Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Credulity thy name is Daragahi?

This seems highly suspect as a paragraph to include:

In an article published by Independent, Borzou Daragahi writes that despite denials from Department of Defence and NASA, "...it is hard to trust a US government that has a counterproductive tendency to go much too far in classifying information as secret or compartmentalising intelligence to provide officials with plausible deniability. In any case, even the public testimony was alarming." Also in regards to Grusch he writes, "Grusch, a decorated US air force officer, appears more a military wunderkind than conspiratorial kook. He served in combat in Afghanistan and then went on to work in a highly sensitive Pentagon programme on UAPs. He quickly learned to trust no one. He retained a lawyer and sought whistleblower protection before coming out in public with his revelations in June. He said he had been warned by colleagues within the military establishment of dire consequences that befell others who had sought to go public."

What's especially weird about this is the claim that somehow NASA is implicated in "classifying information", for one. What's worse the appearance of Grusch is somewhat irrelevant. It's almost as if Daragahi hasn't been paying attention to the UFO craze and idiocy. I love the "dire consequences" conspiracizing that is here, but we don't need more of this. This is Wikipdia. NOT an X-Files episode.

And, what's worse, this is a fairly cherry-picked summary of Daraghi's actual piece.

jps (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

given that I don't think it's an opinion piece and it's from independant (reliable source), I think it should be included. Do you have an alternative summary that we can agree on? Westerosi456H (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Also based on wiki article on Daragahi, he's got significant credentials. no one is 100% credible but I'm not sure he should be called credulous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borzou_Daragahi Westerosi456H (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely opinion. He's talking about his impression of Grusch and of the US government's classification schema (and he seems to be confused about NASA's implication in that). jps (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

How does his success in being a correspondent in Iraq re: Foreign Military operations give him any credentials when it comes to fantastical claims of aliens among us? jps (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean it's not an opinion piece. well the whole section is called News stories and commentary and opinions of Tucker Carlson, Nick Pope, Mick West, etc are inlcueded. Any reason why we shouldn't incleded Daragahi Specifically.

Foreign Military Ops experience of Daragahi is probably relevant given this is essentialy and intelligence issue. Does Daragahi have any less expertise and relevance compared to Nick Pope or Mick West? Westerosi456H (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Does Daragahi have any less expertise and relevance compared to Nick Pope or Mick West? He has no experience with UFOs that I can see. He seems to be pretty credulous and, in spite of attempts at spin, this is not primarily an "intelligence issue". He certainly isn't treating it as such -- at least not according to his speciality. The only thing he brings to the table is a disdain for the lack of transparency in the US military. Hardly a hot take and one that is made better by members of Congress, for example, on this page. If there is a unique perspective he offers, I don't see it -- and I find his disconnect and whoppers included to be disconfirming to say the least. jps (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

How about Tucker Carlson, Shellenburger and Tom Rogan? Do they have experience with UFO? how do you define experience or expertise with UFO?

Also how does it seem to you that he's "pretty credulous"? that's a pretty strong statement. Credulous how exactly? Westerosi456H (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is pretty mealy-mouthed and it is surprisingly so given that it came out after the media circus that was the committee hearing. Anyway, the point is that the opinion of this reporter does not seem all that unique or important for the reader to understand. His concern about US government transparency is not particularly unique and his comment that Grusch "looks" a certain way is basically as unserious a point as I can imagine for this sort of thing. I just don't see much in that article worth including. Perhaps the only unique thing he has said is that there was bipartisan interest... but he didn't really analyze this carefully and seemed to think that AOC, for example, was sympathetic to Grusch when I think her question was actually one which challenged him to put up or shut up (which he then deferred to behind closed doors). In any case, I would want there to be something new here. We can add the source to the pile, but it does not seem worthy of new prose and certainly not an entirely new paragraph. jps (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a point of view that is not presented in the article by any other pundit. It's definitely worth including since it's from a very reputable news organization and not an opinion piece. Westerosi456H (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is the "point of view" you are referring to in this instance? You included two quotes: one about not trusting US government classification schemes which I contend is already represented in the article by better sources and the other which described the way Grusch looked to the reporter. Which of these is worth including and why? jps (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

vast majority of the responses included are comments against Grusch. I still strongly think this should be included. Westerosi456H (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The goal is not WP:FALSEBALANCE. The goals is to give the reader information. Give us something that adds information to the article rather than just a hope to have more credulity inserted. jps (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you insist on condescending remarks towards the writer who is a reputable journalist in a reputable publication. Regardles the discussion is not helping the article. I still think it should be included. I'll wait for other users to comment and I'm open to changing my mind. Westerosi456H (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The Daragahi opinion piece (clearly marked as "comment" i.e. opinion in a section called "voices" [1]]) in the Independent expressing credulity for Grusch's claims and hinting at a larger conspiracy to hide The Truth is exactly what this article doesn't need. As jps said, the goal here is not to give equal validity to a range of personal viewpoints from non-experts. We should be seeking solidly vetted and substantive information vetted by multiple reliable sources to add to the article rather than trying to fill it up with a variety of novel tidbits plucked from the internet. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Lede contains a detail not cited in article body

I can't find any info cited in article body to support this detail in the lede. Unless I'm missing something, we need to include this info and citation within the article body or remove this from the lede:

"He also claimed that there were possibly secret agreements between US government and non-human entities." Jjhake (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove it. jps (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, remove it. Evidence-free claims of "possibly" are pretty thin soup. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sol Foundation started with Grusch, Nolan, and Mellon

This info recently blogged about by Jason Colavito seems like it should be in the article:

https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/david-grusch-works-for-garry-nolan-and-chris-mellon-new-document-shows

