Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Recent addition of NYT sources

Sorry, but these two New York Times references [1] do not apply to the topic of the article and do not apply to the sentence to which they are affixed. The sentence reads: The whistleblower claims from Grusch came amid ongoing debates about the role of the military in providing data for the assessment of UAPs These NYT sources do not focus on or even mention the Grusch whistleblower saga. One NYT article covers the problems with UAP data and the other seems to cover funding for UAP investigations. But these are off-topic for this subject. This is WP:SYNTH. So, perhaps unfortunately, they will have to be removed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Now I see the sentence has changed to The whistleblower claims from Grusch came amid ongoing debates about the role of the U.S. military and NASA in providing data for the assessment of UAPs. [2]. But I don't see any source that directly verifies this sentence. It is still WP:SYNTH. And without a source that directly supports this or the other version of the sentence it is WP:OR. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and unfortunately it seems to be an example of misguided attempts to inject thoughtful narrative threads tying the Grusch claims to "cultural history trends" etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Helpful to hear both of your reads on these two NTY articles about UAPs and the U.S. government from recent months. Thanks for taking the time to unpack your thinking here as you removed them. Jjhake (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

A blog post by medical doctor Steve Novella?

@ජපස: Help me to understand how we are including a blog post by a neurologist and associate professor at Yale University's School of Medicine. It seems to me that we should wait until he's published in a solid secondary source on the topic. This seems to open the door to another layer of sources from experts that would go on for a while. Jjhake (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Having read the blog post now (which I very much enjoyed), it’s got nothing to do with this Grusch case. It’s a cool little push back against theoretical physicist and popular science writer Michio Kaku on stuff (from 2/15/23) being debated before the Grusch stuff. Please withdraw this blog post. Jjhake (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that Novella is in no way responding to the Grusch claims but is a part of the backstory here, I've move this material to the background section and with the proper story noted in full from the source that ජපස provided. Jjhake (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why this was moved to the background section. In any case, it is very much connected to the Grusch case based on the summation in our Wikipedia article[3]. The reason he is commenting now, is because of this UFO/whistleblower saga. The summation says: Novella countered with a survey of the recent resurgence of UFO claims and analysis of the likelihood that the new claims are true. Underline is mine - to show the correlation between this source and Grusch Whistleblower saga. The claims and analysis are "recent and resurgent" and the "new claims" are (whatever). ----Steve Quinn (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

As much as I like Novella's analysis, I think it best to leave it out of this article since he is not addressing Grusch specifically. jps (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. We'll be coming down to a pretty short list of secondary sources that really apply at all hear pretty soon between us all. That will clarify a good bit (baring any Congressional hearings that might or might not happen and that might or might not relate to Grusch). Jjhake (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem with the removal of the Novella source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Whistleblower events are about the government (with experts next)

@ජපස: I also think that it is out of line with the content to put experts before government given that this is a whistleblower account with a specific request for review by Congress. The experts are also a lot messier than we currently portray them. There are multiple rather sensational stories breaking now about Avi Loeb and his retrieval of extraterrestrial particles from the ocean floor. And many news sources are trying to pull in and get commentary from a wild range of scientists. It seems most clean for now to keep the government then expert order and to keep it restricted to the experts that get pulled into the best secondary sources that do anything with this story.--Jjhake (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Jjhake, please remember I supported this change a few weeks ago, so I support jps on this. My rationale at the time was that knowledge was more important, and it was this expert knowledge that was informing government. The other problem with the government response is that it really does have the look and feel of a psyop rather than an actual investigation with the intent of uncovering new facts. Also, I am getting tired of Republicans who keep claiming this is a bipartisan effort, when it's like 90% Republicans, maybe 10% Democrats, if I'm being generous. I think it's more like 5% Democrats. Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

If we have experts before government in a story that is about interactions between parts of the government, it breaks up the logical flow and focuses first on the question of Grusch being right or not. However, by far the best secondary sources actually talking about this event are not just asking that question. They mostly assume that the Grusch claims are ridiculous (very reasonably) and go straight to the more meaningful questions of what this tells us about our government and ourselves. Yet I see this article trending into report that ignores any strong secondary sources dealing with substantial questions and instead pulling in any blog that might lend weight to the far more superficial (and obvious) question about alien non-existence that the majority of editors are solely concerned with. If we don’t give the facts of the whole story first before we analyze it, that will truncate our coverage and leave it sadly shallow and uninformed by the best secondary material that is asking far more meaningful questions. Wikipedia is not simply about the existence or nonexistence of aliens. Wikipedia obviously and properly assumes the nonexistence of aliens, a point that would simply be a matter-of-fact footnote in this article if done well. Jjhake (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia obviously and properly assumes the nonexistence of aliens".

Based on what?

Faith?

Where is the proof that aliens don't exist?

I notice that people who claim aliens exist are often asked the question "Where's the proof?".

It seems to me the same question can properly be asked of those claiming or assuming they DON'T exist.

And BTW, it is important to note that Grusch's claims have been seconded by the vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Marco Rubio.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=m4hmaflNoKU KHarbaugh (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia assumes (properly) what the majority of trained professionals believe on any particular question. You will find that more than 99.9% of academics in any related fields don’t belief that we have any evidence of alien life anywhere. Unless that statistic would ever change, it matter nothing at all what Rubio or the entire Senate might say on the topic of alien life, or people from the future, or other dimensions, etc. This article is therefore not about aliens but about the question of what the best secondary sources are saying about why the U.S. Congress is more and more seriously asking if our government has possession of aircraft whose origins are utterly inexplicable to it. That is the heart of this, but many editors are obsessed with other tangential questions. Jjhake (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for making your argument so clear and explicit. KHarbaugh (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

"You will find that more than 99.9% of academics in any related fields..." That doesn't sound right. 154.47.25.152 (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I hesitate to draw precise conclusions with claims like 999 out of 1000 for anything, but I will say that "strange sightings" is hardly the same thing as "evidence for alien life". jps (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

If we have experts before government in a story that is about interactions between parts of the government, it breaks up the logical flow and focuses first on the question of Grusch being right or not. However, by far the best secondary sources actually talking about this event are not just asking that question. I think that this is conceding a point in a way that is unfortunate. Here is the story: the UFO community has been sidelined for decades and only made inroads because they found a few sympathetic ears in government including, in a real coup de grace, the Senate Democratic Caucus leader from 2005-2017. After the spigot was going to be turned off, the group tried another tack by getting the mainstream media to pay attention to their claims. This worked only marginally and long about earlier this year they were hoping to ensconce their Truth is Out There approach to UFOlogy when the balloons caught the attention of the US. This story is an attempt to manipulate the government and the narrative into making it about Disclosure (ufology) and the negative reactions to it. This is what is going on.

Now, I understand that for you, Jjhake, this tack of "whistleblower, government investigation" is the meat and potatoes of the story. But I have gone through the sources pretty carefully and they always return to the accusations of Grusch. That is, the stories turn on his claims about UFOs. The secondary "retaliation" claims are window dressing. They may be the focus of certain commentary by certain more incredulous folks in Congress, but ultimately, that is not what any of the stories swirling around this are about.

