Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

notability question

@Vincelord and BoyTheKingCanDance: Thank you for noting this notability question. However, please help to specify what is needed to demonstrate notability? David Grusch meets the basic nutshell summary of "a person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." But perhaps this should be about the whistleblowing incident instead of about the person?

It is a whistleblowing incident with many secondary sources documenting it in day two. In addition to the two initial reports, I'll reference news coverage of this from the growing number of additional news outlets picking up the story. So far, the following outlets have published accounts of the story:

• The Independent
• New York Post
• New York Magazine
• Fox News
• NBC Right Now
• Newsweek
• The New York Sun
• The Daily Wire

Thanks for any help and for identifying the notability criteria that are most applicable here with either the whistleblowing incident or the person. Jjhake (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The page looks fine, but I didn't question it's notability. that was another editor. I merely added DEFAULTSORT. Vincelord (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up with me. I'll add some other secondary sources and see what the other editor might have in mind. Jjhake (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for the editor who tagged it, but I'll wager they had WP:BLP1E in mind. Schazjmd (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That's helpful. Thank you. Given the "Subjects notable only for one event" criteria, I agree that this lacks notability as a biography of a person, but it does seem to be getting enough attention to be notable as an event. Perhaps this should redirect to an new article titled "David Charles Grusch UFO Whistleblower Claim" or something like this. Thoughts from anyone? Jjhake (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jjhake, it's possible that mention of it might fit in an existing article. Hard to say yet whether this will have enduring or significant impact. (See WP:EVENTCRIT) A one-day/week media flurry (especially for a topic like UFOs) doesn't mean it will meet the bar for a stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks again. I'll wait a little and see if any others have thoughts or help out. If no new developments clarify or escalate the event or no one else cleans this up first, I'll circle back to remove this article (and perhaps post a minor note in an existing article if that seems warranted). Jjhake (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@BoyTheKingCanDance: Several more sources have been added with a couple other editors involved. Please note if you have any remaining notability question. If no reply with in a day, will plan to updated by removing tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhake (talk • contribs)

See update above. I agree that this lacks notability as a biography of a person, but it does seem to be getting enough attention to be notable as an event. Perhaps this should redirect to an new article titled "David Charles Grusch UFO Whistleblower Claim" or something like this? --Jjhake (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jjhake an event page makes sense to me. This won't be about David Grusch, it will be about the act of whistleblowing (could be linked to a category) and the content he reveals (reactions, skepticism, corroboration, etc.). Samueljcarlson (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone, when I put the notability tag on the page, I had WP:BLP1E in mind. But I'm not dogmatic and I'm happy to see what becomes of the article. A merger might be better. But I'm not an expert on the topics of either UFOs or whstleblowing, so I can't make a recommendation where the merge should occur. Best wishes, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not a proper biography article for Wikipedia. The topic should be the event, although that may turn out to be not notable by Wikipedia standards. Also, the proposed new title sounds like a newspaper headline. Probably just use the last name and "whistleblower" somehow. "David Charles" is certainly not needed. The idea is to go for neutral wording and I am not sure UFO in the title achieves that goal. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, this page can simply be moved to a new title after the article is refocused on the event - if that is what is decided. And I also agree merging this content is acceptable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed renaming: "Grusch whistleblower report" to keep the focus on the event. Or "David Grusch whistleblower report" even though I think the using the first name is probably not necessary. But others might decide otherwise. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

According to sources cited and buried beneath tons of WP:SENSATIONAL speculation about aliens and coverups, Grusch filed a complaint with the Intelligence Community inspector general, in which he alleges extraordinary things. The complaint is signed by Grusch and also by the Compass Rose Legal Group in Washington, D.C. The complaint - a legal document - is the topic, not Grusch, and not UFOs in general. Perhaps Grusch legal filing or something similar is an appropriate title. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Grusch legal filing seems fine to me. That takes care of the SENSATIONAL aspects of the title itself. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait until June 12. There’s a rumor going around that mainstream media sources are working on this and will publish before that time. This will give us additional framing for a decision on whether to keep this here, move it to another title, redirect or delete. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think waiting until June 12 is too long. That is an entire week this article will be in main space as a misrepresented biography. I think the move should happen sooner rather than later. And if the speculated main stream press coverage happens, then we can always rename and refocus as necessary. Also, you're asking us to wait based on rumor which is as substantial as the air around us. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of suggesting that this could be put in a draft space, awaiting more press coverage. But someone else might create a main space article based on this event that could be worse. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should keep it until June 12 and then make the move if needed. There’s nothing harmful about having this up for four more days. Thriley (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought that was a week from now. My mistake. Thanks for the clarification. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Absent further reporting in the near future, this is a def BLP1E -- no sources from before this week mention him, we're not doing the subject justice, this is about the event of his legal dispute. Feoffer (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, see outline of new articles noted below under "Article structure" (a section on this talk page that I'm about to rename "New article structure"). Jjhake (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Factchecking

