Talk:USS Nimitz UFO incident/Archive 1

Original research in possible explanations section
ජපස recently made these edits, which are textbook cases of original research. The UFO blog post they provided as a source not once references the USS Princeton aerial object incident. The post instead critiques this Times article's interpretation of a different video entirely. To use this source, which does not mention the subject of this article once, to make the argument that the FLIR1 video also shows a jet in the distance is original research, plain and simple. AdA&D 23:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

CVW11 Event Summary
In another case of previous reporting to the 16 December 2017 Reporting, a site called Above Top Secret is included by the Popular Mechanics article about this incident. Following that link there is, in fact, a forum post titled CVW11 Event Summary which seems to match the events of this incident. The summary is supposed to be the pilot’s radio log or something g to that effect. Again, seems like it is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but I am leaving that decision up to better editors than me.
 * this site is a risky click: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg9#pid2951082 TheThomas (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * These are unreliable sources. — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To The Stars Academy is also an unreliable source (now being used in the article), given it's a fund raising site that promotes "non-mainstream subjects such as the study of UAP technologies". - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC) "
 * The only place where tothestarsacademy.com is cited is for the information, . That information comes directly from the DoD incident report itself, not any analysis or interpretation by To The Stars Academy. A Department of Defense report is a reliable source, so I'm removing the tag added to the top of the page. If we can find a government hosted version of the report, I'm happy to change the source url.  AdA&D  18:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Has anyone laid eyes on the 'DoD incident report' from multiple sources or preferably from a Government publication? Until we have that level of verification the statement "That information comes directly from the DoD incident report itself" cannot be verified.  Until someone can link a 'DoD report' that is available from an official government source I have doubts as to whether this wiki article isn't just part of someone's viral marketing campaign.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:6E02:8E00:E065:D3EA:105:ABAD (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not even sure if they're claiming it's a DoD report at this point. I thought they were, but I think I was conflating the videos (which are purportedly from the government) with this report, which more and more is looking like it was produced by TTSA directly. AdA&D  02:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The tothestarsacademy.com page says the report was obtained by tothestarsacademy.com from some unnamed sources claimed to be authoritative and has been altered by tothestarsacademy.com. So we're taking a fringe advocacy fund raising site at their word that this is what they say it is? I think I'd prefer we wait until a government-hosted site provides the documents. WP:V and all.- LuckyLouie (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not laid eyes on the DoD incident report anywhere but the COI site, nor the declassification documents that to the stars academy asserts prove the authenticity and source of the videos. I have asked. It is not worthy to say this site raises funds and is thus not trustworthy. Even Wikipedia raises funds. WaPo does every time I visit. TheThomas (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The trustworthiness question goes beyond just fund raising. To The Stars Academy operates in WP:QUESTIONABLE territory for a source: i.e. poor reputation for checking facts, no editorial oversight, relying on on rumors and personal opinions, promotional in nature, and admittedly fringe. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

References on this page are inadequate
The page references news articles, the news articles reference a release of information from the government. This page needs to reference the original government sources and not just the news articles. If this information is available under a FOIA request then that information is published somewhere by the primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.133.76 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While primary sources can sometimes be used to support the material, the interpretation must be done by secondary and tertiary sources. — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The primary source (the incident report) is linked to at the bottom of the article. https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report. AdA&D  22:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the link you mention, can you add it to this discussion? I think a summarized a government report might fall into a grey area between primary and secondary source since the information is already no doubt condensed and would include interpretation, no?  There must be precedent for this in other articles and topics but I have no firsthand knowledge of same.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.133.76 (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Found the page for the current Secretary of Defense does cite an official government publication as a reference. Cite note #62 on the /wiki/Jim_Mattis page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.133.76 (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Opinion: I don't know of any FOIA release request that has come to fruition in any UFO FOIA request. This information about the USS Princeton Incident was released as part of a declassification process started by Luis Elizondo, not in response to a FOIA. This is only what I have gathered, and I cannot 100% verify this information. It's a great question, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 22:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

My edit-fu isn't that great so I haven't modified the article to the following effect yet. I notice that the reference link #7 for Mr. Kyle MizoKami links to the author's page but not the comments or discussion references. That seems sloppy and incomplete to me. Can we get a better link to where the author actually makes the referenced comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:6E02:8E00:E065:D3EA:105:ABAD (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

News stories on David Fravor:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2017/12/ex_navy_fighter_pilot_in_spotlight_for_in_air_ufo_encounter_claims

http://www.wmur.com/article/windham-man-recalls-possible-ufo-sighting-in-newly-released-video/14467374

The video link in the WMUR story is broken. This appears to be the same video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7A5tw_0tRY

Banchang (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Cover story?
Has there been any credible source mentioning that this might be a cover story for something else? (e.g. intended audience is Russia/China) I have read that on forums, but haven't seen any credible source saying this. --Voidvector (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

see here
at 17:30 Luis Elizondo talks about quantum entanglement and how that could explain how these objects are flying. https://dcs.megaphone.fm/BUR4208300264.mp3?key=627d4b7ffcce9a2d6fe92bf421e0583c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.194.129 (talk) 08:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * [just listened] Well, that was a load of bunkum. More specifically, the speaker confuses quantum entanglement with relativity and makes sweeping generalizations that don't apply. The technical explanation would be better left to those more well-versed in the topic.


