Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Intelligence Act for 2024

Why was my addition removed? I cited directly to the proposed bill on senate.gov and quoted the exact wording in the bill. 207.255.204.105 (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussed above. You need a secondary source that discusses is. Wikipedia is not for analysis of primary source documents in contexts like this. See WP:PSTS. jps (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

From WP:PSTS:

"Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to

1. establish the topic's notability and

2. avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."

In this case, no rational person can deny the notability of both

1. Grusch's claims and

2. the totally unprecedented additions to the IAA.

As to "novel interpretations", there is no novel interpretation of the IAA of 2024.

Its interpretation is quite straightforward.

What is novel is what those changes say.

And what is significant about those unprecedented changes is

how closely they address the issues Grusch raised.

If your "Reliable Sources" choose to ignore that, and you also, that only indicates the lack of intellectual integrity in each. KHarbaugh (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up yet another reason not to include this. The IAA does not mention Grusch. To include any verbiage about it on this page would be a violation of WP:SYNTH as well! There are so many problems with this attempted inclusion. jps (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I have one, if i provide it here will u add back my text please? 207.255.204.105 (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Here, not sure why the literal official US Senate website is not sufficient as a source but: https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/senate-intelligence-bill-gives-holders-of-non-earth-origin-six-months/ 207.255.204.105 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That is not a reliable secondary source. Personal websites are treated as primary sources by Wikipedia and rarely considered reliable for anything. jps (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

How about the official website of a US senator: https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2023/6/senate-intelligence-committee-passes-the-fy24-intelligence-authorization-act

"Increases transparency by strengthening Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) funding and reporting requirements."

I understand that all the mods here are aggressively skeptic but I haven't presented any opinion, i just posted a fact with the most reliable source possible, this is in the Intelligence Act bill, whether or not UFOs are real is irrelevant.

Here's another source: https://news.clearancejobs.com/2023/06/15/senate-select-committee-on-intelligence-passes-intel-act-including-security-clearance-and-classification-reform/ 207.255.204.105 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being "aggressively skeptic" and you are dealing with regular old users, not "mods" here. But there are rules for including content and in situations like this it would probably do you some good to learn them before trying to insert new content into articles. See WP:FRINGE and WP:RS for starters. In topics like this, we don't take the uncommented-upon language from bills in Congress, press releases from a Senator's office that haven't been noticed by third parties, and we certainly don't source content to "clearancejobs.com". jps (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The page you linked says the following "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The exact wording of the bill is clear and it is directly from the Senate website, this is clearly a common sense exception 174.215.219.247 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I see no argument for an exception to be made in this case. jps (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

And how can you send me to the rules about Fringe Theories, I don't care about UFOs and I don't believe in them, but it's in the effing bill on the Senate floor, that's a fact which I cited clearly. Just because we find UFOs to be dubious doesn't mean that the info I added is not accurate or irrelevant to the article 174.215.219.247 (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Just because you aren't interested in the fringe theories themselves doesn't mean the guideline doesn't apply. jps (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea."

how does this apply to a section of a senate bill? I didn't propose any theories I just cited the bill and the wording used 174.215.219.247 (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That quote does not apply here anyway. This is not an article about a mainstream idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Sentences that do apply here:

Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear.
Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, standard encyclopedic purpose and writing practice is to represent only the most public and prominent of secondary sources. Jjhake (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Manitoba MP suggests Canada, allies aware of 'recovered UAP' or UFO materials in note to defence minister

This was published today June 25, 2023, on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)

Should this be included in the article?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/ufo-uap-manitoba-larry-maguire-defence-minister-1.6885580

A Manitoba member of Parliament wrote Canada's minister of defence this spring suggesting the country has participated in a secret multi-nation program devoted to "the recovery and exploitation" of material from unidentified aerial phenomenon, more commonly known as unidentified flying objects or UFOs. Last week, the podcast Weaponized published a letter that appears to be from Brandon-Souris MP Larry Maguire addressed to Defence Minister Anita Anand on March 22, 2023. Other copies appeared online weeks earlier. Citing meetings with unnamed "American officials," Maguire suggests Defence Research and Development Canada "is in possession of recovered UAP material." H3sam91 (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

To say what? A credulous Canadian MP made unsubstantiated claims and demanded transparency with no response from the MOD? Seems very unrelated to David Grusch. jps (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s certainly credible reporting on the extent of the wider drama. Will consider what might be appropriate to propose for this article but would be minimal if anything. Jjhake (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty much WP:UNDUE for this article — since it's unclear if it relates to "non human" craft claims by Grusch, or the recovery of foreign adversary aircraft, as at least one WP:FRIND source has indicated [1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s definitely part of the larger cultural drama that this mainstream news story cites a UFO apologist as saying, “"There's no question that this is the type of information that is currently circulating and being investigated right now at fairly high levels within the American government," Rutkowski said of the assertions in Maguire's letter.” However, I agree that no direct connections to the specific Grusch event don’t give any reason to include this source. Jjhake (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

With the very specific alignment with Grusch’s terminology in several ways, however, the question is reasonable. And other secondary sources might note the shared dramatic details more directly. Jjhake (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this more, CBC News does specifically mention the Grusch claims as being in the same timeframe:

“Officials from Canada, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand attended a first-of-its-kind U.S. government UAP task force meeting in Washington earlier this month where they received a briefing.

Details remain classified though the stated purpose of the meeting was so friendly nations could co-operate on the sharing of information on UAP sightings. That meeting came around the same time as a former U.S. combat officer and UAP task force representative claimed that the country is in possession of craft of non-human origin which it has obtained over decades.”

Some summary of this story as an element brought up in connection to the Grusch saga is part of the wider mainstream media event in this one case. Jjhake (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I would say what is and isn't part of the wider mainstream media event is up for discussion, I don't think it's a given that every detail and every utterance will stand the test of time, as judged by expert historians. Maguire's letter being in the same timeframe - without any wider-sourced discussion or analysis of how this relates to Grusch's claims - isn't compelling to me as a reason to include coverage of it in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m fine to agree that one source doesn’t cut it. However, two would start to feel to me like intentional curating of the story at this stage of things. Jjhake (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Will this archive some of the top stuff soon?

I've had my hand slapped twice on here already for creating archives, but I'm spending half my life scrolling down this page again now. Perhaps someone who knows how the automated stuff works could trigger some archiving soon if that isn't already imminent? Jjhake (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It's too soon to archive. And you did archive way too soon. All you have to do is click on the subtitle you want to go to in the contents section. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I have to scroll a good ways just to get to the bottom of the topics list, but glad to follow the best practices of those with more experience. Jjhake (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If other editors are OK with archiving some threads then it's OK with me. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. We'll see. A few certainly seem either fully-resolved or inactive for several days. Jjhake (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Let the bot do it to see if it works. I will flip the switch for 24 hours. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Note, you shouldn’t have to scroll at all. Do you not use the TOC? Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the automated archive going. I’m getting better at using the TOC. Even that was requiring some scrolling yesterday, and I have different issues depending on which device I’m using. Anyway, I’m glad to let things sit as long as needed. Jjhake (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, try going into the history and just reading the diffs from the last time you posted. There is some plugin now that lets you respond directly there, but I will admit that I don't use it very often because I am a crumbum and I just can't be bothered to turn anything on that is new until I absolutely have to. jps (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this a BLP?

I am confused. Is this a BLP article or not? The title implies not, but the infobox implies it is. Rp2006 (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not, and the infobox should be deleted, but the BLP policy still applies. I know, it's confusing. Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

why has "U.S. presidents" been cut twice from the Sean Thomas summary?