To adopt the framing that this is a story about the US government is to adopt the calculated story-weaving that this tight-knit group of UFOlogists are promoting in the hopes that it will allow for breakthrough of their ideas and desire for funding/fame/brave new world/etc. No doubt that some sources do look at it this way, and it is clear to me that these are the sources you are most interested in. But the best sources we have frame it as a question of UFOs. That's the genre (I've said this before). That's the approach we need to take first and foremost until there is something more we can sink our teeth into.

Maybe after committee hearings we'll find out that there was some sort of unusual retaliation against UFO believers going on. Maybe we'll find out that there was grift, mismanaged funds, or some sort of disinformation scheme operating. Who knows? But until then it is disingenuous to argue that the main framing of this story are the accusations that the government is retaliating against a whistleblower.

jps (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The highest-quality secondary sources are focusing on why Grusch and others are getting the attention of Congress at all. That is the top question in the best quality secondary sources, and that is what should show up in this article for it to reflect the best quality secondary sources. Jjhake (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

As though that's even a question? The whole point of the episode was to get the attention of Congress. It's rather as if we had a person calling 911 to report a crime committed by a ghost. The focus of such stories would not be that the first responders responded to the call. That sort of thing happens all the time. The focus is on the claim that it was a ghost. jps (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The focus in the three NYT opinion pieces so far has not at all been on "the ghost" question. That's only in the tabloids (and in some skeptical blogs as delightful as I find those to be). These kinds of 2023 news stories from The New York Times are the real background and ongoing concern of the best secondary sources related to this topic:

• "Did Aliens Land on Earth in 1945? A Defense Bill Seeks Answers"
• "NASA Panel Says Data Problems Make Explaining U.F.O.s Difficult"

Jjhake (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What I'm reading here is, "This story is not about UFOs! To prove it, here are two more stories whose focus is on UFOs." What? jps (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The first is about the “Defense Department’s annual spending bill” and the second is about how NASA might be able to help us get past UFOs. Neither one has anything to do with your only apparent interest in ensuring that people realize that scientists don’t believe in UFOs. Jjhake (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That scientists "don't believe in UFOs" (a canard par excellence, by the way. Scientists qua scientists neither "believe in" nor "disbelieve in" UFOs. The cultural significance of UFOs is just that there are beliefs by those acting not as scientists that such sightings represent something unexplainable through mundane means) is nothing that I mentioned above. I was saying that the story is about UFOs. The story is not the Pentagon Papers part deux. jps (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Both NYT stories are about what the involvement of the U.S. government should be with UFO/UAP reports and history. This set of questions is the key context of the Grusch stuff. Your top (and sometimes seemingly only) interest never shows up: lining up scientists who can reiterate for Wikipedia readers that there are no aliens around. But I’ve picked up that any such background stuff is pointless. The key question is what topics and questions are addressed in the reporting specific to Grusch. That’s an interesting list as I plug away at compiling and quantifying it. Jjhake (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

what the involvement of the U.S. government should be with UFO/UAP reports and history I'm sorry -- are you arguing that the editorial principle is one of evaluating propriety within government roles? That is far removed from Wikipedia's remit. See is-ought problem. Our job is to describe what is, not parrot talking points or propose categorical imperatives. jps (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, to set the record straight when you say that "for you, Jjhake, this tack of "whistleblower, government investigation" is the meat and potatoes of the story", I'm only saying that this is the current focus of the best secondary sources. (My own personal interest won't be relevant for another five years or so when the folklore and religious studies scholars pick up the story.) Jjhake (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This discussion prompted me to look over the sources being cited in the article. I could not find any whose headlines did not include the words "UFO", "ALIEN", or "UAP", but after the first 30 or so I stopped looking. This is indeed the main context of the story. The 'whistleblower event' is a significant twist, but it's not the primary genre the story resides in, at least according to the (admittedly second-tier) media that has given it some degree of journalistic scrutiny. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You are looking at headlines? The people producing the content don’t even write those. I’m very disappointed in the lack of care for the most substantial content in the best secondary sources. I’m clearly alone, however, and can only hope that other editors show up in support of a more substantial and meaningful encyclopedia article. Jjhake (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The majority of editors here currently just seem interested in making one obvious point: no experts believe in aliens or UFOs. This is not only one of the most obvious and least substantial points but has the feel of an obsession over policing fringe science stuff. That’s a big difficult job on Wikipedia, but I sincerely hope that other even more meaningful goals will be recognized as well. Make the obvious point clearly and move on to substance is what I’m hoping to see. Jjhake (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You are looking at headlines? I checked the sources, but stopped after the first dozen because every one included "UFO", "UAP", "ALIEN" or "NON-HUMAN" in the very first sentence, so that doesn't help convince me we need to re-frame the article to focus on whistleblowing and potential government secrecy. Are there particular sources you identify as the best secondary sources we should be paying most attention to? We can certainly take a look at them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as vetted news reporting, this is the only substantial one that I can recall:

• https://www.wired.com/story/ufo-whistleblower-us-congress-investigations/

What am I missing? There is a lot of reporting by NewsNation, but I'm discounting that for obvious reasons. There is also a massive pile of stuff that is filled with a wide range of commentary and given sensational headlines. Jjhake (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What you are missing is that all of these articles are about UFOs. You might not be interested in that aspect, but that's the headline, the main framing, and the hook for all of them. It's weird that you don't think that's the case. jps (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That's obvious, and I agree. Second rate media outlets are getting a wide variety of commentators to talk about UFOs and aliens. Top rate media outlets are talking about the nature of the relationship between the U.S. Congress and the career government intelligence and military (and now NASA as well) related to UAP analysis. We agree on all this, I'm sure. What we don't agree upon is that this article should not follow the sensational headlines and the tabloid press in focusing on fringe science questions. I fully agree that this article should make the fringe science point loud and clear right out of the gate, but there are other more substantial topics. I'm working on tabulated data with the sources. It's rather interesting. Jjhake (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What you seem to be arguing is that the attempted framing by Kean and Blumenthal was adopted by higher-quality sources. I don't see that as true. I think you are being misled by an excuse that these sources are using to talk about something that isn't absurd when, in point of fact, the story is a story because of the absurdity. The ghost is the point. The 911 call is not. jps (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

We agree about why this is a story in the tabloid press, etc. I'll get the data to all of you on the topics covered in top-level sources. It's rather simple from what I'm seeing, but you can analyze it whenever I pull it together. Jjhake (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

And while I agree with you (I would guess) that you can't make a great encyclopedia article out of "a massive pile of stuff that is filled with a wide range of commentary", I would hope that, in so far as we engage with this pile, we gravitate toward the actual content of the commentary from the best possible secondary sources. I'll pull that data together as well, and I'm rather confident that it is solidly in support of my basic points about fringe science as fringe science being a secondary interest. Jjhake (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting and true that "UFO" is the hook and main concern. I haven't even been thinking about the Whistleblower aspect. Most of the discussions in the sources are focused on Grusch's claims about extraterrestrial vehicles, bodies, reverse engineering alien technology and so on. Also, those NYT sources are not apropos. See the next section below. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Source for this? "DoD stressed that allowing Grusch to speak..."

