Talk:2007 Alderney UFO sighting

Note

Two UFO videos supposedly taken in the south of France the day after the Alderney sighting,[1][2] have been proven to be hoaxed.[3][4]. JMK (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Rays ufo in a 1995 video?

In 1995 tim edwards filmed a ufo in salida colardo that looks just like what ray described. This video is on the net and youtube. 118.208.116.32 (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Tags

I have tagged the article due to it being of pretty poor quality. I think the tags speak for themselves, but note that I have also started a thread on WP:FTN to discuss what to do about the cleanup that is required. jps (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Tags were removed without discussion. I have included a new tag just to make sure that the problem is made abundantly clear. Even if this article survives AfD, I see no WP:FRIND sources. jps (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Peacocking(?)

The sentence below has been tagged as peacocking:

According to The Times, Bowyer's report is "regarded as one of the most impressive and perplexing testimonies to have found its way into MoD archives"

WP:PEACOCK gives the following as an example of good practice to fix peacocking:

Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation"

The edit summary from User:ජපස read "The editor in question (you?) chose this quote to highlight. Why this quote? Why not another that was less puffy?". To answer that question, reporting subjective judgements from reliable sources is a normal device to help establish a subject's notability, as well as to demonstrate to the reader why an article's subject might be of interest to them.

Per WP:BRD, I'm seeking consensus as to the proper interpretation of WP:PEACOCK here, and whether the tag should stand. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Or... can you explain why this particular quote ought to be included twice in this article? What makes it worthy of inclusion? jps (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It is mentioned once in the body and once in the lead. That does seem reasonable, as the lead should follow the body. It clearly merits inclusion in the article as a judgment on the case's significance published in a newspaper of record. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Who cares whether a "newspaper of record" dropped the ball with careful vetting? Did any experts weigh in? jps (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The standard you're applying here is idiosyncratic, and I'd suggest bordering on WP:OR. If a source (such as the BBC, The Times, the New Yorker, the Telegraph...) is recognised by broad consensus as reliable, and you want to say that its contents are untrue, you need to find a high-quality reliable source that shows as much. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The standard you are suggesting is paraphilic and bordering on the idolatrous. Just because a newspaper is generally known to do good reporting does not mean that everything it has ever printed is beyond reproach. There are plenty of sources which identify this problem with mainstream media. It is why WP:NFRINGE and WP:SENSATION are written the way they are. jps (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a problem with User:ජපස tag-bombing on this page, as what seems to be part of an attempt to influence voting on a deletion discussion. Tagging of reliable sources such as the BBC and Evening Standard as unreliable is pretty bad. Tagging the pilot's statements as "contradictory" when they consist of direct quotations is unfathomable. This tag is intended for when the body text contradicts itself, not to highlight perceived differences between accounts of an event. This article's purpose is not to decide if these accounts are "true", but to relate what has been said about them in reliable sources. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

They are unreliable in this instance. We can see that because there are multiple sizes claimed. It's not my fault that the WP:SENSATION got the better of them. jps (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a misuse of the tag, though: it's a cleanup tag, and means that the article contradicts itself. Bowyer made contradictory statements. The contradictions come from him, not the sources, and are reported as such in the article. There's no contradiction between saying that Bowyer reported seeing something the size of an aircraft, and that Bowyer reported seeing something the size of a city: he made both claims at different times. I've been careful in the article to signal as precisely as possible when each claim was made.

The fact that Bowyer's account was contradictory is verifiable and important, because there's a fairly obvious explanation as to why his story doesn't stack up. If we "fix" that problem by removing the sources that show the contradictions, we make his narrative seem far more plausible, and would definitely have problems re. WP:DUEWEIGHT. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The article contradicts itself because it says that Bowyer reported seeing many different sizes and there is no source which identifies how to square that circle. Our job isn't to make his narrative sound pluasible nor implausible. Our job is only to report on the narrative inasmuch as reliable sources have noticed it. The fact that reliable sources did not vet this claim even to the basic fact-checking that one would do to determine plausibility means we are stuck with a contradictory set of quotes. The fact that this is left unadorned means we are in territory of the absurd. We can either find a source which resolves the situation or we can remove all mention of any size whatsoever. I don't see any alternative. jps (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That is an idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:RS. The article does not contradict itself, it shows that the language used by Bowyer changed. Both you and UndercoverClassicist find the statements on size to be contradictory, I find them potentially contradictory. A large town, to a Guernseyman, is not much different to the size of 5 battleships. Furthermore, it is well-established that witnesses' memories of events change with time, and are shaped by the process of remembering and recounting, as well as the questions they are asked. These are our opinions, which have no place in the article.