At the end of the first paragraph, the author states that "mainstream puiblications refused to carry it." When in fact the Washington Post was the original outlet to publish the article but needed more time. However the journalists were "urgent" in their need to publish ASAP as (allegedly) they were going to be outed. I don't want to directly edit the page but the source for this information can be found here (an interview with the reputable journalists who broke the story): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TE7uJCFlGBc&feature=youtu.be

Obviously there would be a need to check with the Washington Post that this is in fact true. 147.234.72.31 (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m happy to remove it. I added it because I thought that was the claim made by Ross Coulthart. Now you’re saying the WaPo was going to publish it? I didn’t hear that part of the story at all. I’ll remove it until this part of the story can be cleared up. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I was unfamiliar with The Debrief and we don't have an article. I started searching; one of the first hits was an article in The Atlantic about UAPs and also about Grusch's claim -- "Why Everyone Is Suddenly Talking About Aliens"

This paragraph caught my eye:

"A website called The Debrief—which says it specializes in 'frontier science' and describes itself as self-funded—reported this week that a former intelligence official named David Grusch said that the U.S. government has spent decades secretly recovering 'intact vehicles' and 'partial fragments' that weren’t made by humans. (A section of The Debrief is dedicated to coverage of UFOs.) Officials, Grusch said, sought to avoid congressional oversight while reverse-engineering these materials for the government’s own purposes. In a separate interview with NewsNation, which has advertised itself as an alternative to major cable networks, Grusch said the military had even discovered the 'dead pilots' of these craft. 'Believe it or not, as fantastical as that sounds, it’s true,' he said."

(the emphasis in bold font is mine)

I recommend sticking to the other available sources for this article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m happy you raised this point here; I’m a big fan of this article in The Atlantic and hope it is included as a source. If you haven’t already seen or heard it, check out the latest episode of The Black Vault by John Greenewald. At around the 38 minute mark, he lays out an extended argument as to why we should be skeptical of these whistleblower claims. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Would be great to add this source. The Debrief should also be noted, however, as breaking this story. Jjhake (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Just added a note in the Wikipedia article about this essay in The Atlantic by Marina Koren. Jjhake (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I have for now commented out The Debrief citations except for the one supporting their breaking the story. That is, I used this markup:

<!--<ref name="auto"/>-->.

I also inserted ^{[citation needed]} tags at these locations.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

No one has disputed these details regarding his career from anything that I've seen, but I suppose that other sources would be better to drop in. If someone else doesn't get to it, I'll see where else these notes about his background have been published. Jjhake (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem is the gushing praise cited to performance reports and former employers is less-than-neutral and borders on WP:PUFFERY. Obviously something the Debrief authors included to persuade readers that Grusch's character is unimpeachable. However I'd prefer more basic employment details cited to a more neutral source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course the larger question is still if this article will meet notability standards as a biography. If not, these questions will be an entirely mute point. I'll keep watching with the others here. Jjhake (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"2023 whistleblowing"

Currently, the article has a subheadling "2023 whistleblowing" which seems to be confusing. The article from The Debrief suggests that he was legally a whistleblower in 2021 when he started speaking to the ICIG. Allegedly, he received reprisals for that whistleblowing he did in 2021. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. Made a slight edit in ann effort to address this. Jjhake (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

active politician?