 * — Apollonaut 📞 02:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External Links Editing
ජපස has now twice removed the external links section. Example:. The exact guideline these external links violate is unclear to me. It is my current opinion, this section was removed do to bias of the editor. This opinion is also informed by the same editor's attempt to add text and citation from a blog that did not concern the topic of this wikipedia page, but rather confirmed editor's bias regarding the notability of the general subject matter. Kintpuash (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think these are reliable sources, see what WP:RSN thinks of your attempt to include them. jps (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The FighterSweep report has been verified by our Popular Mechanics source. The source clearly meets the WP:ELYES criteria of "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." AdA&D  17:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not attempting to include them, the links were already here. I was reverting possible vandalism from an editor who already attempted to insert a blog as an inline citation to this wikipedia entry. Meanwhile, I'm asking for clarification on the precise guideline of WP:ELNO those links violated. State your case. What seems clear to me, the links do not meet the standard as inline citations, but do merit inclusion as external links as they provide unique information on the subject matter. The sources additionally merit inclusion as the sources are utilized by the acceptable inline citations used in the main article. That said, the Fighter Sweep article, in my opinion, very nearly meets the standard for use as an inline citation. If you can not make a specific argument, with specific guideline violated, as to why they do not merit inclusion, the external links section should be restored. Kintpuash (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are misinterpreting what the EL guideline means when it encourages links that 'provide unique information'. Both tothestarsacademy.com and fightersweep.com are offering unverifiable research (ELNO #2) that is "currently unavailable anywhere else" as you put it in your edit summary, and not confirmed by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting/linking to iffy content that makes WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, e.g. exclusive interviews containing remarkable revelations or unreleased copies of purportedly authentic government documents. Also note that fightersweep.com is admittedly a fansite, albeit one for "serious enthusiasts". - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The very next phrase in the EL guideline: "except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." Visit Gospel of John, the external links sections is full of links to unverifiable text. And they will remain unverifiable by reliable sources, it comes with the territory of the subject. The difference is, they directly relate to the article. TTS and FS are not random websites in regard to the subject of this page. Both are utilized by mainstream sources used by this article in connection to the story. Kintpuash (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you really comparing this article to the Gospel of John?! jps (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was using an analogy. The Biblical text cannot be verified by historical standards as an authentic account of historical events. But the external links on the page are without question variant translations of the subject of the article. In the same way, the flightersweep.com article has been identified by third-party sources as the first written account of the subject of this page. Kintpuash (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Poor analogy. The Gospel of John is not a UFO incident that is alleged to have occurred within the decade. This much should be obvious, I would hope. jps (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Where the analogy fails: the removed external links were based on eye-witness testimony from still living people. Consequently the external links that were removed meet a higher standard of verification than a 1800 year old religious text. There are no reported details within the NYT report, or other recent mainstream sources, that contradict the external links. They utilize a similar level of evidence. Kintpuash (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. No. Where the analogy fails is that the external links were curated by debunked true-believers in the UFOs-as-aliens leitmotif. This is a fringe belief that hasn't yet successfully traversed into the realm of mainstream religion. On the other hand, the Gospel of John gets the backing of major Christian churches. If you would like Wikipedia to treat this subject as they treat the gospels, you need to convince the outside world that UFO religions are WP:MAINSTREAM. Lol. jps (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links are not required to meet the same standard as article citations. Your argument as to the utility of my analogy appears a deflection from making a cogent argument on wikipedia policy. Meanwhile I perceive you are assuming what my personal belief systems are. If so, this would be an error. In regard to mainstream belief in alien visitation as an explanation for UFOs, I've got bad news for you. Kintpuash (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Polls are not how we determine what a mainstream position is. It's embarrassing that you are using Alejandro Rojas self-serving incompetence to claim otherwise. jps (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course not, yet that is precisely what you argued above by citing the position of "major Christian churches," as opposed to wikipedia editor consensus, expert, and third-party opinion. Kintpuash (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What constitutes a church is not determined by polls. jps (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

jps (talk)

