Jump to content

Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Article name

I think it should be "David Grusch UAP disclosure". The UFO article is titled Unidentified flying object and it generally seems to be the preferred name on Wikipedia.--Marginataen (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend no further moves right now, but please keep discussing it. The fringe noticeboard is against having "disclosure” in the title because that puts the subject in the language of the conspiracy theory, which isn’t neutral for the title. Please continue to think about it. Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I meant "David Grusch UFO disclosure". You are right about the word "disclosure". Isn't the title quite obvious: "David Grusch UFO claims". For the record, UFO means unidentified flying object and does not per se imply aliens or something like that. Marginataen (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, "disclosure" simply is not neutral but conspiratorial and should be removed immediately. The title must be changed within an hour. Marginataen (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
As our lead has evolved, there are two main topics: 1) a host of wild claims about secret government possession of UFOs and 2) a broader question of legal complaints regarding issues of Congressional oversight. A title would ideally cover both main aspects. Jjhake (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
No mater what isn't "disclosure" objective and needs removal. What about "David Grusch UFO claims" for now? Marginataen (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
What about one of these?
David Grusch whistleblower complaints and UFO claims
David Grusch UFO claims and whistleblower complaints Jjhake (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I like David Grusch UFO claims and whistleblower complaints. Marginataen (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Should it be genetive? David Grusch's UFO claims and whistleblower complaints Marginataen (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you are on the right track with "whistleblower" in the title, but I don't think "UFO claims" is best. No rush to change the title, and we could use a little bit of stability right now, so best to leave it as it is and encourage more discussion about a future title and get a sample of more community input. You could always do a requested move discussion with a list of recommended titles, but I think it's too early for that. Just leave it for now. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
"Disclosure" is tinfoil-speak and should go.
Since he did not see anything himself but only heard it from someone else, maybe it should be "Grusch UFO hearsay" or "Grusch UFO rumors". Or simply "2023 UFO hype".
But actually, we should use the wording reliable non-sensational sources use. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Very little by way of reliable non-sensational sources so far, and Congressional action is the largest unknown currently. Jjhake (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
What about David Grusch whistleblower complaint? Or something along those lines? Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I like that. In order of frequency from what I’m seeing in mainstream news stories: “claims” and “whistleblower” and “complaint”.
“claim” is a headline term for Wired, The Guardian, and The Independent
“science fiction tropes” is a more feisty one from the Dani Di Placido opinion piece in Forbes Jjhake (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Excellent point, and great link to Mick West's 46 minute video response from the Di Placido article. Food for thought. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
"Dislusure" needs to be removed now. Just something that can be temporary like David Grusch UFO claims Marginataen (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The proposed title of "David Grusch UFO claims" gives no indication of why there might be a Congressional hearing about this. I agree fully that we badly need a better title, but it's scope should be a little wider. One of these seems to work:
  • David Grusch whistleblower complaint
  • David Grusch whistleblower claims
Jjhake (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Good work. Let's get more input from others. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The reason why there will be hearings are because of the UFO claims and his credentials Marginataen (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Inclusion of "whistleblower" (or such) makes the legal and credentialed aspect clear in the title, while just "UFO claims" does not indicate that any such aspect is involved. Jjhake (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The main thing is his claims. My understanding is that he whistleblowed so that he could make thoese claims without professional consequences – not the other way around. The whistleblower complaint contributes in making the story interesting but the main thing is the out-of-this-world claims. I may be wrong. Marginataen (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"Disclosure" is of course the UFOlogy term for supposed revelations about aliens. But you’re on the right track with suggestions for a better article title so far. See WP:COMMONNAME for guidance. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I changed the title and that I have very much respect for this discussion. I just found it urgent to remove the unencyclopedic "disclosure" and found no one to be defending the use of that word. A better title is quite possible. I just think we can all agree that this is much better in the meanwhile. Marginataen (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I object to this change, and I object to your urgency, and your general policing of this page. Poster above makes a fair point about how the term has been used by woowoo UFO people in the past, but in this case it is _legal_ term, used a document submitted to the US government. It is not the same thing as a "disclosure" UFO podcast. UFOs are also not the term used in the complaint, or by the government. Furthermore, to certain users, you really need to cool your jets on over-editing this page. I spent a while trying to make it more grounded in reality and factual, it's quite complicated to distinguish facts from conjecture given the subject matter, and every time I come back and look at the page again, you've made a hundred edits and the factual quality has degraded. I get that you're trying to be helpful, but just let it breathe. Let some other people make changes. This article shouldn't be a catalog of outrageous claims about aliens, which don't belong on Wikipedia, but about an ongoing case and high-profile case about an intelligence community whistleblower, which may belong. Stay grounded. Miserlou (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Miserlou: good that you're looking to keep things grounded, improve the article, and avoid WP:SENSATIONALism. But it sounds like you're saying "even though it can be confused with a fringe concept we *must* use an obscure but precise legal term — though the majority of reliably sourced coverage does not actually use it". Of course WP:COMMONNAME suggests a much different attitude towards naming. Nevertheless, getting the right name for this article is going to be difficult, partly because it is WP:BREAKINGNEWS and the majority of coverage is coming from media outlets that are barely notable, and most of it leans WP:SENSATIONAL. The high quality sources like The New York Times and the major networks are ignoring it at the moment. Until they weigh in, getting an appropriate article title will not be easy. WP:RFC might be one way to go. the Wikipedia community is a great untapped resource. In the meantime, an interim title like David Grusch whistleblower complaint is a pretty good option with plenty of WP:CONSENSUS for it here already. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
That's fine by me, I guess. I very strongly object to using the term "UFO claims" as the title, somewhat because the term "UFO" isn't used at all by the government or the whistleblower, but primarly because as then over time, this article will attract cranks cataloging woowoo and the facts of the matter will be diluted out. Crazy UFO claims don't go on Wikipedia, even when they generate opinion columns in either direction. That doesn't make them notable. Miserlou (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Who cares what new euphemism is being used? Readers need the information expressed clearly and without WP:ASTONISHing dissembling. I'm sorry to say that this story is already a woowoo catalogue, there is no way around that. Crazy UFO claims are exactly what this article is about. jps (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I've done a page move back to the previous title per WP:BRD. Let's see if WP:CONSENSUS can emerge regarding an appropriate page title. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but you've reverted it to the new title, not what is was most stable at. =/ Miserlou (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, this is a mess now. It was stable(ish) at "UAP disclosure". A user moved it to "UFO claims". I moved it back. You said let's do BRD, but moved it to the proposed change. I said, okay, let's do BRD and moved it back to the original. And now you've moved it back to the proposed change @LuckyLouie. Can we get this sorted Miserlou (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The *original* title was "David Charles Grusch", which I see was changed by consensus to "David Grusch UFO claims" (or something with 'claims' in it). Then you unilaterally changed it from "UFO Claims" to "UAP Disclosure". I don't see any support for that title - and it was never "stable". However we could do an WP:RFP....or since there are a number of editors already here, a quick straw poll. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Just FYI, that, whenever the article title settles down again for a while, there is a "lost" talk page archive out there somewhere now to clean up. Jjhake (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
"Disclosure" is unacceptable. Please abstain from insinuating me to be a crank, Miserlou. I think the current title is the best one at the moment (David Grusch UFO claims and whistleblower complaint). I even doubt it will make sense to discuss the title now as the facts may change significantly in the next two weeks or so. Let's focus on content. Marginataen (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
You have not made an argument for why you think it's better to use an outdated, unofficial term and why disclosure - the term literally used in the legal filing which started this whole thing - is not acceptable. You're just demanding it. Miserlou (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
"Disclosure" is the legal name of one document, which is a tiny part of the subject. This article is not about the document. It is about something only a UFO fan would call "disclosure".
UFO is still the common term. But of course, ufologists jump on the UAP wagon because it makes them seem less crazy. We have no reason to help that fringe subculture appear respectable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The person in question literally worked for the "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force", a real government project. It isn't the "commonly used" word in the government or academia. The different usage seems to be "UFOs" are used by the tinfoil hat people, "UAPs" are used by the government and academic projects like the Galileo Project. You're conflating the two, judging by your page this seems to be a kind of bugbear for you. Given the subject's direct connection to the government, this seems to be squarely in the latter camp. Miserlou (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
And again with "disclosure", this isn't just "UFO fans" as you said, this is the way it was reported in the most prominent news outlet to write about this subject: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/whistleblower-ufo-alien-tech-spacecraft Miserlou (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
And to clarify, I am not saying that the things he said in the interview are true. He has made a legal disclosure, which is still classified, and made a complaint about retaliation for whatever he said. That's why this is on wikipedia at all. Miserlou (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Miserlou, perhaps taken in by the present brouhaha. The change from UFO to UAP was a deliberate decision on the part of Bigelow-financed obsessives to "rebrand" the UFO craze so that the association with "tin foil hats" would go away. Problem is, they kept the tin foil hats. The government sponsored programs studying UAPs were done at the behest of Harry Reid and Robert Bigelow and involved truly wacky stuff like investigating hauntings at a ranch in Nevada and entertaining the idea that perpetual motion and antigravity devices were real. It all came crashing down when the mysterious videos started to gain mundane explanations, so the same team decided to push a new story dressed up with lawyers and whistleblowers and the like hoping that they could get the same patsies in the Senate to run with the ball again. There has been considerably less appetite this time, but be that as it may, your opinion that this is somehow more serious than anything that has gone before thus we need to focus on the credentials, the legalese, and the new names for UFOs is one of two things: either you've been conned by the people pushing the story or you're trying to push an agenda. Either way, this isn't really a good approach to take at this website. jps (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about or who Bigelow is, this sounds just as kooky and conspiratorial as the UFO things. This whole thing is the result of that 2017 New York Times article that posted videos of weird objects captured by US navy pilots. It's the term the DoD uses: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2314065/establishment-of-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-task-force/ - do you think they've been tricked too? The only reason I'm on this page is to try to make it factual, but it seems like I've stumbled into a war between two types of obsessives. Nearly as bad as editing a page about Israel. Miserlou (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any distinction anywhere on Wikipedia between UFOs and UAPs. If any such distinction is valid, that seems to be a larger conversation and task that probably can't be worked out in this article on the Grusch whistleblower event. Jjhake (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, there is no distinction. Pedants might argue that the F and the O could be wrong depending on what your definition of "flying" and "object" are. That's what the Galileo Project people argue. But Wikipedia stays behind the curve and the invention of new jargon is not something we're supposed to get ahead of. By all means, use the term UAP in quotes and when referring to the various programs in the government right now trying to address this mess, but to assume that it is a term that is more precise or more correct is a claim that we just don't have good secondary sources for (and, indeed, many of our best WP:FRIND sources would take issue with). jps (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Do I think the DoD was tricked? Yeah, sorta. They were tasked with investigating things they would normally dismiss as spurious by a Congress who was duped into believing that this was a major thing worth investigating by motivated believers including Robert Bigelow. When the oversight people questioned whether any of this was worthwhile, the team tried to get public pressure applied by publishing their findings in the New York Times. The DoD was more-or-less unimpressed and said, "sure, you can look at these videos." Then nothing happened until some balloons were shot down and the whole business turned from the "aliens among us" argument to questions about spying. That's the backstory and it really isn't all that controversial. I don't know anyone who disputes that this is what happened, in fact (though they may take issue with the word "duped"). jps (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
[1] Ugh. Knapp and Corbell, longtime UFO grifters. That Grusch first pitched them the story tells me this kerfluffle may not go much further. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Article title straw poll