I'm noticing in the header of this talk page that Grusch is flagged as an "active politician" now. Is that the case? What am I missing? Jjhake (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: I removed the "active politician" status from the header as I see no suggestion of that anywhere. --Jjhake (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Editing

I removed a statement [1] by a British journalist per WP:SENSATIONAL. Also he is not an academic, government official, or a noted expert. Also, the quote seems more like fanning the flames of speculation than substantive. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I added content here [2] in an attempt to provide more clarification. It might take a little bit to see what I wrote. I didn't remove anything in this edit. But, I did create another paragraph. Feel free to copy edit what I wrote. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSBREAKING. The story will likely evolve and get more specific as more analytic sources come into play, so it's wiser not to try to stretch the existing sources to explain all aspects. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The more time that goes by, the less sensational the coverage gets [3] - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

LuckyLouie thanks for pointing out WP:RSBREAKING. I agree with what you wrote. Also, I tagged the article based on RSBREAKING. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Shermer

Michael Shermer weighs in: [4] and [5]. This is the kind of expert analysis needed for an NPOV article concerning such extraordinary claims. Likely there will be more to come. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I read the article and watched the podcast. Really good. Sorry people you will be disappointed, the truth ain't out there. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Quillette - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Perfectly fine to include if it is attributed to the author. Thriley (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I would think that Shermer is an expert in this field. He's been critically analyzing and debunking this stuff since the 1990s. And he has an MA in Psychology. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

According to the RSN listing for Qulliette, actual usage in articles will usually be a question of whether or not it is WP:DUE for an attributed opinion rather than whether it is reliable for a factual claim. My feeling is that more and better critique will be coming in the near future, but we would be fine citing to Quillette and attributing to Shermer in the meantime. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I am thinking that this Shermer article could be used to debunk the whistleblower status of Grusch. Shermer notes that Grusch claims the DOD "approved the interview questions for Grusch, albeit sans evidence..." Then Shermer says:

"O-kay. So then who is lying? David Grusch or the Pentagon? If the DoD gave Grusch permission to run his mouth in the press and knew what he was going to say, then who exactly is threatening him with retaliation for being a “whistleblower”? We are not told."

---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

My feeling (having a lot of those lately) is that we'd need more sources than Shermer to "debunk" the whistleblower designation, especially since it is being used widely by media outlets. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Glad to see the Shermer material added, but the last long quote (with the weak "may have" language) seems pointless given that the reasoning on the part of the The Washington Post is already noted above with better sourcing and info reported by Charlotte Klein. I would dropped that entire last sentence. Jjhake (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah you're both right. This is certainly not as strong as the wide whistleblower media coverage. And with the WAPO reasoning and Klein reporting, what we have is already much stronger. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Because it's just sloppy speculation that contradicts what the WAPO has said about its own reasons, I'm going to remove this line:

According to Shermer, The Washington Post "may have reasonably decided not to provide Grusch with a respected platform that his unsupported claims don't deserve". Jjhake (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, I don't agree with this removal of critique regarding Kean and Blumenthal. (I don’t even know what a “GUNREL” is). And...I see puffery got quickly added for Kean and Blumenthal. I won't repeat the reasons above for why I think using Quillette with attribution is OK in this case. I think there is a consensus for this as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree. He's using a WP:GUNREL (Generally Unreliable, and in this case found Generally Unreliable at an RFC at WP:RSN) outlet for the claims. Why not use an RS? Why is he publishing in a known low-quality outlet? At best it's on the level of Shermer making a WP:SPS blog post, and we can't use those on a BLP either.

Fundamentally, we can't claim WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to override the WP:BLP policy on using a known unreliable source to make contentious claims on a BLP. This applies even if Shermer is 100% correct - we've had a lot of controversy over using blog-level skeptical sources on articles about cranks (which Grusch absolutely is, IMO) because they're not RSes - and I am forced to concur that it's unsupportable by BLP policy - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

But, the last sentence of WP:GUNREL reads in part: The source may still be used for...self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable. And Shermer is a subject matter expert. I noted his qualifications above.

There's also this: Per WP:SPS, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

So, I think the material needs to be restored. This article is supposed to be about that event. And this has been discussed on this talk page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You're literally appealing to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS there. Blog-level SPSes from expert skeptics have failed BLP muster previously, there's been extensive discussion at WP:RSN about this. You just can't source contentious opinions about a Living Person to a known Generally Unreliable source. That's policy, not just guidelines - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not appealing to LOCALCONSENSUS. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable..." I think the keyword is reliable and on Wikipedia that means reliable source. This is at the least equal to a self-published source based on the argument you are making. And this particular Wikipedia article was poorly published in the main space as a biography. It is not a biography, and this has been discussed above [6]. The topic of this article is about the event - Grusch's legal filing. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that the point agreed upon above was not that this would necessarily be changed from a biography article to an event article but that we would reevaluate on June 12: "Wait until June 12. There's a rumor going around that mainstream media sources are working on this and will publish before that time. This will give us additional framing for a decision on whether to keep this here, move it to another title, redirect or delete." If there are no other developments by June 12, I will be in favor of moving (and somewhat reformatting) this content to an event article as a next step. However, that is not a decision that has been made by anyone yet. Jjhake (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This is true. I concede. We all agreed to wait until June 12 to reevaluate. So even as a biography, I am maintaining the same argument. Thanks very much. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I must note that if you're going to talk about someone in a Wikipedia article, it doesn't matter to WP:BLP if you say "ah, but the article isn't technically a BLP!" The policy applies to all articles in all namespaces - David Gerard (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Well a subject matter expert is considered to be a reliable source and reliable sourcing satisfies the BLP criteria, and is suitable for main space articles in general. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

