Talk:Pentagon UFO videos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Note: Previous discussion is here: Talk:USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents. That article was merged to here, but not the talk page.

Including references to aviator's accounts and scientific analyses of the videos[edit]

The article is missing critical information on the Navy cases, and it misses important references to understand them.

First, additional information about the Gimbal encounter, by Lt. Ryan Graves, who was in the squadron that filmed the video. He saw the classified tapes on carrier in the debrief room, along with their crew and officers: https://ryangraves.substack.com/p/gimbal

It provides critical context to understand the event, and in particular the observation of an anomalous trajectory on radar, at relatively close range. This piece of information undermines speculation by debunkers (cited in this article) that the object was a distant plane or a mere optical illusion.

There is a scientific paper addressing this and supporting aviator's accounts, it should be cited too (full disclosure, I'm the first author): https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08773

Critical context and more general information about the Roosevelt events can also be found in this presentation given at AIAA by Ryan Graves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R34a9_sRKQ

I can help editing the page but before I spend time doing it, I want to make sure this won't be deleted.

There are a lot of edits needed to make this page a fair/unbiased representation of what is publicly known about these cases (GoFast and FLIR1/Nimitz, too). TheCholla (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but we cannot use self published materials such as substack blogs, arxiv prepints, or youtube videos as sources. See WP:RS for details. Please also be aware that Wikipedia is not designed to be 'fair/unbiased', (see WP:GEVAL). It is designed to match the tone of the mainstream sources. When mainstream science and media strike a skeptical tone, so too will Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this link, for example, https://www.cnet.com/culture/internet/ufo-navy-airplane-video-skeptics-weigh-in-to-the-stars/ a better source than an explanation of the case by one of the military witness?
In that case, and if it can only be mainstream media links, this should be cited:
https://thehill.com/opinion/3488406-ufo-sleuths-make-extraordinary-discoveries-congress-should-take-note/
There are more.
And I'm not sure that the tone of the mainstream media is skeptical as far as the unidentified character of these videos. It's about explaining why they are still considered unidentified by the Department of Defense, i.e. describing the state of analyses on what's going on in these videos, and their context. TheCholla (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do read WP:RS, it will tell you that we cannot use opinion articles such as you cited above for factual claims. - MrOllie (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can remove this one I guess, it's an opinion piece (citation 43 in the article).
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/30/opinion/ufo-sightings-report.html
I will have to look but I'm sure there are more opinion pieces in there. TheCholla (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an attributed statement of opinion, not a factual claim. MrOllie (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hill article can then be cited as a statement of opinion that they still are open questions around the video, in particular due to aviator's accounts that match scientific analyses of the videos. This is a fair position given the status of the videos (still unidentified, and open to public analyses).
It has at least as much value as this opinion piece by Adam Frank who is not a UAP analyst and expert about the US military (unlike the author of the Hill article who is a former analyst for the Department of Defense). TheCholla (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you can try to get consensus for it, but I doubt the opinion of a former State department analyst (it does seem he worked for State rather than DoD) is going to be considered worth covering, not in comparison to an award winning science communicator / astrophysicist like Adam Frank. MrOllie (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does Adam Frank know about UAPs, FLIR footages, and the Pentagon UFO videos?
This is an extreme position to refuse any mention of witness accounts by the Navy aviators. It's entirely part of the story. I will go ahead and edit the section on "Potential explanations". TheCholla (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extreme position to refuse any mention of witness accounts by the Navy aviators No one has said that. But we must have proper secondary WP:RS for those accounts. MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explain me how this isn't a proper source: https://thedebrief.org/devices-of-unknown-origin-part-ii-interlopers-over-the-atlantic-ryan-graves/
It includes the recollection of the Roosevelt event by one of the Navy pilots who was a primary witness. It keeps being removed, being called "rubbish sourcing and fringey".
In the page, similar recollections by Fravor and Underwood are provided. Why not this one?
I've also tried to mention Graves appearance on Rogan, it got removed too, but I note this isn't a problem on other pages (for example, Mick West's page, his appearance on Rogan is mentioned, with a link to it). TheCholla (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We go back-and-forth about whether The Debrief is a good source for anything that hasn't been noticed by other. At best, they are sympathetic to unadorned credulity about UFOs. At worst, this might be an example of clickbait grifting. It's not in our power to make that declaration, but given the criticism of the site leveled in reliable sources, we need to be careful when using it as a source. Typically, we have done so only when the point being made has been noted by others (for example, when they interviewed Grusch and other media outlets reported on their interview). As far as Joe Rogan is concerned, I'd be fine with excising all links to that podcast throughout Wikipedia, but others have other ideas about what should or shoudn't be included. We're at this page, so I'll argue that at this page it shouldn't be included. If you want to remove it from Mick West's