This line in the article ("The DoD stressed that allowing Grusch to speak did not imply that his claims were accurate") is followed by a duplicate citation to the same French newspaper story (same URL but formatted differently in each citation). I don't read French, but my best efforts with Google translate are not turning up anything related to the claim about the DoD. Can anyone confirm or find what citation might have gone with this claim in an earlier version? At the very least, the double citation should go, but if the claim isn't cited, it should go as well. Jjhake (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

In case helpful, here is what I removed with these duplicate citations and the two prior sentences that were not supported by the French newspaper story from what I could find. Jjhake (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

"urgent and credible" according to inspector general of the intelligence community

This sentence from me was cut due to lack of sources:

Grusch's claim that information was inappropriately concealed from Congress was found by the inspector general of the intelligence community to be "urgent and credible".

I've found it noted here as well now. Does that help? The sources that I had before which were judged inadequate are the statement from Compass Rose Legal Group signed by their top two attorney's including a former inspector general of the intelligence community that: "The ICIG found Mr. Grusch’s assertion that information was inappropriately concealed from Congress to be urgent and credible in response to the filed disclosure." There is this opinion piece in The Hill that includes it. Finally, Joshua Semeter, a member of the NASA team consulting on UAP data collection and analysis, says in an interview here that "David Grusch must be treated as a credible witness”.

I'm only looking to add the once sentence as a basic fact in the event, and these are the four sources that I have so far. Is it legit to add this sentence, and if not, why not? Jjhake (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

"The Intelligence Community Inspector General found Mr Grusch’s complaint to be “credible” and “urgent” in July 2022" from here The Independent in as well. I'll give it a try again in the article with one sentence and see what you all think with these additional two sources. Jjhake (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think "complaint" is ambiguous here. The complaint could very well be that his superiors did not report his claims to oversight. They may not have done so because he is loony. Thus, this is a "credible" complaint. It might be "urgent" due to the insistence of the complainer. But there is no clear indication even what the complaint actually is. jps (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to point out, I found that the the prose I removed here to be dangerously close to an insinuation that Grusch was telling the truth about aliens. If that wasn't the intention, then you should have been much more careful with the wording. But even so, I see no way to adequately summarize this point without so many WP:WEASEL words as to make the accounting untenable. The reports that the inspector general found a complaint to be credible and urgent can only be evaluated if there is a clear indication of what the complaint actually is. We don't have that. jps (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No such questions exist in any source that I have found. They are all incredibly simple, clear, and consistent that the inspector general found Grusch's assertion in 2022 "that information was inappropriately concealed from Congress to be urgent and credible in response to the filed disclosure". Please give one source that questions this. Jjhake (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Going from sources, please clarify as needed. My wording was very specific and well sourced. And this is directly related to why there are new reports about both Senate and House plans for hearings on this. Jjhake (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The reports that the inspector general found a complaint to be credible and urgent can only be evaluated if there is a clear indication of what the complaint actually is. We don't have that. We absolutely do have this, it is very specifically and only "the claim that information was inappropriately concealed from Congress" which is called "credible and urgent". Jjhake (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

If no sources can identify what the complaint actually is, I see no reason to accept that any source has actually verified this claim at this point. Parroting what someone's lawyer said is hardly WP:ECREE, and that is relevant here because certain claims made by this person are pretty extraordinary. It is possible that none of those claims are in his complaint but... crucially... we have no sources which explain what the complaint was. Just because you are following sources doesn't mean you have a good case. These sources don't actually address the most fundamental question: what is the complaint? It is likely that they can't do it! jps (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The honest, clear, and simple solution here is to put both pieces in place that get cited side by side in solid sources (as I have done repeatedly in earlier edits): 1. “the whistleblower disclosure did not speak to the specifics of the alleged classified information” and 2. “the claim that information was inappropriately concealed from Congress” which is called “credible and urgent” by the inspector general. No published source anywhere questions this that I’ve seen but you won’t include it? Jjhake (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we have any source that is not based on the lawyer that says that the claim was found "credible and urgent"? Do we have the word of the actual IG? Do we have any source which identifies the "information" that the IG identified? WP:ECREE is here for a reason. We have some dubious claims that were made. We have absolutely no indication that these claims were included in the complaint. But maybe they were. Either way, we've got a problem. One would be with an IG that is completely bonkers. The other would be that the Grusch team is talking out of both sides of their mouths. Either way, we don't have a decent way of conveying this corruption of ideas to the reader. jps (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the word information here is doing all the lifting. What information? That an alien spacecraft crashed into Italy and the US Government is hiding the bodies? If not that, then what? Can you identify it? Because I sure as hell cannot. jps (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, that’s why I say put the two points from the sources side by side. Make that obvious point clear. But multiple strong sources cite the inspector general on the specific determination that material should be provided to Congress that was not. Jjhake (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No. That's asking the reader to do WP:SYNTH for us. What this indicates is that our sources are not yet good enough. Sometimes in WP:SENSATIONs like this, sources just throw everything at the wall and to see what sticks. I think that's what's going on here. We cannot help that, but we are under no obligation to push that onto our readers. jps (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand why we can’t relay the simple fact that something (and specify that this has no specificity) was deem by the ICIG to have been illegally withheld from Congress. It’s exactly why Congress is acting the way that it is currently. Jjhake (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Because why should I trust that it is even an accurate representation of what actually happened? First of all, the claim that the IG made any judgement of "legality" is not in any of your sources at all and the fact that you are saying that gives me considerable pause. Wow. Are you really that taken in with this nonsense story that you think there were illegal actions taken? Congress is acting the way it is because its full of incurious members who have hired incompetent staffers on the one hand and then there are those who are afraid of Chinese balloons on the other. We have a law firm that is representing a client that has made interviews at this point which indicate some serious questions of reliability, but they have washed their hands of the scenario with a tidy little statement that offers no corroboration whatsoever. And all the other sources simply parrot it without so much as an indication of how they fact checked. I think it is obvious why one might think this may not be an honest claim. I don't see how we can write about it fairly in articlespace. jps (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not the law firm but the IG that made the determination that what was “inappropriately concealed from Congress” was a “credible and urgent” matter. This is explicitly in the sources and a basic fact of this event and should be given as a fact. Jjhake (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

We have only the law firm's say-so that this is the case as far as I can tell. Do you have the IG report? I can't find it. jps (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

A law firm run by a former IG makes the claim in a legal statement, then multiple solid media outlets repot it, then Congress takes obvious actions on it, but we need to get the IG’s report as a Wikipedia source? Jjhake (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is starting to feel bizarrely incomplete to me in a growing list of ways. I understand that we can’t replace every perspective from every respected pundit, but we’re really cleaning up what is actually a messy story and should be presented as such in so far as it remains that way. Everyone covering this so far agrees that it’s a mess of one kind or another that isn’t easily attributed to one simple problem. Jjhake (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't need the IG report necessarily, but you are asking us to take as fact a claim that, as far as I can tell is sourced to exactly one statement. None of the other sources you propose to use as much as pretends that they have tried to corroborate this statement. We're just supposed to take at their word the statement of this lawfirm. And we've alreday excised it. Just because the claim has been repeated does not mean we suddenly have to accept that the claim is true. I would take something as simple as a third party reporting that "I approached the IG for comment and they confirmed that they found Grusch to be credible and his complaint to be urgent". But I don't even have that to go on. What good is it if everybody is just parroting what the law firm said? How is that any better than just using the law firm as a source? It isn't. WP:PSTS isn't supposed to be a magic incantation. The idea is that WP:SECONDARY sources are supposed be vetting the primary ones. This is especially true in WP:ECREE situations like this. If there is any doubt that the primary sources may be acting the WP:SENSATION part, I think we need to exercise considerable caution.