@Steve Quinn and ජපස: Why have you both cut "U.S. presidents" from the Sean Thomas summary now? It's a major reason for the zany U.S. drama that Thomas observes from across the Atlantic, and cutting it out seems very odd to me. It just looks like your trying to clean up the silliness of this all and sanitize it somehow. Jjhake (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

How are US presidents a major reason for the US drama? Do you have RS that says "US presidents are a major reason for our insanity" around this issue? The drama has a lot of band with on its own and US presidents are not required. Just because Thomas says something about it doesn't mean it's gospel for this article. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's gospel. You are being condescending. I'm saying that it should be noted that a high-profile British media outlet has that impression of this story. To cut it out is sanitizing the story. Jjhake (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"Sanitizing" implies I have an agenda. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I just think you are somewhat blind to the importance of including historical and cultural analysis in the mix. Jjhake (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

History is always messy, and trying to clean it up is a disservice to the truth. Best option is to let the top secondary sources be represented in a full picture. This does get cleaned up over time, I'd agree, so that in a few months or so, it's likely very easy to trim this article down. Jjhake (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll have to get back to you on this in about one Martian day [you will have to click on the link to find out how long that is :>)) ]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Ha! I did my homework, and it looks like you got yourself an extra 39 minutes, 35 seconds. Jjhake (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Lol! I have to sign off for now. Sorry about hitting you with all that stuff at once. I'll try not to do that again. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, I don't really care one way or the other. I am sensitive to the idea that the article is suffering from bloat and excessive detail is sometimes not that important. We have the citation, so the reader can go see how many different presidents Sean Thomas talks about and what they actually said, in my opinion, but if the consensus is that we really want Wikipedia to talk about presidents in this section, it's not really a big deal to me. jps (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. (And just to clarify for any other editors, I'm only suggesting that two more words added to the very brief summary will represent this British commentary more accurately. Specifically, I'm asking about a change of current article language to read: "a number of U.S. presidents and other high-ranking officials".) Jjhake (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The change you are asking for mischaracterizes the U.S. presidents views on this subject [2]. You have indicated that "...given the long history of vocal believers trying to convince people that UFOs are worthy of serious considerations including a number of U.S. presidents and of other high-ranking officials..." This is not accurate.

Bill Clinton merely "sent staff to investigate Area 51 in Nevada" [3] - and it is Thomas adds to this phrase "(a supposed hotspot of UFO activity and an alleged site of retrieved ‘alien spacecraft’...). To say Clinton is a believer based on this is inaccurate. It is also inaccurate to say Clinton said UFOs are worthy of serious consideration. Clinton said no such thing in this article.

President Obama merely stated facts about investigating unknown phenomenon. This does not mean he is a vocal believer. Also, he did not try to convince people about anything regarding UFOs. Jimmy Carter did believe he saw a UFO or an extraterrestrial craft into his old age. It has been explained since as Venus, but he didn't think so. And he wasn't trying to convince people that UFOs are worthy of serious study.

Then there are other officials who are saying fairly sober statements that don't necessarily indicate being a vocal believers, nor underlining the importance of investigating UFOs. So, I'm thinking what is left of this text in the article probably contradicts NPOV. And it is not necessary to have in this article.

And, using The Spectator as a source [4] is at best questionable. The source is neither unreliable or reliable [5]. It is not a good source for covering FRINGE material such as this or for use on Wikipedia. And the caliber of fact checking by this publication is unknown. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ll wait until Greg Eghigian publishes his book and get back to you then. Jjhake (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

new Rubio recording concerning Grusch claims

https://www.patreon.com/posts/exclusive-rubio-85029464 H3sam91 (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Not much new but helpful as well. Thanks. Jjhake (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in the senate publicly agreed with ICIG that his allegation were urgent and credible. he said he has no reason to doubt that. H3sam91 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, might be the first comment by a legislator in that specific vein. This is relevant to the article, but I'm not seeing Rubio's comment reported in a mainstream source yet. Jjhake (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not surprised they don't like covering it eventhough this is literally the biggest news story of all time. H3sam91 (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It's obviously not literally the biggest news story of all time. jps (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ok debatable. surely more imporant than what MSM focuses their time on now and 99% of other times. Most of the news is about how bad Trump is. I'm glad I'm Canadian when I listen to US news channels. H3sam91 (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Surely not 99% of other times. Please stop pontificating and stick to the sources. jps (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

yes that was an exageration. I'll be sure to stick to the sources from now on and not question the sanctity of Mainstream Media. Hail CNN! Hail! H3sam91 (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

If you have complaints with the Wikipedia model, there are places at this website where you can make them. WP:VP, WP:RSN, etc. Snarking about it on talkpages as though you are being put-upon is not a good look. jps (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no complaintent regarding the wikipedia model. I have a problem with you policing my speech. Even if I'm making false statements you can refute me instead of crushing dissent. H3sam91 (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, article talkpages are not meant to be an exercise in free speech, and I'm also not here to coddle your peculiar and blinkered beliefs about the amazingness of UFOs. We are ultimately here to talk about improvements to the article. You have been, at best, middling to fair in doing that. jps (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

again, you're just making things up as you go. improving articles means accepting basic scientific facts first. H3sam91 (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Basic scientific fact: There is no evidence that extraterrestrial life exists nor is there any evidence that extraterrestrial life has visited the Earth. We state that basic scientific fact in the article. That's a good starting point. jps (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

there's no evidence that we are aware of. H3sam91 (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence for Santa Claus that we are aware of. See how silly you sound? This is not an exercise in investigating the limits of slothful induction. This is a statement of what has actually been presented as evidence to the scientific community. jps (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Santa is not real?!! Thanks for ruining my childhood. H3sam91 (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

For claims from Senator Rubio that Grusch isn't the only highly cleared, highly placed, USG official making these sensational claims, please see the June 26 interview [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHarbaugh (talk • contribs) 13:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Much better source here:

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4067865-congress-doubles-down-on-explosive-claims-of-illegal-ufo-retrieval-programs/amp/ Jjhake (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

“relevant experts”

New section named made me laugh as if Grusch claims have anything to do with science. It’s purely a question of cultural history, and those are the only relevant sources long term when it comes to understanding this event. Only religious scholars and historians will write about it over time, and scientists will have nothing at all to say other than the few banal observations that have already been reiterated a few times. Thankfully, there’s one historian in the “relevant” section now. But this is all indicative of a facile approach to this whole topic across most of Wikipedia where the cultural and religious history that has been written about extensively is virtually entirely absent. And it’s cLear that the majority of scholarship on this topic will only continue to trend in that direction. It’s fairly obviously got nothing to do with science. Jjhake (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Jjhake, it seems you misunderstand Wikipedia and Wikipedia articles. Cultural history is your POV regarding this topic. Wikipedians and Wikipedia see this as FRINGE material. Scientific and critical analysis is necessary. And I'm not sure of the cultural impact of UFO stories. Generally, I don't think there is a cultural impact - this does not alter our culture in any way. And this is the first time I've heard mention of religious history regarding UFO incidents. I don't see any religion involved. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Steve, I totally understand your concerns, but I do want to put in a good word for Jjhake. They are learning, as we all are, but they have also done a tremendous job trying to work on this topic. I also want to link to potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact and exotheology once again, as there are related topics here. As for religion and UFOs, there is some overlap with the general topic, and I think Jjhake might be referring to people like Diana Walsh Pasulka and Jeffrey J. Kripal, but I will let them speak to that subject. Somewhat relatedly, there's reportedly a religious influence at work when it comes to cultural impact, just as Jjhake says, so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss him. Christopher Partridge is somewhat notable for collecting the most popular material about UFOs and religion in 2003 and classifying it as a New Religious Movement.[7] Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, but none of this is related to this article, unless there is RS that explicitly says this stuff is related to the David Grusch whistleblower situation. Otherwise such material would be off-topic and may be WP:OR. --Steve Quinn (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and we need to enforce that requirement. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

When Greg Eghigian publishes his book on UFO cultural history, it will include Grusch. All the major polling organizations in America have collected data on these beliefs since 1947, and the numbers have only grown larger every single time. Our presidents all talk about it. Pasulka’s last book uses the term “non-human” hundreds of times and talks extensively about the history of the religious catch phrase “we are not alone”. Believe me, all the scholarship will catch up with this topic, and Wikipedia will need to as well. Jjhake (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, UFOs are more American than apple pie, and you “don't think there is a cultural impact”. The data on this is simply mountainous, and multiple top-notch scholars are actively working on it. Jjhake (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

And when or if Eghigian publishes his book, the only thing relevant will be material related to Grusch for this article. Our presidents do not talk about "it" - whatever "it" is. They are busy dealing with earthbound issues. What polling data by major organizations do you have? Can you post a link? Also, the only relevance polling data has is if it is covered in secondary or third party independent sources. Using the term non-human alot doesn't make it a thing. I don't think "we are not alone" is a necessarily a religious catchphrase. That sounds like conflating terms and ideas to me. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, only the Grusch-specific stuff would be relevant to this article. You clearly don't understand the religious and cultural studies content, so I'll let you get educated if you want, but no point responding (and irrelevant to this article for the most part currently anyway). As for polls, check out things like:

Gallup published a poll just a few weeks after news about Arnold's June 1947 sighting
Trendex conducted a survey of the American public in August 1957
1996 Newsweek poll on Americans believed that UFOs
a National Geographic demographic study in June 2012
a June 2021 a Pew research poll on UFO beliefs
a August 2021 poll by Gallup on UFO beliefs
a October 2022 poll by YouGov

The scholars of the topic have noted most of these in multiple top-level university press books, and there will be many more to come. Jjhake (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

as if Grusch claims have anything to do with science This is a bizarre riposte. When someone makes a claim that is subject to empirical validation, scientific inquiry is certainly possible at the very least. This is a guy who claims that physical artifacts exist (though he apparently has not seen them personally). Either those physical artifacts exist or they do not. The question of their existence is a question that can be adjudicated in an observational or even experimental way. If that is not the purview of science, what is? jps (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

My point is very simple, no one expects these artifacts to show up on lab tables around the world, but everyone expects such claims to continue for a long time in the most visible of public ways. I’m sorry for the sarcasm no doubt showing up in some of my comments here this morning, but this topic is most obviously the domain of artists, film makers and literary voices as well as historians and religious studies scholars, and it’s sad to see such voices chopped out when they write specifically in response to this Grusch incident. You are feeding the conspiracy frenzy with your ridiculously narrow-minded questions. Jjhake (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I’m 100% in agreement that hard science should be voice number one here in pointing out the obvious fact that no scientific observations and data are in play. Critical point to keep listed at the top, but when you then name most other ways of thinking about this as “not-relevant” by direct implication (which was very cute, I’ll grant), you entirely misrepresent the topic and fan the flames. Your call. I’m very obviously a minority among editors here with this case. Jjhake (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, I was particularly appalled that being an unbiased fact-driven platform they wouldn't accept my citation from a literal Senate bill from a .gov website because it wasn't backed up by a "credible" news article. Whatever "credible" means since it's largely a subjective concept, but I'm not sure how you can get more credible than the actual bill on senate.gov 98.11.60.84 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Language from Congressional bills would typically be primary source material which is rarely appropriate or helpful in encyclopedia writing where only the most mainstream secondary and scholarly sources can be used. Hope this helps to clarify the categories involved. Jjhake (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

no one expects these artifacts to show up on lab tables around the world Why not? What is stopping that?

when you then name most other ways of thinking about this as “not-relevant” by direct implication (which was very cute, I’ll grant), you entirely misrepresent the topic and fan the flames. I simply do not follow. If someone believes in fairy tales and we say, "that's fine, but it's not real life", that's the way an encyclopedia ought to approach the topic. Right now, we have a number of paragraphs in our article which take testimony at face value in defiance of straightforward principles of evidence that were developed for these very purposes. I don't get the idea that we should just kinda let the people who don't care about such standards of evidence have a platform to disseminate their credulity. It doesn't make sense.

jps (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Eghigian is the best voice I've read on the topic, but we can differ on that. My point is simply that historians like Eghigian will be a lot more helpful here long term than scientists as it is a very human phenomenon. Jjhake (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"no one expects these artifacts to show up on lab tables around the world Why not? What is stopping that?"

We have been told repeatedly the reason is security classification.

There are currently efforts by people within those security compartments to make at least some of that information publicly available.

The question is how much can be made available without validly harming American security.

It is wrong to ignore the issue of protecting sources and methods.

The issue, again, is what to declassify. KHarbaugh (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but all speculation now and irrelevant to this talk page work. Jjhake (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

We have been told repeatedly the reason is security classification. How can literally all evidence for alien lifeforms be classified? Do you really have that dim an opinion of the scientific community that they couldn't get their hands on anything at all? This kind of lazy theorizing beggars belief. Anyway, we don't need to be victim to it here in our text, at least. jps (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

glaring omission of Senate Intelligence Committee work

@ජපස: Your removal from the article just now of any reference at all to this story in The Hill (that mentions the "whistleblower claims" of Grusch multiple times and that updates on recent Senate Intelligence Committee work) seems like a glaring omission that seriously distorts the reality of what is currently the case with this event. I hope others working this article will recognize this and help to set the record straight. Jjhake (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not "a story" in the sense of actual news reporting. It's an opinion piece - with the disclaimer that it doesn't represent the editorial position of The Hill. How much WP:WEIGHT should we give The Hill editorial opinion writer's, er, opinion? In this case, language like "adds significant credibility to a whistleblower’s recent, stunning allegations" etc. leans WP:SENSATIONAL, so I agree with the removal. Rubio's comments can be briefly mentioned, but there's no justification to indulge such speculation about them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

There are more sources arriving as well, and excluding this assessment of Senate intelligence committee work simply looks disingenuous to the public. In a case like this, the best practice is to clearly and succinctly note all of the perspectives of the leading secondary sources. And there is no secondary source that I'm seeing that is saying anything different about the nature of this Senate intelligence committee work. (Even ජපස says above, with astute speculation, that this is legal work to move away from a "public discloser" approach. Although this talk page is not the place for our speculations, obviously.) Jjhake (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I support the content removal by jps. The removal(s) distorts nothing, it does not produce a "glaring omission," and the attendant edit summaries provide convincing explanations. See also WP:TMI. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll add it back in as other sources keeping showing up, and you all can weigh in again... Jjhake (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Before you do that, I suggest that you please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW (both of which are Wikipedia policies), along with the helpful WP:BRD strategy for editing articles. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll also post the proposals here for you all. Jjhake (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It also feels odd to get tagged with all of these policies when many of the 9404 characters slashed in the last several edits had very little discussion on this talk page. However, as I look things over, I can see the reasons for most of it and also that I've got a very large amount to learn from all of you on Wikipedia work. Jjhake (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It's really easy to take things personally when hard work gets excised from articlespace. Take solace in the fact that it is still in the history so easy to resurrect if ever WP:CONSENSUS or other cause dictates. We need people trying out lots of different approaches and there is a good dynamic to be had when we start the process of narrowing down to only that material which is attested to by the largest number of the best sources. jps (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

We need a list of possible alien theory narratives that fit with Grusch story.

