Talk:The Age of Disclosure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archiving template

This talk page is filling up fast. I have an auto-archiving template ready to install. What should the interval be: 90, 60, or 30 days? 5Q5|✉ 12:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

90 days or more.
Please use ClueBot III. See:
Help:Archiving a talk page#Choosing a bot
ClueBot III automatically repair links to discussions when archiving.
--Timeshifter (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
60 days would be a better choice for this talk page going forward, but it doesn't matter right now. There are zero discussions that are older than 60 and younger than 90.
I advise against ClueBot III and suggest lowercase sigmabot III instead.
Repairing links to discussions when archiving (which ClueBot III sometimes does just fine and sometimes completely screws up) stopped being so important 2022 with the introduction of DiscussionTools, and became totally unnecessary in June of 2024. Now, even if a thread is archived, users will be able to follow it through automatic detection. This is a much better solution than having a bot try to fix such links.
More important is the fact that lowercase sigmabot III supports 1-click archiving. Whether you set the archiving to 60 or 90, if you do it today you will archive exactly two sections. To actually accomplish any significant shortening of this talk page, a human (preferably not one of us who are in the skeptical community or the believer community to avoid accusations of bias) should go through the comments and manually archive most of them. 1-click archiving makes that much easier. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Cluebot III only has problems in rare cases where there are a lot of links to update. And not everyone uses DiscussionTools. I don't.
I totally oppose 1-click archiving. No individual should be making those decisions. I would rather lower the time to 30 to 45 days if people want more threads archived in a non-biased way.
--Timeshifter (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
I only have experience installing sigmabot III (Miszabot) so I installed that set to 60 days, which can be adjusted as desired. 5Q5|✉ 15:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Good call. There is zero reason to handle links the way Cluebot does. "Individual editors' comments and any thread or section title on a talk page are now permalinked as of June 2024, so even if a thread is archived, users will be able to follow it through automatic detection. This is a much better user experience than manual links to diffs of a comment." --WP:TALKLINK --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. What happens if I link to a talk section heading from inside and outside that talk page. Before that section is archived. I will do that now:

And I will link to that section from the bottom of my user page as a test:

--Timeshifter (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken about how archiving works, you will have to wait until every comment in the test section is over 60 days old. That isn't true of the section you chose for your test. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Moved from my user page so others can benefit. Thanks for the info!:

The section you chose for your test was last edited on 17 October 2025 -- less than the 60 day archiving setting.
I was going to suggest the following as being a section that I thought was last edited on 12 July 2025...
Talk:The Age of Disclosure#"documentary-style film"
...but alas, someone added a comment just yesterday (27 November 2025).   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I lowered the time down to 45 days. At least temporarily just to see if the links work after that section I linked to is archived. So we will know in a few days. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

CORRECTION: It looks like lowercase sigmabot III lets this link to an archived section below work if opened in a new tab. It won't work if clicked directly in an attempt to open it in the same tab. Click it to see what I mean:
#Concern about Selective and Unbalanced Reception Section
Long section links work too:
Talk:The Age of Disclosure#Concern about Selective and Unbalanced Reception Section
As do http links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Age_of_Disclosure#Concern_about_Selective_and_Unbalanced_Reception_Section
The http link works. A link pops up to its new location in the archive.
I changed to Cluebot III. Set to 30 days as before. Here is a short internal link to a topic due soon to be archived:
#Suggested addition to lead
So we will see if Cluebot III makes the link work after the section is archived. Here are the long links for testing:
Talk:The Age of Disclosure#Suggested addition to lead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Age_of_Disclosure#Suggested_addition_to_lead
--Timeshifter (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
There is no difference between what lowercase sigmabot III and Cluebot III do with the example links listed on this talk page.
I did notice that Cluebot III fixed a link on my user page (an internal link to a talk section here) by actually changing the link to an archive link. I like this.
The external http link on my talk page to here works the same as via lowercase sigmabot III. I click it and it takes me to the main talk page, and then a popup box shows up with the archive link. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The cast list is too long