There are three editors that agree that Shermer is a subject matter expert. And as such he is considered a reliable source. The three editors are myself, Lucky Louie (above and here), and Thriley (here). So I am restoring this per WP:DUE for this article due to the FRINGE nature of Woo-woo claims for the existence of alien spacecraft and bodies. If you have a problem with this you can take it up at the BLP noticeboard. And the ONUS is on you to show which RS noticeboard discussions are relevant to what you are saying. Also, you have shifted from having problems with the website to having problems with subject-matter experts. So, in essence you are changing the goalposts. So for some reason you seem to be trying to keep this material out of the article. And I am not going to argue endlessly about this. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, but Mr. Gerard’s argument has a bit of weight to it due to the consensus of the unreliability of Quillette. The first order of business is to see if we can cite Shermer using another source. If we can’t, I would say this meets the due weight requirement stipulated in RS, but I have lost this argument every time it has come up. This is because admins will enforce their preferred version of WP:RSP against you, and that’s what’s happening here, so you need to be aware of that. I would highly recommend finding another way to cite Shermer, because Mr. Gerard isn’t going to let this go. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Viriditas He doesn't have to let this go and his status aa an Admin has nothing to do with this. He is an editor just like the rest of us. An admin cannot come in and override other editors working on this article, especially if they have a reasonable argument that aligns with policies and guidelines. And since you agree with it - that's four editors. And this is not LOCALCONSENSUS. This is subject matter expert as RS and DUE. And if someone wants to pull the Policy trump card DUE is Policy. And the ONUS (as I stated above) is still on him and he is welcome to take this to the BLP noticeboard. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, but my block log says otherwise. I’ve been blocked by admins for this very reason. Good luck to you, my friend. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Video

Probably not a reliable source by our standards: the Debrief's Chrissy Newton interviews Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal about their process for developing this story here. It is a 43 minute video, but the first ten minutes verifies matches what we have already discussed in this article about their process. I originally discovered this video at the Debrief's website here. If you scroll down on this page you will see the video there.

I think this Debrief page, entitled "Fact-check Q & A with debrief co-founder and investigator Tim McMillan: Part 1", is an attempt to add a layer of respectability and trustworthiness to the behind the scenes process of the Debrief's decision to publish this story. The criteria appears to result in a lower bar than, for instance, WAPO or The New York Times, to greenlight publication. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

And I have no idea who Chrissy Newton is. It looks like she is interested in covering UFO related stories [7]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, these two sources from The Brief don't add anything (and display the typical sensational tone and style). It is best to keep the citation of The Brief to just one instance within this Wikipedia article (as it currently is with note that The Brief was chosen by the authors of the original article to brake this story). Best to stay with other sources for anything new that develops or any other relevant info that might still be missing from this Wikipedia article. Jjhake (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say they add anything nor do I consider them reliable sources. The first thing I wrote "probably not a reliable source." What makes you think I was saying this was useful for this article? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

And my first word was “yes” to agree with you. Jjhake (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

OK. No problem. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Whistleblowing in WP voice?

Do we have a reliable source that shows this person was a protected whistleblower? I hesitate to use The Debrief for such a claim. jps (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a good question. I believe John Greenewald was asking similar questions along this line in terms of access to the original documents that the journalists were using for their story. I'm not certain of the answer. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

We have Der Spiegel and Le Parisien. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I translated both articles and did not see much indication that there was verification of his status. Help me out? jps (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah sorry, on his specific legal status: I don't know (still, these reliable sources could be useful for the rest of the article). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: The first installment of the Coulthart/Grusch interview video ("We are not alone: The UFO whistleblower speaks") has a brief screenshot of the official legal documents ("Disclosure of Urgent Concern(s); Complaint of Reprisal") at timestamp 9:32, lending some kind of credence to his protected whistleblower status, but unfortunately, most of the documents are not legible in the video. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

John Greenewald Jr.