We start assuming Grusch is telling the truth. What are possible theories that fit with the US government and the 5 eyes having a secret multi decade uap program? Anyone already see such a list on here somewhere? these are not "conspiracy theories." 24.113.164.180 (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia would certainly assume that this involves fringe science and conspiracy until there would be extraordinary evidence in substantial secondary sources. A few enthusiasts are posting various speculative lists on blogs and such, of course, but this has nothing to do with encyclopedia writing. Jjhake (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If he is telling the truth, then he has indeed heard a far-fetched rumour about aliens. If he is not, he invented it himself.

If he is telling the truth and his sources are telling the truth, then they have indeed heard a far-fetched rumour about aliens. If they are not, they invented it themselves.

This leads nowhere interesting. Instead of theorizing, focus on what reliable sources say. See WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

NYT's Ezra Klein opinion that "for these two interpretations to be so distant ...feeds conspiracy theories"

@ජපස: Twice now you've removed my attempt to summarize the opinion from Ezra Klein's interview with Kean that it "feeds conspiracy theories" when we fail to get any more nuanced than the two dramatically and diametrically opposed narratives that tend to exist around UFO claims and particularly around this especially sensational Grusch case. Klein summarizes two two polarized narratives as:

"this is the biggest news break of all time"
"ridiculous to even be talking about" because "just media organizations taking crank seriously for the clicks"

What we think about Klein's opinion doesn't matter of course. Klein's opinion is, however, very obviously the most high-profile commentary that has been published anywhere about the Grusch incident. It should be summarized in the article, and I think it fits very appropriately under the "Response from cultural pundits" section. However, I don't want to make another attempt at it there without checking with you first given that you've removed it twice already in a couple other iterations. Any other editors welcome to weigh in as well, of course. Jjhake (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard of "Cultural pundit" before. This seems to be WP:OR. I'm thinking this is a mistake - making this a subsection title. It might be best if you propose subsection names before creating them.

Also, can you provide a link to the material removed by ජපස, so I know to what you are referring. He correctly removed the enumerated list because that is bald faced speculation or as ජපස says, flight of fancy, not grounded in hard data or anything like that.

And it is not necessary to keep bringing "a number of US presidents" into the descriptions. What ජපස wrote seems to be a much better and simplified summation. Try allowing other editors with a different perspective to edit this article without your corrections - unless the contribution is obviously detrimental to the article. Additionally, "a number of..." anything is vague wording. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Your conflating a couple things. There was no enumerate list with the NYT piece. I'll hunt it down (which was with the Sean Thomas and which I agreed with ජපස about as noted above. I'll write a draft of what I think should be included from the NYT columnist. Jjhake (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not conflating here. I am describing several issues that I have with what is going on. And I still haven't received an answer about "Cultural pundit." This phrase is not widely used in RS, as far as I can tell. And on Wikipedia titles and so on rely on what is in the mainstream press. We are not here to lead on the bleeding edge. Wikipedia follows behind what sources say. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the removed material, please. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Cultural pundits are the "columnists" and "corespondents" and such hired by places like the NYT for their analysis as opposed to "reporters" who simply deliver the facts. It might be best to name our two sections something like the following?

Mainstream media analysis
News reports

I don't know how to link to either of the removed bits of texts. But here is what exists now:

Klein said that two narratives emerged immediately with one side saying that "this is the biggest news break of all time, and it's being published in The Debrief because the mainstream media doesn't want you to know about it" while the other says that "it is ridiculous to even be talking about" something that is "just media organizations taking cranks seriously for the clicks".

And here is what was removed from Klein that is a key point of his:

"I don't think it's good for these two interpretations to be so distant from each other. It feeds conspiracy theories. It makes it hard for people to know why something that looks very legitimate to them isn't being taken as legitimate elsewhere."

This could be summarized very briefly. (He gives some other reasons, but I'm just looking to have his key point noted about polarizations encouraging such conspiracy theories.) Jjhake (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Then your explanation of Cultural pundit is your definition. I don't see where these commentators or columnists are called "cultural pundits" in reliable sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"Pundit" on merriam-webster.com is "a person who gives opinions in an authoritative manner usually through the mass media" but I could care less about the particular term we use. Jjhake (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your alternate subtitle proposals. I need time to think about it. Hopefully, other editors will chime in. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good!--Jjhake (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"Media pundits" is what you have changed this subtitle to - seems to be a nice fit. It looks good to me. See if other editors agree. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Great to hear! I'll also be hoping to hear back from you and others on my question at the top of this topic about the re-addition of a sentence summarizing Klein's idea that allowing polarized narratives "feeds conspiracy theories". Jjhake (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I think in general, Jjhake, you seem more inclined to include excessive detail in the accounting of these various sources. Here is my general principle: (1) include a citation when the source is reliable, but don't mention the source in text unless (2) there is a meaningful "value added" point to be made and (3) don't go beyond a sentence or two unless and until other sources start to mention the source and then only focus on the ideas the other sources are focusing on. I think we are at about a stage (2) idealization for the Ezra Klein podcast. Focusing on his opinions about what the general hubbub surrounding this story may or may not be seems to be giving a bit too much WP:WEIGHT to his analysis. I am more supportive of the idea that he has asked Kean some direct questions that she was not asked in other kid-glove venues. That seems a bit more worth a sentence explanation. But attempts to characterize the importance, polarization, or wider contexts for this story are premature at best. This podcast isn't going anywhere. If in time it is actually serving as a touchstone, we can add more text in to describe it. But to do this prematurely runs the risk of Wikipedia acting as more of a WP:IINFO at best and a WP:SENSATION at worst. Patience, discretion, and deliberateness seem to me to be better approaches. jps (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

jjhake is it possible for you to provide diffs to removed or changed material? I don't have a crystal ball that can predict where the "crime" happened. And it is frustrating. Do you know how to provide diffs? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Specifically I am talking about the Klein material that you say was removed by ජපස. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

There was no crime. I’ll try to learn to link to edits. I’m sure it’s easy to look up. They were made amid a host of other edits. The larger issue here is that I’m just interested in the cultural and historical analysis of this wild instance of a deepening American mythology while most of you are just interested in the absurdly dull task of pointing out that the Grusch claims are a myth. Thankfully, the scholars will doubtless be interested in the cultural and mythological analysis in the long haul. Jjhake (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

When mythologists start to write about this, we can use them as sources. Until then, the only serious people to quote are skeptics, most of which have a different focus - forcing out hand. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Background using The Debrief

I was appalled to discover that we have multiple paragraphs sourced only to The Debrief. We need better sources that that. Please find them soon or I will start excising huge swathes of this article. This is an unacceptable editorial approach for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Gut it all you want. This article has a very long way to go indeed. Jjhake (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree better sourcing is needed or the material should be removed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Before people start deleting material from The Debrief, I think it is worth noting its account of the fact-checking they say they did perform before publishing their article on Grusch {what follows are three URLs): KHarbaugh (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The URLs didn't make it into the comment. Visit The Debrief's website to find them. Or if you know how to include URLs in these comments, please let me know. KHarbaugh (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Other sources have noted that The Debrief has a bias toward UFO coverage and that it suspends looking critically at that coverage. The editing staff seems to have taken the story at face value [8] And how could they do otherwise. In essence the story is all fluff with no physical evidence available to back it up. Also please note, mainstream publications, that had first crack at this story, turned it down. And a major contributory this website is Chrissy Newton. She covers UFO stories in her podcasts [9] claiming also to cover Futurism, Technology and Science. But it's not real science coverage [10]. It is mostly sensationalism couched in podcast conversations. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Simply for explicitness, here are the links I tried to provide:

[11]

[12]

[13] KHarbaugh (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

All the simple facts in this section are noted in multiple excellent sources. This is just a petty threat to delete instead of doing a little work to develop a good article. Jjhake (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Or, it is a request for those "multiple excellent sources" to be added to the text. Please assume good faith. jps (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The pearl-clutching “appalled” rhetoric gets silly fast. I hope you give other editors who might want to cite more properly plenty of time to link to better sources. Jjhake (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

That I tagged and didn't remove all the prose immediately should be an indication that I am willing to give time. But please note that the WP:ONUS is on those who think that this material is worthy of inclusion. jps (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Most fair. Jjhake (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Not even 24 hours, and you've already gutted all of this basic information. However, like you said, it needed proper sources. Work to be done that evidently no one else plans to do... Jjhake (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree the over-reliance on citing material to The DeBrief is concerning. That website and NewsNation seem to be driving the story with "exclusive" coverage and WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims not being picked up by major news sources like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal, which is not a good sign with regard to editorial reliability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Two regular columnists for The New York Times have written at length about the Grusch case in NYT opinion columns (which both excellent excellent insights), and the number of excellent sources on this Grusch topic is a very long list. And with the remarkably fast and substantial Congressional actions, we'll be seeing articles on the topic from the big three very soon no doubt. Jjhake (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's not guess about this, unless you care to make it interesting with some sort of bet. In any case, opinion columns are hardly a strong basis on which to write an article, I hope you'll agree. jps (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gunning for NewsNation next. It's only slightly better in quality than The Debrief and really is only an outlet where Republicans enjoy getting interviewed. Not exactly a source of reliable information about, y'know, facts. jps (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if, instead of "gunning for" the removal of weak sources, you replaced them with the strong sources. Jjhake (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I've become fairly convinced that such "strong sources" do not exist. jps (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The list of sources reporting on this and listed as solid on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is very long, but you keep cutting. That is needed too. Jjhake (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The key point is that a lot of the text that is sourced to lower quality sources does not appear to me to be well-discussed in higher quality sources. jps (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to echo that sentiment. Sooner or later, better sources are needed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

We definitely shouldn't be citing anything to YouTube videos of interviews posted by NewsNation. It's definitely not a news network operation equivalent to ABC, NBC, CNN, BBC, etc. As a WGN spinoff, it already failed as an unabashedly conservative outlet and only recently reinvented itself as "unbiased U.S. news & video delivered from the heartland of America delivered 24/7". - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

“Rubio’s comments provide context for a bipartisan provision adopted unanimously by the Senate Intelligence Committee”

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4067865-congress-doubles-down-on-explosive-claims-of-illegal-ufo-retrieval-programs/amp/

"Rubio’s comments provide context for a bipartisan provision adopted unanimously by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which would immediately halt funding for any secret government or contractor efforts to retrieve and reverse-engineer craft of “non-earth” or “exotic” origin."

"This extraordinary language added to the Senate version of the Intelligence authorization bill mirrors and adds significant credibility to a whistleblower’s recent, stunning allegations that a clandestine, decades-long effort to recover, analyze and exploit objects of “non-human” origin has been operating illegally without congressional oversight." Jjhake (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This article mentions the recent whistleblower claims specifically multiple times, and the author for The Hill suggests connections between a lot of dots in unprecedented ways. Certainly relevant to this article in a few ways, but this topic of investigations into alleged reverse engineering is clearly going to need a separate Wikipedia article beyond Grusch claims if this kind of reporting continues in multiple high-level sources. Jjhake (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The funny thing here is that the UFO believers think that this will result in disclosure. But that's not what's going on. They are shutting down what's left of the lunacy that was set up by Reid & co. years ago in an embarrassment that rivals the Men Who Stare at Goats. jps (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree with you here, and it's not pretty. But this chat likely has nothing to do with the Wikipeida article work just now. Jjhake (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, the over-emphasis on Congressional interviews I think needed some toning down, but I did that. jps (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

What you removed was largely The Hill reporting on recent bipartisan and unanimous Senate intelligence committee work to draft language that will become U.S. at the end of the year, and you call it "over-emphasis on Congressional interviews"? You are not calling things by their correct names. Jjhake (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion? Relevance to the article? 98.11.60.84 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I also removed some of the quotes from Josh Hawley which is what I was referring to. jps (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I fully agree that the Josh Hawley are immaterial at this point given mainstream reporting that is showing up regarding unanimous and bipartisan Senate intelligence committee work. Jjhake (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Photos

Photos can sometimes inform an article. No question about it. But as it stands, I fail to see how the photos currently populating this article provide anything more than WP:PUFFERY for the imaged people. A photo of someone who interviewed someone who interviewed someone else is not helpful. But if I am wrong, and it is indeed helpful, then shouldn't we include an image of everybody explicitly mentioned in the article? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The article should show those who are most responsible for this event. Jjhake (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

If Wikipedia articles were constructed in that manner, each would have dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of images. In this particular article it seems reasonable to include an image of just one person: Grusch. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Grusch would be great, but Sean Kirkpatrick and Ross Coulthart are arguably even more relevant. It also seems very likely that several Senators will be visibly and prominently involved at some point as well, but I’m fine with cutting those for now. Jjhake (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I nominate Grusch, Leslie Kean and Mario Rubio (for his key revealing of what he has been told). KHarbaugh (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no public domain image of Grusch, and I don't think that "nominations" is the term. I need to learn Wikipedia better myself, but the question here is how are images selected for articles on historical events. We should advocate for and follow those best practices. Jjhake (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Puffery sums up the issue very well. Wikipedia is not a newspaper featuring photos of tangentially involved persons. And Wikipedia is not a repository for collecting indiscriminate information (including images). I knew that eventually those photos would be removed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm only advocating for two or three of those most involved and very glad to see two such currently in place. Jjhake (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

"Most responsible" seems to have a negative connotation indicating bias but anyway if we should include photos of those "most responsible" then at the very minimum shouldn't there be a photo of David Grusch, the actual whistleblower that set all this in motion? 98.11.60.84 (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

As I noted above, there is no public domain image of Grusch. Jjhake (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

another source to comment about before I waste too much time with it...

[This story] on the Marco Rubio comments by Matt Stieb in New York does not look like an opinion piece. Jjhake (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Short articles in The Intelligencer don't inspire me with huge degrees of confidence that there is much there. This is another one of those sources that we add to the pile but don't write sentences based on. jps (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

all reference to congressional responses removed from lede?

