Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims

Grusch on Joe Rogan
Regarding this diff, yes, Grusch saying he believes in all kinds of fringy stuff is interesting, but we'd need a WP:SECONDARY source to provide this particular analysis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming to talk. We don't need secondary sources when a person is talking about their own beliefs. PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." A direct quotes is fine per WP:BLP. To disallow these things he has said, you'd need to argue that there is some sort of *interpretation* or *synthesis* being made. Or I guess you could say he's not saying what he's saying, if that's your argument I'll get you the specific time codes for each claim.
 * I'd understand an argument that those specific beliefs are not NOTABLE amongst the almost 3 hours of talk, but since this is a page about Grusch's UFO claims, it would be odd for us to exclude other UFO and PSI claims he makes.
 * So while I am not agreeing to your requirement for SECONDARY for direct quotes, here are some secondary sources and the specific quotes they found noteworthy. If you don't think these are RS, then I'd direct you to WP:PARITY.
 * "the phenomenon is real, it’s been going on for thousands of years, people have been seeing strange things, and not everybody’s mass hallucinating.”@https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/ufo-whistleblower-claims-us-has-variety-of-alien-bodies-interactions-may-have-occurred/news-story/158491ea3bb98e6a4e43574eb937b2dc
 * Remote viewing works, and there is a part of the brain that "lights up" like a transceiver when people are remote viewing or "projecting their consciousness" into a "Russian missile base."https://twitter.com/mickwest/status/1727101738036142111?s=46&t=re7mAgLyV1_arVp5B6aMNQ DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd understand an argument that those specific beliefs are not NOTABLE amongst the almost 3 hours of talk Good. I'm sorry if I was unclear before, but now you seem to have a grasp of the problem. but since this is a page about Grusch's UFO claims, it would be odd for us to exclude other UFO and PSI claims he makes. Er, no. Grusch makes dozens and dozens and dozens of claims related to UFOs, conspiracies, etc. It's not up to editors to trawl thru primary sources and pick out which 6 things are the most important out of 100s. I'm sure he says plenty of things defending his credibility and making a case for why people should believe him, but you've skipped over those in favor of things that help make your case. Look, I don't believe anything Grusch is selling and agree he's into all kinds of woo woo. But I'm not going to twist and bend editorial policies in order to make the article emphasize that. Secondary sources will come along soon (and no, not Twitter posts). Be patient. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We cannot ignore what he said on the most popular podcast in the world. The topic of this page is Grusch's claims, so we can't, even in the name of policy, cherry pick his most plausible claims. Many of his other wacky views that he has said only in interviews and that have been ignored by mainstream press are in the page now. I think that is as it should be.
 * With fringe topics that become news (see Havana Syndrome), the proper policy to follow is WP:PARITY. "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia." So yes, YouTube and X and Reddit or parity with JRE. Grusch believes that "the phenomenon" is a bipedal hominid, that remote viewing works and that Jacques Vallée has important things to say.
 * Here is the text you reverted:
 * Grusch appeared on the The Joe Rogan Experience podcast in 2023 where he expanded on his claims and, over the two hour and forty minute interview, expressed credulity in near death experiences, biblical references to the Wheel of Ezekial, remote viewing, the work of Jacques Vallee, and "the phenomenon" which "presents itself as a bipedal hominid".
 * He actually didn't, as you say, make dozens3 of claims, and I think this covers the bulk of the ones that aren't already on this page, but let me know if you'd like to fill it out with other claims. Perhaps we should mention that he expounded on inter-dimensional beings? That he hangs out with Garry Nolan and other UFOlogists? DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE says that yes, we do only choose the notable claims. Otherwise this article would just be a list of all the inane things that have popped out of his mouth, just like the Donald Trump article, or anyone else who says random nonsense on a daily basis. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PARITY is intended to assist in providing sources that give needed criticism of WP:FRINGE theories. It should not be used as a mechanism for a fringe theorist to give a laundry list of their views - which then go unchallenged. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This page is unquestionably a FRINGE page. David Grusch is making claims. That is this page's notability. ALL of his claims are notable. We use PARITY to make the challenges that are too inane for RS to make. Mick West does that on his X account. That is exactly the challenge we are discussing. We have Mick West as WP:SECONDARY and WP:PARITY. That is policy. It's time to put it back in. If you would like to change the wording in some way let me know. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We use PARITY to make the challenges that are too inane for RS to make. Mick West does that on his X account. That is exactly the challenge we are discussing. Where is the challenge Joe Rogan is making? I don't see it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean Mick West not Joe Rogan. Here is one of Mick's Tweets that I linked above already.
 * https://twitter.com/mickwest/status/1727101738036142111?s=46&t=re7mAgLyV1_arVp5B6aMNQ DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * OK the Mick West tweet is critical of Grusch's claim about remote viewing, so yes, that is a challenge, and it might be used if others agree to ignore WP:TWITTER. Your original text left out the context and attribution of that specific challenge. You had included a bunch of other stuff not attributed to anyone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm not being clearer. We use WP:PARITY to include a source like Twitter. WP:TWITTER is not being ignored, WP:PARITY is being used. "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia." DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would help to post here the article text you want to cite to Mick West's Twitter post. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would use Mick West as a source for the text you reverted. The text you reverted states in relatively neutral terms that Grusch claimed on JRE that remote viewing works. West answers the DUE and BALANCE issue that you most recently said were the reason you reverted me. DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This text? Cited to this tweet? No. We can't editorialize points that the source doesn't make. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the editorializing in the text to which you refer? It mentions that he expressed credulity, which he does per SKYBLUE and ABOUTSELF. You have argued that the text is UNDUE. The Mick West source which I use according to PARITY merely establishes that it is DUE. Are you now changing your argument to one of SYNTH?