What do I think happened? I think they probably communicated something to the IG. Maybe it was as simple as the idea that Grusch did not get a reply to his request. Maybe they asked for a response as the matter was "credible and urgent" and then got a perfunctory letter back that said, "We received your correspondence and will be sure to forward your concerns on to the appropriate ombudsman". I guess that is a tacit acceptance of "credible and urgent". I might write that the IG found the complaint "credible and urgent" in my press release about my former client even! Look at how good I am at making up stories. But what else can I do? We don't have the sources to explain what actually happened. Your sources are not good enough even as they seem to be very good at teasing out these few ideas from this press release. Fascinating stuff.

jps (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

None of that makes a wit of sense. They specifically say that the inappropriate withholding of information from Congress is what is credible and urgent. And no one has any reason to think that the former IG is lying about the current IG in making that straightforward factual claim. No source questions it. And Congress is explicitly acting on it, but we can’t even mention it here. Jjhake (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Who cares if that's what they say? Are they saying it under oath? Are there any consequences at all if they aren't telling the truth about that? Does it have to be a lie if they believe that it is credible and urgent and interpreted a certain response as being agreement even if, perhaps, it wasn't? You are expecting black-and-white determinations here about truth and facts when we just have statements subject to interpretation. And we are mentioning Congressional action. And we even mentioned the complaint. What I am asking is that we don't take these people necessarily at their word regarding who evaluated what and how about said complaint since we don't even know what precisely the complaint was. jps (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, a "bizarrely incomplete" article is a pretty good indicator that the subject is messy. Consider that this may be a feature rather than a bug. Not everything can be complete. WP:COMPLETE. jps (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Complete is no doubt the wrong word. What we are putting together is trending in a cherry-picked direction that doesn’t convey the basic reported facts. Jjhake (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you have an impression that certain things are "facts" when they may not be. jps (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

There can be no doubt about multiple reliable news outlets reporting that a former IG made a very specific public claim about the current IG. That fact should be included in this article. Jjhake (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yuck. You really want to attribute what a lawfirm said to one of its lawyers just because they used to have a different job? The fact here is that the lawfirm said something. Everyone agrees that this is true. The question is whether this fact is worthy of inclusion. I think it isn't. You think it is because other people mentioned it. I say, well, WP:SENSATION implies we should look to see if they checked up on the claim. You're like, "nah, I'm good." jps (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

What the law firm claims could and would have been denied by the current IG if it was not the case. You are making up strange counterfactuals. Jjhake (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

What jps has been saying is precisely why I removed it per WP:PRSOURCE. The actual IG statement is not available, only a press release that uses two adjectives that help puff up the law firm’s performance. It’s as if a widget company released a statement saying a US government procurement office found their product “significant" and "effective”. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you want? We have literally only one source that seems to exist on this subject. All the rest appear to be derivatives. jps (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You are the Wikipedia pros. Multiple solid news outlets have found it worth repeating, but I see that we need the actual document from the IG cited as a source. I’ll check with my Congressional contacts and get back to you. Jjhake (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You’ve also left out the fact that a spokesperson for Ploitico said they were interested in the story if they had more time because it wasn’t worth a second sentence. But instead it’s simply that I mistake tings for facts that are not. I’m a little at a loss for words. Jjhake (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

“We should look to see if they checked up on the claim”? Virtually every sentence in this entire article is framed in the form of so-and-so claimed… Give me a break. Jjhake (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you getting a little too close to this story? You are really concerned about the details of why a story wasn't published? So much so that you're bringing it up in a separate conversation about another matter? Yes, we're at disagreement here. Yes, I think you've not made a very good case for these last few ideas here. But this is no reason to despair. jps (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind word. I should probably go work on a news or history wiki of some kind because I clearly just don’t get how you can leave these kinds of things out of the picture. Jjhake (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jjhake: if you take a break, listen to John Greenewald’s newest episode on the Black Vault ("The UFO Whistleblower Update - And, Why the Skepticism?" I think you’ll enjoy it. Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Does look fun. I’ll pretty clearly not have much to add to the article very often, but I don’t mind being the guy who is wrong 90% of the time on the talk page. I’m hoping that the 10% contributions are worth the effort. Jjhake (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Try to listen asap. I wasn’t aware that Mick West helped request a document from News Nation, and Greenewald makes a very interesting point about this document and why we still haven’t seen it in full. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

When talking about the point that Gillibrand said she wants a Senate hearing with Grusch, it is really surprising how the Black Vault guy doesn’t understand why classified stuff can’t be shared publicly even with whistleblower immunities in place. Of course he’d still have to share anything of substance with Senators without public access. How can the Black Vault guy be doing what he does for decades without understanding this basic concept? Anyway, I’ll finish, and I’m looking forward to the West stuff. Jjhake (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That was interesting. Thanks. Certainly would be most reasonable to release all those public docs at this point. I’m surprised he didn’t note the comment from the NYT interview with Leslie Kean that she and Grusch were shocked by this process as well: “He submitted it, and he got his response the next day, saying, yes. So I can’t imagine that it went through too much overnight. We were just stunned. Was it just a clerk who just sort of signed off on it that fast? Or did they just not bother to read it? Or I don’t know how it worked. I don’t know how the whole thing worked.” Jjhake (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

He didn’t mention it in that podcast episode because he previously mentioned it in his previous, original podcast episodes. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

“easier to seek extraterrestrial facts on the Pacific Ocean floor than get them from the government” —Avi Loeb

I’m sure that this quip from one of those currently in the article’s “relevant experts” section won’t be of interest to any other editors? I love the playfulness of it, but that’s not very encyclopedic, I do grant. Anyway, here’s the link and the passage in case:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/harvard-avi-loeb-alien-spacecraft-pacific-b2367699.html

”Days earlier, former US Air Force intelligence officer David Grusch went public with claims that a Department of Defense UFO Task Force was withholding information about a secretive UFO retrieval program and is in possession of “non-human” spacecraft.” “It’s easier to seek extraterrestrial facts on the Pacific Ocean floor than get them from the government,” Prof Loeb wrote in an expedition journal on Medium at the time.” Jjhake (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This whole episode seems to be a PR stunt because there is nothing definitive about these pellets. In other words, Loeb wants the attention of the press. This is merely a way to stay in the limelight. It is WP:SENSATIONALISM at its best. And I am sure stunts like this keep his operations funded due to the press attention he receives. These pellets have not even been confirmed as pieces of a possible installer meteorite [4]. So, he is speculating that this is that meteor. Then he goes further speculating this might be evidence of an alien civilization's spacecraft. And the press is eating it up - yum! Yum!