This is fine by me Miserlou (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Good points. At the moment, my suggestion is the least incendiary title among the Talk page editors ; ) Again, I think when the high quality journalistic sources weigh in, they will probably ID it for what it is, a UFO conspiracy claim. But until then... - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I’m not sure we’ll get consensus now with an option that doesn’t note the UFO stuff explicitly in the title, so concisely capturing both aspects without throwing it entirely into the “sensational stuff” bucket might be the best bet. Anyway, I’ve not been active enough in editing to know how this stuff gets wrapped up, and I’ve got to step away for a while. Hope it lands well. Jjhake (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jjhake, I don't really want to stick around and babysit either. Let's hope it all turns out well. So getting back to my rationale for David Grusch whistleblower complaint, I'm betting the name "Grusch" will become synonymous with "UFO conspiracy claim", so while it may be good to nail a big, flashing "UFO" sign to the title, the title could be more similar to Profumo affair and Watergate scandal, where you don't need the title to do the work of explaining all the various elements. WP:AND is good advice to read as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense. If there’s any grownup and meaningful to come of this, it’s helpful to have it in the title. And the name Grusch is certainly gong to mean UFO on its own from now on. Jjhake (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Could also be David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims. See below.- LuckyLouie (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
That’s short and feels like it says it all to me. Jjhake (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  • David Grusch UAP disclosure is concise and accurate, as it describes both the legal situation and the woowoo and avoids using the outdated/unofficial term "UFO". Miserlou (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    Only if everything which is not about that document is deleted. So, everything excep the "2022 complaint" section. And then it should be deleted as an undue stub.
    Every suggestion except this one is good enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  • David Grusch whistleblower filing and UFO claims (I'm trying to think of a compromise?) --Jjhake (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  • David Grusch UFO claims. I think that the whistleblower complaint is not really an important aspect to the story excepting that it seems to have fooled a few erstwhile news outlets into paying attention to the story. In the 19th Century, this would have been the equivalent to the "sworn affidavit" that people who claimed miraculous events would promulgate. It is meant to bamboozle the reader into thinking that there was some official or officious backstory that really isn't there. jps (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    In the long term, it’s primarily about protecting whistleblowers who seek to support Congressional oversight which is the reason that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who led the Senate's April UAP hearing, is following this. Jjhake (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    Whaaaa? No. Gillibrand is following this because she's trying to save face after her UAP hearing was an embarrassment. In the long term, this is just another case of people being duped. jps (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    Outside oversight of our military industrial complex is a serious matter, and the story will continue to connect to that I’d guess. Exciting over UFO stuff doesn’t distract everyone. Jjhake (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. The point is that Gillibrand has been tacking towards oversight ever since it became clear that the Chinese balloons, etc. were going to end up settling down a lot of the Blumenthal/Kean gumflapping. Just compare her current statements to the ones she made in the April hearing. Now we have some pretty wild stuff coming out from the same group who is hoping to hang onto credentialism and legal fictions to claim there is a there there. In the meantime, the real story is that people love a good X-Files episode. jps (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, if any real news outlets ever comment on this event, we’ll see. Jjhake (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
My concern remains that pretending that the "legal" or the "oversight" issues are at all the real story is buying into the framing attempts by Kean/Blumenthal to try to break into the mainstream. This is similar to using the Navy pilots in 2017 and claiming that the real story was a "Question of National Security". jps (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The new whistleblower law is far less vague than “national security” and as noted above the UFO stuff will be part of it inevitably… I’m advocating for the serious content that has been bright up in more than just the breaking story. The most serious treatment so far is probably the Wired piece where Congressional oversight is the point of bipartisan concern (such as it is). Jjhake (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the Wired piece is all that serious, or, at least, I see nothing in it that indicates there are going to be any legs to carry this thing beyond the "man bites dog" sensationalism. As I pointed out above, if it turns out this guy is delusional (what are the odds?!?!?!), it's pretty clear the whole question of "whistleblower status" is basically moot. Whether there is some sort of problematic suppression going on would be akin to asking whether the psychiatrist is in on a conspiracy to silence government critics when they prescribe thorazine to schizophrenics. jps (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
@jps. I agree. Indeed, this whistleblower filing was the latest creative twist on attention-seeking by the usual UFO grifters enabled by Kean and Blumenthal, and I wouldn't want a title that encouraged credibility. Just something that describes the twist. Maybe something like David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Why are you so insistent on using "UFO", which, again, is not used by the government, the lawyers, the claimant, or any serious media? Miserlou (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Because that's the genre. Why should we pretend otherwise? Also, what is "serious media" in this context? What about any of this nonsense is "serious"? jps (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Serious media means we can use it as a source on Wikipedia, obviously. That's why there isn't an article for every kook of the week with a blog.Miserlou (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
So anything that is not a kooky blog and used by Wikipedia is "serious media"? If that's your definition, you're going to have to revise your statement that "serious media" do not use the term "UFO". jps (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Order of content in lead

I reordered the content in the lead in what seems obvious and typical for Wikipedia, but I want to acknowledge the change and invite discussion here. Jjhake (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What are we missing?