I’ve created a draft for John Greenewald Jr.. He started the Black Vault, a large archive of material related to UFOs obtained through the FOIA from the US government. Some of what Grusch is talking about has its origins in material found in the archive. Thriley (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a good draft, but notability may be questionable with just the four sources so far. I did notice that the Columbia Journalism Review is published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism which should be a help.

Who reports on "some of what Grusch is talking" having its origins in material from the Black Vault archive? Everything in the Black Vault archive was material that had been declassified from what I've read. Jjhake (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeating content too much

@LuckyLouie: what you just added from Andrew Prokop wrote in Vox is not as strong or specific as what already existed above from Charlotte Klein in Vanity Fair. I left it because you put it below. However, I think the article is in danger from all of us at this point of getting heavy with pointless redundancies. So note to all, that let's just focus on the getting the key points represented only one time from the best of any legit sources that might exist. Jjhake (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand your concern with redundancy. But bear in mind we're not looking for balanced WP:GEVAL viewpoints in this case. Given the extraordinary claims that are the main topic of this BLP, we need to insure that it conforms to WP:FRINGE — and the claim that aliens have been visiting earth and there is a conspiracy to cover it up is certainly a minority fringe view that is unsupported by a consensus of experts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. Can anyone block the anonymous user who has deleted anything critical of the Grusch claims multiple times now? Jjhake (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates?

Does anyone have experience with nominating an article for Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates? Those need to be focused on an event article and not a biography article, is that correct? Any thoughts on this subject as one to nominate? Jjhake (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be best to nominate the article for Did You Know instead. I doubt this would make it to In The News unless his claims are substantiated by a major reliable publication. Thriley (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The other problem to consider is that this article, in its current form, supports the argument higher up on this page, namely, the scope is no longer about the biographical subject, it is about the whistle-blowing event itself, the legal case, or some other subject. In other words, recent edits now support the argument for moving the article to a new name and scope. Because there's supposed to be a big reveal tomorrow and possibly on Monday (as a response), it's been agreed to wait until at least June 12 (possibly later) for a move. I have no objection if anyone wants to start the move/rename discussion, however. This could present an issue for DYK (or not, depending on your POV). Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, both, for the thoughts. It seems like some fresh info from major news sources is needed to clarify this case a little more before this article will stabilize enough to consider if it might be worth nominating for anything. Jjhake (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Jonathan Grey?

Notice there is no follow up from the supposed top US intelligence official “Jonathan Grey”? The one that confirmed the alien cover up? No one seems able to locate him for a statement. It’s almost as if he didn’t exist… - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

He did not file a legal complaint and lawyer up. But this is entirely irrelevant to article writing. Jjhake (talk)

He is a National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) official, - according to Kean and Blumenthal, who supposedly confirmed aliens and alien spacecraft exist. It is very relevant if Wikipedia reports his existence as fact (in WP voice), based only on the claims of Kean and Blumenthal. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"Jonathan Grey" is a code name, not a real name. The authors really messed this up in the original article. If the reporting is this shoddy, something is seriously wrong. Viriditas (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Many excellent secondary sources are noting him and what he shared. Jjhake

They merely repeat what Kean claims. Our text now reads: Two others that Kean had to corroborate Grusch's claims were Karl Nell, a retired Army colonel who was also on the UFO task force, and Jonathan Grey, a current U.S. intelligence official at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC). This should say, “according to Kean” or “Kean claims”. And the WP:EXTRAORDINARY quotes need attribution as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding "according to Kean's reporting" or some such phrase makes sense. The point is simply that Kean and her coauthor made this claim. Who Jonathan Grey is doesn't matter for these purposes. As this article notes, Jonathan Grey was clearly represented as a pseudonym:

https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/report-quotes-nasic-employee-in-new-ufo-whistleblower-drama/UBTOOF723NGY7PO4PAE4U2CELU/ Jjhake (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

New name?