@JoJo Anthrax and ජපස: Between the two of you, any reference at all to Congressional response or activity has been removed from the lede in recent edits (without any questions about it on the talk page). I agree with the removal of the lede content that I added earlier today about recent comments by the vice-chair of the Senate intelligence committee. However, the entire point of the Grusch claims was to get info to Congress, and all of the news stories about this have focused on what Congress is doing or saying. Surely the lede should attempt a simple and honest summary of Congressional responses and actions? Jjhake (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that the motives of Grusch, Kean, and Blumenthal are to get Congressional attention. We have sources that say as much. However, I see little in the way of serious attention being paid to Grusch as a credible witness, so I'm not exactly thrilled with the framing that would imply, "he got what he wanted". A simple sentence declaiming motivations for wanting to get before Congress would be fine with me, but perhaps that could be done in less than a sentence? jps (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not all proposing that the article say "he got what he wanted" but simply a short sentence that fairly summarizes the few Congressional comments and plans that have been reported in several sources. If any sources address his "motivations for wanting to get before Congress", that should certainly be noted as well. The only ones who have done so, as I recall, are some opinion pieces (which keep getting cut although some of them are in great sources and by worthy voices). Anyway, both would most accurately portray the event that this article covers. Jjhake (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I tried something out. This has the benefit of roping in Kean and Blumenthal who probably both deserve being in the lede. jps (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

was promoted by journalists Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal as having bombshell testimony about UFOs that they contended deserved wider publicity and attention from United States Congress

That is great for one half of the story. What Congress has said or done should also be summarized in a sentence in the lede. And what you added about Kean and Blumenthal needs some more work in the body of the article from good sources to back it up. (And it creates two links to UFO from the lede. And that Ross Coulthart guy is the real instigator here if you ask me (which of course is entirely beside the point).) Jjhake (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Congress has done very little with respect to Grusch. Do a Ctrl+F on Grusch in Congressional documents to see. jps (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Ctrl+F on Grusch in Congressional documents is original source research. There are a pile of news stories about what legislators have said in response, and there is one opinion piece in The Hill saying that Congress has done a lot (which I fully grant should not make the lede). However, to not include anything at all in the lede about multiple legislators and their spokespeople commenting about the Grusch stuff in multiple news sources looks like an notable omission. Jjhake (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Legislators and their staff comment every day about innumerable topics reported in the media. The overwhelming majority of those comments are not notable, and yet we include some of them in this article. That seems sufficient. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Opinion pieces don't speak to the actual action let alone hard evidence. Rumors that they are doing this because of Grusch are just that. jps (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

My point is that there are a pile of news stories about what legislators have said in response, including comments about when and where they plan to hold a hearing. These comments should be summarized in one sentence in the lede. Jjhake (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. When a story gets a certain amount of traction, certain interlocutors tend to push their questions on the people who get questioned. This doesn't mean that there is anything more than being annoyed by constant questioning. The fairest response is probably something like "Congresspeople deferred to their ongoing oversight of UFO investigations by the government." jps (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Far more accurate would be: “Several legislators and their spokespeople have shared plans for a hearing in Florida in July lead by two Republican Representatives.” Jjhake (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

We want to avoid changing the lead with each gotta-keep-the-story-alive beat of the news cycle, but one sentence about the planned hearing is fine in the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

“shared plans” sounds too cozy and intimate @LuckyLouie: Not sure where to put this, but just wanted to say that this edit that you just made in the lede raises the bar for me on a level of nuance (in a good way) to which I'd not aspired before in Wikipedia writing. Great to watch. Jjhake (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to resist the urge to polish the language of an article that will undoubtedly change drastically in the not too distant future. Anyway, pretty soon the article will be so long as to be unreadable, because piling each new day's news nugget on top of yesterday's news nugget is unsustainable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I keep thinking the news will slow down and stop, but all indications are that there is high-level and bipartisan interest in Grusch from lawmakers. I suppose that cutting old news at about the same rate as adding updated would help. Jjhake (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It's better to wait for more sanguine analysis than what normally comes out in the churn. We've seen this stuff before. You should have seen the nonsense that was flying fast and furious in 2017/2018. jps (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

unrelated content?

@JoJo Anthrax: Here you cut basic history related to Kean and Blumenthal that someone else (not me) had just added (after they had cut other history related to Kean and Blumenthal). Your reason for cutting it was "rm content unrelated to this article", but the lede of our article now starts out with a rather lively sentence framing this entire article as a story about Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal deciding to promote something. Certainly, a note about the most well-know previous work of theirs on this topic is therefore very much related? Please help me to understand your thinking as I'm getting whiplash from what feels like both having and eating cake. Jjhake (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The reason for my edit is presented in its edit summary. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I realize that and quoted your edit summary in my question. In an article that says in its first sentence that it is about Kean and Blumenthal promoting a story, you think it is "unrelated" to have one sentence in the article body noting the most prominent previous work by them on this subject? I'm sorry for this second comment, and I will leave it alone if no other editors find this as utterly baffling as I do. However, I sincerely note that I can normally understand and learn something from most of the stuff that I disagree with, but this one simply leaves me clueless. Jjhake (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Unlike a magazine article, we don’t need to explain the backstory of every individual in an article, instead we rely on hyperlinks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

When the entire event is framed from the opening sentence of the article as the work of Kean and Blumenthal, then these two are not "every individual" in the article. Instead, they are being put forward as the main event, and one sentence of the most basic background on them seems not only "related" but a fundamental aspect of anything that I would recognize as truth and honesty. However, I've tried to make my point three times now, and I'm getting the clear sense that my consternation is not shared. I do appreciate the two responses from each of you. Jjhake (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Ironically, I was going to remove that sentence myself. It seems irrelevant to me. I just didn't get to it before someone else did. Also, this article in no way indicates they are the main event or the main topic. I think someone needs to give up "truth" and "honesty" regarding content on Wikipedia. Please see this: Verifiability, not truth. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Our opening sentence says that Kean and Blumenthal "promoted" stuff and that "they contended [that it] deserved wider publicity and attention". But "this article in no way indicates they are the main event or the main topic"? But I'll go gentle into that good night on this one my fellow editors. Jjhake (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Kean and Blumenthal share some degree of responsibility for the publicity surrounding this. They shopped the story around. They authored the story in The Debrief. If not for them, would this article be here? Unclear. But I don't think we need to dwell on them. The have wikibios, let the reader jump over there for more background. jps (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the thought out reply. Jjhake (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Senator Rubio

He says there are multiple whistleblowers. Now with first-hand knowledge (as the skeptics main criticism of Grusch is "hearsay")

https://nypost.com/2023/06/27/rubio-confirms-officials-have-first-hand-knowledge-of-ufos/ Foerdi (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Please note that this has been rather extensively talked over in several threads above. Material that I included on this from a few different sources (including this one) was largely expunge (and largely with me being convinced of why this should be). However, there may be some details missing or to be improved in the Congressional plans and comments from members section related to this that have not been considered. Feel free to read over the material above and to suggest ideas here. Jjhake (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, this story by Josh Christenson was not the one that I included or that got discussed specially above. There was another one published by The Hill with most of the same points but that was presented as an opinion piece. This one is a news story. Still, the basic points by Rubio are currently noted in the article as you will find in the section that I linked in my last comment. What has been cut from the article is any note about the Senate intelligence committee's unanimous and bipartisan vote last week to create new language specific to UAPs in a forth-coming bill. Your article does briefly note this and is therefore another source on this point. Jjhake (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NYPOST. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Cutting three expert scientists out due to misquotes?

