Talk:To the Stars (company)

Disputed NPOV

@ජපස: you have reverted a first edit [1] citing WP:GEVAL. I reverted and asked for explanation [2]. None was provided. Instead you removed those additions again and others just citing WP:NPOV [3]. I disagree with your assessment and have reverted once more [4]. Please explain what POV is being pushed here. Those are two main edits. Please reply below in line. Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

EDIT 1: descriptions of the company by the Washington Post and others: It's been described as a "media and scientific research company"[5] and is best known for releasing widely publicized Navy fighter jet cockpit videos.[6]

We don't need a description like this. It's extremely unusual for articles about companies. I cannot find another example. jps (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so you don't believe it's NPOV you just don't think we "need it"? It has nothing to do with what you stated in the edit comment. Your issues are with having this statement in the lead? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:LEDE is supposed to describe the content of the article. As much as I enjoy our little tiff over what kind of company To the Stars is, we don't have any mention of it in the article because it really isn't controversial that it's a rock star's entertainment company for promoting his UFO beliefs. That's what the article says anyway. jps (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

EDIT 2: a comment by Richard M. Dolan which you descried as "a credulous ufologist known for whining about the real world not taking his alien woo seriously" but no source was provided (none available on his Wiki article).

You can read his Wikipedia article. There is no question that he believes that UFO are alien spacecraft. jps (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You have edited the lead of that article to remove "historian" and support you POV. That's your opinion. VICE also describes him as "Author and popular UFO historian Richard Dolan" and thinks he's reputable [7]. So we should too. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't care what VICE describes him as, we can just link to the article on this ufologist if people are curious. A pop historian is not a historian, incidentally. jps (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't care what VICE... You should. I'm sure you are aware that WP:RS Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered and not your own beliefs or evaluations in order to promote your POV. You can't pick and choose the sources you like. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

A journalist is not the correct WP:PARITY here for these claims which are about "serious research" and compares DeLonge to SETI which is an academic program. A journalist is not credentialed to evaluate the seriousness of any academic research program. You need to find a better source. jps (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Do we really need to discuss about stuff like this?

[8] the order of sections. Really? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Really. Entertainment is the primary focus of the company. If you don't think it matters, then keep it the way it was! jps (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

That's clearly false. Entertainment is not their stated or reported primary focus as is clearly obvious from the sources in the article and their own website. Don't present your opinions as fact. If that is your rationale for the revert, you just degraded the article for no reason at all. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Nah. We're good here. Sorry you don't like it, but I'm not going to take To the Stars website as a rationale for how we cover them at Wikipedia. No way. jps (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

For other users (I hope there are some :-) ): relevant discussion on this subject is here [9] --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

If an organization names itself "To the Stars... Academy of Arts and Sciences," then it is appropriate and encyclopedic if the "Arts" aspect is discussed first in the article, in my opinion. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences article doesn't even have a section devoted to Sciences. If To the Stars ever puts science first in its name then, sure, science could and should move up in the article, imo. 5Q5|^✉ 16:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:5Q5. To be clear I completely agree. From the diff it might appear as I am bringing Science to the top but that's not the case. I am just proposing to move the "List of books and graphic novels" to the end of the article to keep the page more readable. Just like STX Entertainment or Voltage Pictures where filmography is at the end of the page so as not to impede legibility. Media definitely remains the first section as it is the first also in chronological order. Reasonable? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree, in chronological list order, the earliest should be at top, per MOS:LISTSOFWORKS. They did film and music first. 5Q5|^✉ 17:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@5Q5:. But is there a guideline on where the list of works should go?

CURRENTLY:

• History
• Media division

• Lists of works

• Science & Aerospace divisions
• others

MY PROPOSAL is:

• History
• Media division
• Science & Aerospace divisions
• Lists of works

This way the list doesn't impede legibility of the article but is at the end for reference. The articles I have linked above (I just looked for generic independent producers) seem to use this standard (list at the end.) --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

If works are not incorporated into the body of the article, which some article do, but are instead lists, I would place them near the bottom for the reasons you give, to keep the upper part more readable. See also MOS:SECTIONORDER. Example: American Astronomical Society. 5Q5|^✉ 16:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree User:5Q5. See also the specific section within MOS:SECTIONORDER which seems to be MOS:BIB. Reverting my edit above and changing section heading to just "Works" as suggested in the MOS for heterogeneous lists --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

NPOV redux

See above. This is a fringe company and the lead doesn't say anything about UFOs, etc. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I tried to expand the lede, but I don't see how much more can be done without simply regurgitating (pregurgitating? pre-regurgitating?) details already in the body. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that what the WP:LEAD is meant to do? Although the lead doesn't need sources if they are in the body. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Robert Sheaffer's analysis in Skeptic Magazine is an untapped resource. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)