I understand and respect that we will wait until 12-13 June but would per Viriditas' suggestion like to initiate the discuss now. I think the article should be renamed to something like "2023 UFO claims by David Grusch". With new info in the coming days and a congressional hearing coming up, I only see this page becoming more and not less about the case and not Grusch himself. Like the article Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is about the girl's disappearance and not the girl herself, this should IMO likewise be the case.--Marginataen (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this makes complete sense (and I should have started the article this way). For my own part, I don't see a need to wait until tomorrow. Jjhake (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The others have agreed to wait until 12 June, so let's do that. But yeah, I support changing it to "2023 UFO claims by David Grusch". Marginataen (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe just "UFO claims by David Grusch" or "David Grusch's UFO claims"

By the way:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/14652jk/david_grusch_and_the_1933_magenta_crash_retrieval/

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/14652jk/david_grusch_and_the_1933_magenta_crash_retrieval/ Marginataen (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a more broad name does make sense. Looks like another interview is releasing this evening:

https://twitter.com/NewsNationComms/status/1666905532890750976

Also, this:

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/us-news/2023/05/19/6466b135ca47414e508b4586.html Jjhake (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Status of legal filing?

There was an article that was published yesterday indicating that Grusch’s attorneys have dropped him as a client.[8] Does this mean the legal filing is dead in the water? Viriditas (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

No idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if the congressional hearing on the Grusch claims never happen now. Anyway, such speculation isn't what this talk page is for. Jjhake (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

New article structure

Here is a rough sketch of how I see the structuring of the image the article. The issue is how initial responses and later responses should be separated. Please give feedback. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marginataen/sandbox/2023_UFO_claims_by_David_Grusch Marginataen (talk) 11 June 2023

Added a missing signature for you. Your sandbox draft looks great to me. You note a June 12 interview, but I think that this interview is happening this evening (June 11). With the remarkable corroboration (IMO) between what Dr. Garry Nolan has shared most recently and what is being shared by whistleblowers like Grusch, I get the sense that there will need to be some major edits to a lot of Wikipedia articles pretty soon if these questions and conversations go mainstream. Anyway, time will tell. --Jjhake (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to implement some of it now. I've tried to be bold but not reckless. You are welcome to read it trough and tell if it appears coherent. The issue, IMO, is how to deal with reactions to the first interview and the one to come. Should they be separated by time? Right now "Analysis" is just a big bin for all that has been said my media people and experts. Marginataen (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Your reworking looks good. I'd say we should move forward now with the renaming, however, as the new structure (and very likely the growing attention) is not making sense with the current article name and will not be able to accommodate work by the other editors who will continue to join. Jjhake (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

All right, I've done it now Marginataen (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I see that! I think this will help everyone out. Thanks. (And I cleaned up one old redirect just now as well with his full name being the original article.) Jjhake (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I think that you were the one who protected the current article (with editing requiring autoconfirmed or confirmed access). Should and can this article be renamed to "2023 UFO claims by David Grusch", and can the new article be protected for a few days as well?

If you want to move the article now that is fine with me. But later in the week I might do a move request with some other proposed title. This probably depends on the what new information comes in. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Marginataen (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I really wish you had waited for consensus to form over an article title as this kind of naming convention isn’t used here. Part of the overall problem has to do with the chaotic disorder of the UFO conspiracy theories article, which doesn’t give editors a proper method for categorizing articles like this. However, in general, when we describe a conspiracy theory, we very rarely if ever use the name of the subject in the title. Further, we aren’t giving implicit acceptance to "UFO claims" so that won’t do either. I would recommend a brief moratorium on further moves until there is a wider discussion about a proper name. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

That is fair. Sorry to have been part of encouraging it to move more quickly. However, I think that it is a step in the right direction to be talking about an event instead of a person. Anyway, let's start collecting ideas and thoughts on a better name somewhere. What is a good space? Jjhake (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This is the correct venue. I care less about the move but more about getting the scope and title right. This new title is definitely a step in the right direction, but I would like people to try to think a bit harder about how to best represent the subject. I can easily see this merged and directed into the UFO conspiracy theory article as others have said, or it could go the way of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Firmage (however unlikely). The point is, this idea that the government is hiding evidence of aliens has been recurrent for a very long time now. We should at least have a primary article on that subject where all of these kinds of claims should appear. Perhaps instead of thinking narrowly about this, and working towards a small article on this topic, we should be thinking wider, and considering a top-level article like UFO conspiracy theories, but one that just focuses on so-called insiders coming forward as whistleblowers or something similar, preferably having to to do with government programs and employees. I’m only on my first cup of coffee right now, so I can’t think clearly about this, and I’m hoping others can. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The mess known as "Analysis of Grusch's claims":

I am sorry about the same and won't change it anymore without broad consecus.