I think I would be beneficial to identify, based on current information, what still needs to be added to the text. Here are my five cents:

  1. Background. First a few sentences about the history of UFO claims in general. Then something about the release of the Pentagon UFO videos. Maybe also mention the Findings of the UAPTF. It was the organisation Grusch worked for after all.
  2. There might be more to mention about the content of the June 7 Le Parisien interview.

Marginataen (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It gets long and starts to look like a big report if we start adding much more now. If Congress continues to signal action, it is best to wait until after the dust settles from that before taking a shot at final form for the article. If Congress quiets down about it, then it gets trimmed a lot in various ways most likely. Jjhake (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
While it is natural to approach writing and revision from the perspective of addition, it is more beneficial (and nonintuitive) to use subtraction instead. Writer Elmore Leonard famously summarized this approach with the pithy statement: "Kill your darlings" (Stephen King, in turn, popularized this approach). Hemingway, Twain, and almost every other famous writer also emphasized the subtraction method. In other words, don't think about what you are missing, think about rewriting what you already have. The additions will come out of that process as an emergent entity in themselves. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Wow, that's deep. Really learned something personally about writing there. Thanks! Marginataen (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
It's more of an attitude. I don't know if this quote is real (most of these kinds of quotes are apocryphal), but this saying is attributed to Michelangelo: "The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material." Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

New document release

  • SECURITY EXECUTIVE AGENT / DIRECTIVE 9 / WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION : APPELLATE REVIEW OF RETALIATION REGARDING SECURITY CLEARANCES AND ACCESS DETERMINATIONS (EFFECTIVE 28 MAY 2022) signed by Avril D. Haines, Director of National Intelligence - and provides additional protections as well as mandates the creation of a whistleblower clearance review panel.[2]
  • DOPSR cleared statement and IG complaint (partial, April 4, 2023)[3]

New in the last 24 hours. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Lede of the article

The primary focus of coverage of this topic is that the U.S. federal government is alleged to be in possession of extraterrestrial spacecraft. The fact is the lede should reflect that. Jargon about bureaucratic complaints procedures and congressional hearings being the first thing people read is not at all appropriate. Asperthrow (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your change. This is not a catalog of claims about aliens. This is an encyclopedia article about an ongoing legal event. The jargon about about bureaucratic complaints procedures and congressional hearings is exactly what matters for people who are here for factual information about what's going on. If you want to talk about aliens, go to reddit. Miserlou (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Your reply is needlessly hostile. Bad faith engagement is unwelcome.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of coverage around this disclosure has been around the alleged UFOs and the U.S. government’s hiding them; this must be reflected in the article.
Are you earnestly suggesting David Grusch’s law firm and legal complaints are more important and have received more or comparable coverage to his allegations of possession of non-human spacecraft?
The lede should present the substance of the matter first and then provide context (this being Grusch’s legal complaints, claims that his home had been broken into, etc.). As it stands, the lede is bizarre and unclear to read. Asperthrow (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The lede is a summary of the facts. It mentions both the legal events and the media coverage in the chronological order they occurred. If you find this unclear, perhaps there is a version you can find on https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Wikipedia. Miserlou (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Order of events is critical to any understanding. Laws, agencies, and procedures protecting whistleblowers who seek to support Congressional oversight are not “jargon about about bureaucratic complaints.” This is not only the background but is the reason that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who led the Senate's April UAP hearing, is following this process. It’s critical to whatever outcome regardless of the sensational stuff about non-human craft and bodies and all. Jjhake (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I think OP is largely correct here. It doesn't matter what the motivations Gillibrand has for following this story. All that matters is that it is sensationalized. Otherwise, it surely wouldn't be a story. jps (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

News stories have covered both aspects, and the best outlets have noted the new whistleblower policies that this involves. These are critical to understanding the story as more than a set of bizarre claims that no one would have noticed at all. If this event ultimately meets notability standards long term, it will not only be because of the wild nature of the claims but because the event shaped the national narrative in some way related to Congressional oversight of defense and intelligence matters. Jjhake (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I hear you, but I'm still not convinced. The problem is that the "best outlets" are liable to focus on this framing because they are gun-shy about the wackiness. Kean and Blumenthal are aware of this which is why they pushed that framing in the first place. Now Wikipedia cannot help that sort of manipulation -- we follow the sources -- but we are not under an obligation to accept that we must emphasize the mundanity that is used as a pretext for WP:SENSATION. If you think that these "best outlets" are actually interested in whether whistleblower laws are being followed, I think you've missed the forest for the trees. While we try not to coatrack on Wikipedia, journalists that depend on eyeballs while trying to keep their editors happy are not bound by such covenants. jps (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm never really sure how all of this back and forth helps on the talk pages. What if we write a lede that has both aspects clearly stated in the opening sentence or two and then unpacks the narrative of the event in a quick chronological flow (with much of the current facts but with the legal stuff certainly condensable more than it currently is)? Jjhake (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Here's shot at it:
In June 2023, U.S. Air Force officer and former intelligence official David Grusch went to the press with claims that the U.S. federal government maintains a highly secretive UFO retrieval program and possesses up to twelve non-human spacecraft. He shared that, in 2022, he had filed a complaint with the American Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General that would allow him to present classified information to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence along with a complaint of retaliation by his superiors for a similar complaint that he had made in 2021 about classified information that he claimed had been concealed from Congress to thwart their oversight of a UFO retrieval program that he believes to have existed since the 1940s. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced plans for the House Oversight Committee to investigate the matter.
Through three news outlets, including video recordings with Ross Coulthart, Grusch said that information he alleged to have received from other officials demonstrated that Mussolini recovered a non-human space craft that the Vatican help the United States to acquire. In addition, he claimed that the U.S. federal government possesses (or has seen) bodies of non-human pilots, has killed American citizens to maintain the secrecy of its UFO recovery program, and misrepresented the true nature of the Roswell Incident. In response, the U.S. Department of Defense and NASA both issued statements saying that no evidence for these claims has been found. Public responses have been mixed, with some pointing out that his claims are outlandish and unsubstantiated, while others call for more government transparency on the subject. Jjhake (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I've put the above attempt at a compromise in the article. It should at lease be an improvement over what was there given the concern at the top of this thread. Jjhake (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I was pretty happy until I read said that information he alleged to have received from other officials demonstrated that. Can't we simplify that verbiage? Otherwise, I think the paragraphs are fine. jps (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Gave a try at simplifying it somewhat. Jjhake (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Public responses have been mixed I assume this mean 'public responses from legislators'? Might be good to clarify. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Responses from legislators and journalists have been mixed, with some saying... This drifts into editorializing, communicating that overall, reception of Grusch's extraordinary claims are split approximately 50/50, with some dismissing them outright and some feeling more info is needed. Sometimes in film articles we can justify this kind of editorializing by citing the results of film review aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes to characterize reviews as "mixed" or "mostly this or mostly that". But in this case, the statements by legislators are mostly dismissive, with only "a small but vocal – and increasingly powerful – faction" entertaining them. And the media has mostly sensationalized the story. The media outlets publishing exclusive interviews with Grusch especially can't be counted as objective journalism. So I would strike that editorialized estimation of response - there's no need to keep a running tally - hold off until the dust settles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Makes sense. I'll remove that. Really, however, unless the Congress mentions Grusch much again (which I kind of doubt myself), the dust is settling and the various theories are being published and all dismissing the vast bulk of the Grusch claims, with reasons ranging from confused person(s) to government obfuscations. Jjhake (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"Jonathan Grey"