 * To recap, you started with PRIMARY, then you argued DUE and now you are arguing SYNTH? It seems like you are moving the goalposts. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't blame me when every new angle you introduce to justify inclusion simply doesn't justify inclusion. However I would welcome other editors opinions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please tell me how I'm editorializing in directly quoting him. As to other editors, I'm happy to start an RFC, because the guy who said there are aliens also believes in "the phenomenon" being a "bipedal hominid" and that there is a horseshoe shaped part of the brain that allows you to remote view Soviet bases. The fact that he believes those things is very important to the subject of the article, which is, "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims." Those are claims he is making. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Article not adhering to MOS:CLAIM
I would like to restore this edit which was reverted by. We should avoid synonyms for the word "said" which can be loaded terms or make undue implications. My edit made no substantive changes to the content other than giving it a neutral tone as required by WP:NPOV, a Wikipedia policy. – Anne drew  03:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * MOS:CLAIM does not say we should not use the word "claim". It says, To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question. Since the statements are not credible - they are hearsay and tall tales - that is exactly what we should do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your personal feelings on the matter don’t override WP:NPOV which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. You’ve cited no policies to support the reversion and are just basing it on your own personal bias in violation of NPOV. – Anne drew  13:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the edit summary, WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:FRINGE justify a "loaded" term in this case. NPOV is not a suicide pact. It is frequently misunderstood to mean we must treat widely-deprecated ideas credibly, when in fact NPOV is WP:NOTNEUTRAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * When military officials, inspectors general, and Congressional leaders are giving Grusch’s statements credibility, it would be wise to err on the side of impartiality. There is no consensus on the veracity of Grusch’s statements so you shouldn’t imply that there is. – Anne drew  14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Gee, it's almost as if people in political positions are using him for political reasons, rather than scientific ones.
 * Wikipedia does not operate on the consensus of political actors, so you're barking up the wrong tree there. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is total consensus that Grusch has provided 0 evidence. He is making claims. LuckyLouie and I agree on this one. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Neither military officers nor Inspectors General are in political positions.
 * 2. Members of Congress certainly are, but there is support for Grusch's claims, and for getting further information on them, on both sides of the aisle.
 * There is no evidence that this is a partisan issue.
 * Introducing politics is a red herring.
 * 3. The key point here is the issue of classification.
 * Those politicians have access to highly classified information, which most scientists and journalists do not.
 * Are the statements of cleared politicians influenced by their access to secrets, or by partisan politics?
 * I see nothing to support the latter motivation.
 * Again, that seems a red herring.
 * 4. Thus, I see the key, most relevant, distinction as not between science and politics, but between cleared and uncleared personnel. KHarbaugh (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're dredging up a 3-month-old discussion to argue semantics? And your insistence that my points are a red herring implies I'm intentionally derailing the discussion. That's a personal attack, don't go there. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia,
 * "A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g., in politics), or may be used in argumentation inadvertently."
 * So, no, it doesn't automatically imply intent. KHarbaugh (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in arguing semantics. A term like that is very inflammatory, I'd suggest avoiding it. If you have a new point to make, please start a new section with the cites to support your point, instead of dragging out a 3-month-old discussion that was dead. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV means that we should reflect the tone of the sources, which this article does. You should reread that page, particularly the section on false balance. MrOllie (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Are you team "claim" or team "said"? DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Claimed" is more appropriate in this context. I think "alleged" is fine too, but "said" is too weak.    Feoffer (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2023
Why is every single article associated with this page trying to disprove him when there are plenty experts and articles, confirming his accusations and backing them up… Just curious… 2603:8081:7705:2D73:A122:D330:A0C6:33EC (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please link the experts and articles here. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Nick Pope revisited
I reverted changes to the Nick Pope bits. They play up Pope's pre-2009 role in the UK government. Pope has been interviewed about Grusch as a UFO researcher and journalist. Previous discussions have debated his relevance to the subject in general, Rjjiii  (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links. I didn't see a consensus established in those discussions. Did you? Pope seems to be about as legitimate as Grusch. Like Grusch he worked in government, like Grusch he has made a second career out of opining about UFO's. The fact that Pope is unimpressed by Grusch seems significant. Pope has spoken recently to the press saying that it now seems unlikely that Grusch's claims could be confirmed. So it seems odd to freeze Pope's previous statement as his final word. DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Grusch's claims on Joe Rogan Experience
Looking for editor input and hoping to avoid an RFC. The question is: should something similar to the following text be in the article: "Grusch appeared on the The Joe Rogan Experience podcast in 2023 where he expanded on his claims and, over the two hour and forty minute interview, expressed credulity in near death experiences, biblical references to the Wheel of Ezekial, remote viewing, the work of Jacques Vallée, and "the phenomenon" which "presents itself as a bipedal hominid"."