page, I won't complain, but I can't guarantee that there won't be someone else with an argument for why it should be included. jps (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article, you'll see it's simply about Ryan Graves telling the story behind the Roosevelt events. Knowing about this is required to have an informed opinion on the Gimbal video. Truth and transparency is ok. TheCholla (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it. It is quite a bit more than a straightforward narrative. Graves has a particular perspective and makes claims that are curious on the face of it, but The Debrief has a reputation for interviewing UFO claimants in a fashion that doesn't ask them specific questions about how they come to determinations. In other instances, we have found extraordinary claims that The Debrief has allowed to be presented unadorned in their publication to such an extent that we normally require contextualization by a third party before including anything that is published in The Debrief from showing up as content here. jps (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article, you'll see it's simply about Ryan Graves telling the story behind the Roosevelt events.
That's his opinion about the events. We'd prefer a reliable independent source instead.
Truth and transparency
See WP:TRUTH. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that a declassified summary of the "Gimbal" UAP incident given to the Senate Armed Services Committee by the F/A-18 weapon system officer who recorded the video should be included for context and completeness.
https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/navy/DON-NAVY-2022-001613.pdf Flight707 (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely cannot use anything from there. MrOllie (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This is literally on the page:
FOI request by The Black Vault
The Black Vault, a government transparency site that had previously released UAP material, made a Freedom of Information request of the Government for the release of more video footage, filed to the US Navy in April 2020. Some two years later, the government confirmed it had more footage, but refused to release it, citing concerns for national security. Deputy director of the Department of the Navy's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) program, Gregory Cason, stated in the response: "The release of this information will harm national security as it may provide adversaries valuable information regarding Department of Defense/Navy operations, vulnerabilities, and/or capabilities." Flight707 (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have no way to verify that the documents haven't been altered or originated where the site owner says they came from. This is more or less the common fault with all self published sites. This site in particular has been brought up several times at WP:RSN for discussion. The community here doesn't think it is usable. MrOllie (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. That same report to Congress from the naval aviator who filmed the "Gimbal" UAP video is here.
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/CaseFiles/UAP%20INFO/UAP%20DOCUMENTS/RF%20Reports%20Redacted%20(202301).pdf Flight707 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we need secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. A study published on the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics' Aerospace Research Central database should surely qualify.
https://arc.aiaa.org/ Flight707 (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than posting links and asking about each one, it would save time to read WP:RS. If you have questions about sourcing policy, you can ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:RSN. MrOllie (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. This would certainly comply with the sourcing policy.
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2023-4101 Flight707 (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selfpublished, again. Selfpub writing that has been indexed somewhere is still selfpub. And judging by the byline, TheCholla has a conflict of interest in citing the Hill opinion piece they suggested above. MrOllie (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published? It's the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (a credible source per Wikipedia's guidelines) publishing scientific work by two individual researchers. Flight707 (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a conference presentation. No editorial process, no fact checking, no peer-review, etc. Doesn't meet WP:RS. Can you explain what your relationship is to the authors and/or to TheCholla? MrOllie (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Then I will have to post this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7514271/ Flight707 (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Been brought up before, should be in the talk page archives. See WP:MDPI, it's a predatory publisher. MrOllie (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I asked you a question: Can you explain what your relationship is to the authors of your AIAA link and/or to TheCholla? MrOllie (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie Your information is out of date, as that was successfully appealed in 2015. There should be no issue including this paper. MatthewM (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My information is current. In the case you're referring to, they pestered the guy's employer until they were removed from his list. And they've had more problems and ended up on more lists since then. MrOllie (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is astounding that you would consider Syfy.com and an opinion writer for Vice (Matthew Gault) more "reliable" than primary source documents from the U.S. government or scientific presentations vetted and approved by the world's premier aerospace engineering society (or, for that matter, a former State Department national security analyst and Obama administration appointee at the Department of Defense who has appeared multiple times on CNN and other news outlets to discuss the UAP topic). Flight707 (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TERTIARY and WP:RGW. Get some independent, reliable, third-party sources to explain the importance of the primary sources you want to see included and Wikipedia will describe the situation. Until then, our hands are tied by WP:NOR rules which prevent us from presenting novel synthesis of primary sources. jps (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the conflict of interest, but I have removed the reference to the Hill in a new edit of "Potential explanations". The edit simply mention R. Graves' description of the encounter, and Mick West's explanation for it. TheCholla (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain. The Project Sign page, for example, prominently features a direct link to a government document (primary source). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Sign