RfC about inclusion of FighterSweep.com report in external links section
Should this report of the incident be included as an external link, keeping in mind it has been verified by one of our sources as genuine? AdA&D 17:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion. WP:EL states that may be considered for inclusion.
 * Further, WP:ELYES states that should be included as an external link. The amount of technical detail in the report is more than could reasonably be integrated into this article (seriously, read it), but may still be interesting and relevant to readers.  AdA&D  17:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 *  Out of process. The correct thing to do is ask at WP:RSN. In any case, WP:ELNO is clear. Don't include websites that are unreliable as links on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please reference exactly where in WP:ELNO "unreliable" sources are forbidden from being external links. WP:RS only applies to citations. As I pointed out in my support !vote, WP:EL actually allows for external links that . P.S. the relevant noticeboard is actually WP:ELN not WP:RSN. AdA&D  18:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." We don't need inaccurate websites that make fanciful references as though a fictional television show is real as an external link that declaims "technical detail". Unreliable sources are unreliable. Let them publish it in a proper editorial context. jps (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The report is verified as a genuine account of the events and the facts are backed up by the Popular Mechanics article. We ought to trust their journalistic assessment over your personal opinion. AdA&D  21:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"Verified as genuine account"? Hardly. It's just some fellow's blog. jps (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Popular Mechanics has cited this report and Popular Mechanics is usually considered a reliable source. Do you have a reason to believe that Popular Mechanics is mistaken?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion. Believe it merits inclusion via the overarching guideline of WP:EL. Here is another mainstream publication utilizing the 2015 article as a source. Other sources that corroborate the account include the New York Times. The citation covered the story in 2015, over two years before press wider coverage, and article includes additional detail not covered by the NYT. Unique details include the identity of a Marine pilot who was first called to the area of the radar anomaly, and clarification of the timeline regarding the footage taken by Forward looking infrared. An external link to the footage is also included in the wikipedia entry. Kintpuash (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We could not use it as a source for facts in the article text... but as an EL... sure. I see no harm in it. Blueboar (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I just want to clear up a misconception I see in the discussion above.  The standards for sourcing are different than for external links.  Indeed, WP:ELMAYBE specifically states that external links need not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing: "Links to be considered...[include]...Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." I make no comment on the link itself.  I'm just pointing out that the standards for reliable sources and external links are different.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with the preceding comment. However I have looked at the link and while it is full of interest, I certainly would not include it as a reliable source (which I think we generally agree) but I think I would exclude it as a link as well, unless in a context that makes it clear what its significance is to the article or to WP and WP standards. At the moment I don't see how to do that, so I vote for exclusion. JonRichfield (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support keeping it. While I am personally not a fan of the way the article is written, it is still a pretty comprehensive account that merits and external link.  I don't believe it should be considered a source, but its present status as just another link is fair. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion of external link. Considering the lead's second sentence (when I posted this comment): "A 2015 report of the incident on FighterSweep.com, ...", a link to said report could hardly be more relevant, and suppressing the link would never be held as a good editorial practice. Even if a direct mention of FighterSweep.com was not in the article or if its mention is later removed, the report's prominence in the Popular Mechanics citation maintains the link's relevance.--John Cline (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support keeping the external link. It is a record of the event.  People may be unreliable, but in terms of the article readers will want to see the source that Popular Mechanics mentions.  If there are concerns they can be expressed in the link text.  Nessie (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I respect editorial consensus for including it in our EL. But I think calling the Fightersweep my-buddy-told-me story a "2015 report" in the lead is too suggestive of official DOD logs or research results. "Description", "narrative", or "account" would be a more appropriate choice of noun. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Rewritting of the whole article in three main parts radar/visual/video
I removed previous worng statements or corrected them: the article was focusing only on the infrared footage of the sighting, whereas the case has three distinctive parts : 1) Tracking by the advanced passive radar of the USS Princeton (during several weeks) of many UFOs descending from a ceiling of 80,000 ft toward the sea; 2) visual confirmation by US fighter pilots (the evading white Tic Tac); and 3) an infrared footage (FLIR1 video) of other fighter pilots on a later flight the same day.

During the visual sighting, according to recent pilot testimonies and interviews, there was not two different objects witnessed (a flying UFO and an underwater USO) but only one object that first emerged from of was already hovering above the churning boiling waves then climbed in the sky, played with jet aircrafts a bit and finally shoot away to the horizon. The confusion came from the Popular Mechanics article covering the event with an older 2007 unconfirmed report.