There has been very little reporting on it in the mainstream media, but Mick West has critically tweeted about the Stargate remote viewing claims, And www.news.com.au has taken note of the "phenomenon" talk. So per WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY we should not let his claims made to millions on JRE go without, if not a critique, a mere taking note of it.

So the question becomes, is it DUE to mention all, some or none of the outlandish things he said? I think my proposed text is a modest and literal description of most of what applies directly to the topic of this page, which is his UFO claims.

Here is a list of everything he said that isn't already in the article:
 * In the work of Jacques Vallée. He references him at (55:40, 1:51:00).
 * That there is a single "Phenomenon" which, "using the work of Jacques Vallée", has manifested throughout history from Ezekial's Wheel in the Bible to "witches sitting on your chest" (55:40) to "orbs" or "bipedal hominid" (57:40), and that the phenomenon may soon grow impatient and disclose itself. 2:34:00
 * That the phenomenon might be part of the "shadow biome" or be a "crypto terrestrial" (57:44)
 * The phenomenon might be dimensional beings and related to the Holographic Principle. (58:40)
 * Remote viewing is real. Gary Nolan’s theory that the caudate putamen part of the brain is a "transceiver" that allows remote viewing. (1:40:to 1:46)
 * People who have "had contact" have psychic experiences. (1:46:00)
 * The book "Proof of Heaven" by Dr. Even Alexander confirms Near Death Experiences.
 * Mormon Theology, secularized, reflects the truth about higher dimensional life forces are creating other being. (1:48:00)