Moreover, the primary source U.S. Government document in question here is placed into context by two independent researchers (one of whom is a climate scientist at the University of California, the other a former State Department national security analyst and ex-Obama administration appointee at the Department of Defense) in a scientific paper selected for presentation by the premier aerospace engineering society in the world.
How is any of this less reliable than citing syfy.com or a non-expert opinion writer (Matthew Gault) on this page? 198.27.251.127 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith, I will try to answer your queries.
  1. While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here, I can say that minimally, Project Sign has been identified by lots of third-parties as a notable touchstone in the history of UFO lore. Reference to it as a primary source should be done only inasmuch as third-party, independent sources have contextualized it. We may fall short of this goal, but that is the hope.
  2. As far as I can tell, Yannick Peings has not published anything of note on the subject that has been properly reviewed. It looks like he may have stopped publishing in the area entirely if his CV is to be believed. Seeing as how we've had a litany of WP:FRINGE beliefs promulgated by otherwise mainstream academics who use their affiliations and credentials to launder credibility, we really need acknowledgement of expertise by third-parties prior to considering anyone truly independent. Same goes for Marik Von Rennenkampff who, as far as I can tell, has no particular expertise or attestation to skills at UFO identifications and is not an academic in any case... just a staff at Stanford's Office of Ethics and Compliance. Conference proceedings, I would argue, simply cannot be used as anything approaching the "reliably sourced notice" Wikipedia requires to describe a primary source document.
  3. In contrast, the publications by journalists who are commenting specifically on the journalistic process as Gault is doing, are entirely relevant and worthy of inclusion. Gault is talking about a known phenomenon (not just recognized by him) of media sensationalism in UFOs. This is a far different than someone attempting to provide cover for plausibility of claimed empirical geewiz moments.
jps (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the justification for suppressing quotes by Ryan Graves, who described the context surrounding the Gimbal encounter in a few articles and podcasts? Similar quotes are provided in the page for the FLIR1 video (Underwood). TheCholla (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What quotes do you want included in particular? Quotes that were commented on and contextualized by reliable third parties can possibly be included. If they're just from podcasts, I'm not sure that'd cut it. jps (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one from this article:
https://thedebrief.org/devices-of-unknown-origin-part-ii-interlopers-over-the-atlantic-ryan-graves/
“The wedge formation was flying, let’s call it north, then they turned their return radius right into the other direction, which is how aircraft turn. We have to bite into the air. So they turn in the other direction and keep going. Meanwhile, the ‘Gimbal’ object that was following behind them suddenly stopped and waited for the wedge formation to pass. Then it tilted up like you can see in the clip, and that’s when my video cut out, but it just kept following the other five or six, doing like a racetrack pattern”
It helps understanding what's behind the video. It's not different from Underwood's quote extracted from Corbell's interview, or from citation 9 (New York Magazine). TheCholla (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has any source other than The Debrief discussed this quote? I would be especially keen to see it contextualized by sources that are more mainstream than The Debrief which sometimes may be engaging in sensationalism. jps (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An established magazine like New York Magazine is indeed quite different from an ethusiast group blog like The Debrief. MrOllie (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An established magazine (the New Yorker) "contextualized" the scientific paper noted above as "a detailed thirty-page analysis." As such, it should be included in this conversation.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/the-enticing-mysteries-of-ufo-photography Flight707 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off-handed mention in a parenthetical isn't exactly "contextualized". We would want something more than mere notice of a "debunking of debunking". If the New Yorker had actually spent any time with any of the claims on the 30-page paper, maybe you'd have a point, but it looks like it was just a touchstone, unfortunately. No way for us to actually talk about the content included therein. Too bad. jps (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is truly astounding that individuals you feel that a nuanced, balanced, scientifically/geometrically-verifiable assessment is more "reliable" than syfy.com or non-experts like Matthew Gault and Mick West. The bias is strong here. Flight707 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bias is strong here.
