Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Folklore Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Aviation / National / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	National militaries task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Paranormal Low‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

NewsNation

Large sections of this article are sourced to NewsNation which has a sketchy history when it comes to sensationalism and UFO reporting. Are there any opinions about our continued use of this source? Chetsford (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd rather cut down on the stuff that's only sourced to them. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

NewsNation is cited about 8 times, their coverage was heavily sensationalized, as were most media at the time. Now that the "biggest story of all time" editing frenzy has died off, it is appropriate that we cut down the amount of lavish detail given to Grusch's every utterance. For example, there is a BBC interview that is copypasted almost whole into the reference section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this article is ready for pruning, starting with the WP:SENSATIONAL material. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC) I've started the process, but work calls... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that we summarize in the lede much of the reliably sourced content in the article body, using a sentence along the lines of: "As of 2024 no evidence supporting Grusch's UFO claims has been presented." Comments? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That seems good to me! Chetsford (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I would remove the sentence about the 2023 USHCOA hearing from the lead. It was put in by those who hoped it would be an earth shattering "disclosure" moment, but nothing came of it, so it's just another detail in Grusch's story and not deserving of any lead weight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

"those who hoped it would be an earth shattering "disclosure" moment"

A classic straw man argument.

I.e., reading too much into something, yielding something that can be easily ridiculed.

Like "the "biggest story of all time" editing frenzy" above.

As to the photo and its accompanying sentence, I suggest leaving them as is.

The photo illustrates that at least some prominent people thought Grusch was worth listening to. KHarbaugh (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, Grusch's USHCOA hearing appearance was in both the first and last sentence of the lead, then again in the photo caption, then detailed in the body of the article. I got the impression somebody was a little overexcited about it. In any case, it's been trimmed back to a more appropriate weight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

a more appropriate weight Precisely this, and not just concerning the 2023 hearing. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, see what you think. There is an image caption also mentioning the hearing in the lead but I left it in. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Reference for the statement "As of 2025 no evidence supporting Grusch's UFO claims has been presented."?

I can't seem to find a reference supporting this statement (in the article or online): "As of 2025 no evidence supporting Grusch's UFO claims has been presented." Has anyone got a source for this? Thanks. Opok2021 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like we're missing RS from the article for this claim. Here are a few that may be appropriate, but it would probably require we strike "as of 2025":

"Is the Government Concealing UFO Craft and Dead Extraterrestrials?". bu.edu. Boston University. Retrieved January 9, 2025.
"But one can state objectively that his claims are two steps removed from being Earth-shattering: not only has he not shared any verifiable evidence—photographs, artifacts, or any other manner of data—but he also has not personally seen or touched any of the objects he references."
"University of Chicago expert: no evidence to claims U.S. recovered "nonhuman" remains from UFOs". CBS News. July 27, 2023. Retrieved January 9, 2025.
"History tells us that we have to start from the stance of default, robust skepticism. We need not just extraordinary evidence, but just any evidence, sufficient evidence, to believe these claims; and that has not been provided yet," said space historian Jordan Bimm, a postdoctoral research fellow at University of Chicago's Institute on the Formation of Knowledge.
Gabbatt, Adam (June 9, 2023). "A whistleblower claims the US has alien vehicles. But where's the proof?". The Guardian. Retrieved January 5, 2024.
“He has not presented anything like the evidence that we would expect to believe something as extraordinary as this,” said Garrett Graff, a journalist and historian whose upcoming book UFO: The Inside Story of the US Government’s Search for Alien Life Here – and Out There will be published in October.

Chetsford (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Has anyone got a source for this? By reading the 'Responses from relevant experts" section and the citations therein (for example, the references currently numbered 20 and 25), I believe you will find sources fully supporting that statement. @Chetsford: Thanks for those references. It isn't at all clear to me why it would probably require we strike "as of 2025", but I have no problem removing those three words from the summary statement. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I only mentioned that since we don't have any references dated 2025 in the article (and insofar as I'm aware none exist as Grusch appears to have moved onto other things). But I'm not partial one way or the other. Chetsford (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I see. But I now like the idea of removing the date indicator, if for no other reason than a preference for brevity. Thanks again. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Whaddya think about adding "and experts including Adam Frank, Seth Shostak, and Sean Carroll have generally dismissed them" or something like that to the end of it? Just a thought. Chetsford (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I am fine with that, as all three are explicitly quoted in the article. Based upon their statements I believe the word "generally" can be omitted. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I added what I think is a very good Journal of Science Communication (JCOM) article to the relevant expert section, let me know if I've made any errors with pub status or journal cite. Also closed up the spacing of the sentence in the lead, it's entirely factual so I believe it doesn't need any dramatic emphasis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fine to call out Frank, Shostak, and Carroll in the lead, although we have no need to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in this case, since it is clear from the JCOM article that they reflect the majority expert view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll check the new source later, and the new material reads well to me. I thought that explicit identifications in the lede statement might circumvent a certain type of blow-back, but you are correct about them being unnecessary. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, great points. Chetsford (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

"a decorated Afghanistan combat veteran"

The word "decorated" is correctly cited to The Independent, though, I feel this may still be a case of MOS:FLOWERY language. From this photo, it appears Grusch's highest decoration is the Bronze Star . I don't want to detract from that achievement, however, the frequency and volume of Bronze Stars awarded has been the subject of commentary and I would be concerned that the average reader might infer "decorated" to mean he had received a rarified award like the Medal of Honor or Silver Star or something. I suggest we reconsider this word purely for sake of reader comprehension. It might be more appropriate to use if this were a BLP about Grusch himself rather than an article in which he's incidentally mentioned. Chetsford (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it is flowery. I also have my doubts about "combat". DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's problematic. We have multiple RS that use the phrase "combat veteran" with no further details. The picture of his ribbon rack doesn't include (as far as I can tell, it's a small image) either the Purple Heart or the Combat Action Medal. The resume he submitted to Congress doesn't indicate posting to any combat units. None of that, of course, precludes the possibility he was involved in combat at some point. If I were to take a guess, I would guess the sources probably meant "combat zone veteran"? This seems like something where there's a likelihood of an error in the RS but coming to such a conclusion would be OR. Chetsford (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: