Talk:Phoenix Lights

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Suggested Edit

Hi Talk page! First, thank you for reviewing my recent edits.

I recently altered the lead to read "The sightings have been explained by investigators as..." in order to synchronize the style of the lead with that of the body, which uses a similar attributive style (i.e. "According to Sheaffer... both were the result of... Operation Snowbird").

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV generally advises that an article's conclusions are more optimal when wrapped in attributive voice rather than asserted directly in Wikivoice. We can improve the consistency of this article's styling while supporting WP:VERIFY by moving to an alternate wording (which does not alter the conclusion posed by Sheaffer et al.)

Also would be interested to perhaps hear alternate wording for the sake of clarity and compliance. Angilas (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV generally advises... WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV concerns biased statements of opinion. You feel the Sheaffer source is a biased opinion? What is the source biased against? - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

When WP:Wikivoice is used to assert a conclusion on an article that has any lingering controversy over facts, then yes, the tone becomes quasi-opinionated.

To be frank, using Wikivoice this way makes the article sound like a blog post as opposed to a bona fide Wikipedia article.

The source from James McGaha and Joe Nickell is a good counterexample. It has well studied hypotheses that take into account perceptual phenomena and the operating procedures of military craft. There is an extremely good chance their research is rock solid. But if you'll read the source, you'll notice that they are not unequivocal enough in their conclusions to even remotely justify unattributed Wikivoice. From the article:

• "stars being blocked out by the perceived craft were probably due to"
• "that evidence is supported by [an amateur astronomer]"
• "[the transponder] may well have been turned off"

And no shade to Sheaffer, but McGaha and Nickell do take a more academic approach to the problem by presenting their well-founded hypotheses qua hypotheses and not foregone conclusions. Because we don't even know with certainty which airplanes are implicated based on our own list of reliable sources... the sources vacillate between A-10s and T-37s... meanwhile the Wikipedia article in unattributed voice has chosen A-10s by fiat because Sheaffer's source is less cautiously worded in his approach than McGaha, Nickell, and yes... the one who actually ostensibly saw them, Mitch Stanley.

And if we have some sources that present their well-founded hypotheses equivocally and some unequivocally, I'm sorry, that means we're probably less justified to default to the latter without flying into WP:NOR territory.

It would be the simplest thing in the world to (pardon the pun) "course correct" on this problem. Just add attribution to the lead. Attribution can still be vigorously and emphatically in support of the mainstream skeptical explanation without watering it down:

• Strong: "The sightings have been explained by investigators as"
• Stronger: "Investigators have confirmed the sightings as"
• Even stronger: "Investigators, in an overwhelming consensus, have confirmed the sightings as"

Attributed, but still very conclusive.

And it reads like Wikipedia.

But by golly, if this bad habit of defaulting to unattributed Wikivoice in the lead of WP:FRINGE articles continues, this part of Wikipedia is bound to become Wikiblogia. Angilas (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

assert a conclusion on an article that has any lingering controversy over facts I believe the only "lingering controversy over facts" in this case involves sensational, non-WP:FRIND sources. That people make a buck promoting these "controversies" does not endow them with encyclopedic reliability.

using Wikivoice this way makes the article sound like a blog post No, it does not.

this part of Wikipedia is bound to become Wikiblogia No.

IMO your suggested edits serve not to clarify the topic, but rather (as already pointed out to you here) to water-down the mainstream consensus. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

"IMO your suggested edits serve not to clarify the topic, but rather (as already pointed out to you here) to water-down the mainstream consensus."

There is a certain irony in chiding me for trying to attribute the conclusion of an article to the "mainstream consensus" while literally referring to said conclusion as the "mainstream consensus". Angilas (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

If there is any irony here, it is that your attempts to attribute established, mainstream facts serve only to cast doubt upon those facts (see WP:BLUE). I suspect that you will not achieve consensus for those edits, but you never know. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLUE applies about as well to this article as it would to King Arthur.

To wit, we are almost 100% sure that King Arthur does not exist. There is well established research and investigation to consider this almost a foregone conclusion. But note how the lead is worded in his article:

• "the Annales Cambriae and the Historia Brittonum … date to 300 years after he is supposed to have lived, and most historians who study the period do not consider him a historical figure."

This lead provides attribute to the mainstream consensus.

This sounds like Wikipedia. Angilas (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

No, our King Arthur article begins "King Arthur was a legendary king of Britain", it does not attribute that fact as an opinion of anybody. And before you argue that "legendary" can have meanings aside from the mythical, please, such maneuvering is not going to work here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually, this is the beginning of the lead to the King Arthur article:

• "King Arthur (Welsh: Brenin Arthur; Cornish: Arthur Gernow; Breton: Roue Arzhur; French: Roi Arthur) was a legendary king of Britain. He is a folk hero and a central figure in the medieval literary tradition known as the Matter of Britain.
• In Welsh sources, Arthur is portrayed as a leader of the post-Roman Britons in battles against the Anglo-Saxons in the late 5th and early 6th centuries. He first appears in two early medieval historical sources, the Annales Cambriae and the Historia Brittonum, but these date to 300 years after he is supposed to have lived, and most historians who study the period do not consider him a historical figure."

As you can see, we get ^attribution to the mainstream consensus by the end of paragraph two. Whatever your definition of legendary, whether hyperliteral, vague, or Stinson-esque, it's arguably irrelevant... but for a different reason that you mentioned. Because we do have within the lead the expected attribution eventually.

And this is the beginning of the lead to Phoenix Lights article:

• "The Phoenix Lights (sometimes called the "Lights Over Phoenix") were a series of widely sighted unidentified flying objects observed in the skies over the southwestern U.S. states of Arizona and Nevada on March 13, 1997.
• Lights of varying descriptions were seen between 7:30–10:30 p.m. MST, in a space of about 300 miles (480 km), from the Nevada line, through Phoenix, to the edge of Tucson. Some witnesses described seeing what appeared to be a huge carpenter's square-shaped UFO containing five spherical lights. There were two distinct events involved in the incident: a triangular formation of lights seen to pass over the state, and a series of stationary lights seen in the Phoenix area.
• Both sightings were due to aircraft participating in Operation Snowbird, a pilot training program operated in winter by the Air National Guard out of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona."

As you can see, the difference is knight night and day. Angilas (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

expected attribution eventually Phoenix lights has such details in the body, just not in the lead, because we don't require attribution for uncontroversial statements of fact. Which source(s) in the article do you feel is making "biased statements of opinion" which requires WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It would appear your last post may fall short of justifying your current one. Namely,

• "article begins "King Arthur was a legendary king of Britain", it does not attribute that fact as an opinion of anybody"

Upon seeing said article's later attribution to the mainstream consensus, your current post reads:

• "Phoenix lights has such details in the body, just not in the lead, because we don't require attribution for uncontroversial statements of fact."

Now, you went out of your way to take a rigid interpretation of the word "legendary". So this means that you've pretty much established your perspective that a fact opens the King Arthur lead which denounces his historicity, which is shortly thereafter (in the very same lead) followed by an attribution to the mainstream consensus.

So, what's different here?

Is it your contention that there are both "uncontroversial statements of fact" and "controversial statements of fact", and that Pheonix Lights falls into the former category and King Arthur falls into the latter?

Because if so, please again see my previous response here for why the Phoenix Lights article's conclusion arguably cannot represent a WP:BLUE-grade "uncontroversial statement of fact". Angilas (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. I don't see any sources making "biased statements of opinion" which require WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You have made your points several times, and we are now heading into WP:BLUDGEON territory. I suggest that we now wait to determine if a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of your desired edits will emerge. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)