He discussed many other things too, but I believe the above list covers all of his statements of personal beliefs about the nature of reality and "the phenomenon." DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There has been very little reporting on it in the mainstream media There's your answer, if secondary sources don't see fit to coment it isn't WP:DUE. MrOllie (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:PARITY? "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia" Also, please see WP:PRIMARY:"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither PARITY not PRIMARY have much to do with the question of DUE weight which you asked above. In any case, PARITY is about not requiring a higher bar for critiques vs the theories they comment on - here you are trying to include the theories themselves, so PARITY is plainly irrelevant. As to primary sourcing, I'll repeat what I wrote further up the page: Wikipedia doesn't mine quotes from primary sources, no. MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no such policy on wikipedia that we avoid fringe theories. Rather, we present fringe theories as theories that are fringe.
 * I'm not trying to include additional theories. He mentioned Holographic Principle and interdimensional beings in the congressional hearing. His talk about both of those things was commented on by the Physicists Sean M. Carroll and by Mick West.
 * You say it is not due because we don't have secondary sources. I say we can include these comments based on 1. ABOUTSELF 2.The sources that I am proposing (Carroll, West, News.com.au) those aren't great sources but they are allowed under PARITY. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no such policy on wikipedia that we avoid fringe theories. No one has said that there is. What I am saying is that we should not pick and choose items from a rambling podcast to report in our article, and that your points about PARITY and PRIMARY are irrelevant to the basic question of what should be covered in the first place.. MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Is this source in use in the article yet? Silver  seren C 20:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not yet, but I would use that as one of the sources to support my proposed text. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

UAP
Is UAP defined anywhere in the article? —Tamfang (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It should be. It refers to unidentified aerial phenomena, which is essentially a wider-spanning term for stuff in the sky we don’t understand. Will revise if possible. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It actually stands for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, at least according to NASA. ArtesianAction (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for New Section and Reorganization
I propose adding a new section titled "2024 House Oversight Committee Classified Briefing" to include the significant developments that took place in early 2024. This new section highlights the seriousness of the government's response to David Grusch's claims and underscores the need for reorganization to better reflect the article's structure.

New Section Proposal
On January 13, 2024, the House Oversight Committee received a classified briefing from the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG) Thomas A. Monheim regarding David Grusch's whistleblower reprisal complaint. This briefing addressed Grusch's claims about the government's knowledge and alleged concealment of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs). Despite the classified nature of the meeting, reports from lawmakers varied. Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi expressed increased concerns and a lack of clarity following the briefing, noting that many questions remain unanswered. Representative Tim Burchett echoed this sentiment, criticizing the Pentagon's continued opacity and compartmentalization of information, which he argued confirmed his previous suspicions. Conversely, some lawmakers felt the briefing provided direction and hinted at a few credible elements within Grusch's allegations, although specifics could not be disclosed due to confidentiality. This event underscores ongoing legislative efforts to enhance transparency about UAPs amidst bipartisan calls for more openness from the intelligence community.

Reorganization Proposal
Given the significant developments from the January 2024 SCIF briefing, I propose moving the "United States government responses" section below "Grusch's public claims." This reorganization will better reflect the article's logical flow and emphasize the importance of recent legislative actions and government responses.

The current "Congressional action and comments from members" section leads with quotes dismissing Grusch's claims, often based on conjecture. However, the January 2024 SCIF briefing provided lawmakers with concrete information and direct answers from the IC IG. These insights are crucial and should be highlighted to show the evolving and serious nature of the investigation into Grusch's allegations.

For instance, lawmakers like Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi and Representative Tim Burchett expressed increased concerns and pointed out the need for further investigation following the SCIF briefing. Their reactions underscore the gravity of the information presented, which contrasts sharply with earlier dismissive remarks. This change is necessary to present a balanced view and reflect the ongoing developments accurately.

Discussion on Matt Laslo's Substack as a Source
I would appreciate feedback on the inclusion of quotes from Matt Laslo's Askapol Substack. Although it is a self-published source, the quotes are direct transcriptions of interviews with congressmen, which could provide valuable insights into the legislative response to Grusch's claims. According to reliable source rules guidelines, using self-published sources can be appropriate when the material directly supports the information presented, especially if no other reliable sources are available for these specific quotes.