NASIC says it has no record of employee using ‘Jonathan Grey’ alias. Local reporters in Dayton queried NASIC at nearby Wright-Patterson, and surprising as it may seem, there's no record of any "Jonathan Grey" or anyone using that alias. I think most would agree the Dayton Daily News is certainly a more established WP:RS than The Debrief. So, rather than assert in Wikipedia's voice that Kean interviewed 'Grey', we should attribute, e.g. "According to Kean, she interviewed Jonathan Grey..." and for any quotes attributed to 'Grey' we should qualify that "According to Kean and Blumenthal, Grey said...". - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Kean makes it clear from the start that Jonathan Grey is a pseudonym (a standard practice), so this should be noted as well. Jjhake (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

17 June lede reorganization

@Marginataen: There was a lot of discussion about the order of items in the lede, so it seems a little thoughtless of all that to simply reorder it again as you did just now. The last time, I proposed a compromise that we acceptable between those who wanted all of the details of the claims at the top and those who wanted a chronological order with the legal actions first. Do you mind if we revert it back to that compromise where we give a couple of the most fundamental claims, outline the legal background, and then give all of the additional details of the claims? --Jjhake (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Second Shermer source now up

  • Shermer, Michael (June 14, 2023). "Michael Shellenberger on UFO Whistleblowers". Ep. 359. The Michael Shermer Show. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks, I've watched it. I don't think I found anything specifically useful in it for this article. Did you? Marginataen (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    I'm biased against Shellenberger; for me, the source supports the hypothesis that the US right-wing in the US (Shellenberger) is intentionally pushing this story. Other than that, you're right, it's probably not very useful. However, given that Shellenberger himself frames his interest in this story as one of government abuse (of secrecy), I think at some point this article will have to note how the right wing is using this angle for their own purposes. In other words, it is unlikely that any hearing or investigation will result in any new information; but it is highly likely that Republicans will use this subject to continue to claim that the government is abusing their power. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Viriditas and Marginataen: I also don't see anything new in here and using this to illustrate your point about right-wing abuses of this story would get into original research kind of territory. It is best to let the secondary stories make such interpretive claims for themselves. To date the Wired article did the most to lay out such claims from what I have seen. The term "far-right" from the Wired story was recently removed by an anonymous editor and then a second editor removed the Wired quote entirely. I think it would be good to put some of this reporting from Wired back into this article because it is helpful to share what secondary sources say about how the story is being used or the various factors that motivate responses to it.
    At any rate, even the Wired piece did end with evidence of a bipartisan interest in some wider related issues and a sentence saying, "lawmakers of all stripes are disturbed by reports of UAPs hovering over US military sites". Some of this obviously gets beyond the scope of this particular article on the Grusch case and is the reason why I think that there are larger problems with the pointlessly limited categories that editors insist upon using on Wikipedia (as I have tried to point out here on the UFO article talk page). We can let this specific article on the Grusch case carry the weight of these larger questions that may very well continue to show up as the U.S. military is clearly trying to normalize some questions about UAPs for whatever reason. Jjhake (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    I restored the content. The claim of "bipartisan interest" is totally different, as Wired was referring to "UAPs hovering over US military sites", a separate issue from the scope of this article. The National Review article also supports the claim in Wired about this topic being an unusual focus of the right-wing. Shellenberger is one of the new poster boys for the right in recent years, and Shermer's interview reveals several interesting connections that I won't go into right now. Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for restoring the Wired content. I agree that it is critical to understanding the Grusch case and how it can get used. Jjhake (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    I do prefer paraphrases more than quotes, so I think Marginataen had the right idea, but the paraphrase they implemented just didn't work. Ideally, we should be using the Wired source and the National Review source for these claims. Also, please take a look at the National Review source for info on the background of this case, as we seem to be missing some details in the "Grusch's filings with the Inspector General" section. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    As I was mentioned, I might as well comment: I just saw that the we were directly quoting the article for saying something it didn't say ("Republican" instead of "far-right"). I didn't, and still don't, know if or how it should be included but since a false quatiation obviously couldn't remain, I at the moment just deleted it. Marginataen (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

"Twelve non-human spacecraft"

As far as I understand, Grusch said "quiet a number". The claim about twelve craft was not made by him but by other people who Michael Schellenberger interviewed. Is this wrong? Marginataen (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that you are probably correct. Feel free to make this edit and to ask for others to provide a quote from Grusch if they want to change it back. I know that Michael Shellenberger specifically talked about "at least 12 to 15 non-human aircraft", but I do recall that Grusch has ever given numbers with his claims. Jjhake (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I removed the number from the lead. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for this (and other improvements with the lead). Jjhake (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jjhake "I do recall that Grusch has ever given numbers with his claims". I really don't recall Grusch saying anything about numbers except "quiet a number". I am confident this only stems from Schellenberger's article. If you have evidence showing otherwise, please share it. Marginataen (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a typo from me in my comment above. I was in full agreement with you and meant to write that "I do not recall that Grusch has ever given numbers with his claims". Thanks for checking with me. Jjhake (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
It's good
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/06/the-ufo-whistleblower-is-back-with-more-crazy-claims.html Marginataen (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep it simple unless there are more developments

It's easy to keep adding little pieces of related information, but I'm grateful for the recent edit by someone who killed the first "See also" attempt. This note is just an appeal not to add more content unless there are more developments. Refining and clarifying language is helpful, but I'm pretty confident that this article includes most all of the related info from secondary sources at this current point.

Btw, I'm also noting that this article had 3724 pageviews yesterday (June 15). Jjhake (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I sort of see two things that may be added.
1) Kean and Blumenthal themselves have been very much in the UFO business
2) The DoD had approved Grusch's interview because he did not reveal anything confidential Marginataen (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Those makes sense if added as new sentences with simple language and clear citations. We should really find a mainstream news source that notes the background of Kean and Blumenthal and cite that. Otherwise, their own articles make it clear as well. (Belaboring the point is not warranted obviously. The story they broke with the NYT in 2017 was important and people can obviously do some great work while believing all kinds of wild stuff.) Jjhake (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
What about no. 2? Marginataen (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
#1 is already in the article, cited to Shermer and properly attributed. #2 is contained in the Shermer source, but I don't think that's a notable criticism that needs to be added to an already overloaded Shermer paragraph. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't see it as a criticism. To my understanding, it's just a fact that the DoD had approved what he said because he didn't reveal any secrets – Interpret that however you like. The fact that the DoD had pre-approved Grusch's claims for publication, I find to be important. There are other sources mentioning it. Marginataen (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
If you have a source in mind that a quote can be attributed to, drop it here and see if it gathers some consensus. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
The other thing I'd strongly advise is removing the 'editorial aside' in the photo caption: Australian investigative journalist and author Ross Coulthart (whose most recent book is on UFOs) conducted the interview .... WP:NOTEVERYTHING, e.g. we wouldn't have a caption that said President Donald Trump (who was recently indicted twice) places a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier' — even though the statements are factual. Let the article links do the work. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
That's helpful. I think I added that as I worked on this with Marginataen, but your point clarifies how Wikipedia should work in keeping away form the line of editorial commentary... I'll remove that now (if now yet gone). Jjhake (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

drama about pilot bodies

@DolyaIskrina: You mentioned me in your most recent edit on the wording around pilot bodies (asking me to, "for the love God, stop obscuring"). However, I've had it set to exactly the way you wanted (twice now in fact), and it has not been edited by me with the last change that you reverted again. Please watch the edit history more closely before you call others out (and make use of the talk page if you feel that need again with any others).