The infrared FLIR1 video of the 2004 USS Nimitz UFO incident was confused with the GIMBAL video of unknown origin. The GIMBAL video is said to have been taken on the East coast of the USA in 2015 (information still unconfirmed for place and date). – Tokamac (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For reference, here is Tokamac's edit. Some good changes, but there seems to be consensus against using Fighter Sweep as a source. I would also add that metabunk is also hardly a reliable source. I'm removing those sources and adding where reliable sources are needed. Eventually I'll go through and remove statements that aren't supported by reliable sources. It's very important, especially in a subject area like UFOs, that all statements are backed up by RS.  AdA&D  ★ 02:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. It feels a bit weird we can cite FighterSweep.com in the body of the main page, but it would be prevented (?) to add an external link to the complete story. Whereas it is the most complete description of the USS Nimitz event and its content seems perfectly legit a posteriori as it has been recently corroborated by 1st-hand video interviews (from December 2017) of Cdr. David Fravor on TV. But Wikipedia works in mysterious ways… — Tokamac (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Re-established the FighterSweep.com in External link section as it was already approved there by consensus and present is the article before my edits (see RfC about inclusion of FighterSweep.com report in external links section above). — Tokamac (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I find bogus the logic to remove any clear explanation of FLIR1 vs GIMBAL footages. The video editing of various media (i.e. merging FLIR1 with GIMBAL in one single video to be presented to the public) is a mistake spread over many websites that contributes to confusion in people's mind. Wikipedia should offer a way to sort the wheat from the chaff in that matter. Apparently, no external link to TTS Academy (because it supports the extraterrestrial origin of the events? Or because it raises funds? Or because someone here doesn't like them?) cannot be cited although it is the main source of the videos; and Metabunk.org (which is organized by skeptics) cannot be cited neither although it sums an in-depth critical analysis of both videos. Why? Is it to achieve WP:NPOV? There are two ways to achieve neutrality on a stiff balance: either you put only lightweight items on scales, it's quite an easy task; or you allow several heavy non-neutral POV sources, but you pay attention to counterbalance them equitably. Giving up on the working for clarity is a acknowledgement of failure IMHO. — Tokamac (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * GIMBAL confusion issue solved: I found references in a notable secondary source (Boston Globe news article). — Tokamac (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks AdA&D  ★ 16:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

One UFO or a USO + a UFO?
According to various medias and interviews with the pilots, everybody mentions a flying UFO (the Tic Tac) that made "churning water with foam and frothy waves" underneath. That's was my interpretation too at the beginning. But when you carefully read the FighterSweep 2015 article, and listen to the detailed video interview of the main pilot, you realize the two events were actually disconnected, at least spatially. Especially since Cdr. David Fravor stated about the Tic Tac: "There's no rotor wash which you would see from a helicopter": you can hear the sentence at 2:24 here. If the "Tic Tac" had been actually hovering 50ft above the churning water when the pilots saw the two phenomena, the whitewater would have immediately made them think the object was precisely blowing air downward like the rotor wash of a helicopter, making the water frothy below. It was exactly the opposite. They saw the frothy waves first with apparently some kind of sunk object near the surface (a USO for unidentified submerged object), which then disappeared, and afterward they saw the Tic Tac UFO in the air nearby. In fact, according to the FS article, it was a third plane piloted by Lieutenant colonel Douglas "Cheeks" Kurth, CO of Marine Hornet squadron VMFA-232, who first saw the area of boiling water (with no flying object then) and referred it to Fravor and Slaight. But for some reason, LtCol Kurth has been completely removed from the official released account of the incident. It's a pity there is not enough material in the mainstream media to correctly report these points in the Wikipedia article, as both FS and TTS Academy cannot be linked inside the main body. TV reporters preferred asking silly questions like "were you afraid?" or "what do you think it was, aliens?" and that kind of things. — Tokamac (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

plagiarism
can we mention the "reuse" without modification of a pre 2007 vision unlimited. DE f4.mpg student film as the 2004 Nimitz TIC TAC video , http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.vision-unlimited.de/extern/* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waptek (talk • contribs) 00:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

First-hand accounts from prior to News reporting
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1qyu5i/my_ufo_encounterexposure_while_on_board_an/ This is a reddit post where an individual who claims to have served aboard the Nimitz recounts an event very similar to the News accounts of the USS Princeton Incident. His post was from four years ago, meaning there was no media coverage. I don't know if this is appropriate material for encyclopedic content. --TheThomas (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you inquire from the person, to see if they match or are different? Misty MH (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant details
Almost all of the details in the section "Nimitz TSTA: phases I, II and III, and Final Evaluation Period during alleged incident" seem irrelevant to the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Requesting roll back
Requesting someone with roll back privileges to roll back the page to 11:19, 1 May 2018. A series of edits have been recently been made that appear considerable WP:OR. One of the 'new sources' used is a screenshot. Other sources are military exercise articles from 2004 that do not support the interpretation of the edits, and additional changes that appear difficult to clean up manually.--Kintpuash (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * On reflection, don't think such an extreme edit is necessary.--Kintpuash (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This entire article needs a re-write
This page is a mess. I don't know if it started out that way, or if some user or users over the past few months have made changes that degraded the quality of the article, but right now, as is, it does not belong in mainspace. I went through the page, starting at the top, making small fixes as I went, but by the time I reached the bottom it was clear that this page desperately needs a major clean up and should probably be moved until that happens (draft space, someone's sandbox, whereever... ). - the WOLF  child  13:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I rolled it back to a previous version. @IntegrityHonestyUnlimited: the article leans toward the credulous (e.g. showcasing sensational quotes from Fravor, emphasizing poorly-vetted accounts, etc.) but massive WP:OR and uncited opinion was not the way to fix it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The version that LuckyLouie rolled back to is definitely much better. - the WOLF  child  18:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be creep in the skeptic section compared to several months ago
And I'm noticing that there's elements and details from the original article that are steadily getting removed over the course of time. I feel this is being dishonest, and someone is trying to slant this as being illegitimate.