Specific quotes for consideration:
 * "We did get some locations in the classified briefing that are fascinating."
 * "Well, I think the claims that, perhaps, the IG found some validity in Grusch’s claims. Those are the ones I want to follow up with. I gotta go catch a plane."
 * "Private contracts too! I think that the private contractors should be on that witness list. I won't name names, but we have a better sense of who that might be today."
 * "This was more directional, right? On where we need to focus and what the next steps are. Where we need to ask for information. Places actually to maybe go."
 * "I think that Grusch absolutely, if there was any doubt in anyone's mind that he isn't credible, I think that after leaving that, where I'm at is, I feel like he's a very credible witness."

Additionally, the quotes from the post-SCIF interviews reveal the nature of the discussion. Congressmen seemed convinced that people were harmed trying to come forward with this information. They were given names and locations of specific military contractors, which created a desire for more information. These quotes should be included higher in the article, as they provide corroboration for important aspects of Grusch's claims.


 * "What I can tell you is what Grusch shared with me in an unclassified setting that I firmly believe in. I believe that he's telling the truth. I think that he is a credible witness and what I can also say is one thing in particular that really caused me to be concerned about this whole thing is that Grusch had stated to myself, Representative Burchett, and another member on the phone that there were people that were hurt hiding this information and keeping this information safe and or trying to come forward with this information. What I can tell you is I believe that claim after now leaving that SCIF."

Unfortunately, the quote above I can only find from NewsNation's DC Videojournalist's personal twitter; however, the quote provides critical context and aligns with the corroborative statements made by other lawmakers, highlighting the seriousness of the information discussed during the classified briefing.

Looking forward to your feedback and thoughts on these proposals.

Thank you.