The cast list currently lists every single person who has any speaking role in the film of any length!
MOS:FILMCAST reminds us that " Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so try to name the most relevant actors and roles that are most appropriate for the film". FILMCAST imagines us listing only those who receive poster credits, but the poster itself doesn't list any cast at all. The film's website appears to just be a landing page so isn't of much help either. I, therefore, suggest as a starting point that we excise everyone who doesn't have a standalone BLP (Fravor, Dietrich, Graves, Stratton, Davis, Cobb, Flaherty) and everyone listed without any independent source elevating their participation (Luna, Burchett, Crenshaw) and have so implemented that change as a WP:BRD. Chetsford (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The participants list is well-sourced, the three members of House just needed more clear in-line sourcing. Feoffer (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
The presence or non-presence of sources does not crest our very normal process for itemizing cast described by FILMCAST. Why does this film, uniquely, need the full cast listed, down to even the most minor character? Chetsford (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Cause we take our cue from RSes. (Plus, it serves as "Table of Contents" -- you honestly don't have to see the film if you know who's featured.) Feoffer (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
"merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion" (WP:NOTDATABASE) Chetsford (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Why does this film, uniquely, need the full cast listed, down to even the most minor character? Actually, we have only been listing the interviewees for this film. There are many other people in the film from archival videos. Their info is old. It is the interviewees that are the heart of the film, especially since they are speaking out now, and continuing to do so. It's what people are interested in. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Should every cast member in The Age of Disclosure be listed?

Q1: Should every person who appears in this film be listed in the cast list?

  • Yes
  • No

Q2: If No, who should be listed?

  • A: Verifiable cast who have standalone BLPs
  • B: Verifiable cast who have standalone BLPs and whose appearance is meaningfully cited (i.e. more than appearing in a list) in at least one WP:RS
  • C: Verifiable cast who have standalone BLPs or whose appearance is meaningfully cited (i.e. more than appearing in a list) in at least one WP:RS
  • D: "X#" (e.g. 5, 10, etc.) of the most central cast members as determined by subsequent discussion
  • E: Other

