Talk:Pentagon UFO videos/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pseudoskepticism And Good Faith Edits

An original reliable source of an edit was a New York Times article titled “US govt finds no evidence that aerial sightings were alien spacecraft” no sarcasm about flying spaghetti creatures need apply (see example below). The NYT article addresses several times the publics concern about the reports possible ‘Other’ category dealing with possible alien intelligence by the participants who developed the study. The edit proposed seemed the most economical way to convey those thoughts expressed by a direct quote from the article. In fact the edit seemed the most rational thing to do, unless you consider the people who developed the report to be ‘fringe’.

Restored revision 1087031967 by Xxxxxxx (talk): They didn't rule out flying spaghtetti monsters, either. RV profringe again undo Tags: TwinkleUndo

The above example for a reversal of a good faith edit is a prime example of what makes Wikipedia at times appear to be a dumping ground for Pseudoskepticism as defined by Wikipedia itself.

Below is the edit itself for perusal.

The report indicated that, in most cases, the UAP recordings probably were of physical objects, and not false readings, as individual instances had been detected by different sensor mechanisms, including visual observation. The report also stated that "UAP probably lack a single explanation", and proposed five possible categories of explanation: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, US government or industry development technology, foreign craft, and an "Other" category, however “ senior officials briefed on the intelligence conceded that the very ambiguity of the findings meant the government could not definitively rule out theories that the phenomena observed by military pilots might be alien spacecraft.”

24.113.175.26 (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Cheers An Editor

That revert has nothing to do with "pseudoskepticism". The title of the NYT article is pretty clear: “US govt finds no evidence that aerial sightings were alien spacecraft”. The notion that they can't rule out alien spacecraft is given no special emphasis or weight in the majority of WP:RS on the subject, so Wikipedia follows suit. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

107.122.85.63 (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Actually the post by ‘An Editor’ shows that another editor indeed includes a ‘flying spaghetti monster‘ trivializing sarcasm attack on the good faith editor which is the hallmark of pseudoskepticism as defined by Wikipedia. The good faith edit cited is from the NYT article and should be included.107.122.85.63 (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Another Humble Opinion

Firstly, none of this involves Pseudoskepticism as defined by Wikipedia. Secondly, not all edits, even those made in good faith, are worthy of inclusion. See, for example, WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL. Really, please read those subsections of WP:NPOV, which is policy. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It was a cherry picked quote that misrepresents the overall content of the source. I stand by my revert. - MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

21:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Hello MrOllie If you consider a direct quote from the NYT as not coming from a RS… well you really are tangled up in that Flying Spaghetti Monster you worship at the alter of pseudoskepticism. Your revert has your spaghetti sauce fingerprints all over the types that gives Wikipedia the appearance of being a dumping ground for pseudoskepticism….. simply put you should drop the sarcasm as it shows you lack neutral point of view.107.122.85.63 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)A Humble Opinion

It's not a direct quote from the NYT. I suggest you read the edits you're complaining about over again. MrOllie (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie Look it up… unless you think your spaghetti monster published the NYT article

U.S. Finds No Evidence of Alien Technology in Flying Objects, but Can’t Rule It Out, Either

By Julian E. Barnes and Helene Cooper

Published June 3, 2021Updated Sept. 1, 2021 107.122.85.63 (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

107.122.85.63 As suggested above, you should (1) read the source, and (2) familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

17:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)~Hello JoJo Having already reviewed the various concerns like the nonexistent ‘fringe’ claims as the edit/quote is directly from the NYT RS is part of the publics established concerns about off world intelligence, central to the content. There is no reason to revert the edit. The edit is not fringe, the NYT report is not lacking a neutral point of view etc. The revert is based on pseudoskeptic perspective as the revert blather about spaghetti monsters clearly demonstrates,which does lack neutrality. 107.115.33.56 (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC) A Humble Opinion

Since "pseudoskeptic" is usually just short for "not as gullible as me", your contributions are not convincing.

The "can't rule it out" part is not worth mentioning because it is not logically possible to rule out alien involvement. Maybe the dog you saw on the street is an alien, you can't rule it out. Meh. Wikipedia concentrates of the interesting parts of the text from reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Hob Your‘gullible’ comments and ignorance of the actual NYT content source of proposed edit just illustrates the problem of the appearance of Wikipedia being a dumping ground for pseudoskeptics who lack a neutral point of view. The edit is a proper contribution 107.122.85.53 (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)A Humble Opinion

There is clearly a consensus againsat adding the sentence. Please drop the stick and move on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm with a pile on of comments about spaghetti monsters, alien dogs, attacks about ‘gullible’, denial of NYT content relevant to the article and a psuedoskeptic festival, yep agreed time to move on.107.122.85.61 (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)A Humble Opinion

See also addition

What is the connection of Salvatore Pais to this article? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Connection to Salvatore Pais' work

References

Enix150 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there something you're wanting to add to the article? Just posting a bunch of links doesn't help. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I added Navy UFO patents to the See also section, but it was removed. I found some references for the connection, but I wasn't sure how to word it yet. Enix150 (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

See Also sections generally shouldn't go to subsections of an article. I don't think that's a helpful addition here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've got a moment to go over this. And I don't think this is really right for this page. First off, the cites to The Drive and Daily Beast just don't fit. The former is an automotive site, and I don't see much that makes them an RS in this area. The DB ... well, that's a political punditry site, basically. And the article is absolutely sensationalist.