Omegamilky (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It does not matter where a WP:SPS gets its information. It is still an SPS. No. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hob Gadling I think you're right. Pretty unfortunate another source hasn't picked up Askapol's reporting, these quotes shocked me personally. Omegamilky (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You were not aware how clueless politicians are? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Hob. I listened to one of the recordings containing the selected quotes on the substack page: Moskowitz clearly responds to the questioner with dismissive laughter, so you know, besides being SPS, the interpretations of this material are dubious. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @Hob Gadling and @LuckyLouie, for your input. I acknowledge the limitations of using self-published sources like Askapol according to WP:RS. My intent was to highlight the significant nature of the quotes, which I found quite revealing.
 * @Hob Gadling, while I understand your point about the nature of WP:SPS, the substance of these quotes, coming directly from lawmakers in post-SCIF interviews, adds valuable context to the article. The quotes reflect the serious nature of the discussions held within the SCIF, which is a key part of understanding the evolving legislative response to Grusch's claims.
 * @LuckyLouie, I appreciate your scrutiny. However, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of Moskowitz's response. From the Askapol recordings, Moskowitz appears committed to pursuing further investigations, rather than being dismissive. For example, Representative Eric Burlison expressed skepticism after attending AARO's SCIF briefing on April 17th:
 * "Yeah, my skepticism was probably validated. I went into the hearing, wanting to confirm to the extent of which they investigated. How far did they go? Did they — and I feel we got some good answers."
 * In response to this, Moskowitz showed commitment to further inquiry, saying, "I’m gonna go talk to him." and "I’ve been so focused with what’s been going on with the Ukraine stuff. But as soon as this is done I’ll turn my focus." This indicates a proactive approach rather than dismissive. Additionally, Moskowitz himself emphasized his commitment by quote tweeting Askapol, stating, "Based on what we heard many of Grusch claims have merit!".
 * Given the lack of other sources capturing these specific post-SCIF reactions, I believe it is still valuable to include these quotes, with proper context, to provide a fuller picture of the legislative response. I welcome any further suggestions on how to present this information in a manner that adheres to Wikipedia's standards.
 * Looking forward to your feedback.
 * Thank you.
 * Omegamilky (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like not be summoned to this pointless original-research dump again and again. I have a watchlist and do not need pings. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I'm a relatively new wikipedia editor and would like some clarification around this.
 * The Wikipedia policy states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
 * Laslo's work covering Washington has been previously published by multiple reliable, independent publications, and he could be considered an expert in journalism and government, since he is an adjunct political communications professor at Johns Hopkins University and has previously taught journalism at Boston University and University of Maryland.
 * Would his online work not meet the criteria of a reliable self-published source, given his history and credentials? Particularly when he provides audio recordings of his interactions for independent verification, as mentioned by LuckyLouie? ArtesianAction (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is Laslo a UFO expert who has published on that subject? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So what is "the relevant field"?
 * Laslo is not reporting on UFOs or UAPs.
 * He is reporting on what congresspeople are saying, about their (classified) briefings they received concerning the claims of Grusch.
 * Whether Laslo is an expert on UFOs is totally irrelevant to his ability to report on what congresspeople are saying. KHarbaugh (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Any idiot can report on what congresspeople are saying. This is a WP:FRINGE subject, and one where mainstream journalistic sources have failed miserably in the past by simply repeating what gullible people say and not doing any journalistic research. "Reliable source on a subject" means that they know what rookie mistakes to avoid, and simply repeating what gullible people say and not doing any journalistic research is one of those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hob is correct, Wikipedia lags far behind the curve when it comes to WP:FRINGE subjects. We generally wait for mainstream journalism to highlight relevant experts and put things in appropriate context. We don't indulge in amplifying news tidbits or scraping novel content from self published sources. Substack, Askapol.com and Twitter/X are not WP:RS for text you are proposing to include. Wikipedia editors can't cut and paste WP:PRIMARY-sourced comments together to create the impression that something notable is happening (or has happened). Again, we rely on reliable and independent WP:SECONDARY sources to help us identify if some "happening" is truly notable. Then we summarize the analysis and commentary made by those sources about that "happening". In this case, reliable sources have not given any attention to those particular comments by Burlison, Mace, Mocskowitz et al, and so they haven't given us any analysis to summarize. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @LuckyLouie, for your detailed explanation. As a newer Wikipedia editor, I appreciate your guidance on relying on reliable, secondary sources.