Right back atcha. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia is strictly neutral in style, the substance is necessarily tied to judgements about the reliability of sources. Unfortunately for those who want to see UFOs "habilitated", the WP:MAINSTREAM null hypothesis remains the most consistently advocated by sanguine sources. This in spite of the media junket and success in getting certain stories in The New York Times and testimonies before Congressional Committees. We are stuck, like it or lump it, with toeing the line of paying most attention to the majority reports. And the majority reports have it that bloviation over UFO claims being evidence of extraterrestrial life are so WP:FRINGE as to require careful contextualization whenever they are discussed. WP:YWAB may be worth considering. jps (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not about claiming evidences of extraterrestrial, it's about giving an ojective assessment of the unidentified nature of the videos. It's not a page about aliens but a page about "The Pentagon UFO videos". Most references cited are opinions articles that almost exclusively link to Mick West theories (Youtube videos). It's a shame frankly.
TheCholla (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
unidentified nature - Ah, I see. If Mick West identifies them, they stay unidentified for some reason. Or maybe they did become identified, but then ufologists un-identified them again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have now locked the page, this won't be unnoticed (emphasis mine). Firstly, editor jps did not "lock" the page. Secondly, the second part of that statement reads very much like some sort of threat. Please strike that comment and read WP:PA. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment edited to remove any false impression of personal attack. TheCholla (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for future reference: It's considered a bad idea to remove or substantially change comments after they've been replied to. Next time, strike through the text you wish to withdraw. That way the context remains, but we also know you've retracted the statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not about claiming evidences of extraterrestrial, it's about giving an ojective assessment of the unidentified nature of the videos. It's not a page about aliens but a page about "The Pentagon UFO videos". Most references cited are opinions articles that almost exclusively link to Mick West theories (Youtube videos). It's a shame frankly. You might try to think about why it is that we don't find this argument convincing. Would this be a subject at all if not for the extraterrestrial murmurings? I doubt it. Every reliable source we have on this subject mentions this as the reason it's so spicy. We would be shirking our editorial responsibility if we did not admit that this is why there is any interest at all in such. But the bigger question here is what is an "objective assessment of the unidentified nature of the videos"? One objective assessment might be: how it's very difficult to conduct any analysis whatsoever on these artifacts given the lack of metadata and lack of other key pieces of information that would help in assessing these clips. The claim that this page references "opinions articles that almost exclusively link to Mick West theories (Youtube videos)" is a bit of a chicken-and-egg conundrum here. We have the most reliable sources on this page which seem prone to often include reference to Mick West's metabunk work. This is because these sources, all of which rise to levels of reliability that exceed many of the others suggested, consider that work to be worthy of discussing. I don't know why and how it was Mick West who ended up in this role. But Wikipedia is not here to right those wrongs. This is what the reliable sources have and, yes, it is "unfair" to the extent that the sources which are supposedly opposed to Mick West are not covered in as much care or depth by reliable sources. Them's the breaks. If you don't like that this is how the environment of reliable sources looks, the thing to do is go out and encourage the creation of reliable sources that make your point. Then we will include those reliable sources here. jps (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing digression by IP, now blocked for 1 week. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let's be real, if effort were put in to get this information in credible sources, you'd declare those sources no longer credible. See: The Debrief, which you allow to be cited in this article, but arbitrarily decide it's not reliable in documenting statements from a fighter pilot present for the event. 217.180.214.108 (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be real: a group of new accounts and this IP all showed up to push a UFO-promoting agenda at the same time. We must've got linked somewhere again. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How very astute of you, and a nice diversion from the topic at hand. 217.180.214.108 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is a concerted POV-push to insert pro-UFO content into the article. The diversion is your insinuation that people are arbitrary with regard to sourcing, just because you aren't getting your way. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TIL that eye-witness testimony is "pro-UFO content". You sure have trouble maintaining NPOV. The Debrief is literally cited in this very Wikipedia article, yet when they publish eye-witness testimony from a fighter pilot who saw the event, it's somehow not reliable. That logic does not come from a position of good faith. You are ~~tediously~~Tendentiously disputing the reliability of apparently good sources. 217.180.214.108 (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. We include discussion of it only when reliable third-party sources say it is worth noting. We include material from The Debrief when third-party sources mention that material. Not until then. jps (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We include material from The Debrief when third-party sources mention that material. Not until then."
Assuming good faith from you, can you explain to me why those third-party sources are not simply used as the citation instead of The Debrief in those cases? I.e. if it's substantiated elsewhere in reliable sources, and The Debrief is not deemed reliable, why not use the sources that have been deemed reliable?