The quote you have above presumes there are extraterrestrial facts to be obtained from the government in the first place. This is a preposterous supposition and is being presented as a fact on its own. On it's face, this is a ridiculous statement and it makes no sense.---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It is Loeb’s career at this point… Jjhake (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Lol wut? Loeb is a tenured full professor with an endowed chair at Harvard. He's fine. jps (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I agree that it’s useless now unless scholars were to write a history of all the drama eventually. Jjhake (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It is unfortunate this story is not useable here. The BBC is a really good source. And I suppose the Independent is trustworthy on this story. I should not have been so critical of the above remark. What Loeb was referring to was classified data that some U.S. agency (or agencies) have on this meteoroid, and they were the only ones to track it. That is what he meant about the U.S. Government not being forthcoming.

And that is an interesting take on what information Loeb is missing and which would be very helpful. It is ironically classified. However, the U.S. Department of Defense threw Loeb a bone without revealing the sensitivity of the deployed sensors that detected this object [5].

So, it is possible that this could turn out to be a meteoroid, or meteorite or meteor or whatever, from another solar system. And that is exciting. As an aside, rather than calling these objects "meteor-whatever", why not simply give them a new scientific designation — "Space Rock." Just remember, you heard it here first, on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

For anyone interested, Wikipedia has an article on this Space Rock. It is entitled "CNEOS 2014-01-08." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

we missed noting NTY report on Grusch providing info "to the general counsels for the House and Senate Intelligence Committees"

I've just added a key fact reported by the NYT on Grusch providing info "to the general counsels for the House and Senate Intelligence Committees". This specific point is from the NYT staff and not part of the opinion piece by Klein. Although there are a lot more details talked about by Ezra Klein and Leslie Kean, I've tried to give just the most basic facts as represented by the NYT and by Kean in response to the questions from Klein. I'm sure that I will need much help here, but the key fact from the Times seems obviously vital to the article. Jjhake (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: the content that you just removed is vetted by The New York Times. That "David Grusch ...provided information to the general counsels for the House and Senate Intelligence Committees" is not from Ezra Klein as a columnist but is written by the NYT staff as the corrected information in an update at the bottom here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/podcasts/ezra-klein-podcast-transcript-leslie-kean.html

This information is fundamental to any understanding of this event and is vetted by the Times. It needs to be in the article. Jjhake (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ezra Klein's podcast can't be used for statements of fact (except about the show itself) and definitely should not be misrepresented as "a New York Times report". You seem to be confusing the Times newsroom staff with New York Times Opinion Podcasts "At The New York Times, the Opinion department is an independent entity that operates separately from the newsroom. Using its own staff of editors and roster of writers, the department publishes about a dozen written viewpoints a day, along with original video and interactive articles." I don't have all weekend to explain our editorial policies to you, so please have a look at WP:RSOPINION as a starting point. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

NYT staff corrected a comment by one of their own employees to point out that "David Grusch ...provided information to the general counsels for the House and Senate Intelligence Committees" and we cannot put this fundamental fact into the article? That does not comport with any reading of the Wikipedia policies that I can come up with. If the language "reported by" the Times is wrong, please help me come up with the right language. Would "stated by Times staff in correction to their columnist Ezra Klein" be clear? Jjhake (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Took a shot at replacing “reported”. I’m not thinking that “published transcription of a podcast interview with Kean” or some such is needed, so hoping that “opinion piece” works. Jjhake (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The statement to which you are referring is mundane and unattributed. It is an unknown who wrote that statement. You are jumping to conclusions that it was a newsroom staff member. Also, this so-called correction doesn't matter in the context you think it does. It pertains to an opinion piece and does not pertain to statements of facts from the newsroom. So, removing this is the correct action.

One more thing, LuckyLouie stated in the edit history [6] " WP:BRD This is not a "New York Times report" - it's opinion, not vetted journalism." So, the next step is to discuss and not add back that material. Jjake, you completely ignored WP:BRD. Are you purposely trying to wear down the editors here? Frankly, I am tired of the incessant quest to keep mundane information in this article. I am seeing WP:OWNership issues with much of this process and have noticed this for awhile now. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Jjhake, You need to take a break from this article for at least a day or so. You are overdoing it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

My question here was before his removal, so I was looking for feedback here. Thanks for your take. Please fix as you wish. This seems clearly to be info that can be properly presented as from some kind of a viable source, and it also seems clearly critical to the info in the article. However, if no other editors see this, I’m not wanting to waste further time of yours. Jjhake (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ll note that it’s funny to read about ownership problems when my last four ideas were voted off the team within hours. Idiocy on my part, perhaps, but I don’t see where I’ve been pushing anybody around or expecting any special treatment. Jjhake (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

As of this writing I count 70 edits to the article or its talk page today alone. That constitutes ownership. Please step away from the keyboard; there are several other editors working on this article and doing good jobs at it, despite the constant distractions. And please resist the urge to respond to defend yourself. -Jordgette [talk] 18:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I was enjoying the chat with jps on this talk page that got that count and I’ve been extremely limited with article edits. Very happy to step away at your direction, but your analysis of ownership looks very shallow. Jjhake (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ezra Klein opinion podcast

So, here’s what has now been edit warred in to Grusch’s public statements section: As stated by The New York Times staff in correction to an opinion piece by their columnist Ezra Klein, Grusch gave information "to the general counsels for the House and Senate Intelligence Committees". In response to questions from Klein, this information was described by Kean as "11 hours" of classified oral testimony that congressional staffers transcribed into "hundreds of pages". My thoughts per WP:RSOPINION above, I don’t think we should be citing an opinion podcast (and a correction to it) as a source for facts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I had no intent of edit warring and have removed just now per current consensus here. Same info is in multiple other viable news sources, but my experience here of late is that even when in other sources, info I’ve suggested is either considered unnecessary or to have been taken uncritically by the news source from an unreliable original source. Per the several requests to me above, I’ll take an extended break and just watch others work. Jjhake (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Grusch's 2022-05-25 complaint to the ICIG

It would be helpful to have a PDF of that complaint.

There is such a PDF here: https://www.liberationtimes.com/s/David-Grusch-PPD-19-Procedural-Filing.pdf

Now, I don't know whether that is coming from a RS. But the four-page PDF itself looks quite legitimate. Signed by McCullough, Bakaj, and Grusch.

If you reject that PDF, where can a better PDF be found? Or are the "Reliable Sources" avoiding even this legal complaint like the plague?

For the original article, see https://www.liberationtimes.com/home/unclassified-version-of-david-gruschs-ufo-related-reprisal-complaint-released KHarbaugh (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. While it is not a usable source for articlespace, it confirms my suspicion that the lawfirm said nothing about any specific Grusch claim in its filing (no alien bodies, no Mussolini UFOs, etc.). It would be nice if some secondary sources discussed this point, but I'm afraid all we have are what we discussed prior to this. jps (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

whistleblowers such as David Grusch do not trust the DoD or Intelligence Community led by Avril Haines. Instead, Grusch (and others may follow) chose to approach journalists such as George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell to help him. This gave me a chuckle, Jeremy Corbell cosplaying as a “journalist”. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I hear you, but in his defense, he's definitely tried to tone down his usual nonsense on his podcast. When he first started appearing on the circuit, I couldn't listen to him for more than 20 seconds. Now, I'm able to go for about a minute, so he's improving, slowly. I think he's been receiving a lot of criticism and trying to change . Who knows, he might end up as a skeptic; a lot of UFO skeptics started out as true believers. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

if Mick West can be called a journalist, I guess everybody can. H3sam91 (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Christopher Mellon's 2023-06-03 statement to Politico

That statement is sufficiently important and relevant to this article, that I think it deserves a section of its own.