The Grusch resume or CV from the House website is a good source, but can the company info from the public filing be used as a source as well? It is listed here, for example:

https://www.bizapedia.com/al/the-sol-foundation.html Jjhake (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Can't be used, I would say. I'll e-mail Colavito and see if he's pitched this interesting observation to any media outlets. Fun little thing to investigate, but we should be patient to see if anything comes of this. jps (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It would be great if Colavito (or anyone) got something usable published in a secondary source. I do see a lot of other Wikipedia articles citing Bizapedia, however. And we already cite the House document with work experience delineated where this is listed as his current position. Jjhake (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm... Maybe this is a question for WP:RSN? If they say it's okay to put this kind of thing in, I'd be surprised. It looks a bit WP:SYNTH-y to me. In particular, a good source on this connection would want to have at least tried to ask for comment from the parties involved. After all, it's possible that this entity was formed as a shell to funnel money to pay Grusch's legal fees, for example, which is still shady but not necessarily the same implication that Colavito is making. jps (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That's helpful. Thanks. It sounds like your original "be patient to see if anything comes of this" advice is best to go with here. To be clear, I was not suggesting using the Colavito blog post as a source or making any of the claims that he makes. I was only thinking of noting the facts that are given by Grusch himself in the CV document that he provided to the House (perhaps combined with the basic info about the Sol Foundation from Bizapedia). Jjhake (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Wording edit for the summary

I made the following edit to the first paragraph that is basically a summary and not exact quotes and facts. It was reverted later. The reason I think it's a better explanation is I think it better summarizes the claims. It covers all aspects of the alleged claims. based on the articles published regarding his claims, there's other aspects to what he's done to come to this conclusion, not just unnamed officals.

I'm open to comments on why it shouldn't be changed.

In June 2023, former senior intelligence official David Grusch publicly claimed that through his investigations, he has concluded that Federal government of the United States, U.S. federal government maintains a highly secretive...

PREVIOUS VERSION: In June 2023, former senior intelligence official David Grusch publicly claimed that unnamed officials told him that the Federal government of the United States U.S. federal government maintains a highly secretive... Westerosi456H (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The only thing I have seen is him arguing hearsay. What else has he argued? jps (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

well I'm not disputing that. I'm just asking whether my edit made the summary better or worse and why. Westerosi456H (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like it is trying to bend over backwards to argue that he has done some sort of "investigation" (we have only his say-so that this was rigorous) and it fails to clearly explain that the conclusion was arrived at through hearsay alone. jps (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

He was part of an investigative body of pentagon AATIP, not a hearsay organization. his role in AATIP has been confirmed by mainstream media aticles. Plus, I've included that he's only CLAIMING this. the debrief article also is a good reference. Westerosi456H (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is basically you admitting that you are trying to whitewash the article to paint Grusch in a more favorable light. Our goal here is to explain what Grusch has said and on what basis. Pretending that he has done any sort of rigorous "investigation" when there are no sources which have independently verified that is not the way we write articles on subjects like this. jps (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Let's not make this personal. I never said RIGOROUS investigation. I said he claims to have investigated this. not making any judgements. I feel like not including this is purposfully trying to discredit him. Westerosi456H (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

If the investigation was not rigorous, or if we have no information as to what level of rigor the investigation had, or if we have no information as to whether any routinized investigation took place at all, using "investigation" as a descriptor is highly problematic. Let's just tell the reader that he said he heard this stuff from others. That's a plain and simple fact and does not seem to be subject to equivocal interpretation. jps (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

that does not cover all the aspects of his claims and is clearly biased towards discrediting him. How about changing it to "through his findings"? he's alleged that he's seen documents, etc. that's much more accurate. Westerosi456H (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

We can add a point about his allegations of seeing documents. That's fair. jps (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

great. I made the change and included OTHER PROOF based on newsnation article. it includes possible audio files, etc. Westerosi456H (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverted. I see no strong evidence for such. See below. Calling it "OTHER PROOF" is an appalling WP:ASSERTion that is not allowed in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

One benefit of this is that I found that in the sources he never claims to have found any documents on his own. They are all found in reference to others showing him. Thus it is all hearsay and all discovered in the course of "talking to others". Thus, this simple descriptor is best. Back to the beginning! No more documents. jps (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed OTHER documents from article. Westerosi456H (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say that now the article lead is a bit clunky and over specific on claims that are looked into later. I wouldn't be opposed to saying investigation. After all, what is talking to people involved and looking at documents in an official capacity but an investigation? His whistleblowing claims come from time spent reporting to AARO on their UAP task force whose literal job description is to investigate UAPs. People have reported that he verifiably worked at agencies and on teams that deal with investigating UAPs ergo he also did that investigation? Does a source have to report "Grusch worked on the UAP Investigation Team, where he investigated UAPs" for us to consider it? Not that I'm too hung-up on the point, I could see something like "Grusch says he looked into the matter and concluded" or something. I just think the current wording is a bit stuffed with info. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 10:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think one problem is that it is not at all clear in what contexts Grusch came upon these claims. There is some circumstantial evidence that he was canoodling with people who were outside of the task forces, for example. It may not have been in his professional capacity that these ideas were communicated to him at all. We actually do not know since he routinely refuses to be clearer about this. Thus, I don't think it is okay to jump to this particular conclusion. Yes, he was in the part of the government that was tasked with investigating UFOs. Yes, he claims to have evidence. But, if you read the transcripts carefully, I think that at no point did he say that these two dots are actually connected. People may find this to be hair-splitting, but I think since there are simpler ways to put this ("he said he talked to unnamed people"), we ought to go with the simplest way to express what he is claiming. jps (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

