Talk:Area 51: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Area 51 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Paranormal 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.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Nevada (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Airports This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the airport project.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 14, 2009.

Welcome to the English Wikipedia, please note that the only language allowed here is English, and that talk pages are for discussions towards improving the article. Xerxes1337 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Area 51. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130512063545/http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2008/080110area51.html to http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2008/080110area51.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By that, I mean this line, "Publicly available satellite imagery, however, reveals clearly visible landing strips at Groom Dry Lake, but not at Papoose Lake." under UFO and other conspiracy theories. The line right before that states how the "Cheshire Strip" is supposedly camouflaged, and can only be revealed when wet. Might I suggest the removal of this line? 2602:304:CDC0:C2A0:44CF:6F91:C31A:71AD (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What is redundant? Moriori (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moriori It's obvious the airstrip wouldn't be visible as is the airstrips at Area 51, or any other air strip. Saying "However, the Chesire Airstrip is not visible in public satellites imagery at Area 51, but not Papoose Lake" is the same as saying it doesn't exist. Well of course it's not going to appear to satellites if it is supposedly "camoflauged". The odds of a satellite that is taking photographs being over the Nevada desert when the Chesire Strip would be supposedly visible is very, very slim. 2602:304:CDC0:C2A0:3579:A016:666E:C69 (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question is UFO and other conspiracy theories and the text reads: "Many of the hypotheses concern underground facilities at Groom or at Papoose Lake (also known as "S-4 location"), 8.5 miles (13.7 km) south, and include claims of a transcontinental underground railroad system, a disappearing airstrip (nicknamed the "Cheshire Airstrip", after Lewis Carroll's Cheshire cat) which briefly appears when water is sprayed onto its camouflaged asphalt,[61] and engineering based on alien technology. Publicly available satellite imagery, however, reveals clearly visible landing strips at Groom Dry Lake, but not at Papoose Lake." All of this is cited to an archive of something called "www.serve.com" that appears to be someone's private musings about UFOs - and not a WP:RS so it should probably be pruned. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US law is hardly my "lay opinion". You cannot photograph defense installations, or any part thereof without permission from the relevant authorities. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is the text of the cited law, not an opinion. It's your opinion that these pictures run afoul of it. Cite reliable interpretations of that law that show that displaying these pictures is illegal. You can see these kinds of pictures on a number of American sites (news sites, stock photo collections, etc.), so I'm disinclined to agree with your interpretation. --Xanzzibar (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Really? Your defense is "Well, I don't think it's illegal! *sticks out tongue*". I'd rather we simply made an effort to comply with US law instead of finding out the hard way one day. Perhaps the stock photo sites and news sites are also violating the law. I'll use an example with copyright violations, since it's the only form of illegal content that people here can be bothered to care about: when we see a copyright violation, do we just leave it there until someone files a DCMA notice because it's only our "opinion" that it's a copyright violation—or do we do the decent thing and take it down? Regardless, I decided last year that I will not participate in any website that flagrantly hosts illegal content. I left Commons for that reason, I would not want to leave Wikipedia for that reason too. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto does not sound like "everything" to me. This is a question where Wikilegal's input is necessary, IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no valid reason for removing a photograph of a sign saying "photography is prohibited" immediately after the words "beyond this point". Such images have been broadcast on television programs and exist all over the internet. Although it is illegal to photograph some US military facilities ("certain vital military and naval installations") without permission, Wikipedia didn't take this photograph, so our concern should be limited to copyright status, as others have said. - MrX 16:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else breaking the law is not an excuse for us to do it. There are thousands of murderers, but that does not make it okay for me to go out and kill someone. And it certainly does not say "beyond this point", just that photography is prohibited, period. But whatever, I am done with this illegal website. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not made a convincing argument that displaying the image is breaking in law. It would be shame if you quit editing Wikipedia because of this.- MrX 18:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]