Talk:Mick West

Neversoft

This article needs expansion, however brief, on his involvement and career as a video game developer and founder of Neversoft. The omission is a bit glaring, I initially reverted the link from Neversoft because nothing in this article suggested it was the same Mick. -- ferret (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

This Wikipedia entry is not worthy from the get-go and reads like the man has a professorship in everything conspiracy. Surely Wikipedia entries about (worthy) individuals are based on facts about the person, rather than yards of "debunked" conspiracies. By-the-way, the fact that Bill Gates is now openly talking about using chemical weather modification and the US government / UN were writing laws about using weather modification as war weapons in 1975 and China using the same during their Olimpics as well as insurance companies seeding clouds to lessen hail damage makes this man's stance somewhat flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.216.42 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

It would if he had ever denied any of those things. Since he hasn't, it doesn't. What he has denied is that there is any credible evidence of actual large-scale, secret use of aircraft to spray chemicals into the atmosphere for malign or controversial purposes.2A00:23C8:7906:1301:91B9:92EE:A0F7:F8DB (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Nationality

If I remember rightly (which is by no means certain) Mick West obtained United States citizenship some time after 2000. Added: since writing the previous sentence, I thought: don't be lazy, do a check. I found this online blog where Mick describes his naturalization procedure and ceremony:

http://mickwest.com/2009/03/26/naturalization-oath-in-pomona/   The article at present just describes him as 'British', as does the Nationality entry in the sidebar. I don't know what the Wikipedia rules say abut this, but I would think that 'British-American' would be more appropriate than simply 'British'.2A00:23C8:7906:1301:154B:8811:E60E:94A0 (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the article and used this as a citation. RobP (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

I believe a "criticism" section should be in order for West's page, as there has been much controversy relating to his involvement in formal "debunking" operations, specifically the UAP/UFO topic. Atreon (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

1. See WP:CSECTION.
2. Is there really criticism or just disagreement?
3. You will need good sources for that. Not UFO crackpots. See WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Building on Hob Gadling's comment, you added content claiming he has "faced criticism", then cited a source that said nothing about criticism of his work. You'll need a reliable source that actually discusses criticism. Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This source had a comment by West, "Eyewitness accounts are very difficult to analyze because they are subject to observation errors and memory errors." when referring to David Fravor.

This was to back up the sentence I wrote, "Those critical of West argue that his methods can be overly dismissive, particularly concerning credible UAP incidents reported by trained military personnel."

Does an entire source need to be critical of West to be able to be used? This comment he made exhibits exactly what was being referred to, regardless if the article was positive. I'm not bending any of his words or statements of those critical of him, I believe that it is valid. Atreon (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Atreon, if you don't have a reliable source that discusses West's work being criticized, there's nothing to add. You claim that his methods are "overly dismissive" then you cite what you consider to be an example of him being dismissive?? Please read WP:OR, in addition to the WP:FRINGE recommendation that I left on your talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the resources, I only saw your comment on my talk page after I posted this. I will make sure not to use any of my own words or summaries in the future. Atreon (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Atreon, just to be clear: content must be written in your own words, but it must summarize what reliable sources say, not include your thoughts or analysis on the matter. Schazjmd (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

And yet another new editor coming to edit in the area of pseudoscience. Mick West has had a lot of attacks on Reddit. Doug Weller talk 11:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not here because of anything on Reddit, only because of my interest in the topic of UAPs. And yes, god forbid anyone new come to Wikipedia to try to contribute to something they're interested in. Atreon (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s because people found out about the Guerrilla Skeptics of Wikipedia. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I will never believe such things exist unless you can show me unidentifiably blurry photos of same. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The Guerrilla Skeptics? I’m sure they got pics somewhere. After all, they know each other outside Wikipedia and go to the same conferences. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about this shadowy cabal. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Guerrilla Skeptics of Wikipedia? Dumuzid (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

No, I know mostly just what they’ve put out. Like how they’re required to undergo “training”. They’re basically LARPing actual clandestine activist groups. When word got out on social media about their existence, it led to editing and posts about it on social media. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

...so groups of Guerrilla Skeptics are out there walking about in places, pretending to be actual clandestine activist groups? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It’s because people found out about the Guerrilla Skeptics of Wikipedia. I hope those "people" soon "find out" about how good and bad reasoning works too. That one is even easier to find than GSoW. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

How about “Reception”, a la some other public figures? Betaparticle1002 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue is more that sources would need to be brought than the title of a proposed section. We'd need content to fill the section with first. MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The Hill probably. Maybe others. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Article contains incorrect wording.

"...and he investigates and debunks pseudoscientific claims and conspiracy theories such as chemtrails and UFOs." "West has been cited by a variety of media as an expert analyst on chemtrails, UFOs, and other conspiracy theories." These sentences are factually incorrect information, as UFOs are not considered conspiracy theories or pseudoscience. If the term UFO wants to be included, the sentences need to be reworded so they're not included in those categories. 192.161.78.199 (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not clear on whether the term has a position one way or the other. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

UFO is an acronym that stands for Unidentified Flying Object. Any object that is in the process of flight, and can't be immediately identified by a subject, would be considered an unidentified flying object. This does not necessarily imply that the object is of extraterrestrial origin.

An example of UFO being used in a non-extraterrestrial context is from the Wikipedia article ‘2023 Chinese balloon incident’. Here, the following statement is made regarding the Chinese weather balloons (at the time, originally considered UFOs before being retrieved): “The commander of United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), General Glen VanHerck, said that U.S. failure to detect and identify all such incursions is "a domain awareness gap that we have to figure out". In response, the U.S. changed the sensitivity of its radar detection systems, which enabled it to detect additional UFOs. The cited article for this statement (https://www.wired.com/story/spy-balloons-ufo-shot-down-us/) also uses the term UFO several times without the context of alien origins.