In any case, if, as you recognise, the inconsistency is in Bowyer's testimony as reported by reliable sources, there should be no clean up tags. I think we are done with regards to this question. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have little to add to User:Boynamedsue's points there, with which I agree almost fully: Guernsey's pretty small, but he flew to Southampton, which is a lot bigger than a few ships!

I feel as though we have a circular no true Scotsman situation here: first, JPS has suggested that there are no reliable sources for the claims made, then reliable sources have been found, then JPS has argued that no source which reports a claimed UFO sighting without also debunking it can be considered a true reliable source. As I've said many times in this discussion, JPS is putting forward a legitimate point of view, but one which contradicts the policies, guidelines and large-scale consensus of this site.

We have plenty of articles on events and phenomena with debated or contradictory testimony (see Interpretations of quantum mechanics or Resurrection of Jesus), and to hammer those into a single, coherent narrative would be intellectual dishonesty and, frankly, straightforward vandalism. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Re. Southampton, true, but Southampton is the biggest city on the South coast, rather than a "large town" :). Settlement classifications in the UK is a fascinating topic. I once walked 100 metres from St Helens town centre and asked someone the way to a certain place, I was told "you'd have to go into St Helens for that"! Boynamedsue (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

What you are missing here is that unlike the resurrection of Jesus or interpretations of quantum mechanics, we have almost no independent analysis of the ideas proposed for inclusion here. The standard for inclusion seems to be, "oh, it's a quote in the newspaper, so we can reprint it." That's a terrible standard when it comes to WP:FRINGE ideas that have otherwise been ignored. jps (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Does not include all significant viewpoints

I have removed the "does not include all significant viewpoints" tag, as I am unaware of any other viewpoints held in reliable sources that are not included. If a user is aware of any other viewpoints held on this UFO-sighting account by a reliable source which are not included in the article, they should add them. Or, alternatively, post them here and I will endeavour to add them myself. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

We're going to be on the horns of a dilemma here: multiple explanations have been discussed for this, but not in sources of the same quality as those currently used. To be specific, we're going to need to engage with David Clarke's work, as he has written and published widely on the topic: other editors have dismissed him as unreliable, though I must admit to not fully understanding the rationale for that judgement. Essentially, if we're going to insist on using the very highest of HQRS, we can't do much discussion as to attempted explanations; equally, if we're going to fully balance the article (and include some quite important details as to the events), we're going to need to include sources that have previously been controversial. My view is that those sources fit WP:HQRS and can be integrated, if used properly, but I think this conversation is best left until after AfD, particularly as some of the as-yet-unsettled points of contention at AfD are important to it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So there is a secondary question of whether viewpoints can be considered reliable, and if they are, whether WP:FRINGE etc. might come into play? Boynamedsue (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

More or less: it'll be clearer to work this out when there are some concrete examples, and I'm reluctant to do the leg-work of writing them all out in present circumstances, partly for the reasons above, and partly seeing the possibility of having it all deleted. However, the present issue in AfD as to the distinction between "a source good enough to report that a claim/interpretation has been made and is notable" and "a source good enough to prove the truth of that claim" will have a substantial bearing on how many of these theories can be included. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The truth of the claim actually is immaterial. The question is whether there has been third-party notice of the claim to the extent that would be required to have it properly evaluated. That is the whole point of having WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with a great deal of that. More precisely, the standard of this website is WP:VERIFIABILITY:

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight. ... All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.

In other words, we need to establish whether reliable sources have reported the claim to the extent that we can verify that the claim was made. It sounds to me like you're saying that we can't report a claim unless we can also solidly report whether that claim was true or not: if that's correct, it's a higher standard than used here. It would also have a rather chilling effect on articles about inherently unfalsifiable claims, such as God, the ultimate fate of the universe, natural rights and so on, so it's fairly clear that it isn't and can't be the way that Wikipedia operates.