Official Report: https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC%20TAC%20UFO%20EXECUTIVE%20REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf

Source: https://nypost.com/2018/05/25/military-report-reveals-more-strange-details-on-ufo-sighting/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.91.198 (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia. We are not obliged to tamp down skepticism and make UFO reports sound legitimate. All material in the Critical analysis section is cited to WP:RS. The document you've linked above originates from a single Las Vegas TV station reporter. It is not verifiable as an official document of any kind, despite what WP:SENSATIONAL tabloid sources claim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I finally got a chance to read Joe Nickell's piece which is currently linked in the lede. Unfortunately, it is an example of wikipedia's Achilles' heel: citations that meet the standard for inclusion but are factually wrong. Nickell makes a number of mistakes in his analysis, but perhaps the most significant is the confusion of the interviewed 'Source' with Cmdr. Fravor in the Nimitz Pilot Report. Fravor is 'OK-2' in the pilot report, not 'Source.' They are pilots in different jets, and 'Source' is at a high elevation watching 'OK-2' and 'OK-3' engage the object at a lower elevation. Here is a critical quote from Nickell that illustrates just how far off the mark he is: "As it happened, this was Fravor’s 'first military assignment as a pilot for the U.S. Navy’s F-18 Super Hornet.'" It simply doesn't occur to Nickell that Fravor is Commander of the squadron in 2004 and simply cannot be the pilot interviewed. In the beginning of the document, it states that as of 2017, 'Source' was a Lieutenant Commander O-4 (13 years after the 2004 encounter), and still in active service. That's not Fravor. So what to do with the text and citation as written by Joe Nickell? I dunno, but it is a poor analysis. Kintpuash (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think most editors will agree that a purportedly classified ‘official report’ distributed by a ufo advocacy group can’t be given much if any credibility here. It certainly can’t be used to rebut criticism from WP:FRIND sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the document reflects any relation to reality, Joe Nickell used the document as a citation in his article and chose to work within the framework of the document. The Nickell text in the main body is adequate, as it explicitly states that Nickell identifies 'Source' as Fravor and doesn't misrepresent Nickell's position. However, placing that particular citation in the lede over other citations from the Critical Analysis section who may have put more effort into the subject does a disservice to them, imo. Kintpuash (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand you feel Nickell is delegitimized based on your own personal interpretations of a document supplied by To The Stars Academy, but we need a much broader and policy-based WP:CONSENSUS here before making any changes. Re the article lead, as I understand it, the Nickell quote is in keeping with the encyclopedia's WP:FRINGE guideline; "a reliable source cited that affirms the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Ignore the lede for a moment, do you believe that 'Source' is Fravor in the TTSA released purported Pilot Interview, as Nickell states? Kintpuash (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, this is an encyclopedia. We go by what independent reliable sources say, rather than our own opinion of what they should say. If you believe the Nickell source is not reliable, take your case to WP:RSN and get consensus for treating it otherwise. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles from the Skeptical Inquirer are reliable independent sources, suitable for inclusion as a citation on wikipedia. I have no interest in taking this discussion to another board. I'm satisfied that you were made aware of the issue. Kintpuash (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your justifications, you're clearly biasing the article in one slant or another by posting nothing but sources with one slant. Surely you're aware of this regardless? It even states in WP:NEUTRAL that "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". I don't why your doing this intentionally. 69.146.91.198 (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to read the full thread to understand context of what you replied to. Kintpuash (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I can't change the fact that the "Critical Analysis" section is mostly filled with skepticism, I renamed it "Skeptical analysis", as that's more accurate description to it's content. 69.146.91.198 (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Fravor Interview
I'm not a wikipedia editor, but I saw this interview on stage of Cmdr Fravor which goes into great detail about the incident, with lots of technical details from a first person POV. I'm not sure of the current policies about uses of such interview videos, so I am leaving this link here for those who know better to document in the article and correct errors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUyGnFFilP0 - 65.96.53.130 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Clean video
Do we have a good clean source for the FLIR video? It's obviously c:Template:PD-USGov-Military and is an important part of the event. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