The term UFO is to describe flying objects that can’t immediately be identified. Thus, an unidentified flying object. UFO does not necessarily refer to anything related to something of alien origin.

Dictionary.com defines a conspiracy theory as: "a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot".

Dictionary.com defines pseudoscience as: "any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis."

Neither of these definitions apply to the broad term of UFOs. UFOs are neither a theory, nor necessarily tied to a specific group or organization. The study of UFOs would include identifying an object as man-made. Prior to the identification, it would have been an object, flying, and unidentified.

If we consider the broad term of UFO as a conspiracy theory, we would need to consider any broad term with aspects tied to conspiracies as a conspiracy. For example, money, government, religion, etc. 192.161.78.199 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

How about "...chemtrails, extraterrestrial origins of UFOs, and other conspiracy theories"? Schazjmd (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That still wouldn't be correct, as extraterrestrial UFOs aren't technically conspiracy theories or pseudoscience either. When you click the hyperlink for UFO, it links to an article (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Flying_saucer) in which the terms "conspiracy" or "pseudoscience" isn't even used. The point of this edit is that its current wording is misleading to the reader and may cause them to associate a debatable topic with a negative, unproven connotation. If we feel the term UFO must remain, because it's an important part of identifying Mick West, then it would need to be in separate clause. A factually and linguistically correct example would be: "He is the creator of the websites Contrail Science and Metabunk. He investigates and debunks pseudoscientific claims and conspiracy theories, such as chemtrails. Additionally, he is a noted skeptic of UFOs." 192.161.78.199 (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Try Unidentified flying object instead, perhaps. Dumuzid (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Or change it to Ufology, which is the article we have about the pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I need to address this from another angle. The article, as it is written, contains misinformation. That is, it is written in a way that is misleading to the reader and factually incorrect. Changing the hyperlink will not change this. So instead of these pithy comments, in which you completely dismiss my detailed explanations (none of which you've refuted), can you explain how we can address the misinformation in the article? I would appreciate some effort on your part. 192.161.78.199 (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Your problem seems to be based on your belief that ufology is not a pseudoscience. Is that correct? If yes, your belief is not in agreement with reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain to me in detail why my update was removed? "And he is a noted skeptic of UFOs" is an accurate sentence. In what way does it go against any Wikipedia guidelines? At this point, the updates are being removed due to someone thinking their opinion is more valid than accuracy. 192.161.78.199 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You have not established that the old version was not accurate. MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I literally have in every way it's possible to establish that it's not accurate. I have completely and utterly proven that the article is currently written in an inaccurate way. If you believe that I haven't, you are admitting that you have not read my other comments. You may be under the impression that the article was changed to say ufology instead of UFO. It has not. It still says UFOs. With the current wording of UFOs and the hyperlink pointing to flying saucers, it is inaccurate. I have proven this. Can we at least update the wording/hyperlink to ufology? 192.161.78.199 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Your other comments assert that it is not accurate, but they do not establish this. I assure you I have read your comments, I simply do not agree with your position. And since you haven't convinced others on the talk page, that means you do not have consensus support to proceed with changing the article. MrOllie (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I have, by definition, established my points as factual and accurate. Please Google the definition of 'establish' if you are unclear on it's meaning.

Let's try this one more time. The article currently says "he investigates and debunks pseudoscientific claims and conspiracy theories such as chemtrails and UFOs".

1. UFOs stands for unidentified flying object. 'UFO' is a neutral term for an unidentified object seen in the sky. By definition, a UFO in and of itself is not pseudoscience, nor is it a conspiracy theory. If you are unclear on why this is, please see my first comment above, where I share the definition of these words and why this is the case. If you have any questions about why the broad term of UFO is not pseudoscience or a conspiracy theory, please feel free to ask and I will expand on the reasons.

2. The hyperlink points to an article for flying saucers. Nothing in this article defends that the broad term of UFOs is pseudoscience or a conspiracy theory. The article itself does not mention these terms and doesn't assert that they are related. So why would we link to an article in which these subjects are not discussed, in a sentence that opines that they are related?

At this point, it's clear that you're fighting this for the sake of fighting. I will have to take this to the administrator notice board if this continues. 192.161.78.199 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You should probably read WP:BOOMERANG before you do so. MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you've yet to rebut anything I've said, and continue to post these pithy comments, says a lot about you. If you're allowed to play God here, and that behavior would be defended by Admins, then so be it. 192.161.78.199 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, "UFO" ceased to be a neutral descriptor almost from the moment it was coined. This is obviously one of the reasons for the 'rebranding' as UAPs, though I think that term already has similar problems. Take, for instance, the plethora of television shows and movies called "UFO" or some variation thereof--the great majority of which are explicitly about alien lifeforms (the British show from the '70s is my personal favorite). It doesn't make sense for an encyclopedia to turn a blind eye to semantic attachments that occur culturally, especially when they are as overwhelming as they are for "UFO." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is your opinion. Cheers. 192.161.78.199 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I should also mention, I've called out in previous posts that the term UFO is often used to describe terrestrial entities; even by our own government. Even in other Wikipedia articles. So I'm really not understanding why being more specific - and accurate - is a problem here. But I suppose that's what happens when you allow people with God complexes the ability to write history. 192.161.78.199 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed my opinion! Which is as pertinent as yours. Wikipedia runs on consensus. No matter how convincing you find your own arguments, if the weight of opinion is against you, you will not prevail. That's not a god complex, it is simply the way Wikipedia operates. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)