Without understanding the logic behind the seemingly illogical inconsistency in citation of The Debrief, this truly feels to me like a case of tenditiously disputing the reliability of apparently good sources. I genuinely hope you can provide me with a good reason and restore my faith in the process. 217.180.214.108 (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, in these scenarios we can treat the thing published in The Debrief as a prominent WP:PRIMARY source. It'd be much the same as if we linked to a statement made by Answers in Genesis because the statement was noticed by, say, Bill Nye the Science Guy. jps (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm having trouble understanding. Does this mean an article from The Debrief itself must be directly mentioned or linked by credibly third-party sources before we can cite it? Or is it sufficient for The Debrief to be considered reliable if it publishes information that is also reported by other reputable outlets, thereby indirectly establishing its credibility? 217.180.214.108 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean an article from The Debrief itself must be directly mentioned or linked by credibly third-party sources before we can cite it? I would say so, yes. Or is it sufficient for The Debrief to be considered reliable if it publishes information that is also reported by other reputable outlets, thereby indirectly establishing its credibility? I think I have seen an article or two which has obviously included material that looked like it was based off of something published in The Debrief and, for example, according to the publication dates it seemed that The Debrief likely had priority. Even so, in those cases, I probably wouldn't link to The Debrief because it's not clear what the provenance actually is. It's possible that a source talked to both outlets, for example. But that's much less clear a determination, for sure. jps (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be even clearer, I think The Debrief is likely an accurate account of certain statements, beliefs, and ideas. I have seen no reason to question its accuracy or fealty to the quotations and statements it is publishing. But, at the same time, it is not reliable for determining the WP:PROMINENCE of those statements. WP:IINFO is the key here--at least that is how I see it. The Debrief seems to be banking on treating UFO-believers with a kind of kid glove treatment that I guess they hope will generate them more eyeball revenue. Either that or one of the editors is a true believer. Either way, it's editorial slant when it comes to UFOs is unmistakeable and, therefore, one that has to be approached with great care according to Wikipedia's standards. jps (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or one of the editors is a true believer. - It's that one. One of the founders is a self-described 'UAP researcher' MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You pseudoskeptics sure love your charged language. True believers, crackpots, grifters -- all applied to serious people who are highly cleared and hold or have held positions of power in the U.S. government relevant to the area they're speaking on. It's very poor Wikiquette. Your editorial slant when it comes to UFOs is unmistakable. 217.180.214.108 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. There's a whole page about it, see Yes, we are biased. MrOllie (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very glad you can acknowledge that you're biased against toward pseudoskepticism. 217.180.214.108 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you find it ironic that you used charged language ("you pseudoskeptics") to criticize people for using charged language? No? Okay. jps (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used charged language after he doubled down on his poor Wikiquette. Go admonish yourself for referring to people as "true believers", which is clearly intended as an insult. 217.180.214.108 (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's quite obviously a rhetorical tool to employ the same tactic he's using. It's not "ironic". 217.180.214.108 (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be real, if effort were put in to get this information in credible sources, you'd declare those sources no longer credible. It is true that sometimes erstwhile credible sources become deprecated after engaging in shoddy reporting. This is why it is so important that you get the information into credible sources in an honest, well-vetted, and scrutinized fashion. Good luck! jps (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN and Politico credible sources? Because they have reported information that Graves and his squadron encountered unidentified objects, with anomalous maneuvers, in 2014/2015. It's all over the mainstream media in fact, and this represents the context around the Roosevelt events. This is completely absent from the page. They could be drones, radar errors, space visitors, we don't know. But that's what has been reported in the mainstream media.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings-navy-pilots.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/17/ufo-sightings-navy-ryan-graves/
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2023/03/01/ufo-navy-ryan-graves-camerota-contd-cnt-vpx.cnn
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/28/ufo-uap-navy-intelligence-00084537
https://thedebrief.org/devices-of-unknown-origin-part-ii-interlopers-over-the-atlantic-ryan-graves/ is simply the most comprehensive one in which Graves addresses GIMBAL in more details. TheCholla (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are sources that definitely show that this subject is worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. The accuracy and care of vetting in these various articles has been called into question by other sources, and we have therefore taken a fairly conservative approach about what to include and what to exclude. It hasn't been easy. You can read lots of things in the archive about how we figured out what we could include and what we couldn't. jps (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I leave this space (I give up), I think you should correct references 43 and 44. They are used to refer to "instrument or software malfunction, anomaly or artifact", but none of them discuss this. Only at the end of source 44 there is mention of what could fall under "interpretive error". Quote 43 should be removed, quote 44 should be moved after "interpretive error". Also quote 44 is wrong, it lists the wrong author (Joe Nickell is the author of the article). Have fun. TheCholla (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These pseudoskeptics sure did a shit job on this article. 217.180.214.108 (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up on the sourcing. I have included a more comprehensive source and removed the Space.com. Joe Nickell deserves proper credit, for sure. jps (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral language and slant[edit]