Chetsford (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Survey

  • On Q1 No, on Q2 No List at all as per Guy Macon (first preference) or B (second preference). As per MOS:FILMCAST it's ill-advised and potentially violative of WP:NOTDATABASE to list every single person who appears in a movie — even if their participation meets WP:V. FILMCAST suggests listing only those persons given poster billing, however, the poster for this film doesn't actually list anyone at all. Even limiting ourselves to B still gives a cast list of more than a dozen people. All other options make this unwieldy and an indiscriminate collection of information that transgresses NOTDATABASE. Chetsford (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC); edited 04:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • On Q1 Yes, absolutely
The skeptics demand evidence. There are different forms of evidence. One form is statements of government insiders, some of whom had high clearances (but were likely not read into every government SAP). In any case, knowing the names (and some of the background) of the people making the claims is IMO necessary. This is a documentary, so FILMCAST may not be totally relevant.KHarbaugh (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
"The skeptics demand evidence." I'd say this is countered by the spirit, if not necessarily the letter, of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Chetsford (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Q1: Yes, include all 34 interviewees. Per KHarbaugh. See full list of interviewees above in another talk section: #Cast of 34 insiders. Where in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Cast does it say we can't put the full cast in the article? WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says nothing about this. And WP:Wikipedia is not paper. We've got the room. We have room to add 9 more lines of text to complete the list of 34. Interviewees are the main point of the film, and they were in a position to know, or actually witnessed a crash retrieval or alien bodies themselves. There were many more people in the film from archival footage. They don't need to be listed. Those are the people listed after Karl Nell here:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt35520315/fullcredits
--Timeshifter (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
"where ... does it say we can't put the full cast in the article" It advises against it as a best practice: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so try to name the most relevant actors and roles that are most appropriate for the film". "Interviewees are the main point of the film, and they were in a position to know, or actually witnessed a crash retrieval or alien bodies" This is not relevant as no alien spaceships, nor alien bodies, have ever been seen by humans. Under our WP:PSCI policy as operationalized by our longstanding WP:QUACKS best practice we simply dismiss claims of space aliens sneaking around Earth and are not required to treat it seriously for purposes of article creation. Chetsford (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
From this Variety article about the film:
One of the key voices in the film is Jay Stratton, former Defense Intelligence Agency official and director of the government’s UAP Task Force. “I have seen, with my own eyes, non-human craft and non-human beings,” he says in the doc.
Also mentioned in this New York Times article about the film.
--Timeshifter (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Jay Stratton's claims are of no interest to me. Our articles are written from the baseline perspective that there are no space aliens playing pranks on ranchers in Utah. This is, I regret to tell you, not debatable here. You may be interested in uapedia.ai if you want to explore encyclopedia writing from a different perspective. Chetsford (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
"Our articles are written from the baseline perspective that there are no space aliens playing pranks on ranchers in Utah."
This is a pure Straw man argument.
That is, for example, not what Marco Rubio said was being reported to him. KHarbaugh (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NPOV. It reports that X says Y about Z. Alien bodies are reported by witnesses or people in a position to know in various articles: David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims. Walter Haut. Etc.. They include rebuttals too. So people can make up their own minds. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
No. We don't give equal treatment to people who think space aliens are flying around Earth so "people can make up their own minds". The belief that we do is irreconcilable with the ability to productively edit WP. I'm not interested in getting into a farrago about make-believe things like the Reptilians and Pleiadians and so forth, so will just leave it there. Chetsford (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia just reported what Walter Haut and David Grusch said. Just like Wikipedia is reporting what the 34 insiders said in the documentary. Along with rebuttals, skepticism, etc.. You can't use wiki-voice to proclaim that aliens don't exist in this article. That's against WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
there are no space aliens playing pranks on ranchers in Utah. "Oh you must never, never doubt what nobody is sure about"  :) Feoffer (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • On Q1 No. On Q2, I think that answer B is the most inclusive criteria that's really justifiable, which is not to say that it's my preference. I would honestly be happy with any solution that keeps the list short. Honestly, I think the best approach would be to mention notable guests (established using the criteria in option B) in-line in the synopsis section, where they appear in the film. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • On Q1 Yes. Key info here and no good reason to exclude. --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Q1 No Wikipedia isn't a collection of indiscriminate information, full cast lists aren't generally maintained for films and there's no reason for an exception here. I'll leave Q2 for others, but I would include cast members who are noted by RS even if they do not have an article (the criteria should be RS and not Wikipedia). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
    A full list of cast may sometimes but is not always a collection of indiscriminate information. It's not a list of indiscriminate information when the subject is an expert-interviews-based documentary where this info is key. Thus there's no reason for an exception here is now false. full cast lists aren't generally maintained for films Yes, not generally but it can be due and is due here. Examples of other documentaries where the cast is less important info but that still have the full interviewee cast include:
    It doesn't have to be a separate section and can also be in prose where just the missing ones are added in a sentence. This absolutely is key info here. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
    Yes as I said it's not normally maintained, and I don't see that there's a good reason that an exception should be made here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Q1: Yes, include all 34 interviewees. I agree with Timeshifter, and find the arguments to the contrary unconvincing. The names are important, so include them all. Jusdafax (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