David Grusch publicly claimed, based on testimonies he claims to have heard from other officials, and from documents he states to have viewed, Unnecessarily awkward grammar obviously intended to bolster credibility for Grush's claims. Instead of briefly summarizing the substance of what Grusch publicly claimed — it's as if the article can't wait to add it's not just him saying it, it's stuff he heard other people say and saw with his own eyes. This needs to be fixed. @User:Asperthrow, this is the place for comments regarding your previous edits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

David Grusch publicly claimed on the basis of conversations he had with unnamed officials... That's fine, and a little more concise that a previous version which attempted to stuff a lot into the first sentence. However I wonder if saying, in essence, his claims were based on conversations he had serves to confirm his having had "conversations with officials". AFAIK, we don't have factual confirmation that any conversations at all took place. Thoughts? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Factual confirmation? No, and there can't/won't be until the people who allegedly conversed with Grusch are explicitly identified. But adding another "claimed" to the sentence is highly klunky. How about something like, "Grusch publicly stated that, on the basis of claimed conversations he had with unnamed officials..."? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, what are his claims? He had conversations and heard stuff. And now he believes. Maybe some variation of: David Grusch publicly claimed he'd had conversations with unnamed officials that led him to believe the U.S. federal government maintains a secretive and unsanctioned UFO (or UAP) recovery program and is in possession of "non-human" spacecraft along with their "dead pilots". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Tried my hand at reworking. Also, reinstated the actual denials of DoD and NASA which, I think, are more specific than just saying "Nah" as had been previously chopped in. jps (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(ec) It's long, but that works for me. "Claims" applies to the alleged conversations, and everything follows from that. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I may have made it worse. I like the idea of leading with the venues (media and Congress) and then explaining the claims. We have an article solely because of the media and Congressional attention, so that ought to be front-and-center. The claims themselves are pretty difficult to describe succinctly in part because there are a many and a variety of them and in part because there is no corroboration of anything except the few instances his lawyer has confirmed (like his filing with the IG). jps (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(ecc) Much improved [2]. "Claims" effectively covers the supposed conversations and subsequent beliefs. I haven't seen anything to support the opposite, i.e. Grusch believed there was secret UFO programs and alien spacecraft and then had conversations to confirm it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Claims of documents, audio files, and images

I don't see strong sources that indicate that Grusch is claiming to have seen photographs or heard audio recordings. The few documents he claimed to have seen, as well, were not well-attested to, but he claims glimpses at least. Most if not all his claims are based on speaking to third parties. I think that's what we need to be clear about. jps (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm adding documents to this mix. I don't see any sources identifying a claim that Grusch uncovered documents, images, nor audio on his own. It was all showed to him by others. jps (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

is there any article that specifically states that the documents were shown to him and he didn't see them by himself? Westerosi456H (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

To both of you involved in this discussion:

I would go with the weakest possible statement.

It can always be strengthened later when the situation clarifies.

I don't think anything is thereby lost. KHarbaugh (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Proving a negative is not the game here. The point is that all of our sources start with him talking to someone else and he claims provenance of all the rest of that stuff from the people he talked to. There is always the possibility that all sorts of other things happened. We don't write Wikipedia based on the possibilities -- we write based on what the sources say. jps (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Gillibrand statement following July 26 hearing

First comment that I’ve seen from Gillibrand on the Grusch claims following the July 26 hearing. Clearly, she remains eager to leverage the Grusch claims in her continued push for more info on UAPs.

https://www.wrvo.org/politics-and-government/2023-07-31/gillibrand-calls-for-more-information-on-ufos-following-whistleblower-testimony Jjhake (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. Seems like a lot of "I don't know" rather than anything of real substance. jps (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Senator Gillibrand called what Grusch had to say in the hearing "very serious allegations that we have to get to the bottom of". She's clearly finding them worth continued attention at some level. Jjhake (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Unclear what she finds worth continued attention, so how would we go about describing this for the reader? She could just be finding the circus to be problematic because it's a waste of government funds. Or she could be down the same Harry Reid rabbit hole. Without clarification, it's impossible to say and it is irresponsible for us to make too much hay out of this considering we have no way to actually describe what she is paying attention to. jps (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've not added it to the article as it's only in this one minor source. I also agree that her doing nothing here (but complaining about having no response to her most recent questions of the DoD) limits its value. However, I don't see what is unclear about her describing the Grusch claims as "very serious allegations that we have to get to the bottom of". She clearly plans to do more than complain about no response from the DoD. Jjhake (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Because her description fails to distinguish between whether she is taking the allegations seriously as allegations or whether she thinks that the allegations are so outlandish as to be indicating that there is a problem in the DoD that allows for such allegations to be made in the first place. Either interpretation is possible and I have no way of knowing which one is correct. If someone within the government makes a "serious allegation" that we "need to get to the bottom of", the implication could be that the allegation could be correct or the implication could be that there is some problem where flights of fancy are being entertained without appropriate guardrails. We cannot go into any depth in describing these competing narratives, but readers are not going to be properly informed by simply stating "these allegations are serious" or whatever. jps (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, we agree that more action and context from her would be clarifying. Of course her past track record makes it all pretty clear, but I agree that it's too insubstantial to warrant inclusion anyway. Jjhake (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up: [3]. jps (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"I have no ability to verify that testimony because we’ve not been told of any such programs."