The Parola Analytics site is primarily focused on patents, which makes them great for analyzing the patents... but doesn't refer to the Pentagon videos at all. Adding this source to this article would be novel synthesis, jumping to the conclusion that the patents are related to this article topic.

The Forbes article is the most interesting and well-researched. However, it only barely grazes the topic if the Pentagon videos by having a photo from one of them in the header, and briefly stating: If the recent disclosure by the Pentagon of possible encounters with extraterrestrial artifacts is true, such technology may be in the U.S. Government’s possession. Talk about a low probability, high impact event! That counts as a trivial mention, in my book, meaning it also fails to apply to this article.

The biggest problem with the section I removed from the article is that it requires Wikipedia to draw a line between these patents and the Pentagon videos. All the cites here refer to the patents as "UFO tech," sometimes in a dismissive manner, but none of them actually conclude that these patents are related to the objects seen in the Pentagon videos. Which means the only way we can make these cites relevant to this article is by leading the reader to a novel conclusion, rather than just paraphrasing what the sources say. And we can't do that.

Now, that doesn't mean it's all bad. The Forbes article in particular could be a great addition to another article about experimental military technology, and the Parola cite might fit an article on "UFO" tech patents in general. But it really just doesn't fit here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Most sources that write about Pais's patents suggest that they are likely a disinformation effort by the Navy - taking them at face value in our article would not seem to fit with WP:NPOV. We should leave them out of this article. MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the comments of THTF and MrOllie. The reverted information might have value somewhere else, but reporting here a connection between Pais and the subject of this article is, at best, WP:SYNTH. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

confirmed the release of MQ-9 drone footage from the Middle East depicting unidentified aerial phenomenon.

To be clear, any combination of 'confirmed' and 'unidentified aerial phenomenon' is nonsense - at best they confirmed what, that they don't know what's in the video? At worst it is an attempt to say in wikivoice that aliens are among us. The cited sources equivocate much, much more than that. MrOllie (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I was telling you please feel free to reword that section. What I was trying to convey is that the video has been circulating since it was filmed in 2022, but on April 19, 2023, the Pentagon confirmed that the footage genuinely originated from the US Department of Defense and that they were unable to identify the phenomena captured in the video, as is the topic of this article. Enix150 (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Simply saying "they were unable to identify it" is adding WP:SENSATIONALism and drama-mongering. If used, it would have to include the context that Kirkpatrick said they are unable to identify anything from a single video. See [1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

NASA's historic step to contribute to the analysis of these videos

@MrOllie: NASA's team for the independent study on unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) was created directly as a consequence to the release of these "Pentagon UFO videos" and is tasked with setting up standards for the analysis of these and subsequent videos. The history that I share is the direct result and outcome of the these declassified "Pentagon UFO videos". Pleas explain how the results of these videos being made public and the historical step take by NASA to contribute to their analysis is unrelated to this article and warrants your deletion of my contribution? Jjhake (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The section you added didn't touch on these videos at all. There are lots of other reports and things going on in this space now - and many of them will be out of scope for this specific article. If you want to write about UFOs in general, we have other articles that cover that. These new efforts are about study of UFOs in general, they are not specific to these few videos. MrOllie (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

What I contributed absolutely touched on these videos. I noted, citing both the chair of the NASA team and a Penn State historian, that the NASA team was put together in order to recommend the best means for analyzing and categorizing these specific videos in response to which this group was called together. I could give an endless list of sources making this point. National Geographic writes: "The Defense Department's UAP Task Force, established in 2017" was a result of "UAP encounters ...from 2004, 2014, and 2015 that involve pilot sightings, radar tracking, and objects caught on video". You are seriously shortchanging this article by arguing to exclude from it the most important and obvious and widely-reported outcome to come out of the Pentagon's decision to provide these videos to the public. I hope that some other editors will recognize this obvious point. Jjhake (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That's an attributed statement of opinion, not a factual claim. MrOllie (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

We definitely cannot use anything from there. MrOllie (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Again, we need secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please explain. The Project Sign page, for example, prominently features a direct link to a government document (primary source). http://en.wiki.x.io/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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The bias is strong here.

Right back atcha. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comment edited to remove any false impression of personal attack. TheCholla (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Closing digression by IP, now blocked for 1 week. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) "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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Yes, it is. There's a whole page about it, see Yes, we are biased. MrOllie (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Very glad you can acknowledge that you're biased against toward pseudoskepticism. 217.180.214.108 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

These pseudoskeptics sure did a shit job on this article. 217.180.214.108 (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

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)