The heading "Analysis of Grusch's claims" started as sub-heading titled "Media" under "Reponses to 2023 interview". Now, it's just become a graveyard for all sorts of reactions with no order or sub-headings. This needs to be resolved. The paragraph starting with "According to Klein" was split, meaning the begining of that paragrapph is now under "Rejection of story by other news outlets". Just wanted to put that out there. Marginataen (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I will try to fix Klein paragrah(s). I think it would be best to restore to the headings to what Marginataen did the first time. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, a rename proposal could be Claims of extraterrestrial life by David Grusch or David Grusch's claims of alien life. We will just wait and see. Marginataen (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s not how we name articles. You could read the article naming convention guidelines to get a better idea. I also think we are moving away from even using Grusch’s name in the title at this point and more towards a larger article on UFO retrieval conspiracy theories or merging a small paragraph into UFO conspiracy theories. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that this is certainly more about Ross Coulthart than David Grusch. Jjhake (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll also note that UFO retrieval conspiracy theories is an article title that makes sense to me and that this is definitely not going to drop out of the news any time real soon.--Jjhake (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Making some changes to the representation of Nick Pope

Nick Pope is on record to say that Grusch and Grey’s account of alien materials was "very significant" and that although "he had seen no hard evidence of non-human craft or materials" he added that "some of our cases were intriguing". All this to note that it is inaccurate to say as the current photo caption does, that Pope is "among the ones to doubt Grusch's claims". I'll update it to something neutral like "has highlighted the need for more evidence".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/whistleblower-ufo-alien-tech-spacecraft Jjhake (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Why did this article become a "debunking"?

I understand including the accounts of skeptics but it seems to me like the entire article is dedicated to that with very little coverage of the many credible people in the government, military and journalism that have vouched for Grusch's reputation and given support for his claims. 98.11.60.84 (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Please give sources to those many "many credible people in the government, military and journalism". You may also want to write a proposal for what the text should say, using thoese sources. Marginataen (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news outlet, and always tries to follow the most established consensus thinking among strong secondary sources. Therefore, all UFO conspiracy theories are treated as a subset of conspiracy theories and are considered fringe science or pseudoscience on Wikipedia. However, if the consensus starts to shift among strong secondary sources, this basic assumption may need to be adjusted. I'd guess that it's going to take some time for the many editors involved to sort this out in this case, or the story itself may become much more clear one way or another. Anyway, as Marginataen noted above, provide your secondary sources. Jjhake (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Helpful links: WP:FRINGE, WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Grusch never said that bodies were recovered

When asked if any bodies were recovered, Grusch did not answer the question directly and instead stated: "When you recover something that's either landed or crashed, sometimes you encounter dead pilots. Believe or not, as fantastical as that sounds, it's true."

This is not a confirmation of bodies being recovered. We have to be careful about wording here, as he seemed to be careful to use wording that did not directly confirm this. All he is saying is true is that "sometimes" dead pilots are recovered when things crash. He did not state that this is the case with the crafts he's talking about.

This comment about him saying bodies were recovered should be removed until there is a more direct confirmation of this, as he may have chosen that wording because he's unsure if bodies were recovered but believes they may have been since this is sometimes the case, but doesn't want to state what he believes because then people may doubt everything else he has directly confirmed. I'm a new account so can't edit, so can someone else please fix this by removing that line in the first paragraph (and elsewhere if it appears there)?

We need to ensure this article is careful about sticking to the facts and paying attention to wording. MartinNumbers123 (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Pulled from the lead and noted exact response by Grusch within body of article. Jjhake (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Major red flags

The New York Post identifies the following as major red flags in this video. Just nice to keep in the back of the mind. The NYP's claim about the phone call can't be used:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzrJ1YfS0hA&ab_channel=NewYorkPost

1. No evidence
2. The interview was cleared with the DoD
3. Dubious sources / The reputation of The Debrief and the authors
4. Rejection by other news outlets

Also, if any creditable body language experts have or will comment on the case, should it be included in the text?

Unrelated, here's a article from The Atlantic. Don't know whether it says anything useful.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/06/alien-intact-vehicles-ufo-us-government/674323/ Marginataen (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Marina Koren article in The Atlantic already used and very good. New York Post video is all of the obvious stuff. If any creditable body language experts are published in strong source, sure, note it. Jjhake (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realise The Atlantic was already used. Great. I agree #IF Marginataen (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)