She has no idea, so that's not actually going to be useful for this article. It's just more political grandstanding. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

James Clapper 2021-05-17 comment on UFOs

See what Clapper said on 2021-05-17: "James Clapper: Logical for intel community to address UFOs" https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/05/17/pentagon-ufo-report-clapper-nr-sot-vpx.cnn

Clapper makes a VERY interesting comment at the end of the interview, regretting that in his former capacities he "didn't insist on more transparency with regard to this issue." Wow. That acknowledges that there IS something to be transparent about. And to the pathologically skeptical: Clapper is not just "a military bureaucrat" or an "alpha male", but a man who knows much of, if not all of, what the U.S. has kept secret. KHarbaugh (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This kind of conspiratorial speculation doesn't help improve the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see speculation there. Where do you? KHarbaugh (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Just a former top official saying he regrets not pushing for more transparency in his day and that he’s glad to see more transparency now. Nothing directly to do with Grusch in here, but seems like an entirely reasonable set of points that Clapper makes. Jjhake (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Clapper was not talking about transparency in general, but specifically about the IC not being transparent about what it knows about UFOs. The video makes that very clear. And that issue is a major part of Grusch's claims. I don't see how anyone can deny the relevance of Clapper's statement to at least some of Grusch's claims. KHarbaugh (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

A source needs to make the connection to Grusch claims that explicit for use in an encyclopedic context. If Clapper was one of those sitting behind Grusch in the hearing, it seems likely that some reliable source will comment on it eventually. Jjhake (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The question is, when is something relevant?

Many of the skeptical references go on and on about their version of the history of UFO claims, as if these shed light on the specific claims Grusch made.

But Clapper's frank admission that the IC has not been transparent about what it knows about UFOs somehow is not relevant?

I understand your point about the "reliable sources".

But perhaps you can see mine. KHarbaugh (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Do we have any information whatsoever about what it is that the IC wasn't transparent about? It could have been something as simple as how many phone calls were made about UFOs that they ignored. Until we have better sources explaining what the supposed "lack of transparency" was actually over, there is no there there. This is not unlike the situation with the Clinton e-mail scandal when the argument was that she was hiding stuff when really we know that there were e-mails about things like personal appointments and wedding planning that weren't shared. It is plainly true that Secretary Clinton was not "transparent" about those e-mails. It's not for us to say that there is anything particularly remarkable about that. jps (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

jps makes a sound point. Clapper just regrets not being more transparent on "this issue," but that can be everything from "revealing alien visitors" to "this is how many inane reports we get that go absolutely nowhere." We simply don't have enough information to understand what is being discussed here because the information hasn't been released. Speculating it's directly about UFOs is WP:OR. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh come now. If you actually watch the interview, it is quite clear they each are talking about UFOs.

That is not "OR", but just reporting the contents of the interview.

(They introduce the interview with reports from Navy pilots about UFOs.) KHarbaugh (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Clapper is responding directly to a video clip discussing a UAP recorded simultaneously on two systems, and Clapper says specifically that he’s glad that such accounts are now starting to see public light and that he wishes that he had pushed for more of that transparency during his own administration. It’s extremely clear and relevant to the current UAP questions more broadly and to the testimony of the others at the most recent hearing (just not directly relevant to the key Grusch claims as far as I can tell). Jjhake (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

You've missed the point that there are ways to be "transparent" about UFOs that are pretty unremarkable. Like, for example, being transparent when there is nothing worth investigating. Since Clapper did not identify what it was he regrets not being transparent about, who are we to say that it is at all interesting? jps (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

jps asks "Do we have any information whatsoever about what it is that the IC wasn't transparent about?"

Certainly.

Watch the whole video,

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/05/17/pentagon-ufo-report-clapper-nr-sot-vpx.cnn

from the beginning, and that is quite clear.

To confirm that they have not strayed onto some side issue, shortly after 2:00 Clapper explicitly references

"Data related to so-called UFO.s" KHarbaugh (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We can't connect Grusch and his claims to a two-year-old CNN interview featuring Clapper's comments on Pentagon UFO videos. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with LuckyLouie, The Hand that Feeds, and ජපස. Understanding SYNTH and OR is key and there is no connection between Clapper's general comments and Grusch's claims, especially if these comments are two years old. Grusch's situation didn't publicly exist back then. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@KHarbaugh: it’s a good source and would be helpful in an article about the wider ongoing interest in greater transparency and pubic resources related to UAPs and their analysis. Jjhake (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The connection is this:

Grusch explicitly claimed there were secret government programs regarding UFOs (or UAP).

Of course he made more specific claims as well, but that was one of his claims.

Clapper implicitly acknowledged that, when he said he should have pushed for more transparency, in a context where it was quite clear

he, like Grusch, was talking about secret government programs regarding UFOs.

Both were talking about secret government programs regarding UFOs.

The fact that Clapper's statement is two years old is irrelevant to the commonality of the subjects.

And no, Clapper's statement was not a statement about lack of transparency in general,

but one specifically about that with regard to IC programs regarding UFOs

Whether all this belongs in the main article, I will leave to others.

But I wonder why accusations of myth-making are considered relevant, but this is not. KHarbaugh (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

In my experience on this controversial topic, any connection not made in the most explicit way by a rock solid source won’t fly. Something that is connected legitimately as a backstory on the same basic topic might be okay worded appropriately in an article not touching of long-standing fringe and conspiracy topics. However, the standards and policies here are exacting.

Separate question: what do you have in mind from the article with your “accusations of myth-making” phrase? Jjhake (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

You are right, according to page-search the word "myth" does not appear in the current article.

My mistake.

My concern was that

some see Grusch's claims in the context of cultural history,

whereas I see them in the context of secret government programs, national security, and the understanding of reality.

There is, of course, validity in both approaches.