Btw, I do think you're wrong about the point, but your interpretation is what most (not all) news outlets have assumed as well, and I've been entirely content to leave it as you wish. Through all of the comical back and forth on this point with several of us, the full quote has always been in place within the body of the article, so anyone who cares is free to decide for themselves. It seems obvious to me that Grusch was intentionally obfuscating on that question, but I have long since stopped trying to maintain that point in face of your insistence that he made a clear and direct claim. With the massive and wild pile of stuff that Grusch unloaded, it seems entirely immaterial. Jjhake (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: Good point just now about putting "non-human" in quotes. Thank you. However, that now emphasizes the awkwardness (and pointlessness imo) of DolyaIskrina having just added the second "non-human" back-to-back. Even more than the fact that it's clunky language is that fact that Grusch just says "dead pilot" so it feels like a technically inaccurate use of quotes. Anyway, I'm personally sick to death of haggling over the language about pilots, so I'm noting it and leaving it to any others to determine if it's worth any further changes. Jjhake (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
As quoted in the body of the article Grusch says, "When you recover something that's either landed or crashed, sometimes you encounter dead pilots." Jjhake (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
It's actually OK. We need not concern ourselves with analyzing and interpreting the WP:PRIMARY transcripts/remarks by Grusch. WP prefers WP:SECONDARY sources, and we have tons that describe both spacecraft and pilots attached to his "non human" claims. Whatever he means by "non human" (insects? artificial intelligence machines? spirits?) will eventually be settled and clarified by RS, but until then, this kind of back-to-back specificity in language is probably the clearest and best we can do. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks. Jjhake (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Here is your edit where you remove "non-human" from before "pilot" This is what I was referring to. Whatever stylistic advantage this achieves, it obscures the fact that he is claiming we have in our possession alien bodies. Their occupation is of slightly less importance than the fact that they are from another planet or dimension or whatever the case may be. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims&diff=prev&oldid=1160328286 DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
As if “possesses "non-human" spacecraft and the corpses of "non-human" pilots” is not entirely equivalent in meaning to “possesses "non-human" spacecraft and the corpses of pilots”? 🤣 Jjhake (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Not equivalent grammatically at all. It is ambiguous whether or not an adjective modifies all subsequent nouns. For instance, "Mary has a blue house and yard." A native speaker of English assumes blue only modifies house. But her yard could in fact be blue. One assumes that blue only modifies house because blue yards are unusual. In terms of Pragmatics, which is the realm in which a careful writer operates, you should say "Mary has a blue house and a blue yard." Why? Because a blue yard is quite remarkable. I think we can agree that a non-human pilot is more surprising than a blue yard. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
But he did not say "non-human" pilots. He said "dead pilots". Marginataen (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
He was asked by Ross Couthart, "Do we, the US, ... Do we have bodies, do we have species of non-humans?" and Grusch replied, "Well, naturally, when you recover something that's either landed or crashed … sometimes you encounter, um, dead pilots and, believe it or not, as fantastical as that sounds. It's true" Only by ignoring the question asked can you pretend that he's not answering "yes, we have dead bodies of species of non-humans." But as you are saying, it's not a direct quote, so, I would remove the quotation marks around "non-human" but it is such a debated sentence I don't want to mess with it at this point. DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@DolyaIskrina: The close relationship of the words being modified matters a great deal to clarity and meaning. As if anyone would read "possesses 'non-human' spacecraft and the corpses of pilots" and not assume that non-human modifies both spacecraft and pilots. My point is simply that I have long ago decided to let you be wrong about a very minor point in this lede (especially given that the vast majority of the media reports make the same assumption that you are making and that the body of the article contains the relevant quote in full). For my part, I am no longer trying to clarify the record in the lede about Grusch obfuscating vaguely about "encountering dead pilots" when asked if the government possess bodies as well as craft. I am just on this talk page because I am asking you not to continue accusing me of "whitewashing the record" on anything. Not only was I never doing that, but I conceded your point to you happily on this in the lede to avoid making a bigger deal of it than it ever warranted. Jjhake (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay thanks! DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply! Jjhake (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

from 3,724 page-views on June 15 to 7,769 on June 16

Fellow editors, I'm noting the obvious by pointing out page-views, but the work done in presenting a clear, factual, fair, and complete record of this event based on recognized secondary sources is a meaningful service to a still-growing number of readers. (And I've learned a lot about Wikipedia editing so far on this project because most of my own past editing has involved far fewer collaborators.) Thank you all. Jjhake (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

An honour, Sir Marginataen (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Mutual! Jjhake (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

sources for the various parts of the composite image at the top of the article?