NB that "directly supports the material" in this context would mean "directly supports that the claim or statement was made", not "directly supports the truth of the claim". After all, we have important articles on claims that are known to be untrue - Holocaust denialism springs to mind - where we report the verifiable facts that the claims have been made, without giving credence to them or presenting them in the encyclopaedia's voice.UndercoverClassicist (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Just because a statement was verifiably made does not mean we are under any obligation to publish that fact. The point is that there is an editorial decision to be made about which of the many, many verifiable quotes from this pilot should be included in this article or in Wikipedia in general. Simply parroting everything the pilot said is obviously absurd, but choosing particular statements needs to be done on the basis of third-party notice. This goes beyond simple reporting of the quotations. In the case we are outlining, we have a lot of indications that the pilot has said contradictory things, but essentially no reliable source that has done the simple matter of pointing this out. As such, we do not have good evidence that this particular verifiable fact is WP:PROMINENT enough for inclusion. jps (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You are starting from two false premises here. The first is that the event can't have happened, therefore unless a source states it didn't it can't be included in wikipedia. What happened here is several reliable witnesses made a claim, that is what the RS are reporting. The second is that WP:GNG can be suspended in cases relating to unexplained phenomena, even when no fringe theories are mentioned. In this case, no fringe theories are mentioned, UFO does not mean "alien spacecraft", it means "Unidentified Flying Object". Boynamedsue (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, little to add, but I think it's worth reemphasising that the article does not say that Bowyer saw aliens, and no editor here would suggest that he did. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Subtext, of course, is that UFOs are always WP:FRINGE whether we would like that to be the case or not. It's kinda a WP:RGW situation here. I have no doubt that the erstwhile attention paid to this pretty anodyne report is due to the sensationalism surrounding UFO claims in general. That's my biggest concern here: that we don't fall into the traps that caused otherwise high-quality sources to end up overemphasizing testimony that lacks any context whatsoever. jps (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

stationary object

Kelly further noted that a stationary object would not have shown on radar, but been filtered out as background noise. What a terribly cherry-picked and leading question answer to include! Do you know what else does not show up on radar? Nothing at all. Fix this or I'll put on a toofewopinions/NPOV tag. jps (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• It's important given that Bowyer claimed that Kelly had told him it was on radar; Kelly is pretty clearly saying that he didn't say that, or at least not as straightforwardly as Bowyer suggested. That part of the article follows HQRS; {{too few opinions}} means that there are other opinions expressed in HQRS that aren't included. If you've found some, edit them in and cite them. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you just identified the two opinions here: Bowyer saying he was told by Kelly it was on the radar and Kelly saying that he told Bowyer that it wasn't. And once again we are faced with the lunacy of trying to write an article based on interview testimony. Wouldn't it just be easier to say that there was no reported radar detection and leave it at that? The back-and-forth is just way too in the weeds for this sort of non-thing. jps (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No; we've got (here) two versions of the same story. It would be WP:OR to try to hammer them into a single narrative that makes sense without a source that does so. It might be that Kelly told Bowyer something slightly different (that he had a radar contact, but not that it was what Bowyer thought: indeed, in Clarke's transcript in his book, Kelly says he's got something on his radar that he thinks is metereological). It might be that one or both of them lied, or misheard: unless we have a reliable source that can resolve the contradiction, it's WP:OR to attempt to do so ourselves. Remember, the point of this article isn't to establish whether an alien vessel flew or didn't fly over Alderney, it's to describe the events and significance of a reported sighting of an unidentified object or phenomenon. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You're missing my drift. What we have are multiple versions of the same story. What we don't have is an accounting that multiple versions even exist (no source actually acknowledges the contradictions). In situations like this, surely the best approach is to excise the prose completely since no source seems to be bothered enough to actually do the work of comporting the accounts. We cannot do WP:OR, but we are under no obligation to report obvious contradictions uncritically when the option is there to simply remove the detail. jps (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying that we need a single source containing both versions; I don't see that anywhere in the policies or guidelines. The most relevant document I can see is WP:DUEWEIGHT, which has Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Since both versions are significant, and both are found in published, reliable sources, both should be included. I share your frustration that we don't have more, more thorough sources, but the current approach is the correct one given the source material currently available and the policies and guidelines governing this website. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how to put it any more plainly: we can simply cut down the prose. We don't need to go into detail including everything that everybody said about radar. We can just say, "there was no radar detection reported". All the sources we have agree with that. e.g. jps (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you've gone a bit far: we can't simplify the whole thing to 'no contact was reported', because that isn't true: Bowyer reported that there was radar contact, and it's clear enough in Clarke's transcript that Kelly did tell him that something was on his radar, but that he wasn't sure what it was (and so could neither say that it was or wasn't an aircraft). With that said, I've cut the background noise comment: there's trade-offs to doing so, but it may be the right balance between completeness and avoiding giving false impressions of certainty or uncertainty. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have seen no account of radar contact in the MoD report. Can you point to it? jps (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Because you reverted my edit, I am re-introducing the excessive detail tag. You claim that these accounts by non-experts over radar are "significant viewpoints". They are not. They are ludicrous machinations by outlets sensationalizing stories that no one bothered to fact check. Congrats. jps (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear on the "content no longer exists" (this is the place to discuss it, not my user talk page; it's about this article): the sentence Kelly further noted that a stationary object would not have shown on radar, but been filtered out as background noise is no longer part of the article. I'm afraid you got your response above in while I was typing my explanation here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