BTW, if the Clapper material was worked into the article, the word that comes to my mind is some variant on "foreshadows." KHarbaugh (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying in response to my question about your accusations of myth-making comment. For my part, I can certainly understand why you would consider this Clapper interview to be relevant background for the Grusch article. However, given the legitimate policies related to fringe and conspiracy content on Wikipedia, this article will appropriately be held to the highest possible standards of relevance and sourcing for anything that gets included. Jjhake (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Mark Milley's statement on the Grusch claims

@Westerosi456H and LuckyLouie: there is a second little write up online now about chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley's denial of the Grusch claims, and I'd like to add his comments back into the article. While doing a copy edit, LuckyLouie noted that "WaTimes is 'marginally reliable source' per WP:RSP so may be better to remove entirely" and then Westerosi456H removed the couple of sentences entirely "as as Washington times is marginally reliable and not reliable for fringe articles". However, the WaTimes is not deprecated as a Wikipedia source, and this is the first of several interviews that they are publishing with General Milley as he finishes up his four years as CJCS in October 2023. Quoting General Milley directly is an entirely appropriate use of the WaTimes and now we have two sources we could note if helpful (here and here). General Milley's direct comments on Grusch provide very helpful context regarding the wider world from which the Grusch claims flow, and I think that they should go back into the article. Jjhake (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Milley's denial, I think, is relevant as a WP:PRIMARY source. I don't think Washington Times generally misquotes people. As long as we are relying on quotes from Milley, it should be fine to use it. We should not rely on the editorial analysis of the paper to make any claims as they have a piss poor track record in the reality-representation department. jps (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Unless anyone else gets to it first (or others make a case against it again), I'll take a shot within the next couple of days of getting this back in place within the U.S. government response section (citing both current sources). Jjhake (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

General Milley explicitly avoided denying Grusch's claims.

According to the WT article, Milley said

I’m not going to doubt his testimony or anything like that, ... I can tell you, though, that as the chairman, I have been briefed on several different occasions by the [Pentagon’s] UAP office. And I have not seen anything that indicates to me about quote-unquote ‘aliens’ or that there’s some sort of cover-up program. I just haven’t seen it.

The article continues

Gen. Milley said, he would not “second-guess” Mr. Grusch’s public testimony.... He said “a lot of people have different perspectives” on various issues in an organization as large as the Defense Department.

So General Milley said he would not "second-guess" or doubt Grusch's testimony. General Milley is definitely avoiding claiming Grusch was incorrect.

Not being briefed on Program X, say, does not mean "Program X does not exist". KHarbaugh (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Crucially, there is the testimony that Grusch gave before Congress which avoided any and all claims of aliens (or interdimensional beings) and the statements he has been giving in interviews. Milley's denial of aliens is in direct contradiction of many of the points highlighted in the interviews Grusch gave. jps (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"Milley's denial of aliens".

No, what Milley said was he hadn't been briefed on aliens.

Can't you see the difference? KHarbaugh (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason to infer double meanings from Milley's statements that beg the question. Even the author of the story offers a straightforward editorial analysis: Gen. Milley didn’t address the credibility of Mr. Grusch’s testimony but made clear he has seen no evidence backing up the extraordinary claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as LuckyLouie points out, we get a simple message from both Milley's own words and the words of those in the WaTimes (that Milley is happy to have represent him). Milley has never seen or heard of any evidence that would backup the claims from Grusch, but Milley is also not that surprised that such ideas would circulate and be believed by some within an organization as large as the U.S. military. Finally (and not relevant to this Grusch article), Milley makes it clear that the potential security risks posed by UAPs is a separate and legitimate question in the minds of others. --Jjhake (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There is an issue underlying this:

Who has the need to know?

There are compartmented programs within the USG, information about which is restricted to "Those with a need to know."

I really don't know how, or by whom, that "need" is established. KHarbaugh (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

And we can't speculate on that here, so it's all pointless to debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The Debrief and NewsNation - Deprecated?

Some editors seem opposed to explicitly linking to articles published in The Debrief and NewsNation. I am no expert on Wikipedia, but a cursory look at Wikipedia's page for "Deprecated Sources" didn't turn up either of those.

Is there some place in Wikipedia which either 1. states Wikipedia's official policy towards those, or at least 2. discusses whatever issues Wikipedia may have with them?

I know some editors think belief in what Grusch has claimed is "wacky", or worse. As to myself, I am reserving judgment. The evidence, on either side, is not in at this time. But if those sources mentioned above present and even promote Grusch's claims, is that in and of itself reason to not link to them, simply so people can know that side of the argument? It can be made clear that Wikipedia is not agreeing with what they are saying, but simply informing people of what Grusch actually said, without filtering it.

In particular, rather than linking to Grusch's initial June 5 appearance in The Debrief, the current page links to a June 7 article in The Atlantic. Precisely what policy, if any, required that level of indirection? - KHarbaugh (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's some discussion in the archives to get you started: Talk:David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims/Archive_5#Background_using_The_Debrief. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I see this had been previously discussed at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims/Archive_5#Background_using_The_Debrief

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims/Archive_5#The_Debrief_fringe_science_citation_question

But I think my questions above are still valid. KHarbaugh (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Deprecation is for sources that somehow came into wide usage even though they shouldn't have been. At one time there were many, many cites to the Daily Mail. Deprecation was a step in getting rid of them. Sources that are obviously bad (The Debrief would seem to qualify as such) don't need this formal process. Consider - we don't use people's self published blogs as sources, either. But we don't need to add every blog on the internet to deprecation lists, nor do we need to hold some kind of formal discussion for each one. MrOllie (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The key place to start in looking for answers is WP:RS and not the list of depreciated sources. Jjhake (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Critical commentary by James Meigs

Critical commentary here by James Meigs, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and former editor of Popular Mechanics. -- Jjhake (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This has Joseph N. Welch vibes. I wouldn't trust Meigs's judgement on empirical matters on most days, but apparently this circus got to be too much for him. jps (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The Intercept reporting past psychiatric treatment received by Grusch

Not sure where to put this report at this point, I've added it under a new heading in the "Media reporting on Grusch's claims" section for now. Jjhake (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Time for Grusch to get his own Wikipedia page, separate from his UFO claims, IMO. KHarbaugh (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That’s how this article started out, and it might make the most sense to return to that form at some point. His claims would still be covered in the article about him (and treatment of his claims in relation to UFO history easily fits into several other existing articles involving UFOs to which this article can continue to point). Jjhake (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should separate Grusch the man from his claims. That's just my opinion KHarbaugh (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

His claims have been around for a long time with articles already existing about them. However, if the moment ever comes when his claims have any concrete content attached to them, then there will be material for new articles. Jjhake (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Grusch is still only notable for one thing, and that's these claims. When reliable sources start reporting on him doing something else (like starting a podcast, or hosting a game show or something), he can have his own article. -Jordgette [talk] 14:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Precisely where is the Wikipedia requirement that a person having his own Wikipedia page be notable for multiple things?