 * I understand the concerns regarding self-published sources like Askapol and agree they shouldn't be included. However, our proposed new section and reorganization are based on credible sources such as The Hill, NewsNation, and CBS News, which cover significant developments from the January 2024 SCIF briefing. This reorganization aims to ensure the article reflects the latest developments accurately and neutrally. Given that these proposals are grounded in reliable sources, I hope they can be considered for inclusion.
 * If any experienced editors who qualify for WP:ECP agree, I would appreciate assistance in implementing these changes. Omegamilky (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your suggested article content (and the talk page post I am currently replying to) appear to be AI-generated, both to my eyes and to AI-detection software. Please write in your own words, AI writing tools should not be used on Wikipedia like this. MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Omegamilky, no more pinging, I have a watchlist, thanks. As for your proposed changes using WP:SECONDARY sources, it depends. You'd need to specify what article text you'd want to cite to which sources. This is advice I'd give to any new account with less than a dozen edits and AI-generated Talk page comments. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid these responses have only raised more questions for me. Do we require journalists to be experts in the topics covered in their reporting, or is it just for fringe topics?
 * Do we not allow direct quotes from government officials on fringe topics? Is Laslo's reporting a primary source, since he has verifiable recordings of his interviews with officials? Verifiability is one of the core content policies for wikipedia.
 * In any case, using the reliable sources mentioned by @Omegamilky would be acceptable, in my opinion and should not be excluded.
 * I'm concerned about the emotional tone in the responses here. Insults like describing politicians as "clueless" and "gullible" don't promote constructive conversation. Similarly, saying "any idiot can report" on what elected officials are saying is pretty dismissive when the content in question is a journalist's first-hand interview with a politician, presumably obtained through a white-house provided press-pass. I really don't understand the hostility here, but these insults and inflammatory language make me question the neutral point of view of wiki editors. ArtesianAction (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We require that journalists publish their writing through reliable publishers (that employ editors and fact checkers and such) rather than self publishing on their own websites. Exceptions to that are very limited and plainly do not apply here. We also can't copy and paste AI generated text into the article. MrOllie (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Exceptions to that are very limited and plainly do not apply here."
 * What is the criteria for that, Ollie?
 * I don't know how valid all this UAP talk is.
 * But I do know, from personal experience, the USG has compartmented programs.
 * resistant to "journalistic research".
 * The "idiots" are the people who deny that. KHarbaugh (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See, WP:BLP and WP:RS. The exceptions are for people like Eugene Volokh, who are widely known experts who also have blogs. MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct that we can't copy and paste AI text blindly, however that's not what I did. My understanding is the use of generative AI is permissible as an assistive tool is allowed if the content is thoroughly reviewed and verified. I have done so in my proposed paragraph, so it should meet Wikipedia's standards. Omegamilky (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your understanding is not correct. MrOllie (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to get into a discussion on AI Guidelines, so I will end the conversation here, but your understanding is indeed incorrect. There are only proposed guidelines, however proposal #3 allows copyediting and paraphrasing. I have not been explicitly declaring the assistance of generative AI though, so I will begin to do so and the process for how it assists my writing.
 * Using neural network language models on Wikipedia Omegamilky (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This essay explains how existing policies and guidelines apply to AI-generated content: Large language models
 * There are valid use cases, but I think most editors would find someone using ChatGPT to auto-create content about living politicians to be a red flag. Rjjiii  (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just stop using it. Period. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, after a careful review of the secondary sources offered, I understand why “news” of this January SCIF has not been included in the article to date. It is because the sources are not reporting anything of encyclopedic value: a couple of attendees thought it was informative, a couple of attendees thought it was not informative. Oh sure, the SCIF verifiably occurred, but despite WP:SENSATIONAL speculations from various corners of the internet -- quote-mining the attendees remarks isn’t appropriate. The article is already bloated with very similar contrasting remarks from legislators. All that's really WP:DUE is a brief drama-free summary using the two higher quality sources available: On January 13, 2024, members of the House Oversight Committee's national security subcommittee received a classified briefing from the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG) Thomas A. Monheim regarding UAP reporting transparency. Some members said they were frustrated by the lack of new information regarding Grusch's allegations. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Off wiki canvassing
Note this request by an editor on the Talk page. Then note this posting on Twitter directing UFO enthusiasts to this article. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * And on Reddit. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Three separate claims: UAP, SAP, NHI
I think it would sharpen and benefit the discussion if we make a clear distinction, both here and on the main page, among what are often broadly labeled "Grusch's claims."

