Talk:Operação Prato

Inaccurate translation

I think the translation of the name isn't accurate. I am brazilian and my first language is portuguese. I am pretty sure that Prato does not mean saucer and it never has. It means Plate, as in the things you eat from.

I think maybe the translation of the name should be corrected. 187.102.214.6 (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Nohomers48 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But isn't a saucer a plate? 206.81.194.58 (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not inaccurate. I am also Brazilian, and I get the feeling the OP doesn't know English very well, or lacks knowledge in translation best practices.
Prato means plate, and saucer would literally translate as pires (that's its current use, the small plate that goes under a teacup. In the past it has been used to mean a bowl or plate that is used for serving sauces, but this hasn't been the case for a long time). But literal translations are not always optimal, and it isn't in this case. Prato was chosen because of its shape, not because of its function. A saucer has the same shape as a plate, and it is the word commonly used to describe plate-like shaped objects in the sky. VdSV9•♫ 15:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operação Prato. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20131217083816/http://revistapiaui.estadao.com.br/edicao-83/esquina/no-principio-era-um-chuchu to http://revistapiaui.estadao.com.br/edicao-83/esquina/no-principio-era-um-chuchu

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

December 2018, article review

(Moving this here from WP:FTN). The general quality of the sourcing is poor, i.e. WP:SENSATIONAL tabloid-style stories (of which even reputable sources sometimes indulge in) and at least three citations are to the mystery-monging Brazilian TV program Linha Direta. After reading English translations of the first few sources, it appears the Brazilian military investigated rural UFO reports in the late 1970s and saw a few lights but found nothing to support tales of aliens and flying saucers attacking villagers with light beams (i.e. "found no unusual phenomenon"). Years later, a local UFO club got hold of a few pages of the military report and made much ado in the press about some blurry photos of lights that are spectacularly inconclusive. Given the breathless WP:SENSATIONAL nature of Brazilian media UFO stories in general, and the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims (government UFO coverup, etc) promoted by UFOlogists, the article should give little or no WP:WEIGHT to fringe assertions originated by UFOlogists, e.g. Jacques Vallee. We have briefly mentioned his opinion — with proper attribution ("according to UFOlogist Jacques Vallee...") — in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

So you were editing the article before reading the sources? And you still haven't read the book by Vallée (also what is the purpose of adding a label in front of his name, when he has an article of his own readers can click on)?

Where in the sources is the statement you have written that they found no unusual phenomena. If you find the quotation in the source to support this, then add it in the footnote. Reading all the sources which are cited, none of the current ones state this in any way. WP:Fringe isn't a license to write sentences which are not supported, and contradicted, by the references cited at the end of the sentence. You need the sources to match the text, and at the moment they are in contradiction. See the Portuguese version of the article as well - we should probably ask those editors if they can help to edit the English version.

Can you understand the problem here is not whether this case is valid, or whether it is absurd. The problem is we are saying "it found no unusual phenomenon", when the Brazilian Air Force did not say this. Moreover, you are now removing what the leader of the Operation stated about the Operation, from the article. His opinion is notable to the Operation. His opinion may or may not be valid, but it is simply notable, due to his relation to the Operation.

Also where in the article is the claim of government coverups. The article was edited to match what the sources cited in the article said, and then you reverted those changes. If you wish to change the text, then what's needed first is to find the relevant sources that support the changes.

"Years later, a local UFO club got hold of a few pages of the military report and made much ado in the press about some blurry photos of lights that are spectacularly inconclusive."

That is also factually false, as the area was evacuated for three months by the military, air-space was closed down during the operation, and they openly discussed their findings at the time. Again, read the sources before editing the article. If you find something about the local UFO club, feel free to add it to the text (where supported). RobertGraves (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

"Associação Fluminense de Ufologia" and "www.ufo.com" are fringe and not WP:FRIND independent or reliable sources. I have removed them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Why hasn't the Portuguese page https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Prato which is extensive, been translated into English?

And why is a biased skeptic allowed to edit this page? 174.165.128.85 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Plate vs. Saucer

It's obvious the name was intended to be "Operation Saucer", referring to the popular use of the phrase "flying saucer" for UFO. However, well-meaning editors sometimes correct it to read "Operation Plate". There may not be a Portuguese word for the small plates known as saucers, I don't know. I propose changing the opening sentence to read: Operation Saucer (Portuguese: Operação Prato; literally, Operation Plate). What do you think? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I also think saucer is better, especially that the English Yahoo News source uses that too... —PaleoNeonate – 14:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I noticed you also added plate, maybe keeping both is even better afterall, —PaleoNeonate – 16:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is/was that Portuguese-speaking editors come along, see Prato, and change it to what they know is the correct translation, i.e. Plate. Could be that there is only one word for many different sizes and types of plate in Portuguese, and they have no word for a small dish used under cups. I don't know. In any case, it helps to have the article acknowledge that we know Prato literally means Plate but in this particular context it means Saucer. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Grumbles Since I'm here anyway I might as well weigh in. Yeah, "Saucer" is almost certainly the better translation unless an English source calling it "Operation Plate" exists. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Why are you editing an article where you know nothing of the source material? It's in bad faith and not accurate. I get it there's snake oil salesmen on the internet and we have to be vigilant but you're being worse than that snake oil salesman when you distort the facts on historical events. It was called Operation Prato / plate to avoid the stigma of flying saucers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzNQVH7Wvnc&ab_channel=UFOB Time 10:07 recorded from an interview with the commander of the operation. 175.177.44.143 (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)