Grusch is reported in multiple RS for his claims.

That makes him notable. KHarbaugh (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT. We don't need two articles on Grusch. Until there is a separate claim-to-fame there is absolutely nothing gained by having two articles. jps (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Quite apart from the sheriff record, there are some excellent connect-the-dots quotes included in that article which point out similarities and relationships that we have discussed on this talkpage before but have not had made explicit in many sources prior to this one. This includes a nice comparison to Roswell dust-ups and a military official pointing out that all manner of conspiracy theories are rampant beliefs among veterans. jps (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Grusch should have a separate page. If anything, the July 26th Sub Committee Hearing should have its own page. But more importantly, I think we should move slowly on these reports of psychiatric holds. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we aren't supposed to do breaking news, and the odds of something being wrong in the reporting are very high, so out of respect for WP:BLP and just not wanting to act like a tabloid, let's hold off until the dust settles.DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I very much agree. Racing to keep up with the daily churn isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be doing here. There is a conspiracy theory narrative emerging from proponents claiming any negative information about Grusch is part of a disinformation campaign by the CIA in order to keep The Truth Of The Coverup from coming to light. Facts need to be separated from various claims, conspiracy theorizing and sensationalized drama, which must be investigated and put into perspective by reliable independent sources, and I don't mean NewsNation or The Debrief. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

To emphasize the problem with sources in this area, NewsNation guilelessly reported on a tweet by the author of this piece who said that "After 3 years, The Intercept has let me go..." and then followed by a tweet that said "... and do a newsletter occassionally which you can subscribe to here ". Of course, the reply tweet was not noticed(?) by the TV station and they went on rather breathlessly about how being fired from The Intercept was justice for Grusch. jps (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Shellenberger?

We include the thoughts of Michael Shellenberger among "news stories", but now that he's giving Glenn Beck interviews promoting claims of large scale UFO conspiracy [4], [5] it may be time to pull him out as too WP:FRINGE to give WP:DUE weight to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yikes. Yeah, I think it's time to move away from citing him for anything, or else make it clear we're only citing his opinions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed what was there. The New York Sun's conservative spin that "the Biden administration" is hiding nonhuman extraterrestrial vehicles wasn't getting any traction in mainstream sources anyway. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'd never heard of Shellenberger before naively starting this Grusch article. In one early NewsNation interview about Grusch, Shellenberger made it clear that he was not sure what he himself thought of these sources that he reportedly had who were making similar claims to Grusch. However, Shellenberger's more recent stuff does seem to just get more and more sensational and to sound like he himself is sold on it all. It's been odd to watch. Anyway, I certainly agree that he's not showing up in any reliable sources of late. Jjhake (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Washington Post on media coverage connected to Grusch

Nothing new on Grusch here, but lively stuff from Washington Post regarding the nature of media coverage connected to Grusch:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/08/18/newsnation-ufo-david-grusch-intercept-coulthart/ Jjhake (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

mention of Grusch in NYT article on Avi Loeb

A mention of the Grusch claims in this NTY story on Avi Loeb. Indirectly critical of Loeb on this point, the story strongly insinuates that Loeb thought the Grusch claims might be taken seriously by the U.S. government. Odd stuff. Jjhake (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

critical new source (though not entirely direct)

This new source definitely has some content with a place in this article. I’m thinking that I’ll have time to try soon, but I wanted to get the ideas moving here as well. Jjhake (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Just gave it a first try. Jjhake (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

AARO news

Restructuring AARO as reaction to Grusch and new legislation? Moultrie fired and (automatically) replaced by (his superior) Hicks?

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3513171/the-department-of-defense-launches-the-all-domain-anomaly-resolution-office-web/

https://defensescoop.com/2023/08/30/hicks-takes-direct-oversight-of-pentagons-uap-office-new-reporting-website-to-be-launched/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=shared&v=8o2nPMb27nw

Foerdi (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve seen this implied or suggested in a few sources. However, none of the sources are very strong, and the suggestions fall short of anything like a supported claim. If supported claims in strong sources exist, I think that there’d be a place in the article for the point. Jjhake (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Would not this (very interesting) Talk announcement, and any resulting content, be better placed over at Investigation of UFO reports by the United States government? KHarbaugh (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, for more macro claims by strong sources (with multiple participants or components to them), that article is more appropriate. This article is focused only on Grusch and his specific claims. Jjhake (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Descrimation - Reporting on past psychiatric treatment received by Grusch

Thread started by a blocked sock. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

how is this relevant? is it not an ad hominem attack? and is it not in violattion of wikipedia discrimination policy? (based on disability and ableism) Amirreza-Astro21 (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Amirreza-Astro21, I would imagine it's fine to remove that section. I think there is a common problem on Wikipedia where on articles on unfolding events pick up sections as news unfolds.