1. The UAP claim, that things are being observed that cannot be explained through conventional means. This is controversial; Mick West has suggested that most such "observations" may be due to misinterpretation or equipment error; Chris Mellon has made it fairly clear he thinks there are more profound issues here: https://open.substack.com/pub/christopherkmellon/p/suggestions-for-congress-on-the-uap

2. The SAP claim, that the USG has established one or more supersecret SAPs (Special Access Programs) to investigate UAP. There is no reason to rule out that possibility.

3. Most controversial, the NHI hypothesis. I think it is that which is truly "Fringe" or "Sensational", and which muddies the waters. (But still, it is possible. Just a bigger leap from the conventional.) There should be nothing fringe or sensational about the first two topics.

What I am reacting to is the tendency of some to identify "Grusch's claims" with, say, "Little Green Men". It seems to me that is a totally irresponsible conflation, producing heat but not light. KHarbaugh (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * What's irresponsible is this continued attempt to whitewash Grusch's views. It's become tendendious and needs to stop. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My reading of the controversy is that John Greenewald Jr. has all but debunked Grusch's claims using FOIA requests, correspondence, and rational discourse. Even if we give Grusch the benefit of the doubt, and assume Grusch's claims are true, they simply don't hold up.  Greenewald asks an important question:  why is Grusch doing this?  Would be interesting to see this article go in that direction. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If there are, say, waived, unacknowledged SAP programs on this subject, "FOIA requests [and] correspondence", are not going to reveal them.
 * That seems shockingly naive.
 * You talk about something from John Greenewald Jr. but the link you give is only to the man.
 * It would be helpful to know what specifically you are citing.
 * As to questioning Grusch's motivations, that seems highly speculative at this point. KHarbaugh (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Greenewald has spent a great deal of time investigating Grusch's claims. He has found numerous inconsistencies that he has asked Grusch to clarify and explain.  Grusch refuses. If I'm understanding Greenewald correctly, he thinks that the evidence we have so far indicates that either Grusch is a patsy ("a person who is easily swindled, deceived, coerced, persuaded") or is deliberately lying, for what reason, nobody knows.  I suppose there is also the explanation that Grusch is delusional, but I don't think Greenewald has addressed that.  As for taking Grusch at his word, Greenewald has shown that we shouldn't do that.  Listen to his podcast.  He has devoted numerous longform episodes on this subject, as has Mick West.  When you put Greenewald and West together, Grusch's story simply makes no sense.  There's also several unsavory aspects to it, such as the idea that Grusch had a plan that he meticulously followed to get his story out, but he did so in ways that seemed to sensationalize and embellish what he had to say, which had the opposite effect, making his story appear absurd.  Why would he intentionally try to discredit his own whistleblowing?  None of it makes sense. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your informative reply.
 * Some of Grusch's claims are indeed pretty incredible, without corroborating evidence.
 * But there is corroborating evidence for at least some of Grusch's claims.
 * Three senior U.S. senators, Chuck Schumer, Mike Rounds, Marco Rubio, have said whistleblowers have come to each of them, concerned about what is being withheld from Congress.
 * https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/majority-leader-schumer-and-republican-senator-mike-rounds-floor-colloquy-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-provisions-in-the-ndaa-and-future-legislation-on-uaps
 * https://www.newsweek.com/marco-rubio-ufo-uap-top-us-officials-investigation-1809201
 * Also, former high-level IC official Christopher Mellon has written extensively on UAP, the USG, and even suggested that NHI should not be ruled out as a possible explanation for UAP, in his Substack file
 * https://open.substack.com/pub/christopherkmellon
 * Mellon I think provides a healthy balance to the skepticism of Greenewald.
 * I do not know which is right, or has the better case. KHarbaugh (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There’s no evidence for anything Grusch says, so his claims can be automatically dismissed. Why would Grusch come forth without evidence?  Testimony on this, from politicians or anyone else, is all but worthless.  Without evidence, there is nothing here. And without evidence, this amounts to wishful thinking and folklore.  It doesn’t matter how high level anyone is or what they say.  We need to see unambiguous evidence of a retrieval program, alien DNA (or equivalent), and all the rest. Nothing else matters. Tall tales and "you should have seen the one that got away" aren’t going to cut it. The fact is, humanity is highly susceptible to believing in just about anything without evidence.  This is a huge problem.  It's unfortunate, but people in power often take advantage of this weakness, particularly when it comes to politics, advertising, and religion.  We need, as a species, to come to terms with this, and to stop letting other people manipulate our attention and belief systems.  This starts with me and you. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Why would Grusch come forth without evidence?"
 * Have you ever been granted access to Top Secret Codeword (e.g., TS/SI) information?
 * I have, but half a century ago.
 * (And it had nothing to do with UFOs or UAP, only with U.S. defense.)
 * The obligation to keep such material secret lasts all your life.


 * It is possible, but hardly proven, that Grusch is navigating between several imperatives.
 * His record before he became a self-proclaimed "whistleblower" certainly seems dedicated to the national interest.
 * But your points about the willingness of people, even in high places, to in some cases lie, are of course absolutely valid.
 * Remember "Bodyguard of Lies".
 * As for me, I admit both possibilities, and rule out neither. KHarbaugh (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The simplest explanation is that UFO lore is disinformation. Fermi's paradox, as flawed as it is, still holds.  Where are they?  Grusch says they are "coming from a higher dimensional physical space that might be co-located right here", which moves the dial exactly nowhere.  Apparently, Jacques Vallée is a fan of this theory, so all Grusch did was repeat an old, already established claim.  Again, nothing has changed. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)