User talk:65.163.112.128

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your addition to WP:3O

Hey. I saw your post on the third opinion page, and I'm confused as to what your question is. Is the question about the inclusion of ufowatchdog.com on the pages? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is used to infer that pro paranormal people and investigators are conmen/conwomen while skeptics such as Philip Klass remains uncriticized, and when evidence is found, on the SAME site, it is not allowed. The evidence criticizing Philip Klass is on ufowatchdog.com, the "Hall of SHAME 1, 7th on that list. I and others have placed it, it gets removed, while ufowatchdog.com is used as evidence of criticizim of people who are pro paranormal, investigate paranormal matters, and that IS allowed to remain in their articles. Either allow evidence that UFO Watchdog to be used as evidence of criticizisim of skeptices, which it does, as well as evidence of criticizisim of pro paranormal people, investigators or remove it out of articles, such as Linda Howe and Richard C. Hoagland. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well. First, ufowatchdog.com does not seem like a reliable source. Wiki policy states that trustworthy secondary and tertiary sources are to be used - things like newspapers and books. Primary sources are discouraged, as are self-published sources (see WP:SPS) which is what ufowatchdog.com is, more or less. I looked around, and the only place I can find it being cited is on Richard C. Hoagland, and that's only for a comment on a radio show. As for the section on Linda Moulton Howe, I believe that section is entirely inappropriate. It suffers from WP:OR and WP:POV, but that's beyond the issue here.
I'm still confused as to what you want, though. Is it your belief that ufowatchdog should be used on all the pages, or none? Third opinions will only help here if there's been a discussion between you and another editor, and you need a third party opinion. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Just being fair to both sides. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay then. I think the best place to start would be to add your comments to the talk page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal, and do so with a calm, collected, and coherent argument. Since all of the pages involve the paranormal, the project page would probably be a good jumping point. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
First, I asked you not to keep posting on my talk page. I'll address your questions, so long as you ask them here. I'm watching this page anyway. Next: I said place it on the project page, not an individual article page. Since it's an issue that encompasses a number of different articles, it makes sense to discuss it with the people who monitor those pages. Take up your issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal and see what they have to say. If they disagree with you, then you have to respect that, since Wikipedia is based on consensus. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I have suggested WP:Third opinion (see my talk page) for some of the same reasons HelloAnyoneg suggests. I'm out of town right now, so I can't dela with it until I get back in a few days. Bubba73 (talk), 21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)