  • The original discussion that necessitated this RfC is here. Chetsford (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
    There is also discussion, along with the full list of 34 interviewees, here: #Cast of 34 insiders. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
    Do all of the people listed having speaking roles in the film? Katzrockso (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
    Yes. I bought the film from Amazon. There are 34 interviewees in the film, the "34 government insiders" that the film poster is referring to, and they are listed in the credits. Their names are all listed in the film via captions, along with some of their credentials and titles. There are many other people shown via archival footage who weren't interviewed for this film. They are listed after Karl Nell here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt35520315/fullcredits ---Timeshifter (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. Per Guy's comments about The Phenomenon, the participant list has been prosified rendering the RFC a little moot. Feoffer (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
    That in no way makes the RfC moot. List all the cast/participants which have not been named with info about their relevant position(s) in the prose in a brief section then or by adding a paragraph that lists them to an existing section. The important thing is that all of the cast are named, if an article is available wikilinked, and their relevant expertise clarified – this is some of the key info in this article about an expert-interviews-based documentary and why it's useful, informative and encyclopedic in the first place. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
    It's just that the RfC is flawed because it asks Should every person who appears in this film be listed in the cast list? when be listed in the cast list is overspecific. Nevertheless, 1) arguments made in this RfC are relevant to whether or how they should be named in the prose 2) comments made in this RfC are relevant to whether a list format is used versus prose text. A list format has the advantage of being more overseeable and structured but it's also longer. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
    Well, let's figure things out. Who exactly is missing still, that's not somewhere on the article right now? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
    Still missing are: John Robert, Jim Semivan, Mario Woods, Chaz King, Terry Lovelace, Jeffrey Nuccetelli (see #Cast of 34 insiders).
    I think it would probably be best to include all 6 but if they're just featured briefly that would be reasonable argument against doing so and I haven't yet rewatched the film to see how extensively they're featured – however, I think Terry Lovelace and Mario Woods should definitely be mentioned. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
    Can I make a suggestion that could speed run any possible headaches and disagreements?
    This is an article about a documentary. It's not about UFOs, or the people in it, or their ideas. It's about a film. This paragraph is for everyone reading.
    @Prototyperspective can you check documentary articles about other films released in the past decade or so to see how they deal with their "extended named cast" and such? Probably be fastest to just look through all the Oscar nominees for the past decade. How are they done? What's the best example? Use that as our local paint-by-collars template.
    I'd imagine the winners would be a good template that cannot be argued against here locally, because, again, this is an article about a documentary film, so it has to fit the norms primarily of a documentary film article. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:14, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
    Already did so here. That was just a list of the ones missing so another editor could add them. Somebody else could do some research and do what you suggested; maybe even not now but years down the line. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Bogus claims of expertise

Running through the discussion of AOD we see claims of what "the experts" think. Here is a question: Has the earth been visited by extra-terrestrials? Just who is an expert on that? No one. I think we should acknowledge that. KHarbaugh (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Lol. There most certainly are experts. They are called astrobiologists and SETI scientists (though, lately, the term "SETI" is being deprecated in favor of technosignature searches). I can get you in touch with more than a few I know personally and there are literally thousands of pages of academic text you can read on the subject showing a severe lack of evidence that the Earth was ever visited by "extra-terrestrials". Even Avi Loeb in his more serious moments will admit that scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for visits even as he really, really wants to be the one who discovers evidence for such (and often makes hyperbolic claims to exactly that effect). jps (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
A minor comment:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
To put it another way:
The existence of some false alarms is not proof that all alarms are false.
More significantly, people should note the, generally ignored, specific statements of medical doctor Garry Nolan concerning biological damage he has observed.
Watch AOD after 28m40s in the AOD video.
How do you counter that? KHarbaugh (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
This isn't really what talk pages are for. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
While I agree with you, I do not appreciate people attacking the expertise of entire disciplines on these pages, and I do think that we have rules that are contraindicative for when someone posts inflammatory rhetoric like this. jps (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
There most certainly are experts. They are called astrobiologists and SETI scientists You make it seems and maybe believe that's all experts there are but astrobiologists are only about biosignatures and biological aliens in distant star systems and SETI scientists are basically only looking for radio-signals from distant star systems which also quite a narrow subtopic/field. You do mention the technosignature search caveat and Loeb is one of the experts that belongs to the broader conception of what is or used to be called SETI – others in that broader field for example include John Gertz (who also is a former chairman of the SETI Institute). The flaws I think are 1) that some are called experts who aren't really in the respective topic and 2) some are excluded/dismissed who are and 3) things are described as if there was one opinion or voice or conclusion of The Experts™ think or said when it's just a bunch of arbitrary individuals chosen/who happen to be featured in some sources and there is disagreement and varying views and conclusions etc where a relevant policy regarding the inclusion/coverage is WP:NPOV. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
SETI scientists are basically only looking for radio-signals from distant star systems which also quite a narrow subtopic/field. This just reads as though you have not been keeping up with the academic literature on technosignatures and SETI science. arxiv.org is free. Use it.
By the way, Loeb more-or-less refuses to interact with the scientists who are working in this field and this may be partially why he is so heavily criticized by the expert scientists working on technosignatures. jps (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Also, John Gertz is not a scientist nor an expert. While he does sit on the board of the SETI Institute and was its past chair, I hope you understand that board membership has little to nothing to do with the research programs at an academic institution. jps (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
we see claims of what "the experts" think. Here is a question: Has the earth been visited by extra-terrestrials? Perhaps of interest here is the work of the undeniable experts Adam Frank and Gavin Schmidt (see, for example, here and here). In brief: there is no evidence of an 'advanced' civilization, derived from alien visits or otherwise, on Earth prior to our own. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Expert depends on the subject. An astrobiologist like mentioned is as qualified as you can be to speak to the question of what alien life would or could be like. An astrobiologist is not an expert to speak to whether such an alien can get to Earth under the standard model of physics, but a physicist of the right sort can be. None of them are qualified to say shit with authority about dental or vaccine sciences. There are things in some articles on my user page that I would be considered an expert on. But certainly not others.
At a certain level, who is an expert on what is not your decision, or mine, or @ජපස's or anyone elses. Because like anything, that's an editorial decision that depends on sourcing. It depends on how they are used, and who identifies them as an authority too. For example, if I found a quote by John_Greenewald_Jr. about the Freedom of Information Act, and used it on any article, anyone challenging his authority on the topic would be 101% dead wrong based on this and the rest of his article: John Greenewald Jr.#Reception.
Would I cite him on things not about his own work or FOIA? No. Not even the things his site reports on, EXCEPT if it was about FOIA topics themselves. We have a bad habit of being overly liberal in allowing adjacent/parallel authoritative claims from 'experts' who are scientists on things they are not experts in. Is Joshua Semeter, a teaching academic of electrical engineering an expert on aliens and UFOs? No, he's not, unless he's also written a bunch of books or something on the topic, or worked for AARO, which he did, was recognized by the government as having done so, and also by the media. So we can claim authority for him to some level as an additional expertise. There are some people who really are multi-domain experts.
But if they are, if ANY challenge from ANY editor comes up, it must be proven from WP:RS. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Is Joshua Semeter, a teaching academic of electrical engineering an expert on aliens and UFOs? actually he is: https://www.bu.edu/eng/2025/01/17/taking-the-u-out-of-ufo/