UFO illustration
Is this image really adding anything to the article? Looks kinda amateur imo and I don't think it adds much value. AdA&D ★ 00:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem if you remove it. Getting those with better equipment to draw us professional looking pictures for this and other anomalous vehicles has fallen on deaf ears so far. Thought of making it more elongate, but the picture corresponds more or less with the shape seen on the pilot video. Will upload other versions to commons nonetheless, and perhaps I can get someone else interested. JMK (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The illustration is an embarrassment. It looks like something a kid would make with Photoshop, based on the one-line description. I'm removing it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The text is not better than this pic! I will re-add it. --93.211.222.159 (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this a serious effort or skeptic garbage ?
Equipment malfunction? A distant planet, a meteor?. This childish explanations we all were grown up with have no room in this century. Ignorance in this matter seems vanishing, but please stop all this ignorance all and for once. Thanks --83.43.68.241 (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Pilot Chad Underwood finally speaks out
Navy Pilot Who Filmed the ‘Tic Tac’ UFO Speaks: ‘It Wasn’t Behaving by the Normal Laws of Physics’. By Matthew Phelan. Dec. 19, 2019. Intelligencer.


 * He also addresses some of the skeptics' claims. -- Timeshifter (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅: FWIW - related reference has been added to the article - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Timeshifter (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Original research removed
This image was removed from the article. It is original research based on the interpretation of a reader as to the claims that the incident occurred ~100 mi. from San Diego. This approximation means that the shading is overly precise in a way that is unjustified by the significant figures (e.g.) in the report. It could easily just be an order of magnitude estimate anyway. In any case, all this is not allowed per Wikipedia policy. So it's gone.

jps (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove the skeptic
Really saying that the plane turned and it caused the object to move off the screen is ridiculous. As if the US military wouldn't know the difference between a moving object and a panning camera. This kind of "skeptic" is just someone who tries to deny everything without thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.41.172 (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The author just offered an alternative cause for the visual effect, not conclusive causality. Arguing that a potential cause is ridiculous in engaging in more uncritical commentary than the original author's statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:406:8280:D500:48A6:680B:567:DEE8 (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Please, skeptics, stop flaging idiotics views --83.43.68.241 (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * SI is a reliable source. See Reliable sources. That you find it "idiotic" is nothing but your personal POV and has no relevance here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was the one who removed this source as it is in direct contradiction of the mainstream accepted description of the event and therefore WP:FRINGE. Relevant discussion is here: Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. The Navy has confirmed (after the publication of the SI story) the event and the fact that it is "unidentified" so saying that this was "a submarine" or that the movement is caused by the hornet banking is simply preposterous. I will wait for additional comments and remove it once again later. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing mainstream about what "The Navy" says. Even if it were, what skeptics say is relevant because Joe Nickell has several decades more experience in such stuff than anybody in the Navy.
 * You are trying to push a fringe view, and you are trying to remove the sane views by calling them "fringe". As I said, SI is a reliable source.
 * Please read Reliable sources and try to understand it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"the U.S. Navy acknowledged that the three videos are of real unidentified phenomena" is a rather stupid wording. Is a phenomenon "unidentified" if nobody has identified it? Then you never know that it is a "real unidentified phenomenon", since you would have to ask everybody if they can identify it.