My objection goes further than that. I think all the discussion of radar is over-WP:WEIGHTed. As I pointed out above, there is no discussion of radar in the report and I fail to see why we should dwell on it at all since, well, there was no reported radar detection by anyone. You say that Bowyer "reported that there was radar contact", but I cannot verify that this is true. I can only verify that he said that this was the case. That is hardly "reporting". jps (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

1409:54, AL: Roger, I've got a very bright object, er, [unintelligible word], well, as I say it's
difficult to say how far, extremely bright yellow, orange object, straight ahead,
er, very flat platform, looking at it through binoculars as we speak.
1410:10, JZ: A-Line 544, rog, I do have a, er, primary contact now, er, very faint primary
contact, just to the left probably to your 11 o'clock this time and a range of, er,
about 4 track miles.
1410:31, AL: Roger.
1411:07, AL: A-Line 544, any more information on that aircraft please?
1411:11, JZ: A-Line 544, er, negative, there's just a primary contact [that/but?] we
sometimes get anaprop on the radar. There is something possibly your left, er,
10 o'clock at a range of 3 miles this time.
1411:26, AL: I've got a definite contact, my 12 o'clock, very bright yellow object looking
like, well, a cigar.
1411:38, JZ: A-Line 544, er roger, nothing at all in your 12 o'clock, erm, for the next 40
miles or so.

I realize the radio transcript is a primary source but this appears to be the interaction that is mentioned in various sources (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2KOrjmsDRc 1:12). Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This ambiguous exchange gets repurposed into all our sentences about a radar detection (or lack thereof)? Sigh. I'm sure the UFO-excited read this and say, "SEE! A DETECTION BY RADAR!" while I read the same transcript and say, "wut." Yet another reason why we probably shouldn't be going into any detail whatsoever about this. WP:SENSATION has really gone out of its way on this one. jps (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Slow motion edit war

I have gone back to a version that doesn't include what I argue is essentially a WP:PROFRINGE quote trumpeting the beliefs of a UFO believer who happens to write for The Times as worthy of essentially top-billing at Wikipedia. I reject that completely and, no, I do not think it suffices as a HQRS requiring some sort of quote. "OOOH THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING SHIT EVER!" said the journalist who is hoodwinked by UFOs is not the direction I think is productive for Wikipedia. YMMV, but if it does, I think we ought to have it out. jps (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a rather clear case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. And classifying Matthew Campbell as a "UFO believer" is almost certainly a BLP violation, that policy also applies to talk pages. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

As noted on the AfD, WP:HQRS is primarily based on the editorial systems of the publication, and the number of people reviewing it for factual accuracy and legal compliance, not individual Wikipedia editor's judgements of an individual journalist. Discounting a journalist writing for a publication overwhelmingly considered reliable, on the basis of personal opinion or investigation, is simply WP:OR. The comments from numerous users at AFD make clear that the sources currently cited are considered reliable by both local and Wikipedia-wide consensus; removing those sources in the absence of consensus to the contrary is a straightforward violation of WP:DUEWEIGHT. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is possible for a journalist's judgement to be colored by new or old unconscious biases. This journalist may be known for having these biases, and producing content based on those biases. So, I have to agree with jps in this instance. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

