.
5. Article is also stable. No complaints here.
6. The current selection of images is fine.

Good luck! Abednigo 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Side note: the newspaper article image needs a fair use rationale, or the article will be quick-failed if re-nominated. --Nehrams2020 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)