Or is it "unidentified" if the person who calls it unidentified has not identified it? (Of course this is the "logic" the whole of UFOlogy is based on: "I cannot identify it, therefore nobody can." In reality, the most you can say is that you failed to identify it. ) In that case, it is not a property of the phenomenon, but a relation between the phenomenon and the speaker. Grammar should reflect that: "the U.S. Navy acknowledged that the three videos are of phenomena they could not identify." --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure. The NAVY can’t identify it. Are you aware of anyone that has? Can you source it? Giving more weight to a writer in an office than to a carrier strike group with eyewitnesses, thousands of people and the most advanced sensor tech in the world investigating the event seems kinda fringe to me though. Please also bear in mind that the report on SI PREDATES official confirmation. Can we find a Reputable source which is skeptic AFTER official confirmation by the navy? Would be interesting — Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * p.s. and as for stating that "Joe Nickell has several decades more experience[...] than the Navy". He is claiming the sighting was of a SUBMARINE with a drone... yeah the Navy doesn't really have experience with those things I agree....they should call him and ask for a couple of tips ;-). Jokes aside... if you read the SI article it FACTUALLY conflicts SEVERAL times with the reports of the events that have been reported by MULTIPLE reputable sources. I can give you examples but he seems to have based the article on incorrect/imprecise third hand source materials and thus the mistakes. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * P.p.s I've removed one such example of a glaring mistake: stating that it was Fravor's first time in a military assignment with an F18 and he was rattled by the experience is preposterous. He was the commanding officer of the fighter squadron and had been for a few months ! Joe misread the report he based his article on (which is an unconfirmed third party account to begin with). He claims "source" in the report refers to Fravor while it refers to his wingman (!!) which was actually a novice in the squadron . Embarassing... the whole article should be discarded since all off Joe's supposed "inconsistencies" stem from this fundamental misunderstanding and own personal confusion instead of that of his (unconfirmed and third party) source material. Stating that a squadron commander could be at his first military action with his model is crazy. I will wait for additional comments. If you want more such examples I can provide them. Then I will remove the source entirely. This was fun. Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have informed Skeptical inquirer of the factual error. Had to use the generic contact email but if anyone reading has a more direct contact I would appreciate. It's an embarrassing mistake for such a prestigious magazine. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You are avoiding my point: that the wording is stupid. Anybody who says "this is a real unexplained phenomenon" because they have not explained it must have a huge ego, because they conclude from their own failure that everybody else has failed too. Did they even consider consulting any skeptics? Did they even know about Nickell's article?
 * "Giving more weight" - You want to remove Nickell altogether. You want to cut one of the foremost experts on "unexplained phenomena" out of the article because you disagree with him. That is not what we do in Wikipedia. The highest number of witnesses and the most sophisticated sensors are worthless if not combined with expert knowledge on the frailty of human cognition. The job of soldiers is to kill foreign soldiers, not to identify things people think they saw. They are out of their depth here, as they have been since the 1940s when it comes to UFOs.
 * Your "official confirmation", as you call it, is stupid, as I explained above. And even if it were not, it would not automatically invalidate everything else that happened before. "The CO said it is so therefore it is so" is military thinking, not scientific thinking.
 * PS By "such things", I obviously meant "things people see which they cannot explain". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We can change the wording no problem as I told you before. I totally agree with you that it only represents the Navy's POV. My point as I have proven verifiably above is that Nickell's article is fundamentally flawed. I wrote a pretty description of his embarrassing mistake with notes (part of what I sent to SI). Did you read it? Want to change wording for a statement? Go ahead. Have some comments about the mistake Nickell made? I'm all ears (I could have made an error myself). Thanks! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in that. It does not matter: again, this is original research by you, and therefore would not be admissible to the article if it were not a deletion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Questionable Sources Removed
Recent edits have removed several sources indicating they were not reliable: --Gtoffoletto (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One of them was the paper linked here: https://www.explorescu.org/post/nimitz_strike_group_2004 it is not published by a peer reviewed journal but the authors appear to have good credentials and the work has been cited in at least one peer reviewed paper https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939 The report is gigantic and contains A LOT of information. Does the citation in a peer reviewed paper make it reputable? In any case this second paper can serve as a more appropriate source for this section.
 * removal of: "One of the witnesses, retired United States Navy officer, Commander David Fravor, lamented the amount "of misinformation that [was] starting to come out through third and fourth parties".(with source LMH) is also questionable. This is the commander of the Strike Fighter Squadron not just some random witness. However I think as we restructure the page to remove the fringe skeptic view we can reintroduce it more appropriately.
 * I am reverting the edit to the skeptic view section (calling it mainstream when it goes against the official U.S. Navy version of the facts seems rather ridiculous). We are actually discussing about this section here: Fringe_theories/Noticeboard
 * MDPI is not a reliable publisher when it comes to WP:REDFLAG. Your actions here are borderline WP:ADVOCACY. I suggest you take a step back and try to get a better view of the WP:MAINSTREAM treatment of these claims (which is, interestingly, not the same as the media treatment). jps (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree the peer reviewed article linked above is not from a reliable publisher (MDPI). The specific paper might be considered so but certainly not the publisher as a whole. That's WP:ADVOCACY. No problem waiting for more info/studies to emerge since that paper is pretty recent. Some of the same authors have also published a followup in another peer reviewed MDPI journal on this specific incident https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/33/1/26 titled "Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles in the 2004 Nimitz Encounter" which should be considered for inclusion given the specificity --Gtoffoletto (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

If these people want to be taken seriously, they would publish outside of MDPI where they have a pocket editor. Sadly, as is so often the case in these sorts of pathological science, there is just a cul-du-sac of poorly vetted papers. Per WP:REDFLAG, Wikipedia is not empowered to include them in articlespace until someone outside this cul-du-sac actually notices them. Self-citations don't count. jps (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What proof do you have that those articles are poorly vetted? Why do you consider it to be pathological science? Have you read the papers? Or is it just your personal POV? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Youtube channel with witness interviews
This Youtube channel: The Nimitz Encounters https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6i-se5IU8hRbPov5-ON1tw is dedicated to the events and includes interviews with 5 additional witnesses. The interviews has been reported on and are the source for the Popular Mechanics article: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29771548/navy-ufo-witnesses-tell-truth/

Can we use them as source? Should we at least add them in the "external links" section of something similar? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:YOUTUBE. Generally looked down upon because of its obviously WP:SELFPUB status. We don't know how they edited the interviews, whether what they say they are doing is accurate, and generally the reliability of youtube content is suspect. There are limited exceptions to using YouTube, but I'm afraid this situation is not one of them. Still, you can ask at WP:RSN if you think you have a case. jps (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