Since AARO was established,

I have referred four witnesses to them who claim to have knowledge of a secret U.S. government program involving the analysis and exploitation of materials recovered from off-world craft. Other sources who, rightly or wrongly do not trust AARO’s leadership, have also contacted me with additional details and information about an alleged secret U.S. government reverse engineering program. Some have supplied information to the intelligence community’s inspector general, others directly to staff of the congressional oversight committees. As this process has progressed, and the credibility of these claims has grown, so too have my concerns. What if I’m helping to pry open a genuine Pandora’s box, releasing information that might prove destructive, destabilizing or for many simply terrifying? I’ve repeatedly had to ask myself: “Is disclosure in the best interest of the public?

Am I doing the right thing working to bring what could be America’s most deeply buried secret to light?”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/03/ufo-crash-materials-intelligence-00100077

Mellon is bringing some real issues to the light. I think we should be aware of those issues. To say that the USG IC is a monolith is simply ignorant. KHarbaugh (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The only thing that brings to light is his opinion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Christopher Mellon is a former

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.

Based on that, it is safe to say he has both some inside knowledge and some inside contacts.

Denying the significance of that is simply ignorant.

We all have opinions; Mellon no doubt has those but he also has inside knowledge and contacts that very few have. KHarbaugh (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"I have referred four witnesses to [AARO] who claim to have knowledge of a secret U.S. government program involving the analysis and exploitation of materials recovered from off-world craft."

That is not an opinion, but an assertion, which may or may not be true.

I have no reason to doubt it. KHarbaugh (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Christopher Mellon like John Podesta and the late Harry Reid is one of those politicians taken with the UFO *truth is out there* woo. It is no surprise he is excited that "disclosure" is "finally happening" as he has been tooting that horn for quite some time. jps (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Political soapboxing

The thing that bugs me about Mellon is he always lets on that he knows more than he can say, but never ends up saying much of anything. He’s also connected to the Mellon family oil dynasty which is deeply connected to the GOP. For those that don’t know, Richard Mellon Scaife is widely considered the originator of the various Clinton conspiracies, and helped fund climate change disinformation through the Heritage Foundation. Lots of things don’t smell right here. As I’ve repeatedly said here, the connections to the GOP on this subject are too great to ignore. They are pushing this issue for reasons that benefit their own political objectives, whatever those may be. I was listening to Marco Rubio’s latest interview on this subject when it suddenly occurred to me; given the GOPs work with various hostile states over the last few decades, most notably Russia, it appears that their push for "openness" and disclosure could be a way to help foreign countries gain an intelligence advantage. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC) I think you're going a bit too far with these political conspiracies, friend. The current Republicans may be interested in promoting this subject because they aren't very bright. Hanlon's Razor might do you some good. jps (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Perhaps you are right. However, since 1947, we know the American political and intelligence community has often published reports and communicated findings indicating that they were concerned about how the topic of UFOs could be used by their adversaries to manipulate public opinion and control certain narratives. In fact, soon after the 1952 Washington, D.C., UFO incident, the CIA expressed these very concerns about Russia, noting that UFO reports could be used for psychological warfare as well as to overload defense systems. "Perhaps we, from an intelligence point of view, should watch for any indication of Russian efforts to capitalize upon this present American credulity," writes an analyst after the 1952 flap. In 2022, journalist Craig Unger laid out a solid case for how for the last 25 years, the GOP has been successfully infiltrated by Russia.[7] One of the ways the GOP and Russian operatives work together is by running disinformation propaganda campaigns: "Jonathan Winer, former deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement, has observed the relationship for years. 'If you go back to the days of Jack Abramoff, when Americans started going to Moscow in the '90s, and then to Paul Manafort in Ukraine, and so on, you start to see the spine of a secret influence campaign between the Republicans and Russia that has been built up over decades,' he said. 'It goes right up to Tucker Carlson rooting for Putin on Fox today. It has been built up over decades, and it is not new, and it deeply infects the Republican Party. You have two forces with deep political ties that are fighting American democracy in order to keep Putin in power and install a Putin-like system in America. And to that end, they have penetrated deep into our think tanks, our media, our journalism—everything.'" Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Danger! Will Robinson! Danger! Seriously, they aren't bright enough to be that nefarious. It's also not plausible due to Ockham's Razor: Grift, greed, and "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" can explain it all without the need for tangled webs of intrigue by the Illuminati Republicans[8] jps (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Well, we will politely agree to disagree on this. And I will take this off my watchlist for now and work on other things. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Here is someone no one can accuse of being a Republican, Barack Obama in 2021: "What is true, and I'm actually being serious here, is that there are, there's footage and records of objects in the skies, that we don't know exactly what they are. We can't explain how they moved, their trajectory. They did not have an easily explainable pattern. And so, you know, I think that people still take seriously trying to investigate and figure out what that is." ... [The article continues:] Obama's admission that there are, in fact "footage and records of objects in the skies, that we don't know exactly what they are. We can't explain how they moved, their trajectory" is in keeping with a broader acknowledgment by official arms of the government -- after decades of denial! -- that UFOs are real. ... John Ratcliffe, who served as DNI during the Trump administration, [said] "Frankly, there are a lot more sightings than have been made public, We are talking about objects that have been seen by Navy or Air Force pilots, or have been picked up by satellite imagery, that frankly engage in actions that are difficult to explain, movements that are hard to replicate, that we don't have the technology for or are traveling at speeds that exceed the sound barrier without a sonic boom." https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/19/politics/barack-obama-ufos/index.html KHarbaugh (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Everybody knows that there are UFOs/UAPs in the sense of "unidentified flying objects"/"unexplained aerial phenomena". When one of those is explained, it stops being a UFO. If you ask the hardest skeptics (for instance, me), they will agree to that. The fringe idea is that those are aliens. UFO believers always conflate those two concepts and conclude the second from the first. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC) yeah, Hob hit the nail on the head. KHarbaugh, you're pushing advocacy for a fringe idea here, rather than just reporting what we know. That needs to stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Is my quoting former President Obama "pushing advocacy for a fringe idea"? Do you want to ignore what President Obama said? Because it doesn't fit with Wikipedia's party line? Also, I certainly did not conflate "aliens" with UFOs. Nowhere in my comment did I mention or allude to aliens. By introducing the word "alien", Hob created a straw man he could knock down. As to "reporting what we know", I quoted a CNN article which in turn quoted former President Obama and former DNI Ratcliffe. That, Hand, is reporting. Also, one person from each political party.  KHarbaugh (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC) While I agree that the partisanship discussions are a distraction mostly because I see almost no recognition of this in sources, it's also fairly transparent that you are advocating for a certain outlook. So far, this has not been as disruptive as others who share your predilection, but I want to remind you that the talkpage is for discussing changes to the article. I think it was fair that you requested that Christopher Mellon be added in a certain way. For reasons outlined, other editors don't think this is a particularly good idea. But now you have taken the WP:BAIT and started into an unrelated discussion that seems to be a bit WP:NOTFORUM-y. Just try to come back to making proposed edits and discussing specific changes you would like to make to the article instead. jps (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Because it doesn't fit with Wikipedia's party line? This is what betrays your advocacy. The fact you believe there's a "party line" to fight against. It's very clear you're pushing for the idea that every unidentified object is aliens. You're not reporting, you're POV pushing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Should Mellon's statement be emphasized with a section of its own?