The article seems to violate policy WP:NPOV for many reasons including tone.

Long ago I tried to correct at least the worst bias and omissions of the article because I think Wikipedia should be high-quality and reliable even when it comes to difficult subjects such as those associated with lots of pseudoscience etc.

One prime example of that is the wording and, as is typical in the context of such incidents, extraordinary speculations of alien spacecraft in the lead. I tried to change that in the edit linked above (see that for more examples) and when that was reverted by editors who are heavily involved in this particular subject and related subjects, I tried to add at least a few hatnotes and tags to caution the reader about potential issues with the article and that wording here. That was also reverted.

Now it seems like after several years, there was one editor – albeit a new user – who also saw that same issue with the lead wording and tried to correct the non-neutral tone and unjustified+unsourced derogative/subjective-tone dismissal, @GalacticGardener: here. I just want express support for his edit and his concerns and highlight again that this article is of very low quality and heavily biased.

Some of the recent edits don't seem to be of good quality so that doesn't mean I think they were all good, for example the sourcing wasn't good when much better WP:RS are available for many of these and other things. Nevertheless, TheCholla seems to be improving his/her prior edits and please consider Are the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN and Politico credible sources?. And no, WP:NPOV does not give you permission you to omit in non-neutrally slant articles just because there is WP:FRINGE – see WP:FRIND. I worry about Wikipedia a lot when I see articles in a state as this one or deletion of well-sourced non-substituted notable articles like this.