Also, take a look at your recent edits to attribute the quote in the lead. They have made the grammar bogus. Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 05:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Added assertion by McCullough (in his BBC interview) that Grusch had "briefed both of the intelligence committees"

Change to main article as stated in section title. Note that Leslie Kean made a similar assertion in her podcast with Ezra Klein. Also this has been quoted by at least two news organizations (but one is The Daily Mail!) KHarbaugh (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is what Kean said to Ezra Klein:

"The specific individuals, the locations of the programs, the names of the programs, all of those things are classified, so he’s not in a position to present any of that information to me.

But he has presented that information to Congress, and he presented about 11 hours of oral testimony to congressional staffers, which was then transcribed into hundreds of pages.

So all that information has been provided, but not to me."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/podcasts/ezra-klein-podcast-transcript-leslie-kean.html KHarbaugh (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Another reference:

https://abc7chicago.com/ufo-hearing-uap-david-grusch-whistleblower-claims/13551080/

Grusch "told the committee he could not publicly disclose the names of those with firsthand knowledge and access to the alleged crash retrieval program,

though he said that information was provided to the intelligence committees and the inspector general."

Art Levine takedown of all things UFO

[6]

Excellent analysis. Provides some decent framing for our article and includes some choice identifiers that we knew were there but were missing.

jps (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Fabulous article. Thanks for the link. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

New Grusch interview

https://youtube.com/watch?v=kRO5jOa06Qw Foerdi (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Further descent into pseudoscientific conspiracy-theory ridiculousness. Jesse Michels and American Alchemy best known for credulous UFOLOGY nonsense pushed into basically every video. Deeeeelightful. Obviously, this is not going to be included on this page. jps (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Leslie Kean on Grusch

https://youtube.com/watch?v=uNvGjZYHvc4? Foerdi (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

WP on recent interview

I agree with WP that recent interview wasn't really helpful. I wonder where are the / any news about the 30 witnesses and some facts / evidence we all are waiting for. Believers and skeptics both factions impatient ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/of-interest/2023/10/05/ufo-david-grusch-uap-congress-yes-theory/ Foerdi (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't detect any impatience in the WP:MAINSTREAM media. I'm sure the Reddit ufo communities are impatient for Grusch's claims to be confirmed by witnesses and evidence, but they are the only ones. That WaPo story is not an interview as much as a notation of Grusch's partnership with a brand/community/thing to get his message out to the world. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

facts / evidence we all are waiting for If this story continues to follow the model established by Leonard Stringfield, the wait will be a long one. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Stringfield was never featured, as Grusch is, in the Style section of the WaPo ("Sharp. Witty. Thoughtful. Sign up for the Style Memo newsletter!"). - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. And the current feature picture on that WaPo link, of Flyana Boss, is spot-on for this topic. Mr. Spock's kid sister, perhaps? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Burchett gets SCIF

https://youtube.com/watch?v=3cKYXxlS5Tc Foerdi (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop posting YouTube links. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

OK. https://burchett.house.gov/media/press-releases/house-members-meet-inspectors-general-scif-discuss-uaps Foerdi (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Press releases aren't better. This isn't a web forum. If you aren't here to propose a specific improvement to the article based on a source that meets WP:RS this isn't the place for it. MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. We're not here for random updates by people involved. We only care about suggestions to improve the article based on independent reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Sean Kirkpatrick press conference on 2023-10-31

See https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3575588/aaro-director-dr-sean-kirkpatrick-holds-an-off-camera-media-roundtable/

"Q: So, David Grusch, the whistleblower who came forward to NewsNation, says he reached out to you to share his discoveries, and that you didn't follow up. So, did you follow up and investigate his claims? He says he still hasn't heard from you. So, ultimately, why haven't you two connected?

DR. KIRKPATRICK: So, Mr. Grusch, since AARO has stood up and since I've been director, has not come to see us and provided any information.

Q: And so, he also says that he briefed you before you assumed your position in AARO. Have you had the chance to follow up on any of the inquiries that he made or talked to any of the witnesses?

DR. KIRKPATRICK: So, the last time I believe I spoke with Mr. Grusch was when I was in the J2 at U.S. Space Command about five years ago, and it was not on this topic. Now, we have interviewed a whole range of people, over 30 people now. I think we've interviewed most of the people that he may have talked to, but we don't know that. And we have extended an invitation at least four or five times now for him to come in over the last eight months or so and has been declined."

OTOH, NewsNation claims that David Grusch denied what Kirkpatrick said: "Grusch denied that AARO attempted to contact him." https://www.newsnationnow.com/vargasreports/dod-david-grusch-ufo-uap-newsnation-exclusive/

Clearly, a reference to this belongs in the section of the main article on "USG Responses". KHarbaugh (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Newsnationnow.com clearly trying to create and exploit controversy, however mainstream outlets have not found this minor tidbit of gossip worthy of notice. Until then... - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

POLITICO says Sean Kirkpatrick says he is stepping down as head of AARO at the end of 2023:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/07/pentagon-ufo-boss-00125883

This was, accurately, forecast in various "unreliable" sources, e.g.:

2023-11-02

Pentagon UFO chief Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick will be replaced by year's end https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12703835/Pentagon-UFO-chief-AARO-Kirkpatrick-REPLACED-whistleblowers-accuse-lying-public-ignoring-witnesses.html KHarbaugh (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear you enjoy The Daily Mail but you know, it's the WP:DAILYMAIL. Well when this gossipy rumor moves from tantalizing tease to factual data, someone can add the name of Kirpatrick's replacement here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

In the POLITICO article linked to above, Kirkpatrick said something that is worth quoting:

In fact, he [Kirkpatrick] believes “the best thing that could come out of this job is to prove that there are aliens” — because the alternative is a much bigger problem.