@RocksAreAlive: Your edit here to the "Response from relevant experts" section cut out everything from astronomers Avi Loeb and Michael Garrett as well as planetary scientist Sara Russell citing "removed misquotes" as the reason for you edit. Please elaborate regarding any misquotes that you found as it seems best to fix those rather than to drop this key content that has been retained and refined by a wide variety of editors so far. Jjhake (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Could be WP:BRD just or an unarticulated spasm. Subsequent edits make it hard to revert, but you can just paste it back in. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I returned the cut content to its most recent location (with the addition of "cite check section" tag for now). I can't find the "misquotes" myself yet, and if none are found or reported soon, we can remove the tag. Jjhake (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The blockquote from the Guardian somehow left out that it was summarizing Eghigian's views, so better to use the actual published text with quotation marks. (Although I'm not sure that was what RocksAreAlive was talking about)- LuckyLouie (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am inclined to remove that tag. It makes no sense to me and it seems no one provided a rationale for tagging that section. Any objections? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. It just seemed like an excuse of some kind, and I could find no basis either. Jjhake (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Matt Laslo on Sen. Gillibrand and Congress with Grusch and UAPs

Nothing here now for use in the article but just for those wanting to consider what to watch. Matt Laslo, who wrote this great piece for Wired two weeks back has said here that "Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is working on scheduling hearings with UAP whistleblower David Grusch, along with the current or former government officials who seem to corroborate some of his claims" and also here that "UAPs (aka UFOs) are being taken seriously, curiously &, it seems, aggressively in Congress" as "the intrigue-to-outrage is now palpable, bipartisan and bicameral" and as Laslo is clearly gearing up for sustained coverage. Jjhake (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything coming of it. The whole "UFOs are being taken seriously" angle has been going strong since 1947. Nothing is happening. As another author recently said, this is generational. About every 20 years or so, UFOs come back into the headlines and then slowly disappear. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is like breathing for the United States, with a breath in and out every 20 years. And the number of "believers" increases (as well as the diversity of their ideas about it) with every poll published by Gallup (and many other such organizations) since Gallup first published a poll just a few weeks after news about Arnold's June 1947 reports went nation wide (and no one even thought in that first poll to ask or answer about anything related to aliens). The Grusch story will join the many others, but it's pretty clear that UFOs will always be part of U.S. history. Jjhake (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The notable thing about Matt Laslo is that his Wired essay two weeks back was as scathing as it could get. He's obviously no advocate, but he's on the beat. Jjhake (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

as scathing as it could get It definitely was not that. If you want scathing, read Mick West's Twitter Feed. West is also about the correct register for the way the vast majority of experts view this stuff, but most just cannot be bothered to waste any time on it. jps (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

West is good stuff and has a critical role, but as I’ve noted I’m entirely with Ezra Klein in saying that it “feeds conspiracy” theories when the only item on the menu. Jjhake (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

To that I say, "too the fuck bad". The world isn't here just to make people feel better about the nonsense that people are promoting. We aren't in some kind of group therapy session where the gestalts based on steady diets of cable TV programming, "conferences" that are closer to seances than information sessions, and minds so far open that brains have fallen out and are even now rolling around the floor are considered as just "another worthy opinion". There is a reason that this "community" is ignored and derided and it is not due to anything like "censorship" or "elitism". It's due to their being a limited time in our lives and wasting time on this stuff is not productive. We've got decades of nonsense that show this is the case.

I have chosen to devote a big part of my life to combatting misinformation and fantasy in the context of empirical claims. It infuriates more than a few, but I think that venue is important. Wikipedia should be stolid, rude, and impassable when it comes to flights-of-fancy such as this. Ezra Klein can do what he wants on his podcast, we can try to gently remove cognitive filters in critical thinking classes, but at Wikipedia, when something is ridiculous, it is best practice to make sure the reader understands that from the starting gate. That's how you make a reliable reference work.

jps (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, we differ substantially. I think Carl Jung was right that UFOs are our own special mythology that we can't live without, and doing nothing but to sit on the trash can lid is extremely unhelpful. However, I do really appreciate clarity with those I'm working with, and your take is clear as a bell. I love that. Jjhake (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Please don't try to speak for everyone by saying "our own special mythology" and in which "we can't live without." Please only speak for yourself. I don't consider this to be our own special mythology and I can certainly live without it. I have no interest in stories of UFOs, real life extraterrestrial visitors, farcical interdimensional travel, and so on because, as noted above, such stories are ridiculous.

And there is no one that I know in my life who garners any kind of lessons or truisms, which are the objectives behind myths, from UFO stories. It is only a proportionally small segment (or percentage) of the population who get whipped up about UFO stories. And it seems that they have all suspended or never learned critical thinking skills. And that is the true lesson behind UFO and extraterritorial stories - vocalized crack-pot-ism (a serious malady?).

Either that or it turns out to be a hoax or a scam.

There might be more believers with each succeeding generation. But the population has increased with each succeeding generation. So, offhand, I doubt the proportion of believers has changed much over time. And in any case, numbers of believers, and increased number of believers, do not mean these stories have any validity or worth. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

On the subject of improving the article, which is what this page is for, yes, we should use sources with both feet on the ground, such as Nick West. See WP:FRINGE and similar pages. Jung belongs in the pre-scientific early-20th-century era of psychology and should have no saying on later developments. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I appreciate the regular links to fringe theories info. My simple point is that the history of American UFO culture from scholars such as Greg Eghigian is not fringe theory and is vital to excellent encyclopedia writing (not in this article per se but in general). Jjhake (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The data on UFO love in America is very abundant and shows massive and steady percentile increases over time. It's a part of our shared national life. (As I'm sure you know, I shared the list of the main surveys with you above yesterday in a 11:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC) comment.) Anyway, I'll spare everyone more of my research or my personal opinions. I also appreciate your clarity about our differences. I consider the long and wild history of UFOs in America to be essential to writing great encyclopedia content. Jjhake (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No. Sorry. It's part of "your" shared national life. It is not part of "our" shared national life. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of that going on in America these days (not my whatever stuff, I mean), but fair and point taken. Jjhake (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The implicit assumption that everybody here is American is false too. Some of us live in countries where the percentage of wackjobs among politicians is close to having only one digit (instead of about 50%), and attempts to involve legislative bodies in alien tales would only be made fun of. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm well aware that the U.S. is on display as rather an international spectacle with this (and have tried to be clear with my language that it's origins and passions and whatnot are a part of the particular story of the U.S. or for some of us here at any rate). Jjhake (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The Debrief fringe science citation question

As you'll note, someone added this "citation needed" note:

The Debrief, a website known for uncritically publishing fringe science and UFO claims.^{[citation needed]}

Subsequently, someone else deleted the whole thing. I reverted the deletion but will leave one of you more experienced editors to determine best plan with the "citation needed" question. We had a note in place that had a citation within it, but that has been deleted and orphaned twice leaving me not clear on the best final form. Jjhake (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: I see you just took action on this. Problem is that we lost the citation to which you are referring. I was within a note that has been deleted twice in the last couple of days (never by me). Current citation just goes to a piece from the The Atlantic. Jjhake (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I substituted as close a paraphrase as I dare from the cited source (yes, it is The Atlantic story by Koren)...a website that specializes in “frontier science” and describes itself as "self-funded". This is a pretty uncontroversial assessment so no WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV attribution needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll undo my own edit just now with the old link to the About page. I see what you are saying and how that's not needed. Jjhake (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The cited source (the Atlantic) also says: "A section of The Debrief is dedicated to coverage of UFO..." So, yes based on that source The Debrief covers UFOs which is FRINGE (fringe science) on this platform. This was probably the impetus for the original description. Just food for thought. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense too. Jjhake (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Representative Mike Gallagher

Someone from an IP address added the Representative Mike Gallagher stuff and called him a Senator by mistake. I made some corrections and included his list of three (fringe) theories from the source. I think it’s a key part of this event that fringe theories are being shared by legislators on popular talk shows. However, Newsweek is a very week source, and I’m sure this would, at the very least, need substantial trimming and reframing that others would do better. Jjhake (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

You other editors on this talk page have been patiently teaching me so much that I took a quick shot at some substantial trimming and reframing of this Gallagher stuff just for the practice of it. If any of you decide to delete the whole thing given that it is only sourced to Newsweek, I'd not protest, but I would appreciate some feedback on my attempts to trim and reframe just for the sake of helping me to better learn excellent Wikipedia work when it comes to such topics. Thanks in advance. Jjhake (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

An anonymous user deleted it all citing Newsweek as a weak source which is legit of course. However, if anyone is feeling absurdly generous and wants to give me feedback on my effort (just imagining that it was stuff from a legit source), here is what I came up with:

In an interview on the Pat McAfee YouTube show on June 27, Representative Mike Gallagher (R-WI) said that he was glad to see more open conversation about UAPs. Gallagher shared three of his own speculations about UAPs including advanced technology built by adversarial nations such as China and the fringe science ideas of "human beings from the future" or "an ancient civilization that's just been hiding here and is suddenly showing itself". The Representative mentioned additional whistleblowers reaching out to Congress, saying that he could not mention specifics about who or how many but that he had been in some "pretty intense conversations".