@Marginataen: I really like the wild composite image that you put together for the top of this article. A labor of love. Can you give what you know about the sources or provenances for each of the images within the composite so that there is some transparency regarding public domain or any other questions that other editors might have? Thanks for creating it. I'm impressed by how informative and fitting it is to this article about this event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims#/media/File:David_Grusch,_UFO-p%C3%A5stande.jpg Jjhake (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The collage is an overview of central components of Grusch's claims. The source of each image is listed on Commons: (Please help list them in a better way).
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:David_Grusch,_UFO-p%C3%A5stande.jpg
1. UFO: Grusch claimed that the U.S. goverment has spacecraft of non-human origin
2. Roswell: He said that the true nature of the Roswell incident has been hidden from the public
3. Alien: He alleged the existence of aliens (here, I may add the ambiguous statement about "dead pilots")
4. Mussolini: He said that Mussolini's government hid the 1933 Magenta craft
5. Pope Pius: He stated that Pius/the Vatican was involved
6. To Le Parisien, Grusch told that the Five Eyes had participated in the Italian UFO recovery
Made on befunky.com Marginataen (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
This is very helpful, and I really already understood and appreciate the relevance and informative support to the article. May question is about where you got each image and if each one is in the public domain. Jjhake (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello Marginataen, I like the collage! You will likely need to use a different alien image. If that image is from Roswell (1994), the copyright is likely held by Viacom. Thus, the collage would be a derivative work that could only be released under a Creative Commons license with their explicit permission. Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
1. RoswellDailyRecordJuly8,1947.jpg
2. Supposed UFO, Passaic, New Jersey (cropped).jpg
3. Screenshot of Alien Prop from Roswell, The UFO Cover Up (1994).jpeg
4. Duce Benito Mussolini.jpg
5. Pius XII with tabard, by Michael Pitcairn, 1951.png
6. UKUSA Map.svg
@Rjjiii I did notice that the alien image said "Non-free content". Just to understand it better, why can it be used on the article Roswell incident? Marginataen (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. It can't be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. They only allow media available under a free license. This is not a legal issue but their own policy (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing). They are based in the United States. Under U.S. copyright law, if you include work from an existing source restricted under copyright in your own creation, that creation will be considered a derivative work or collective work. This means that you will need the permission of the copyright holders. For your collage, anything in the public domain is fair game and anything released under a free license by the copyright holder is also fair game. The CC licenses are the creator's way of giving permission for their work to be used like this. If you look on the Roswell (1994) DVD, you will see somewhere (C) Viacom 1994, all rights reserved, which is Viacom's way of denying permission. Hope that helps, Rjjiii (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I still don't quiet get how it can be used on the Roswell incident article but do not question your expertise and will look at changing it tomorrow. Marginataen (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia (where your alien image is hosted) has different policies than Wikimedia Commons where your composite image is hosted. Thank you for working on this and being willing to change that image. (You could possibly find a way to host your image of Wikipedia and provide a "Media data and Non-free use rationale", but the most stable thing to do long term is to just use an image that is in the public domain.) Jjhake (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a drawing at the top of this location that is from "Frank Kovalchek on a creative commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license" so you could crop that and note that it was released into "creative commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license" by the creator Frank Kovalchek. Wikimedia Commons allows creative commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Jjhake (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Failed to add the link with the public domain illustration at the top:
https://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/north-york-central-blog/2014/07/ufo-or-weather-balloon.html Jjhake (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@Marginataen: It's honestly pretty confusing. The policy on a fair use images that Jjhake mentioned is here: Wikipedia:Non-free content. And regarding stability, there are a couple of times that editors have debated on whether the image can be used outside of the Roswell (film) article: diff Rjjiii (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Nice work, unfortunately, I don’t think this is a good fit for this article. If we are going to have a lead image, it should be an image of a legal or official government document related to this case, or nothing at all. Just my opinion, of course, but I think the current image lends too much credence to the claims and puts us in more of an advocacy position rather than a neutral, tertiary source position. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
It's as much a cultural and folk lore event as it is a political or legal or scientific event. One of the best secondary source articles on the topic notes that these claims follow standard science fiction tropes. The images reinforce and recognize this reality that is noted in several secondary sources. Jjhake (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a tertiary source; the addition of these images borders on synthesis and advocacy. In my mind, we have to take a somewhat restrained and conservative approach, and images like this should be used sparingly, if at all. To a disinterested reader, this blurs the line between fiction and reality, and could give the false impression that these things have some kind of evidentiary basis; for example, the image of the pope appeals to religious authority, etc. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense. Some (but not many) of the secondary sources do a good job of noting and distinguishing between the many layers here such as:
  • folklore
  • entertainment
  • science
  • policy and legal questions
I think it's helpful to represent each of the layers that is noted in the secondary sources in distinct categories. It's something that I think is missing more broadly from the kind of tertiary and encyclopedic information that Wikipedia provides on this topic. Anyway, without that kind of work already in place in this article, I do see how an image like this current composite blurs the lines. Jjhake (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
It’s also not the first time this has happened or has been discussed. This kind of composite is helpful for non-fiction, history articles, and has been used widely to some extent; I am just not sure it would hold up under the article improvement process for this kind of article since it borders the line between fantasy and reality. The Vatican claims are widely considered a hoax from many decades back, the image of the alien is clearly fake, etc. It’s best to stick with real images reflecting real things, as much as possible for this reason. Other people may disagree, so it’s best to get a wider opinion from other editors. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I guess that’s why it was deleted as synthesizing information? Jjhake (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The point of the composite image is to show central components of DG's claims. Looking at it analytically, I personally think most people when looking at a picture of the pope next to an UFO will just come to realise how crazy his claims are. Therefore, I don't think the collage constitutes credence to the claims, rather quite the opposite. However, I did not look at it analytically when I made it, but simply chose images related to his claims I continuously only included his claims because I find it the most important to include in a infox image, not legal stuff ect.
@Viriditas writes, "To a disinterested reader, this blurs the line between fiction and reality, and could give the false impression that these things have some kind of evidentiary basis; for example, the image of the pope appeals to religious authority, etc." This is because his claims are wild and not because the composite fails to include the core elements of the claims. As @Jjhake points out, on of the best secondary source articles on the topic notes that his claims follow standard science fiction tropes. Here the fact of the matter is that DG said the pope had been involved. The "disinterested reader" could actually read the caption which said, "Central themes of Grusch's unsubstantiated claims from top, left to right:". It is normal to display images of claims in articles like this, so with Viriditas' argumentation, the disinterested reader who fails to read captions will also be confused by the illustration in Reptilian conspiracy theory and the image of Comet Ping Pong in Pizzagate conspiracy theory.The same is true for the introduction image of Flat Earth, Deep state in the United States, 9/11 truth movement and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.
I know there is some copyright issue about the artistic conception of an alien (Screenshot of Alien Prop from Roswell, The UFO Cover Up (1994).jpeg). I understand that it may be possible to keep that image but won't adress it further now before consensus about the use of the collage in general has been achieved. I'm btw very open for suggestions to improvements to the collage. Marginataen (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Look, I love what you are trying to do, but I think you will find more support if you go with more conventional images, such as images of legal documents, government insignias, etc. Just stay away from the more fantastical elements and I will support you. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Isn't the issue that DG's claims by their very nature are "fantastical"? Marginataen (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Grusch said he was given the information from someone else in the government, so they aren't really his claims. The problem with using these images is that they are indirectly giving credence to them by highlighting them in the lead. I think you could argue that you are engaging in simple illustration of his ideas, but Wikipedia tends to be very conservative when it comes to images to avoid giving undue weight to ideas. I think the best thing to do moving forward is to ask the community which images they would accept in the lead. The way to do this is to choose, let's say 20 or so different images that you like, and post them here using the gallery tag, numbered 1-20 (or whatever) and ask people to choose (six?) of the images for use in your composite. That's how it is usually done. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. It is his claims. He said he got it from other people but it is still his claims. It is not ideas, but claims. The collage shows central in his claims. Is it not about religious authority. He simply said Pius was involved. I would like @Jjhake's take before writing anymore.
Central themes of Grusch's claims

Marginataen (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m not familiar enough with this zone of writing on Wikipedia to have significant input. However, I understand the basic point that it is an unhelpful blurring of categories to illustrate extremely typical and widely debunked conspiracy claims with any kind of historical image. If there is no more conclusive closure and these claims eventually enters the long list of other conspiracy claims and folklore, there might be some image generated from pop culture that I would think appropriate. For now, it would only be appropriate to use a simple image of Grusch himself if any enter the public domain. Just my thoughts as I’m learning more about writing in an encyclopedia in areas where so many categories intersect: folklore, conspiracies, entertainment, as well as government and military policy. Jjhake (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

New section proposal: "Response from scientists"

I would like to see a new section devoted solely to the collected response from scientists to this topic. This new article details some of the responses, but there are many more available. I am happy to write this section, however I will be away for most of the day, so I was hoping others could get it going before I got back. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot. Sounds very helpful. What about prioritizing this new category with a reordering of some existing categories as follows?
  • Media reporting and commentary on Grusch's claims
    • Responses from scientists
    • Disinformation campaign allegations
    • Early news reporting
I think that a section summarizing how secondary sources are pointing out various folklore, pop culture, entertainment connections would also be helpful. Jjhake (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I’m only focusing on a response from scientists in this discussion. If you want to have a go at it, please do so. I’ll be around much later to see if I can add anything. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm about to get onto a plane for a few hours myself, but I will be glad to help when I can to pull in any scientists that I can find from the secondary sources. Great project. Jjhake (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with those who’ve suggested trimming. A super high degree of article bloat has happened, which is typical for breaking news, but not a good thing for an encyclopedia article. We don’t just excitedly aggregate every single detail or comment in the media landscape as it happens and then try to piece it into a narrative. See Wikipedia is not a journal of current news. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

We don’t just excitedly aggregate every single detail or comment in the media landscape as it happens and then try to piece it into a narrative. And yet, that is in fact how the process occurs organically, from sensational article creation to stable article improvement. Phase one represents this chaotic aggregation period, which I think we have just passed out of and into phase two, which is more like a funnel and filtering process that takes the aggregated material and arranges it into the most natural narrative form. We are nowhere near phase three, which would entail focused rewriting and refinement, which would lead to phase four, a stable article that is mature and unlikely to change from day to day. So since we are now in the phase two process of article improvement, I think we do in fact end up trimming as we funnel this glut of material into the narrative filter, which functions to give us new highly focused content rather than random x said y musings. At least that’s how I see it. Would you like to expand on how you see it? Jjhake has taken point on bringing this article to GA in the future, which means we have at least one editor dedicated to seeing that process through. We should do everything possible to support them and the success of that endeavor. Marginataen appears to be an experimentalist first class, and we need that kind of editor who is willing to take risks and try different things. All these users are bringing their support roles to help improve this coverage. We should help them. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Should lede say, "He also contended that the Project Mogul explanation for the Roswell incident was incorrect"?