“If we don’t prove it’s aliens, then what we’re finding is evidence of other people doing stuff in our backyard,” he said. “And that’s not good.”

. KHarbaugh (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Cool, but this is an article about David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims. I'm not sure how a sardonic wisecrack by Kirkpatrick is relevant to the Grusch story. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a logical fallacy because it presents a false dichotomy that excludes many other plausible origins for UFOs. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Will you knock it off? You keep posting every time someone sneezes about this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Quote from your user page:

"This user is against cyberbullying."

Ironic? Foerdi (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Telling you to stop being WP:DISRUPTive is not bullying. If you feel it is, WP:ANI is thataway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It is quoteworthy. If in the opinion of some old (and I am also old in the sense of long-time WP user) guys here even Kirkpatrick is not relevant in context of Gruschs claims then who is? Must the aliens themselves give an interview to WaPo AND NYT AND to "TheHandThatFeedsYou" personally sothat we finally are allowed to quote someone? No one is relevant, nothing is to be talked about, knock it off, Ruhe jetzt hier sonst gibt es auf die Nase. Foerdi (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

At a minimum the quote would actually have to be about the subject of the article, and this one clearly is not. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That was incoherent. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, let me distinguish between two quotes involving Kirkpatrick that I have cited in this section.

One deals with a dispute between Kirkpatrick and Grusch.

That, to me, clearly belongs on David Grusch's web page in its section on USG Responses.

The other is Kirkpatrick talking about his general views on the UAP investigation.

That, to me, belongs on one or more of Wikipedia's pages on Investigation of UFO reports by the United States government, UFOs, AARO, and Sean Kirkpatrick. KHarbaugh (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Only one of them (the one that is off topic here) comes from a reliable secondary source. MrOllie (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Really? Are DoD transcripts not to be cited here? Are they not reliable? KHarbaugh (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't mine quotes from primary sources, no. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia page on No original research:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

That policy permits quotations from primary sources, when used "with care".

I don't see a problem here with quoting Kirkpatrick.

He is explicitly talking about his relation with Grusch.

No misinterpretation here. KHarbaugh (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't use 'with care', this is pasting something in from a primary source purely because you personally find it interesting. Wikipedia doesn't do that - reliable secondary sources have to show it is worth covering. MrOllie (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The Hill reporting on Kirkpatrick's statement

New today from a reliable secondary source (dated November 10, 2023.) While I notice Grusch is not directly mentioned in the article, former U.S. Navy fighter pilot Ryan Graves, who testified along with Grusch before the U.S. Congress, is. An interesting read, with numerous references and links, and relevant here, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not "reporting" as in journalism vetted by the publisher. It's an opinion piece preceded by a disclaimer from the publisher. This is one more in a series of sensationalist eyeball candy featuring the usual pro-alien talking points by Marik Von Rennenkampff, whose greatest hits include UFO Scandals TO COME, Witnesses FRIGHTENED FOR THEIR LIVES! and CRYPTIC 'ALIEN' MESSAGES?! Pentagon’s UFO Office Is Sending Coded Messages! as well as various efforts to disparage non-alien explanations. These "opinions" are certainly novel and entertaining but they're not appropriate for an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Per Louie -- No, that opinon piece has nothing to contribute to this article. Feoffer (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You have to be very careful with the Hill, they post a lot of OP-eds from non journalists - much more frequently than other press outlets do. I'm often halfway through a piece there and suddenly realize that it was written by somebody's campaign manager. MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello. Does this page still need to be under protection?--Marginataen (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, as disruptive editor(s) continue to troll this topic on multiple editors' Talk pages. Please also note that it is good form to sign all of your Talk page comments. You do so by typing four consecutive tildes (~) at the end of your comment. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I knew but forgot. Marginataen (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is a Politico article on Kirkpatrick. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/12/sean-kirkpatrick-ufos-pentagon-00126214 It contains a discussion of AARO's relation to Grusch, and so should be mentioned in the section of Wikipedia's page on USG responses to Grusch.

Yet four days after the publication of the POLITICO article, no Wikipedia editor who can edit Wikipedia's page on Grusch's claims has put a mention of this in the page? Obviously, people who have an unbiased interest in this matter are being prevented from editing it by the page's restriction. The restriction is preventing unbiased editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHarbaugh (talk • contribs) 17:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, people who have an unbiased interest in this matter are being prevented from editing it by the page's restriction. Not so obviously. The implication of that evidence-free claim is that editors who can, and have, edited this article have a "biased" interest against, or for...what, exactly? Perhaps WP:NORUSH is worth a read. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

For the record, here is the part of the Politico article I was referring to:

David Grusch is a unique instance in that he has refused to come and share any of that information. We still can’t get him to come in. I’ve got five different people who have gone to talk to him to get him to come in. And the answers have always been everything from “We’re not cleared” to “It would jeopardize his whistleblower protections” to “Why can’t we just go get the information that he shared from the IG?” It’s every excuse that I have heard, why not to come in. And that’s been a challenge because now here we are, we’re about to put out Volume One of the historical review, which I believe captures most all of the people that he’s spoken with, but I can’t say that 100 percent because I can’t hear what he thinks he has. If he has evidence, I need to know what that is. KHarbaugh (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Grusch refused to speak with AARO. We already have text in the article attributing pretty much the same basic story to Kirkpatrick, speaking in an unofficial capacity of course. I'm not sure what more the new Politico article could contribute here, except to flog some juicy quotes that add drama and urgency. Nothing encyclopedic would be gained. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

None of this is relevant to the article page. Plus, that Politico link is under their "News, Analysis and Opinion from POLITICO" category (Exit Interview). Opinion pages are not WP:RS for anything but "this is what the person believes" citations.

You keep insisting on shoving these non-RS sites into the article, and it's becoming disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)