Thanks in advance for any feedback. Jjhake (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this is called getting a seat on the bandwagon. In any case, I really don't see anything here that will add substance to the article. It's just more innuendo type stuff and speculation. Imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

In other words, Where's the beef? --Steve Quinn (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Very fair. Helpful to note that, even if in a mainstream secondary source, this might not have encyclopedic value (related to my musing just now in response to LuckyLouie above as well). Really appreciate you giving of your time to give feedback. Jjhake (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Marco Rubio info in article not complete or current

The gush of posts (occasionally in legit sources) reiterating recent comments by Marco Rubio is all rather different in tone and content than what we’ve got him saying in the current article. Any objections to very succinctly closing the gap by replacing a phrase or two and a source or two related to him? It would be an equivalence of sources as far as quality. Jjhake (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

What, exactly, do you want to say? jps (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. What is your proposed phrasing and replacement sources? It may be that more need not be said. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose encyclopedias would tend to make everyone sound more reasonable than they are and tend to mask their rhetorical red meat that gets repeated the most elsewhere else. Anyway, some of Rubio’s lines were that these allegations “are beyond the realm of what any of us has ever dealt with” and “I will say I find most of these people—at some point, or maybe even currently—have held very high clearances and high positions within our government, so you do ask yourself: ‘What incentive would so many people with that kind of qualification... have to come forward and make something up?’”

One of these lines shows up in New York (not yet used in article) and both in Newsweek (already in the article and not as reputable). Jjhake (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see why either quote is helpful. One says that Rubio thinks Grusch's claims are incredible (hardly news). The other is essentially a rhetorical device that has no obvious implications other than Rubio is confused. So... what does the reader need to know of this? I would say, if they're that interested they can go to the sources. Feel free to include The Intelligencer source at the end of the current sentence about Rubio, of course. But I don't think we need more prose about his musings. jps (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Jjhake (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Just took a shot at cutting out all three NewsNation citations for the Rubio stuff and added in two other better sources in their place. Also added the "first-hand knowledge" phrase from him, as this is the key claim from him in the best sources. Jjhake (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Even normally reliable sources can go WP:SENSATIONAL when given the opportunity to quadruple readership even for a short time. Such a story as Grusch’s provides more than enough incentive for outlets like Newsweek to play up eyeball grabbing quotes with little substance attached. It’s the job of WP editors to determine which material merits inclusion based on encyclopedic value. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: That's helpful. Thanks. My only note would be that, when multiple established academics summarize the ebb and flow of wild sensational and fringe speculation after the fact, then that becomes of encyclopedic value. As a very junior member of the "historian guild" myself, this is the main weakness in my own encyclopedia editing that I'm learning (I'm sure there are many of my weaknesses that I can't see as well, obviously), and I'm slowly getting clarity on how the commitment to top secondary sources holds encyclopedias intentionally behind the curve in documenting events.

Btw, thanks for the much improved Media reporting and commentary on Grusch's claims section heading just now. Again, I watch and do try to learn. And I'm guessing that Media reporting and commentary (including opinion pieces by two NYT columnists) on Grusch's claims is a little too long? (Sorry, a joke that I couldn't resist.) Jjhake (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course, I look forward to academic works by successors to folks like James R Lewis, but that could be years down the road. And I think you've already figured out that opinion pieces don't have the same weight as serious journalism (especially the kind of intensive team reporting that the NYT tends to produce). And you probably know there is no Get out of jail free card that demands we include whatever appears in a high quality media source just because the source is of high quality. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! All points that are actually starting to sink in more clearly for me. :) Thanks. And I'm pretty likely to be watching for the James R. Lewis coverage in five years... Jjhake (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Grusch's public claims

I think this section is still overly detailed and probably needs trimming. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Until a couple of mainstream sources actually weigh in with vetted reporting (rather than opinion pieces), the basic details should be laid out clearly from whatever generally reliable sources exist. There is still a good bit of work to do in consistently pointing to the best of these secondary sources. Once mainstream sources actually provide some vetted reporting (which is likely in connection to any Congressional hearing), then there will be reason and clarity on how to chop this article down substantially. Jjhake (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Began the process. jps (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Are they claims or legal testimony ?

There is a important diference. Has anyone separated the two side in this story?

Will he be at the U.N. meeting regarding this subject ? 2001:818:DD9E:F900:70BE:FA9A:F273:5E13 (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. This is not really what the talkpage is for. If you have specific questions that you think can be answered via Wikipedia research, try WP:REFDESK. jps (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Third NYT opinion piece (podcast again) on this topic

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/opinion/aliens-conspiracy-theories-government-cover-ups.html Jjhake (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

No substance here, but entertaining how little sense anyone makes of it all. Mick West gets a mention. Jjhake (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I should not say no substance. They end up talking about very large cultural history trends and realities in the life of the United States, and this Grusch (and larger UAP) stuff is certainly going to be a case study for a couple different large cultural history trends for a long while to come. Jjhake (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting to note that NYTimes seems to be shunting off all this to their opinion pages and podcasts. Did they learn their lesson from the last time? One can hope! jps (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

As these four all correctly observe in their conversation, the NYT should have something to say in this case, and this is fundamentally a story about the relationship of U.S. citizens with their government. Jjhake (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Can I expand on that?

There is UAP-related information that has been kept within compartments.

(So say government insiders Grusch and Rubio, and journalists Coulthart, Schallenberger, and Kean.)

Some of the people within those compartments have questioned whether some of that info should be more broadly disseminated.

And leaked some of that compartmented info outside of the compartment.

This is fundamentally a story about

how much governmental secrecy

is necessary and appropriate.

. KHarbaugh (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing what was "secret" since Grusch has not clarified what information he was not allowed to share. I wish there was more about this (Ezra Klein, for example, seemed to be particularly unwilling to ask about this to Leslie Kean), but we certainly are in no position to adopt any framing that says this is about "secrets" when there is no evidence that there actually are any secrets. jps (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Mick West background content potential

Great stuff here from West. Doesn’t mention Grusch but certainly a potential background source or for use on UFO main article. https://nypost.com/2023/04/29/how-science-and-politics-are-bringing-an-end-to-ufology/amp/ Jjhake (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

We can't use the NY Post, but West has appeared on many different podcasts and talked for some length about Grusch. If you are at all interested, check out his YouTube channel. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

YouTube channels and podcasts are WP:SPS, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue West is sufficiently notable that his opinions merit inclusion, attributed to him of course. It's irresponsible to introduce extraordinary claims without balance and West is the usual goto for the mainstream RSes. Feoffer (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

sorry, but I have to disagree to the degree that his skepticism comes off often as "skepticism for skipticism's sake". I also don't see how his professional credentials really warrant him being considered an expert over other sources. It's actually quite odd how he has become so notable in this regard. 205.220.129.24 (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, West has appeared at least twice on NewNation broadcasts related to Grusch specifically, and I'm sure he'll have other material out in mainstream media soon at any rate. For the record, going to his blog and noting his own expertise seems legit at least on an interim basis, but perhaps that "opens the floodgates" a bit in some unhelpful ways as well. Jjhake (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)