@ජපස: I'm not aware of Grusch saying anything about the Project Mogul explanation. If he did say anything about it, shouldn't that be in the body of the article before we put it into the lede? Seems a lot like WP:SYNTH to me and in the lede no less. Jjhake (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The Project Mogul explanation is the official government (and non-government, for that matter) explanation. I suppose it is possible that Grusch thinks there is a different official explanation than that one. If it isn't clear that Grusch is referencing the spy balloon explanation, maybe it's not clear at all what Grusch is talking about when it comes to the Roswell Incident which may mean we should excise it completely from the article? jps (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
It’s getting more difficult to find exact words as the transcripts have been taken down and NewsNation has tightened up its paywall. But the Wired story references a claim of alien bodies being recovered at Roswell, so that should be all we need. Jjhake (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Most believe that the Roswell incident has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, the Air Force published a report in 1994 to put the issue to rest once and for all. Grusch has read it. “That analysis they did was a total hack job,” he said. “I mean, even anybody with analytical skills … if you read it, you can deduce that they’re completing [sic] multiple situations crash test dummies and movable dunes [sic]. They (the Air Force) is just saying that the townsfolk who personally witnessed it were totally imagining things. They concocted that whole report just to disinform.” (NewsNation special: UFO whistleblower speaks (newsnationnow.com))
I mean, even, anybody with analytical skills, if you read it, you can deduce that they're conflating multiple situations with crash test dummies and Mogul balloons. (UFO Whistleblower FULL INTERVIEW 06-11-23 David Grusch Ross Coulthart #ufo #uap - YouTube, 21:00-22:00)
The "report in 1994" is available from the USAF and it's quoted in the Roswell Incident and Jesse Marcel articles. It focuses heavily on Mogul. It was followed by a second book, The Roswell Report: Case Closed (1997), that focused on reported alien bodies, still concluding it was Mogul. And finally, the USAF made a documentary (playable from the Project Mogul article) which covered the same ground. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I have tried a more weak mention. He definitely questioned its truth Marginataen (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should mention this at all in the article. If someone wants to include this, I think the place to do so is in the body text first. The WP:LEDE should not include content that is not discussed elsewhere in the article. jps (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing flap of reported sightings

Grusch's arguably historic allegations have sparked a countrywide phenomenon ("flap") of widely reported claims of UFO sightings and incidents. The dang things are clogging up the inane MSN feed on my Edge start page.

So far, the article doesn't really mention the mass consciousness' response as UFOs come to the forefront of public awareness once again. It absolutely needs to cover that. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point that I've been neglecting to discuss. There indeed does seem to be a "flap" of some kind at work, but all the reports I've read claim that they've been hoaxes or misidentifications; still, the timing is odd, and it does seem like someone flipped a switch and said "release the hounds". Would you be so kind as to take the lead on this and see if you can find any sources linking this flap with Grusch? That's pretty much the only way we can mention it. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed outline

I asked LuckyLouie on his talk page to help propose a recommended outline they would like to see this article follow in the future. I asked him because jps noted on the fringe board that he has a lot of experience in the UFO topic area and knows it better than most of us. I don't expect the outline to be rigid or binding, and I hope we can add or modify it to suit our own vision of a future stable article. With that said, I would like for us to start thinking about moving away from the current structure. The following are just some quick thoughts, nothing set in stone: since we aren't writing a biography, I don't believe we need to use an "early life and career" focus for section 1 (section 0 is the lead). Instead, at this juncture, I would like to see section 1 become a "background" section, starting with a brief summary introduction to the idea of UFO or UAPs in the context of US history (very brief, maybe one paragraph), followed by Grusch's background and role (current "early life and career"), and the third and fourth paragraph now found in "Grusch's filings with the Inspector General". This would be end of the background section and what is known as section 1. Summary: I want people to think seriously about merging the "Early life and career" and "Grusch's filings with the Inspector General" into a single section (perhaps subsections if needed). I also think there is a lot of material in section 2 (June 2023 interviews) that can be moved into the new section 1 ("Background"), such as the material about Grusch testifying to Congress. Where I'm going with this is quite simple. I want to enforce the narrative background before Grusch makes his claims public. That way, when we get to section 2, instead of framing it as "June 2023 interviews", we can frame it as a cohesive whole instead of fragmented into three separate subsections. The way to do this is very simple. In the first paragraph, simply explain that there were three different major stories that comprised the bulk of his claims. Explain that they were Kean and Blumenthal, the Coulthart interview, and Le Parisien interview. In the second paragraph (and third and fourth paragraph if needed), lump all of these claims together into consistent bulk narrative. In other words, make Grusch's claims clear without splitting it up into different sections. End it there. Then, for section 3, instead of going straight into "United States government responses", go straight into the "Scientific response", leading with the statement by NASA followed by other scientists explaining how Grusch's claims are either unlikely or impossible. Then, for section 4, give the political response from the DoD and the rest of the politicians, in one section. Most, if not all of the other sections can be merged into the aforementioned sections. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this the new proposal?
  • background
    • UFO conspiracy history (very short)
    • Grusch career and legal actions
  • public claims by Grusch
  • analysis from media (topical survey of experts and commentary from best secondary sources)
Did I miss anything? It generally makes sense to me. Jjhake (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I have tried to implement it now. Don't really exactly know what should be mentioned it the short history of UFO conspiracies Marginataen (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas Why do you think "Responses from scientists" should be before "United States government responses"? Marginataen (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Because science informs policy, and it is knowledge, not politics, which is important. Viriditas (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I get the statements from Congress but isn't NASA and ARRO to be considered science? Marginataen (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, there is some overlap. Viriditas (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I responded on my Talk page that I am currently out of town and “off duty”, but I do see the article has expanded exponentially - basically ignoring WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I think it’s a mistake to try to create a GA level article RIGHT NOW that is a comprehensive historical account of an event that is still current and evolving daily. And there’s nothing from NYT, WaPO, ABC, CNN etc, the usual high quality sources have ignored the topic to date. It’s simply too soon. In the meantime, perhaps WP:COPYEDITORS can help trim the bloviation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank for the input, but this concern was already handled yesterday. Jjhake withdrew his GA nomination and is committed to improving this article. As I said in the above section, this article is only in phase two mode and won’t be ready for GA until things stabilize down the road. As for the event itself, I don’t see it evolving or changing beyond what we have now. There may or may not be investigations, but I don’t see anything coming from it. There’s chatter about other people coming forward, but again, this kind of whistleblowing fits an older pattern and I don’t see anything changing with this story anytime soon. Viriditas (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
My guess is that this story is stabilizing pretty fast as well, but Congress could kick up more dust I suppose… Following the edits and work and learning as I follow. With a little training as a historian, I love folklore and popular culture and have a sense that there are some types of scholarship and coverage being ignored that could prove very helpful in better representing this general messy topic, but I’m mostly just reading and watching and learning for now. Jjhake (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I couldn’t agree with WP:RECENTISM more. There’s no way to seriously discuss the lasting impact and long term historical perspective of a story that’s about a week old and was only covered by 2nd and 3rd tier media, much of it sensationalized. It’s very likely results of a legislative hearing will be forthcoming and there will be some actual mainstream commentary from the now-missing high quality sources. Don’t assume the topic is wrapped up and there will be no further developments. I really do think it’s too soon. If editors want to trim some of the WP:NOTEVERYTHING overflow, that’s great. But I can’t give you suggestions for how to polish the present WP:BREAKINGNEWS article to a lasting, gem-like sheen. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Full interview

Here is the full interview with David Grusch by NewsNation. Reading it through might help clearing out any confusion of what was and wasn't said.