• No In response to the original question, I don't feel the Mellon quotes deserve any special emphasis since they are WP:RSOPINION and do not actually mention Grusch, being published days before the "story" broke. His status as a former government official doesn't demand any special consideration in this context. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• No. As LuckyLouie points out, this is just Mellon's opinion and has no direct bearing on the article subject. Including it here would violate WP:DUE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. 1. The following from Mellon is not opinion, but an assertion of which Mellon claims first-hand knowledge, and is clearly relevant to Grusch's situation: "I have referred four witnesses to [AARO] who claim to have knowledge of a secret U.S. government program involving the analysis and exploitation of materials recovered from off-world craft." This shows Grusch was not alone in claiming the experience Grusch claimed. 2. Mellon is not merely "a former government official", but a "Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence", thus had high clearances and access to much of, if not all of, DoD intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHarbaugh (talk • contribs) 14:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• No. Wait until it gains traction in the media. Knowing that Mellon has been on this kick for a while, I predict that it will be a time closer to infinite when that happens, but my prediction could be wrong! jps (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  See

  https://www.newsweek.com/ufo-reverse-engineering-project-should-made-public-ex-intel-official-1804300 KHarbaugh (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sadly, since 2013, Newsweek is not quite the hook you can hang your hat on anymore. WP:NEWSWEEK. So, no. jps (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• No I haven't always understood what WP:COATRACK meant, until now. I now have a perfect example. This article is about Grusch and his claims, not "any UFO claims ever".DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Of course your last sentence is true.

  But it is not relevant.

  Both Grusch and Mellon have made claims concerning the USG having a secret program concerning UAP.

  Thus Mellon's statement provides corroboration to Grusch's claim.

  Thus Mellon's statement is relevant to Grusch's claim. KHarbaugh (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is confirmation only in the eyes of people who are not aware that UFO myths have always been built on each other: before Close Encounters of the Third Kind came out, there was a large diversity in the aliens people saw. Afterwards, they increasingly looked like the ones in the movie. It is a cultural phenomenon. When someone says A, other people say A.

  So, two people repeat the same rumor. That does not confirm the rumor, only the existence of the rumor. As DolyaIskrina says, it is COATRACK. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is remarkable.

  The media constantly reports secondhand stories along the lines of "multiple sources, who wish to remain anonymous, have told us that ...".

  This is not reported as "a rumor".

  So when Grusch and Mellon (two named and once cleared people) both report, in the media, a similar story, why should that story be dismissed as "a rumor"?

  Looks like description bias. KHarbaugh (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  P.S. The word I used was "corroboration", not "confirmation".

  There is a difference. KHarbaugh (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The media don't say "multiple sources" when they are reporting on people's similar beliefs in Bigfoot, or Jesus-on-toast, or other longstanding canonical mythologies. And BTW my vote is No. It appears you're the only editor who thinks this is relevant, so I suggest you stop bludgeoning the point. -Jordgette [talk] 19:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• No The Mellon quotes are WP:UNDUE opinions that do not even mention Grusch, so claims of relevance appear to be WP:SYNTH. And even if we ignore this, that Newsweek article cited above doesn't mention Grusch, either. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  It should be noted that the title of the article is not "David Grusch", but rather "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims".

  Those claims are indeed prefigured in Mellon's article, even if Grusch is not there named. KHarbaugh (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that the title of the article is not "David Grusch and other peoples' UFO whistleblower claims." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Overall tone

Hatting this section per WP:TPG: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I get the weird feeling when trying to cover even remotely fringe topics neutrally. But considering Grusch's credentials and access, this whole article reads a bit like a hit piece. His claims are outright fantastic and sound like a best-of of UFO-lore, but with congressional hearings in sight (bipartisan push (rare enough) from Gillibrand and Rubio) and the ICIG actively involved, they (and the purported classified evidence Grusch provided) will be properly tested. So the overall tone is far too dismissive prior to the actual factchecking processes necessary in this rather new "by-the-books-whistleblowing"-legislation. The relevant experts (or at least the quotes) seem pretty weak and tendentious and there have be more carefully worded and neutral ones out there (forgive the pun). Especially Frank's reads like a straightup reddit comment and not very professorial. At this time and in this state there's still a valid chance that this article could not age too well, which can be avoided. MKUltra sounded completely outrageous too until it didn't. I'm not willing to research or edit anything since this is not near any of my topics, or even sign properly in this specific talk as I do not particularly enjoy the vibes here. Have a good one. 84.63.143.231 (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) It is slanted, and this bugs me a little too. I also find it sad that very few editors will sign up to engage on messy stuff like this with anything like an attempt to give a larger picture and messier representation. However, Wikipedia is supposed to presume fringe in such cases and keep things pretty matter-of-fact (without a bunch of conflicting details and takes), so it makes sense to me that the article would slant heavily in that way. As long as everything connected to Grusch is just a set of wild and time-worn claims without any first-hand knowledge, there's not much more to be said as far as a Wikipedia article would go. Jjhake (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Hanging one's hat on MKUltra is definitely a WP:REDFLAG as far as WP:FRINGE is concerned [9]. Sorry, we aren't in the business of accommodating conspiracy theorizing. Jjhake, please don't feed the trolls and, also, I am having a hard time reading the subtext of your argument that the article is "slanted". What exactly do you think we are "slanting" here? jps (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Coulthart

It's pretty obvious that Coulthart, the interviewer of Grusch, is sympathetic to UFO believers in a way that probably made him palatable to those arranging the interview. Is there a source we can use which makes this point (similar to the Vox source which identifies the somewhat compromised positions of Kean and Blumenthal?). jps (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he is asked directly by Elizabeth Vargas of NewsNation at one point if he believes that all of the Grusch claims are true, and he says yes he does directly and that "we are not alone" (which by the way is clearly a kind of mantra in certain circles). It's a NewsNation citation, but I think it's a pretty straightforward fact. Jjhake (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course there is also the entire book that Coulthart writes on this topic that would be filled with material to cite with regard to his own beliefs. Jjhake (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

In this video interview:

Elizabeth Vargas: "Do you believe him?"

Coulthart: "I do. I think he's highly credible."