From the lead: The sighting was mentioned in stories published by the BBC, The Daily Telegraph, The New Yorker and The Times... Unless a third-party source has published this list of 'who covered the story', this isn't something we'd showcase in the lead. The sentence goes on to highlight that the UK Times described it as "one of the most impressive and perplexing testimonies to have found its way into MoD (Ministry of Defence) archives". Unfortunately the story is behind a paywall, but from the visible subheads it seems clear that they are describing the UFO believers testimonies as impressive in their commitment, devotion, single-mindedness, etc. and not any expert commentary or analysis of evidence. I would remove that whole sentence from the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Gotta agree with removing that sentence. This list is not published by a third party source and not suitable for the lead, or even in the body of the article. Also, the quoted "...impressive...perplexing" statement is not expert commentary from an independent third party and should also be removed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

No objection to the removal of the list, unless there is a source which gives a similar list. The case for the removal of Campbell's statement hasn't been made. If it describes Campbell's opinion it should stay, I don't think we can come to the conclusion it doesn't from the basis of section headings. It would be helpful if UndercoverClassicist could link the relevant text. --Boynamedsue (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The way it's written, it sounds like the editorial board of the Times concluded this was one of the most impressive and perplexing testimonies to have found its way into MoD archives. A superlative like this would need to be WP:SUBSTANTIATEed, e.g. ("According to Matthew Campbell..."). If it describes Campbell's opinion it should stay. We work by WP:CONSENSUS here. I'm not convinced this single journalist's opinion must be showcased in the lead. Does it represent the opinion of the majority of journalists or experts? And whose "testimony" is he referring to? Is it one person in particular or many people? And what is the substance of such testimony? Without context, Campbell's opinion is misleading. I don't think it should go in the lead. It would be perfectly fine to go in the article body with appropriate attribution and context. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

In context, the quotation is An exception is Ray Bowyer, a civilian pilot who saw peculiar objects as he was flying from Southampton to Alderney in the Channel Islands on April 23, 2007. The report he filed is regarded as one of the most impressive and perplexing testimonies to have found its way into MoD archives, along with the famous Rendlesham Forest incident in 1980 in which US airmen stationed at RAF Woodbridge claimed to have seen a UFO. In a sense, the editorial board did (through their delegated representatives) do exactly what User:LuckyLouie describes, in that they signed off on that sentence being printed in their newspaper in its own voice: not as an opinion "I think that this is..." but as if a straight statement of fact. The "is regarded as" fairly unmistakeably means that the writer and the editors who signed off on the piece) regard this as a widely-held belief, not simply Campbell's own judgement.

Edited to add: I would likewise support the removal of the list of sources: no secondary source has said "it has been reported in...", and so it's editorialising to say so. For the same reason, as a HQRS has said that it's regarded as in the quote above, that should be included. There's simply no way to dismiss it as an individual's personal opinion without dismissing The Times (not just this article) as a reliable source, which would be rather iconoclastic and require much broader consensus than we can generate here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing the Times as a reliable source. However someone said something in The Times doesn't guarantee inclusion in the lead of an article. Especially if it's a one-of-a-kind opinion that isn't widely supported (or even repeated) in the rest of the mainstream press. Also, I'm not sure how you come up with a newspaper writer's opinion automatically represents the entire editorial board of the newspaper, but I certainly don't agree with that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

For further context, one of the BBC articles quotes an MoD source as saying This is one of the most intriguing sightings I've heard about in recent years. So we've got the Times reporting it as a widely-held view, and the same view in a second national source: I don't think we can therefore call it a "one-of-a-kind opinion that isn't widely supported or repeated in the rest of the mainstream press", since it's both supported and repeated by the most mainstream source in the UK. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info,UndercoverClassicist. I think on balance this is enough evidence to keep the quote. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Until there is notice of this quote by someone else, I fail to see why it should exist in the lede. I have removed it from the lede. I am toying with removing it from the article entirely. The arguments in favor of including it look vaguely like an attempt to put WP:PEACOCK in the article sheltered by quotes. jps (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted that change: there's quite clearly no consensus here to remove, so that move should not be made unilaterally: WP:BRD goes in that order, after all.

WP:PEACOCK applies to the words chosen by editors, not our sources, which are not required to maintain a neutral tone. In fact, WP:WORDSTOWATCH explicitly includes: Strive to eliminate flattering expressions, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view unless those expressions are part of a quote from noteworthy sources (emphasis mine). As for why the quotation is in the lead: MOS:LEAD is fairly clear:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead ...

The quotation is an important point of the article and a pithy statement of the topic's noteworthiness. As discussed above, it echoes a view expressed in other sources cited. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I see no third-party notice of this quote. Until you provide this, you have no attestation to the significance of the quote excepting your own prejudice. jps (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)