Talk:John Greenewald Jr.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

notability given the four sources so far?

Looks like a good draft, but notability may be questionable with just the four sources so far. I did notice that the Columbia Journalism Review is published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism which should be a help. Jjhake (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

Is it accurate to describe Greenewald as a "ufologist"? He has a real job and career. He does the Ufology thing as a hobby, which he has been successful at and has managed to turn into a bit of a minor, secondary occupation. He's also more of a skeptic these days, so I'm not sure if "ufologist" fits entirely, but it's somewhat accurate. He thinks most ufologists are either misinformed or lying. Greenewald receives an enormous amount of push-back from the ufo community for this stance. He does, however, continue to state that he's a believer in the idea that there is a conspiracy of secrecy, which no matter what side you are on, appears to be true. Most skeptics think this secrecy (or conspiracy) is easily explained: the idea of "aliens" is being used (or has been used) as a cover story for military tech and activity (this is more believable than you might think: look at hi-def videos of the Northrop B-2 Spirit flying around; it demonstrates many of the flight characteristics found in the UFO literature and after 34 years still looks like something out of science-fiction). I'm not sure it would be accurate to categorize Greenewald with someone like Mick West, for example, because as Greenewald repeatedly has said, he is more of an amateur (Greenewald, not West) and doesn't have the same knowledge or expertise as West. Greenewald's true expertise on this topic lies not with ufology, but with understanding and navigating the arcane FOIA process. This would make Greenewald more of a self-taught legal expert with an emphasis on government documents, not a ufologist. Essentially, Greenewald is an amateur archivist, with a focus on UFO/UAPs. Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smithsonian Magazine calls Greenewald a "UFO enthusiast", while The Indpenendent characterizes him as a researcher "who runs The Black Vault website focused on declassifying government documents". Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the sources are about his website The Black Vault, so this bio should probably be turned into an article about that site given that there are reliable sources stretching back 20 years covering it. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure. He’s written books as well. I think a biographic article with a large section about the Black Vault would be more appropriate. Thriley (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, but I think the available sources demonstrate just the opposite--we should have an article about the site with a section about Greenewald. It should be said, I have an open mind and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]