NPOV and Wikipedia's voice
It is fine for us to report what people have said about this incident. It is fine to share those reports as the attributed opinions of those people. It is absolutely unacceptable to claim the existence of any object or apparition in Wikipedia's voice. That is the essence of WP:NPOV. Likewise, we should not, in Wikipedia's voice, claim that there was no object. So I have gone through and patiently tried to fix the wording which was heavily skewed towards the POV that this incident was the record of an actual object traveling in the way described by the pilots and technicians who described the situation. Here is a record of the clean-up. I strongly recommend any interested editors here familiarize themselves with WP:FRINGE. It is not okay to use Wikipedia to promote the fringe view that UFOs represent a phenomena that requires any sort of extravagant explanation beyond the ones that are normally provided. jps (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody is doing so. You are not reading the discussions and the edits. UFO means Unidentified Flying Object NOT aliens. You want to change it to UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) to include other causes? Fine. But reverting blindly like this and removing reputable sources is unacceptable. I just reverted as discussed you edits. Contrary to your MO I have read each of your contribution and maintained several. i hope you appreciate my efforts. Let's move forward to improve the page. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * P.s. I apologise but using the visual editor I missed the edit description box or I would have also specified the partial revert better there.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody is doing so. As the diff above shows, the wording was definitely doing so. I have now cleaned it up. I also added the paragraph from SI with a few cosmetic changes. We can certainly move forward from here! But I will not abide by claims that "UAP", or whatever you want to call them, are physical objects unless and until we get some fantastic sources that can allow us to WP:ASSERT as much. Wording matters. jps (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The changes introduced by that diff make the article harder to understand and inaccurate. You seem to be convinced that all instances of the word "object" should be removed from the description of those events on a (IMHO) misguided effort to maintain the article "neutral". This goes against all reporting of the event where the encounters are clearly described as being with an "UFO" (unidentified flying OBJECT) and with a physical object with multiple physical characteristics (multiple radar returns, sonar return, multiple eyewitness reports, a describable shape, effects on the surrounding environment, etc.). Some skeptical views exist (the minority and mostly before most of the information was released) and should be taken into account but the overwhelming reporting from major sources and the witness reports all describe the encounters as "objects" and so should Wikipedia --Gtoffoletto (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * UFOs, crucially, are not always found to be objects upon identification. Until it is confirmed that what was seen was an object, it is not neutral to assert that it was an object in Wikipedia's voice. Radar and sonar returns can be wrong, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, and their descriptions and claims of effects on surrounding environments are not strong enough evidence that what was seen was an object given WP:REDFLAG. Until there is, say, a mainstream acknowledgement that these actually are "objects", we're going to have to avoid claiming that they are. Incidentally, the Navy calls it a "phenomenon" rather than an object perhaps in deference to this issue. jps (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree the explanation could be that those were not "objects" and, until official confirmation, that possibility should be taken into account. But when reporting the description of the events by witnesses their version of the events must be reported in accordance with sources or the event is not described accurately. The text should clearly state the source of the statements. E.g. "the pilots report seeing 2 flying objects". Wiki's voice ISN'T saying that the UFO was indeed an object. The witness is stating that. And changing it to "the pilots report seeing something" is WP:VAGUE and misleading (and I would argue WP:ADVOCACY). --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If that they believe they perceived an object is attributed as their claim without undue insistence, because a reliable source also mentions it in those terms, then this should be fine I think (including via short quotes if necessary)... Advocacy would be to uncritically present it, especially in Wikipedia's voice.  Consider the difference between an article about a publicized drone attack and one about a UFO (unidentified) sighting, for instance; in the first case, although conspiracy theory websites could be dismissed and the article be based on a number of reliable sources and government body statements, in this case there's far more unreliable speculation and avoiding bad sources means avoiding most of the literature about it: stuck with the small parts available in reliable sources, none of which unambiguously confirm anything, for many reasons.  If it suddenly became very clear, the article would also likely be renamed, with the current title kept as a historical redirect.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding: if, for instance, it was suddenly officially confirmed by multiple authoritative sources to be a known hypersonic vehicle like Avangard or whatever. In which case this article could even become a redirect to that article, with the incident covered there.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. I think we agree reporting the witness' claims (properly sourced) is fine. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The answer seemed very short so I'm not sure that we agree yet: If that they believe they perceived an object is attributed as their claim without undue insistence, because a reliable source also mentions it in those terms, then this should be fine I think (including via short quotes if necessary)... doesn't mean "has observed an object" but means "claims to have observed an object" (or variants like "reported observing an alledged object", or alternatively, using a quote like reported: "... object ...", etc). — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. I confirm again we agree :) --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)