Instead of reverting or editing anything here, please just consider this elaboration of concerns about the article and that we're meant to adhere to policies and be reliable and neutral, respecting WP:RS – even when it comes to UFOs. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't backslide, my guy. I warned that you could be banned from this topic back in 2022 for WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY. There is a reason that article you wrote was removed from Wikipedia. If you read the archives and do not get an answer to your question, then I suggest that maybe you haven't quite digested how Wikipedia operates when it comes to fringe topics. jps (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Proto, I had meant to reply to your earlier but jps beat me to it.
I want you to know, I'm with you in spirit / in principle / in theory. Our articles should be NPOV about Fringe theories, we shouldn't put our fingers on the scales. We are not "Snopes"-pedia, we don't exist to be hostile to extraordinary claims, especially not those that are based in faith, which certainly includes some UFO beliefs (though of course this particular article isn't about faith-based views).
But the devil is in the details. I'm completely with you when you talk about theory and ideals, but you don't actually cite any proposed changes that I can support.
For the past 80 years, strange sightings have led to "extraordinary speculations of alien spacecraft", that's not a biased statement,it's just true.
You wrote an article that got deleted. it may be FULL of really good stuff that we should incorporate, but it IS a POVFORK, no doubt. You actually should considered yourself very "welcomed", your article got far far more Keeps than I would ever have imagined given its NPOV issues. You only presented one side -- Ya can't do that!
Finally, I don't think you can actually be topic-banned just for stating a single sincere opinion on a talk page. Until you understand why your article was deleted, maybe stick to the talk pages on the relevant articles, but please don't be afraid to post suggestions, there's always room for improvement and good ideas can come from anywhere.
I'm a little surprised we don't have a dedicated article on Nimitz yet, there's certainly enough material out there to sustain one. My expertise is 1947-1952, but I think Nimitz is probably the most famous alleged UFO sighting ever. Meanwhile, can anyone explain what is supposedly anomalous about GOFAST? Isn't that exactly what a cruise missile video would look like?
Suffice to say, there's probably room for improvement here, and one of our pillars is that ANYONE can contribute. We're not going to "topic ban" you for proposing changes in good faith, but at the same time, jps isn't wrong -- until you can see why the article you wrote got deleted, you don't understand NPOV. Feoffer (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cited two concrete changes but maybe your emphasis was on "that I can support", if that was the case I'd be more interested in roughly why.
For the past 80 years… you left out half of the sentence and didn't seem to have read my concern is with dismissive tone etc.
but it IS a POVFORK No it's about a major subject of research just like there is Cancer research and Research about Wikipedia. I notably wrote "non-substituted"; wouldn't care that much if it was incorporated into another article. The whole article and its deletion should probably be seen in the context of the substantial WP:NPOV violation of the ufology article which doesn't inform about a whole lot of well-sourced notable subjects and so on and may be a bit too broad to include more narrow information. And no, I didn't only present one side, provably false. Just go to the archived article and read the tons of criticisms included there and I encouraged people to add more if there's even more.
Yes, I don't think so either but on the other hand WP policies don't seem to be very adhered to when it comes to this subject. I don't have the time and breath to futily try to improve UFO-related articles on my own right now and if now jps brings up a topic-ban just for stating something on the talk page and supporting a small overdue edit there, then that does one thing: prove how absurdly bizarre things have become here. WP policies and pillars relate to all subjects and editors.
Also surprised about that on the one hand, on the other hand with the neutrality of articles as low as here, it's not really that surprising. a) UAP/UFOs are a notable research subject and b) 'UFOs as a research subject' is a major subject of reliable sources. That's what the article was about and both are not really covered within the much less-narrow Ufology. No need to link any WP:RS here since you can just go to the archived article and find tons of them but here is one two. Won't discuss the other article any further since I only mentioned it and 95% of my post was about concerns & recent changes to this article. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't get defensive; You may not be able to see it but I was actually reaching out to you with a huge olive branch to you and trying to make you feel welcome. That didn't work out, so I'll make myself scarce, lol. Please feel free to suggest concrete changes on relevant talk pages in future -- wiki editing is like brainstorming, good ideas can come from anywhere, and we welcome them. Feoffer (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments aren't particularly convincing because the sources you are suggesting are indicating some sort of broad and notable research subject look to me like special pleading. To make matters worse, this sort of treatment is basically not something we find for any other subjects in Wikipedia. Like where is our article on Academic studies of botany? An article on that would be absurd. The place to discuss such things would be the article on botany. Likewise, if you want to discuss academic research on UFOs, ufology is an article that could use some clean-up and care. Happy to help with that task, but understand that the marginalization of this subject is necessarily going to take front and center. I know that bugs you, but we are here to report how it is and not right great wrongs. jps (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything allegedly-unknown about GoFast?[edit]

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, I'm not up to speed on this material. Has anyone ever alleged anything even theoretically inexplicable about GoFast? IF not, can we get that into the article somehow? Feoffer (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1], [2], [3] Enjoy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos&oldid=1216349395"