Maybe research people a bit before you spout off. jps (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
In fact, I'd go as far as to say your contention is a WP:BLP violation. Maybe you should consider removing it as BLP applies even on talk pages. jps (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Maybe research people a bit before you spout off.
I literally called him an expert:
Is Joshua Semeter, a teaching academic of electrical engineering an expert on aliens and UFOs? No, he's not, unless he's also written a bunch of books or something on the topic, or worked for AARO, which he did, was recognized by the government as having done so, and also by the media. So we can claim authority for him to some level as an additional expertise. There are some people who really are multi-domain experts.
You may want to remember to read fully, WP:AGF, and as I mentioned on my talk, slow down. Let's keep this page civil. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Well, if your contention is that "No, he's not" is meant to be read as "Yes, he is", then would you do me the favor of editing that? Because I have a hard time parsing your meaning. jps (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
I'm not editing because it will be more confusing. This is the literal flow of the words I wrote:
  1. Is Semeter an expert an aliens or UFOs?
  2. Not unless he's recognized as one or in a discipline that is right in that lane.
  3. Electrical engineer = no
  4. Professor by itself = no
  5. Academic by itself = no
  6. Scientist by itself = no
  7. Engineer by itself = no
  8. If he wrote a bunch of books on the matter = probably
  9. If he was hired by the government as an expert on UFOs = yes
  10. Was he hired by the government as an expert on UFOs = yes
  11. Was he recognized by the media/WP:RS as hired by the government as an expert on UFOs = yes
  12. Are we allowed to say he's an expert in this lane on this article = yes
I was explaining to KTHarbaugh why under policy we did that. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Whatever, dude. Maybe think a little bit about how you come across in these spaces. Radical neutrality and slavish devotion to the "Wikipedia rules" tends to bleed over into WP:PROFRINGE sealioning which is the occupational hazard of your rhetorical position. I've seen this many times before on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Being blunt, you guys radically overcompensate in the other direction. Eveyrone has their biases and great wrongs to right But it's what it is. This is where a polite shrug emoji would go if this was a chat.
This article is doing more than fine presently. This has been a really good team effort overall. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
you guys radically overcompensate in the other direction I can't tell you how many times I've read the equivalent of that critique on WP talkpages. And you know what? People who argue this way have all gone away eventually -- more than most end up forced out. I'm not saying I'm a saint, but the immune system of this website seems to prefer what you are seeing as "overcompensation" as opposed to the WP:FALSEBALANCE approach. jps (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Again, we don't disagree. I don't know that we actually have but once. I do think we are too harsh on evolving sciences (with some good cause because there's too much stupidity) but get overly dogmatic on some topics. If there were WP:FALSEBALANCE type concerns or I were running around like a loon on the articles I'm currently working through, someone would have gutted them. But no one does, so it's not a problem. My goal is to green mark every page on the box on my user page. Fairness and fair play do matter, though.
This reminds of the almost bizarre level of anger even the "dry" versions of Christopher Mellon (such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Very_Polite_Person/sandbox&oldid=1318053480) seemed to actually what I'd call "anger" some folks. It's made me hesitant to look again at Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act, despite the fact I've learned we have Stop Online Piracy Act, Read the Bills Act, No Frills Prison Act, Equality Act (United States), Keeping All Students Safe Act, Decent Working Conditions and Fair Competition Act, and more (and more from other countries) of notable laws that died before even making any real legal anything.
I'd even considered taking the best written and sourced one, tossing it in my sandbox, and literally paint-by-colors a dry UAPDA article about about the law into it. Would that upset people, to have another GA track article? I don't want to admit my disappointment at the statistically probable answer. I just like writing accessible, fair, NPOV, and dense articles of the sort I'd prefer to read. I'm very good at breaking complex (you have no idea) ideas into digestible bits for non-expert audiences. That's how I volunteer here. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
you guys radically overcompensate in the other direction and the almost bizarre level of anger are both wrong and easily interpreted as violations of WP:PA. You have made your points repeatedly here, and truly, it isn't all about you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
You mistake the inertial apathy of this website for a kind of acceptance of your approach. That is a bad assumption. But it's clear that you aren't going to take my word for it, so I hope you learn whatever it is you hope to learn on your own. jps (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
An astrobiologist is not an expert to speak to whether such an alien can get to Earth under the standard model of physics, but a physicist of the right sort can be. Fuck right off with that one. I have yet to meet an astrobiologist with a PhD in astrophysics who could not speak with clarity and incisiveness about this subject. Astrobiologists who are not working on molecular biology or prebiotic chemistry are exactly the sorts of experts who are qualified to comment on exactly this. Fuck right off. jps (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