Imgur: https://imgur.com/a/gclpsxD

Interview: https://archive.org/details/we-are-not-alone-the-ufo-whistleblower-speaks-news-nation

PDF: https://www.mediafire.com/file/8ojhsp4c2ascb8f/We+are+not+alone.pdf/file Marginataen (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, take a look at this:
https://revu.nl/artikel/497168/nieuwe-revu-ziet-nieuw-bewijs-voor-buitenaards-leven-de-ufo-van-mussolini
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/the-ufo-files-of-mussolini-fascist-ufo-files-by-roberto-pinotti/ Marginataen (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The Dutch point about Sicily might be interesting. Marginataen (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Jjhake (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Shermer usage

I still think this is being primarily used to characterise living people, in a way that doesn't pass BLP muster. I may well be wrong! So I've asked for more eyes on the question at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims - David Gerard (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

If you’re feeling generous, it might be nice to notify the fringe notice board in the Grusch section. I told them that you would be back, but I don’t think they believed me. Viriditas (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
lol ty :-) I actually think Shermer's right here, but I think that we can't post negative opinions of living persons in Wikipedia article space based on a blog-level source - even from a noted skeptic. I'll see if anyone agrees - David Gerard (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I told Steve Quinn that the best way to avoid this issue is to simply use another Shermer source that isn’t Quillette. If you know of one and can help replace it, that would solve the entire problem. I haven’t looked too hard, but aside from the link to his podcast, I haven’t seen much. Viriditas (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Josh Hawley

A comment by Josh Hawley was just added [4] and I never heard of the platform where the comment and story reside [5]. I don't think this comment is of any consequence as it pertains to this UFO story. I think it is more bloat that this article doesn't need. Maybe it should be removed? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Just want to point out to others watching this page, that the way Steve Quinn did this is ideal. If anyone has questions about removing content, add the links like Steve did, and then a brief rationale. Steve, you are an exemplary Wikipedian. No objection to removing it for now, but if others do object, they can look at this discussion subtopic with the necessary links. Great job. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Whatever Outkick might be, they are just quoting the Wired story already cited. Any notes on Senator Hawley should just link to the Wired story. But that’s a little old at this point… Jjhake (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian series

@Jjhake: It appears that The Guardian is one of the few media sources following this story closely with updates every several days. Today's new article "Why new claims about UFOs have experts wondering if the truth really is out there" is an interview with historian Greg Eghigian (Penn State University). Please take a look and see if there's anything here you can use for your proposed material up above. (archive version) Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Greg Eghigian is fantastic. This longer story by him from August 4, 2021 in the Boston Review is one of the best accounts of UFO history that I've found:
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/ufos-and-the-boundaries-of-science/ Jjhake (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Just added a summary paragraph from Eghigian in the "Background" --> "Prior UFO claims" section as an initial effort. Jjhake (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. A couple things: recent attempts at the background section are a great first start, but they should be written with sources about this event whenever possible. For the most part, the first paragraph does not use these sources. If you can look at the sources that we have now, gleam for background info on the UFO/UAP issue, and then replace the content and sources in the first paragraph, that would be great. It’s going to have to be done sooner or later so now would be a good time. I will try to help out when I get back from work. As for the new material you added from Eghigian, go back and read what I proposed about the outline up above. Your new material is commenting on Grusch’s claims before we explain these claims. You can see in my proposed outline up above that I directly addressed this issue. What your placement does is it presents the narrative non-chronologically, and that’s confusing for the reader. Instead of putting the Eghigian material in the background section, consider another place for it. There’s a lot of different ways you can do this. You could put it in the response from scientists section and change the section focus to science and academia, for example. But long term, what I think needs to happen as I mentioned above, is to merge more background into the background section, and follow it up with a sole section about Grusch’s claims so that the reader is perfectly clear on what Grusch is saying without all the extraneous material about publishing, interviews, and journalists intertwined around it. My proposed outline up above addresses this. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Missing elements in backstory

For the sake of completeness, the background section should mention that Grusch shopped his story around to Corbell and Knapp before going to Kean and Blumenthal. Corbell and Knapp have him on video when they met and they show it on podcast 21. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Mick West ("Some Thoughts on David Grusch - Alien Whistleblower")

It's unclear to me if we can use more material from this podcast, although I would very much like to do so, as I consider it very valuable. I realize we are already citing West in the article from NewsNation, but this seems like such a wonderful treasure trove of information, I'm curious if it is within policy to mine it for more gems. I will ping @David Gerard: as he recently addressed this very question on the BLP board. Looking forward to his response. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

A video blog, equivalent to an expert blog post, so it's a WP:DUE issue I guess - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
More generally, this is an article that's really about Grusch and his credibility, even when considering the claims, so BLP considerations are going to make it tricky even though the really obvious answer is "come off it this is nonsense". This is sort of a problem we've set ourselves up for :-) - David Gerard (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for considering and entertaining the question. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@David Gerard: The SETI Institute just published their latest podcast episode, "Skeptic Check: NASA UFO Study". In this episode, Seth Shostak and Mick West discuss the Grusch case; they don't really discuss Grusch as a person. Do you think this is acceptable as a source as long as it isn't used to comment on the character of Grusch but only the case itself? That's how I would like to use it. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
If you can come up with some text we can look at it. But IMO, it's very hard to comment on the claims (which is what this article is about) without effectively commenting on David Grusch in a fairly obvious fashion which means it's likely a BLP violation. If I may use something recently discussed on FTN, "repressed memories". It's theoretically fine to use an expert SPS on a general article on "repressed memories" or which deal with it in a general fashion including articles e.g. Narrative of the abduction phenomenon or even Satanic panic (Utah), Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse and Day-care sex-abuse hysteria if done very carefully since these articles are IMO removed enough from any specific people that it's possible to do it without obviously commenting on specific people. However once we have an article on Burned Alive, Thurston County ritual abuse case, Jane Doe case, let alone actual BLPs like Barbara Snow (therapist) or Axl Rose IMO it's unlikely we can possibly use an SPS without violating BLP. Even for something like Raaz Pichhle Janam Ka, I'm not convinced we can. (I said theoretically earlier since in the specific case of "repressed memories", I'm not convinced we should ever be using SPS. There are surely enough reliable secondary sources that we do not need SPS. The only example where I can see it might make sense would be in some old largely forgotten specific case where all participants affected are definitely long dead.) Note that even for something like Death of Cindy James, IMO there is a risk that whatever we say may affect other living persons involved so I think we would have to take great care. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The transcript of the podcast episode in question has been uploaded here. Please take a look. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Midwood123, please seek consensus before changes

@Midwood123: Please seek consensus before changes. The interview content is very clear on this point. Here it is:

Ross Coulthart: "Have people been killed to protect the secret?"

David Grusch: "Based on the people I talked to, that was an ongoing concern. Yeah, unfortunately, I've heard some really unamerican things that I don't want to repeat right now."

Ross Coulthart: "So you have a strong suspicion that people have been murdered to protect..."

David Grusch: "Over the the years, yeah." Jjhake (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

But where in that interview does he mention that the U.S. federal government committed the murders? He also says he has a "strong suspicion" and that it was an "ongoing concern", not that he is sure of it. Midwood123 (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd agree that some qualifying language is justified, but this is very difficult to do without getting very wordy and confusing. Anyway, feel free to give it a shot. Here are the facts that stand out to me:
Grusch says that people he talked to suggested that people have been killed "over the years" to protect this secret, and Grusch calls these killings "really un-American". Jjhake (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Here is what I came up with "According to Grusch, there was an ongoing concern among the people he talked to that Americans had been killed to protect the secret over the years, adding that he heard "some really un-American things". I don't know if he meant that the killings were un-American or if there was something else un-American. Since it's ambiguous in the interview I think we can/should keep it that way in the page too. Midwood123 (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

enough images in body of article?

@Marginataen: you've had some great ideas for images within the body of the article, but I'm worried that we will be moving in the opposite direction of the article bloat concerns noted in various comments above. I think all of your images make sense to me, so I'll let others comment if they think any should be trimmed back. I also added one myself, so I'm just noting for all of us here that we should probably be careful not to add any other images without checking here on the talk page first. Jjhake (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Just a note: while I have the same concerns about images, I am not worried or concerned with article "bloat" like LuckyLouie. Article development should continue to occur unabated, and grow to whatever natural size and length is possible within the second stage of article writing. It’s only in the third stage (we are weeks to months away from that) when editors should begin to cut back, trim, and resize the article to fit a tight narrative. It’s important to understand that we have many editors here with vastly different approaches to writing. The most successful articles, in my opinion, are not constrained in their early stages. They are only cut back and pruned much later. According to this style, I would encourage as much expansion as possible, so LuckyLouie and I are at odds on this point. I feel it is very important to allow an article to freely take its own shape in the early stages. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims/Archive_3&oldid=1161122083"