And you can read the description of his book In Plain Sight for yourself. Jjhake (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I wish there was a source which called out this juggernaut. The problem seems to be that people read "journalist" and rarely think "partisan". But that's what we have here. jps (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

There we agree. He’s clearly a zealot. Jjhake (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

But so are many of the people involved in this. And yet, Klein treated Leslie Kean as though she doesn't have the baggage she has, etc., etc. This is what is frustrating here. The story is that there is a community that successfully weaseled its way into a mainstream newsroom in 2017 and is sitting on those feats of glory even now. This is the outcome of taking this subculture "seriously". jps (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

When you read *American Cosmic*, the religious zeal is palpable in this crowd, and the catch phrases are numerous: “non-human” and “we are not alone” are repeated constantly. What is truly inexplicable to me is the number of military and intelligence professionals evidently swept up. Jjhake (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you been around many military/intelligence people? I have. They tend to act more like cogs than critical thinkers. Groupthink is a real hazard of the industry. jps (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@ජපස: Do you think that’s because military training emphasizes the chain of command, which discourages independent thinking and behavior? Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. It could also be the personality types that are attracted to these sectors in the first place? Unclear. There is almost certainly research about this in abundance. jps (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jjhake I don't know of any zealot that begs people to just verify his claims and prove him wrong. I guess we'll all know about it very soon. Truthseeker9321 (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times, Politico and The Washington Post had all declined to publish the story?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Editors.

I've been reading this article in the past few days and noticed a clear bias in characterizing Grusch's claims. If they turn out to be true, Wouldn't it damage reputation of wikipedia as an unbiased Encyclopedia? I have some suggestions on how to make the article fact-based and unbiased. Was wondering if anyone else has any suggestions as well?

example: I think this should be removed or more sources be reference. "The New York Times, Politico and The Washington Post had all declined to publish the story"

I also don;t think Vanity fair is a great source for scientific matterial. Maybe about Kim Kardashian.

thoughts?

Truthseeker9321 (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not damaged by being wrong. It merely follows the WP:MAINSTREAM sources in a clunky, non-innovative fashion. Amazing claims that end up being true are not something Wikipedia is equipped to accommodate prior to reliable sources identifying the claims as true. jps (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

As for your concern over Vanity Fair, first of all there is no indication that the genre of this article is "scientific material", but, even if it was, Vanity Fair has published pretty reliable stories about science in the past. You can check out evaluation of it as a source in WP:RSPS. Still, I would tend to agree that this particular article isn't exactly their best work, but I also don't think there is anything particularly worrying about the article's content that would cause me to question whether it was properly reporting on what it claims to be reporting. jps (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Well it's about craft that show phyisical abilities and observing nuclear facilities. if this is not a scientific matter what is?

Regarding Vanity fair here are some articles on front page: "Zendaya’s Sexy Tennis Drama Challengers Will Open the Venice Film Festival" "Victoria Beckham May Have Been a Gucci Girl, but It’s Prada for Her Daughter"

I think investigative reporting has been defunded for many years and the very few that actually do it are ignored by MSM. Truthseeker9321 (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

regardless I think this should be removed unless it's explicitly stated in sources.

"The New York Times, Politico and The Washington Post had all declined to publish the story" Truthseeker9321 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This specific topic was discussed here. Is there any need to rehash it? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Schumer

“For decades, many Americans have been fascinated by objects mysterious and unexplained and it’s long past time they get some answers,” said Leader Schumer. “The American public has a right to learn about technologies of unknown origins, non-human intelligence, and unexplainable phenomena. We are not only working to declassify what the government has previously learned about these phenomena but to create a pipeline for future research to be made public. I am honored to carry on the legacy of my mentor and dear friend, Harry Reid and fight for the transparency that the public has long demanded surround these unexplained phenomena.”

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-rounds-introduce-new-legislation-to-declassify-government-records-related-to-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-and-ufos_modeled-after-jfk-assassination-records-collection-act--as-an-amendment-to-ndaa Foerdi (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Also in The New York Times:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230714002834/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/us/politics/ufo-records-schumer.html

Some sources have mentioned Grusch in reporting this, but there is no direct connection. Jjhake (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

How about this one minute NBC video linking Grusch and Schumer:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Pat1Wluomqw KHarbaugh (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Also there is this written article linking Grusch and Schumer:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/07/chuck-schumer-wants-you-to-know-more-about-ufos.html KHarbaugh (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone else here wondering about the *subtle* JFK hint? Foerdi (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And here it comes:

"(22) UNIDENTIFIED ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA RECORD.—The term ‘‘unidentified anomalous phenomena record’’ means a record that is related to unidentified anomalous phenomena, technologies of unknown origin, or non-human intelligence (and all equivalent subjects by any other name ..."

source: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/uap_amendment.pdf

in the news:

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4101345-non-human-intelligence-schumer-proposes-stunning-new-ufo-legislation/ Foerdi (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Despite WP:SENSATIONALizing headlines and showcased quotations of opinions, this is only a proposed amendment by senators to the annual Defense authorization bill requiring the federal government to collect and make public records related to UFOs, and it is bipartisan, meaning senators Schumer, Rubio, and a few others say they will sponsor it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It's the second such bipartisan legislative work completed in the past four weeks. A unanimous vote in the senate intelligence committee on a separate set of legal requirements to provide any UAP info and materials to AARO was another such effort. I see nothing sensational about the reporting on these two measures suggesting that sensational whistleblower claims are being met by the Congress with efforts to ensure that this topic is made as wide open and public as possible. Jjhake (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see coverage "suggesting that sensational whistleblower claims are being met by the Congress". It's a proposed amendment to an annual defense spending bill, mention of which may belong at National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times most recently: “…pushing back against the conspiracy theories that surround discussions of U.F.O.s and fears that the government is hiding critical information from the public.” But I don’t advocate things on this article talk page too much as my track record for being wrong is phenomenal. Jjhake (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposals happen all the time, most of which go absolutely nowhere. It's WP:UNDUE to foist this into the article until it actually becomes part of signed law. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Bipartisan Congressional hours are piling up on this topic on three separate fronts, and one of them has been reported in the NYT recently as I note above. Jjhake (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, Congress spends all sorts of time on proposals that go nowhere. This is not due for the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

To report every step of this proposal as it moves through the legislature is to ignore WP:BREAKING. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, both. Jjhake (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Interview with AARO’s Sean Kirkpatrick posted July 20

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/extraterrestrial-technical-supremacy-top-concern-pentagon-ufo-investigator/story?id=101218299

Here’s the portion of the report that speaks to this article content:

“Two former government intelligence analysts came forward last month alleging that details of the alleged craft are being illegally withheld from Congress and the American people. Neither has publicly provided any evidence to substantiate their claims. "We've interviewed almost 30 individuals who have come in to provide their testimony. And out of all of those, none of it has yet led to any verifiable information that substantiates the claim that the U.S. government has those ships or has a reverse engineering program either in the past or currently," Kirkpatrick said when asked about the allegations.”

“He downplayed the possible existence of a secret program that he is not privy to, saying, "Nothing has been denied us."”

“"A number of these [whistleblowers] believe and have stated -- and we believe them now -- that they have seen something. And we are investigating," he said.” Jjhake (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Kirkpatrick does seem to be talking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to recent whistleblower claims. And Now NewsNation is confirming that David Grusch will be appearing with two others in the July 26th hearing, so there seems to be little point in updating this article until after some of the news media coverage starts to come out following that hearting. Even then, the media may not give much coverage to the testimony provided in that hearing. There are now two pieces of new legislation moving through the system that are attempting to force more classified material into public view next year (2024). That is the only change that is likely to bring much media commentary and real conclusion one way or another with all these speculations. I agree that the Kirkpatrick comments should show up in this article eventually, but it will likely be more clear how and where at some point after any more coverage of the hearing next week. Jjhake (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)