Contents

Talk:The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 23 September 2022 by reviewer Chess (talk · contribs). Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Paranormal Mid‑importance 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Cryptozoology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative Views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Aviation 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 articles This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Elaborating on acceptance

[edit]

Maybe I'm insane to accept an AfC submission with 8(!) previous declines that's about a barely notable subject, but I did. Mainly for a few reasons:

• Most of the declines were when WP:ULTRAs repeatedly resubmitted the article without meaningful improvement.
• Since then, many new sources have come to light. For instance, the Deseret News source goes into quite a decent amount of detail about the TV show.
• While the subject is borderline notable, that still means it's probably notable. I could just decline or ignore here and I'd have no risk of having my judgement as an AfC reviewer called into question, but that would contribute to the system where it's far too difficult to get anything through AfC.

Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ThanQ Chess for being bold in converting this into mainspace. I have followed it, adding a few small changes along the way (together with other associated similar articles) and I was somewhat dismayed to see the vehemence with which the wiki notability rules were applied to a 'successful' (successful = now series three) television sequence.

I submitted for consideration over a year ago (so, during series two) with the edit summary "I now think this is sufficiently referenced and would make a good addition to the project.... One of my refs - which supported pre-existing text - was soon deleted with the rationale that it applied to the ranch article, not the tv series, with the text itself also deleted (I had applied AGF to the previous contribution).

Changing slightly to a tangent, The Next One (film) (1984) was established February 2021, starring cult-acress Adrienne Barbeau and not-massively known but not inconsiderable Keir Dullea, after an editor found a hard-published, period source. Without this source, it would've remained as a blacklink in her filmography (added January 2014).

This film is almost never shown on UK television; I bought the VHS tape from ebay.com (US) and had it delivered to my brother's Arizona address in (probably) 2013, who brought it to England in his luggage. I put the image on the article, which, as the film is TOOOLD to attract internet reviews, will likely remain as a permastub, but nonetheless a constituent part of the starring actors' bios. This 1984 film is based on the concept of unstable wormhole theory .--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also thanks Chess for increasing my Wiki-vocabulary with Ultras; this is particularly applicable in the topics I hang around, with, in decreasing order of proliferation, Indonesian, Malaysian and Thai IPs-with-phones emphasising their respective hero-worship opportunities.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocknrollmancer: You're welcome. I like looking at articles with several previous declines. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch- Season 3.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a figure intombed inside the mesa leave it alone please 174.161.56.236 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious and was hoping you could help me understand why when gear stops working or shuts down, the cameras that film the show never shut off?? Hoping for a response. rtletourneau@hotmail.com Thank you Robin Johnston 96.52.164.146 (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because this TV show and others like it are entertainment, not science. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, I guess that the invisible forces are targeted finitely; reminds me of the future-catastrophe scenaria where they're using horse/cart, when diesels can run mechanically without any electronics.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too am a little concerned that there is no "Criticisms" section with sourced analysis of the claims made on the television show. Any equipment breakdown, even a just a dead battery, is attributed by the actors to aliens or the government blocking their investigation. Any photographic, visual, or digital artifact caught in "footage" is assumed to be aliens. An escaped balloon floating by up in the sky (with no distance reference) or a random light in the sky from a passing plane - must a UFO. They spent an episode talking about picking up "mysterious radio signals" at 1.6 GHz - the standard frequency of GPS satellites that blanket the whole planet in those RF signals. The point is, ALL of the "anomalies" that they describe are ordinary phenomenon, the actors making a lot of hype over nothing burgers. Even the Skinwalker_Ranch article does a far better job of pointing out the criticisms of the reported "anomalies" that appear to be pure made-up fiction from the former owners attempting to sell the worthless property for a premium price to the current investigators. The point is, it is just a fictional mockumentary, entertainment suitable for conspiracy theorists and stoners. T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, actual critique of the television show is hard to find. Most coverage plays off the sensational angle and treats the claims at face value. One exception is Jason Colavito's review, and this can be summarized in the article text, per WP:PARITY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colavito has long been considered a self published expert source, so there's no need to deprecate the critique by insinuating its a non notable 'blog post'. However it would be good to have additional sourced analysis, so I've posted a request at the appropriate WikiProject [1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:COPYVIO (because it copypastes text from history.com) that I removed. Wikipedia certainly appreciates constructive contributions but please try to compose a neutral summary in your own words and help the encyclopedia avoid plagiarism. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are episode credit screenshots on IMDb confirming Kandus Linde has been credited on the show numerous times as an Anthropologist / Caretaker. On the series' official website she is referred to as the "resident anthropologist" besides ranch caretaker with her husband. This refutes the claim in the article that all the experts presented by the show were white men. I believe Ute Tribe members have also appeared in episodes as experts. 5Q5|^✉ 14:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This refutes the claim in the article that all the experts presented by the show were white men. Of course an editor highlighting specific show credits to refute the attributed opinion of a source would be WP:OR. It would be different if Wikipedia were stating the CSM opinion as fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5Q5 responds: Here is the full sentence from the article from which my quote excerpt was taken. It didn't read as an opinion to me.

Morgan also noted that all the experts presented by the show were white men, "many of whom take it upon themselves to "explain" the history and beliefs of the Navajo and Ute Tribes in relation to the ranch".

Thanks for revising it to sound a little less like a fact, though on whole, still inaccurate imo. Perhaps the cited source never saw the episodes with Native American experts? I doubt the line with its racial context will last in the article long term, but it won't be me who removes it. 5Q5|^✉ 16:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]