What makes someone an expert? Above jps wrote Is Joshua Semeter, a teaching academic of electrical engineering an expert on aliens and UFOs? actually he is: https://www.bu.edu/eng/2025/01/17/taking-the-u-out-of-ufo/ Semeter is a professor of electrical engineering, so he is presumably an expert on that, and served on the NASA Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent Study Team, so he is presumably knowledgeable about WHAT THEY WERE GRANTED ACCESS TO. I emphasize that because the way the security system works is that just having a certain level of security clearance isn't enough to grant you access to everything at that level. In addition, you have to have a "need to know", which in practice is usually zealously guarded. So just because Semeter was on that NASA panel, that in no way makes him an expert on what the U.S. knows. KHarbaugh (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

so he is presumably knowledgeable about WHAT THEY WERE GRANTED ACCESS TO This reads like a shifting goalpost, especially in light of your opening comment in this section. If your goal is to convince me that you are neutrally trying to improve this page, your method of argumentation is failing. If, instead, your goal is to convince me that you will not be satisfied with this article until it uncritically treats the claims within this film as facts, then you are succeeding.
I am telling you this as a sort of meta-commentary. If you will listen to this critique and adjust your methods to be more reasonable (such as by not denying that anyone could be an expert on UFOs/UAPs), you might find yourself making more headway. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
that in no way makes him an expert on what the U.S. knows. By this metric, literally no one can be an expert because if they say something you don't like, you can just say they don't have enough access or, if you think they do, then they are being intentionally evasive because of "the way the security system works". Very convenient for the believer. This is exactly the way the disclosure conspiracy theory works. It's a corrupt bargain all the way down and will be forever thus. jps (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Replying to VPP's comment above: you guys radically overcompensate in the other direction I feel like Bish, Jojo, and everyone else here have all come together and really made this a good article. It might feel a bit "adversarial", but the end product is pretty good. I would just caution everyone to try to Assume Good Faith -- both of skeptics and of UFO believers. "People Believe Weird Things"... but we have no reason to accuse any living person of intentional deception. Feoffer (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I genuinely am satisfied with the article at this time. We haven't actually really added anything new of substance since the late news about how well it's doing on Amazon. It's doubtful there will be too much more to do now but fine tuning. Some of these types of pages are like pulling teeth. This one has been cordial and pleasant. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
we have no reason to accuse any living person of intentional deception I don't know. I think Uri Geller has been intentionally deceptive, for example, and I don't think his champions including some who appear in this film have been honest in admitting that. jps (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, HP sincerely believes every thing he's saying. He's believed in Dianetics, Scientology, Operating Thetan, Remote Viewing, Psychic Spoonbending, extra-terrestrials, and even winning at the stock market or gambling using mind powers. A Type I error personified, but perhaps, but not a scamster. Feoffer (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Bob Lazar might be a better example than Geller. There is simply no way that Lazar was not knowingly lying about his own expertise and experiences. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, but Lazar isn't in The Age of Disclosure. jps (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
My point was that we absolutely have good reasons to accuse a living person of intentional deception. If we have sources that say that someone in the film is misrepresenting facts, we should state so clearly. If the sources imply it, then our article should imply it, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Important to remember Lazar entered UFOlogy as an element in the Doty-Lear campaign to distract Bennewitz and others from investigating nighttime stealth helicopter operations. Easy to imagine Lazar as a second try at making a Bill Moore: someone who initially believed some elements and then went on intentionally deceive others. Feoffer (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
I wish we had clearer explanations of exactly this available for readers. It confuses the hell out of so many people when they try to investigate these matters. jps (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Articles on Lazar and Walton are the two cases where I'm most mindful of BLP. I expect history will have more clarity on them than we/I can currently provide readers. Feoffer (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better if we deleted those articles. They are misleading tales. jps (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
If HP believes that Geller did not deceive him given Geller's rhetorical shift away from his previous claims of empirically demonstrable superpowers, then the appropriate designate for HP is one that questions basic intelligence. That seems even more "yikes" from a BLP perspective than the label of "deceptive". jps (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
appropriate designate for HP is one that questions basic intelligence I don't think we can speculate on the intelligence and/or wisdom of a living person. Feoffer (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
I don't really see any other option if willful deception is not in the offing. If someone tells you, "It was all fake." and you don't admit that it was all fake, what does that make you? jps (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Jay Stratton and Skinwalker stuff

I see this was added, albeit for unclear reasons. I cannot find a single source anywhere that we can use which includes "Jay Stratton", "Age of Disclosure", and Skinwalker-anything online. If it exists, please share it.

I'm not going to remove it, but a gentle question for my more-skeptical than me friends:

You sure you want to introduce mainstream film audiences for the best-selling/most-viewed documentary of all time on Prime, that beat Mission Impossible and Jurassic Park (latter especially!) on the platform, to Skinwalker? I'll just say it doesn't seem... tactically sound, if the goal is to keep people from "deeper water" type thingies. I'm just saying: you are promoting and amplifying Skinwalker ranch via a film that was obviously very well-received by general audieneces and is apparently in Oscar contention (if you read industry stuff that isn't RS). Just saying... I wouldn't make that chess move even if you tried to force me.

Up to you all if the passage fits under policy or not. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:09, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Just for math: right on page info, this article gets an average of it looks like 6000 visitors a day. The Skinwalker one gets maybe 300 a day. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI