| Revision as of 22:21, 20 June 2023 view sourceJjhake (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,150 edits →David Schindele as a source: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:26, 20 June 2023 view source Viriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,900 edits →top: add auto archiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | {{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Biography|class=C|living=y|listas=Grusch, David Charles|military-work-group=y|}} | {{WikiProject Biography|class=C|living=y|listas=Grusch, David Charles|military-work-group=y|}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Skepticism|class=C}} | {{WikiProject Skepticism|class=C}} | ||
| {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ps}} | {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ps}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 27 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(30d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=/Archive index | |||
| |mask=/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes}} | |||
| == Grusch credentials == | == Grusch credentials == | ||
Revision as of 22:26, 20 June 2023
| 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. |
|
| 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: 30 days  |
 | Biography: Military C‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Skepticism C‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | 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. |
Grusch credentials
I would like to see us move away from this kind of appeal to authority or credentials. Skeptic Mick West has talked and written extensively about how the UFO community uses this argument to attach some kind of pseudo-veracity to the UFO claims of a proponent, when at the end of the day, the credentials aren’t going to help us determine what is occurring without actual nuts and bolts evidence and hard data. So while it is natural and human for us to point to the legal reliability of an advocate for a particular position, it’s not going to help us with answers. Highlighting credentials like this is more of an attempt to persuade, when what is needed is evidence, not arguments. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that it doesn’t make sense as a section heading, but it is a key part of the story. As several sources note, this is a typical story of a very normal love of “credentials”, and the full story should be told with this love of credentials clearly represented from the sources as a part of the full story. There seems to be a polemic at work on Misplaced Pages in relation to this subject that fails to tell the full stories of events, and the full story is always the best defense of the truth and the most faithful to the purpose of an encyclopedia which is a succinct representation of the various dynamics presented by the sources in the relationships and proportions relayed by the sources. What I’m saying is simply that the point about an appeal to credentials as a false validation should be pointed out from a source rather than simply removing any reference to credentials (which just looks pathetic and disingenuous). I assume this is what you meant but want to be sure. —Jjhake (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I understand. Just to clarify, I'm not talking about the content, but rather the structure and presentation. I don't think we should be highlighting his credentials in the subject heading, for example, but highlighting them in the body is fine. As Mick West, Seth Shostak, and others have pointed out, this entire case so far is built upon an appeal to authority, not evidence. I think we need to avoid using the section headings to further this line of argumentation, and instead fall back upon best Misplaced Pages practices for presenting the material. That's all I was trying to say. I will have more to say later about this, but I wanted to bring it up. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- That makes sense entirely. I've been trying to cut out sections headings with several edits just now. Jjhake (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think what I was trying to say, but failed, was that my concern was an issue of framing. Advocates in the UFO community point to Grusch's credentials as an argument from authority, saying that his claims have more weight than others for this reason. But we know these aren't Grusch's claims, they are claims supposedly handed down to him from unnamed sources in the government (according to Grusch). So this argument falls apart right at the beginning. Further, Kean and Blumenthal constantly engage in this kind of argument from authority throughout their reporting and even in their interviews about the topic. Blumenthal in particular leans heavily on the idea that Grusch is engaging in good faith. Even Mick West is willing to accept this, as it doesn't change the lack of evidence. So I don't want to see Misplaced Pages go down this route of highlighting his credentials, which doesn't solve the underlying lack of evidence. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have very intentionally given context from a great source by putting this right before the credentials are listed: "Eghigian writes that "the crusading whistleblower dedicated to breaking the silence over the alien origins of unidentified flying objects" is a kind of American public figure that was first invented in 1950s."
- I fully agree that the age-old nasty trick of argument by means of impressive credentials should be called out, and we have great sources that call it out. However, any suggestion that the credentials should not be included in the Misplaced Pages article is just as insidious to me because it is an entirely counter-productive example of portraying this cultural event as something simple and cleaned up which is most obviously is not. It's stinking mess with 70 years of history, and the messy details and method should all be represented by means reliable sources. Jjhake (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've just brought this explict language back in as well as key context from our best historian source: "who previously worked in some kind of federal department". Jjhake (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Without commenting directly on specific content right now, everything looks vastly improved over previous versions. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Glad to hear that these updates look to be an improvement overall. Jjhake (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Without commenting directly on specific content right now, everything looks vastly improved over previous versions. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think what I was trying to say, but failed, was that my concern was an issue of framing. Advocates in the UFO community point to Grusch's credentials as an argument from authority, saying that his claims have more weight than others for this reason. But we know these aren't Grusch's claims, they are claims supposedly handed down to him from unnamed sources in the government (according to Grusch). So this argument falls apart right at the beginning. Further, Kean and Blumenthal constantly engage in this kind of argument from authority throughout their reporting and even in their interviews about the topic. Blumenthal in particular leans heavily on the idea that Grusch is engaging in good faith. Even Mick West is willing to accept this, as it doesn't change the lack of evidence. So I don't want to see Misplaced Pages go down this route of highlighting his credentials, which doesn't solve the underlying lack of evidence. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- That makes sense entirely. I've been trying to cut out sections headings with several edits just now. Jjhake (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I understand. Just to clarify, I'm not talking about the content, but rather the structure and presentation. I don't think we should be highlighting his credentials in the subject heading, for example, but highlighting them in the body is fine. As Mick West, Seth Shostak, and others have pointed out, this entire case so far is built upon an appeal to authority, not evidence. I think we need to avoid using the section headings to further this line of argumentation, and instead fall back upon best Misplaced Pages practices for presenting the material. That's all I was trying to say. I will have more to say later about this, but I wanted to bring it up. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
David Schindele as a source
@Jordgette: the opinions of Minuteman I intercontinental ballistic missile launch crew commander David Schindele about David Grusch as reported in the Minot Daily News perfectly illustrates why such claims as those of David Grusch resurface repeatedly in American history. It’s absolutely notable to this “David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims” event and a dismissive and exclusionary attitude only more fully perpetuates the mutual recriminations and ignorant rumors. The best defense of the truth is the full and colorful story. Jjhake (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's your opinion. His opinion is still non-notable in the larger context of this story, and it doesn't belong in the article any more than that of any other minor officer in the Armed Forces. -Jordgette 02:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Grusch is a minor officer as well. That's got nothing to do with my point about how to represent an event from the sources as a piece of cultural history. Jjhake (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Jjhake, to play devil's advocate, and to argue from Jordgette's POV, are you able to find at least one other source that mentions Schindele or his case in relation to Grusch? I realize it is still early days, but Jordgette could argue that if it's only covered by one small paper like the Minot Daily News, and Schindele or his case isn't mentioned by anyone else, then maybe we shouldn't cover it. I'm not saying Jordgette is right or that I even agree with them, but their position might be supported if any of that was true. Now, it may also be the case, giving your argument some weight in this regard, that Schindele is famous, his case is notable, and there is a good reason to include it. I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I'm hoping you do. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I know that notable applies to the question of creating an article, but when representing a cultural event the question is simply if the source reliably gives the facts. There is no doubt that the Minot Daily News is accurately representing the opinion of this small-town ballistic missile launch crew commander. This captain's opinion is a critical and obvious element of this very American story, and it would be a distortion of the "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims" not to include it. I've placed it in the article alone under the subheading "Support for Grusch from Minot, North Dakota" just before the larger subsequent subheading of "Mainstream media reporting" to make the relative proportion and place of this small-town story clear in relation to the larger story. However, if you take the small-town story out, you are not portraying the "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims" event that this article is supposed to portray, and you are perpetuating a stupidly sanitized and artificial portrayal of U.S. history that will not serve the truth most effectively in the long term. Jjhake (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Understood, and thanks for your reply. Let's put that specific argument aside for the moment (let's come back to it later) and focus on the sourcing, as it's the best way to move forward right now. Are there other good sources that mention Schindele or his specific case, such as the 1966 UFO incident? If either one of those things are notable, that would make a difference. What do we know about The Minot Daily News and the editor who wrote this article? Looking at the article itself, it appears there is a paper trail, as they originally published an article about the incident back in 1996, and Schindele published a book. It also says Schindele was interviewed by the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) in 2022. That lends a touch of weight to inclusion, but it's not much. What would help tremendously is to find more coverage of Schindele elswehere, and to report back showing that his case has more legitimacy to it than just a small town paper giving it attention. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- As the Minot Daily News article notes:
- "About a month ago, Schindele was one of former military members interviewed by the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) established by the Department of Defense last year to investigate the UFO situation."
- Another related story that includes Schindele is here:
- https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/10/19/air-force-veterans-who-are-ufo-true-believers-return-newly-attentive-washington.html
- Again in the Minot Daily News article where Schindele talks about his feelings on the Grusch event:
- "Air Force officials instructed the military members at the launch control facility and those who knew about the incident, never to speak about it and as far as they should be concerned, it never happened. The Minot Daily News carried the front-page headline, “Minot Launch Control Center ‘Saucer’ Cited As One Indication Of Outer Space Visitors,” for a story published on Dec. 6, 1966, about UFOs seen in the local area."
- There are many sources on the Condon Report in the 1960s which was funded by the Air Force and found no evidence to support the claims and recommended against further studies.
- However, again, I'm not advocating for a Misplaced Pages article about the Minot Air Force Base UFO folklore from the 1960s. That would be an entirely different thing. I'm saying that the feelings for Grusch that an old Air Force "UFO true believer" like Schindele has should be included in the account of the Grusch event. Is there any doubt at all that Schindele feels this way about Grusch? Of course he does, and that is a basic part of the cultural history that this Grusch article is supposed to cover and obviously why events like this Grusch case keep happening. Jjhake (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jordgette: let's see what Jordgette thinks. The current section heading ("Support for Grusch from Minot, North Dakota") made me laugh out loud, and I think that should either be changed, or moved somewhere else, as it sounds less than serious and somewhat silly. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I’ll keep thinking about a better subsection heading or location for this element of the event. I’m obviously shaped here by my training as a historian. There is nothing funny or odd to me about including minority voices as long as they are clearly represented as a minority and are critical to understanding the whole story. Of course this doesn’t help me to write encyclopedia articles. However, articles on cultural history events should not be that far removed from writing good history (just based on secondary sources instead of primary sources). The secondary sources here are intentionally giving voice to one old “true believer”, and there must be some way to share the fact that such feelings exist. Jjhake (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I’m leaning towards exclusion because I’m not convinced it fits the current narrative. Maybe it can be worked in in the near future, but it’s just someone saying "I agree with Grusch" without much substance behind it. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, however. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- It’s not a story about someone saying that they agree with Grusch. It’s a story about someone saying that they hope he becomes a national hero. It’s a complete distortion of this event not to depict such true believers. Jjhake (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I think you might be getting down to brass tacks and narrowing the scope for inclusion. Mick West talks about these true believers in terms of the "Invisible College". It might be informative to think about how to connect Grusch to that topic. According to West, the Invisible College of UFO academics is behind much of this push toward "disclosure", and I use that in quotes. You should look closer into Schindele’s backstory and see if it intersects with that group of people, and if it does, consider how to write about it in terms of the true believer angle. Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- It’s not a story about someone saying that they agree with Grusch. It’s a story about someone saying that they hope he becomes a national hero. It’s a complete distortion of this event not to depict such true believers. Jjhake (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I’m leaning towards exclusion because I’m not convinced it fits the current narrative. Maybe it can be worked in in the near future, but it’s just someone saying "I agree with Grusch" without much substance behind it. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, however. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I’ll keep thinking about a better subsection heading or location for this element of the event. I’m obviously shaped here by my training as a historian. There is nothing funny or odd to me about including minority voices as long as they are clearly represented as a minority and are critical to understanding the whole story. Of course this doesn’t help me to write encyclopedia articles. However, articles on cultural history events should not be that far removed from writing good history (just based on secondary sources instead of primary sources). The secondary sources here are intentionally giving voice to one old “true believer”, and there must be some way to share the fact that such feelings exist. Jjhake (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jordgette: let's see what Jordgette thinks. The current section heading ("Support for Grusch from Minot, North Dakota") made me laugh out loud, and I think that should either be changed, or moved somewhere else, as it sounds less than serious and somewhat silly. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Understood, and thanks for your reply. Let's put that specific argument aside for the moment (let's come back to it later) and focus on the sourcing, as it's the best way to move forward right now. Are there other good sources that mention Schindele or his specific case, such as the 1966 UFO incident? If either one of those things are notable, that would make a difference. What do we know about The Minot Daily News and the editor who wrote this article? Looking at the article itself, it appears there is a paper trail, as they originally published an article about the incident back in 1996, and Schindele published a book. It also says Schindele was interviewed by the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) in 2022. That lends a touch of weight to inclusion, but it's not much. What would help tremendously is to find more coverage of Schindele elswehere, and to report back showing that his case has more legitimacy to it than just a small town paper giving it attention. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I know that notable applies to the question of creating an article, but when representing a cultural event the question is simply if the source reliably gives the facts. There is no doubt that the Minot Daily News is accurately representing the opinion of this small-town ballistic missile launch crew commander. This captain's opinion is a critical and obvious element of this very American story, and it would be a distortion of the "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims" not to include it. I've placed it in the article alone under the subheading "Support for Grusch from Minot, North Dakota" just before the larger subsequent subheading of "Mainstream media reporting" to make the relative proportion and place of this small-town story clear in relation to the larger story. However, if you take the small-town story out, you are not portraying the "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims" event that this article is supposed to portray, and you are perpetuating a stupidly sanitized and artificial portrayal of U.S. history that will not serve the truth most effectively in the long term. Jjhake (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Jjhake, to play devil's advocate, and to argue from Jordgette's POV, are you able to find at least one other source that mentions Schindele or his case in relation to Grusch? I realize it is still early days, but Jordgette could argue that if it's only covered by one small paper like the Minot Daily News, and Schindele or his case isn't mentioned by anyone else, then maybe we shouldn't cover it. I'm not saying Jordgette is right or that I even agree with them, but their position might be supported if any of that was true. Now, it may also be the case, giving your argument some weight in this regard, that Schindele is famous, his case is notable, and there is a good reason to include it. I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I'm hoping you do. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Grusch is a minor officer as well. That's got nothing to do with my point about how to represent an event from the sources as a piece of cultural history. Jjhake (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jjhake: it's good that you brought this to the talk page, but please add the new source link and the diff so that everyone can see it, and we can have something to come back to in the future. Also, I shortened the title for easier browsing. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Here is the source in question:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20230617192941/https://www.minotdailynews.com/news/local-news/2023/06/former-missile-officer-ufo-whistleblower-demonstrates-tremendous-courage/
- UFO history should be treated for what it is a major part of U.S. cultural history, and this case of David Schindele from North Dakota is a classic example of just why such UFO whistleblower claims keep coming back over and over since the 1950s. Jjhake (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. With more details like this, you can attract more discussion. I will have something to say about it a bit later. Also, don't forget to add a link to the diff showing the content (added or deleted). Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose heading of "Support for Grusch from Minot, North Dakota". That’s just silly. If we are going to discuss advocates and supporters, that could be done in a particular, specific context. As for whether Schindele is notable enough to include, that remains to be seen, and it’s not clear if simply stating he supports Grusch and has well wishes for him is encyclopedically relevant. Viriditas (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I changed it to the temporary heading of "response from ex-military". I don't think this content is a good fit as it is, but it's possible that it could be somehow worked into the article, but I'm not sure about that. Project Blue Book records a famous UFO incident at Minot Air Force Base in October 1968. Schindele left in May 1968, and the newspaper describes his report that occurred in September 1966. I'm not convinced this is the best fit for this article right now, and I'm leaning towards exclusion in agreement with Jordgette. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- It is very helpful to have this "Response from ex-military" as a key part of representing this "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims" event as a standard and repeating pattern of American cultural history. I hope other editors will recognize this. The story of the 1966 incident that was a lengthy headline article in The Minot Daily News on December 6, 1966 is mentioned as well as shown in a photo within this story reporting on the response to Grusch. To be clear, asking about the historicity of any of this folklore is not the point. This is simply about representing this stereotypical reaction to Grusch by a typical "true-believer veteran". (As noted in a comment above, this is exactly the kind of thing that West's "Invisible College" takes advantage of all the time. I don't think it can be used as a source but this story from October 2021 calls Schindele one of "three aging Air Force ...true-believer veterans".) The truth will be much better served for everyone long term if incidents such as this "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims" event accurately represent all of the key parts of the story. Jjhake (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I tried to include better context and info about the Schindele response to Grusch in this "Response from ex-military" section just now so that the connections to the typical and very old patterns of American UFO folklore are clear. Jjhake (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- C'mon people. It's so dumb to include this. It just looks like someone scoured the internet for a supporting opinion from someone who would appear credible, and found this bottom-of-the-barrel source. The disconnect between Grusch's sweeping, bombshell allegations, and one random guy speaking to a tiny newspaper, is ridiculous. This does not belong in the article. ETA: At the very least, the header "Response from ex-military" should be changed to "Response from one random ex-military guy." -Jordgette 14:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- What about "Response from a military veteran and UFO author" as the section heading?
- As I've said over and over, this has nothing at all to do with supporting claims by Grusch. Any sane person would recognize that it does not do this. This is about accurately portraying the world of generational American folklore that surrounds this UFO topic. Jjhake (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- It does give the appearance of supporting Grusch. Why this guy? He is not notable, he is not an acknowledged expert even on UFO folklore, his self-published book is non-notable, and there's no reason to believe he has any information that the rest of us don't have. It looks very cherrypicked. I mean, I watched the interview, can my opinion be included in the article? -Jordgette 16:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- You are likely to be supported by other editors. You've already been supported by the one other editor to comment so far. I'm the one in a minority here, believe me, and I'm not cherry-picking Schindele. He is the only one of these old-school UFO ex-military people who has had his feelings about Grusch shared by a news outlet. Virtually all UFO accounts are self-published, and it's a classic, crazy, local American story that I think shows the larger and older cultural history that is connected in to this whole messy and many-layered subject. I think it is critical to an accurate portray of this American cultural event (the Grusch claims) to keep this one example of a "Response from a military veteran and UFO author". Jjhake (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- It does give the appearance of supporting Grusch. Why this guy? He is not notable, he is not an acknowledged expert even on UFO folklore, his self-published book is non-notable, and there's no reason to believe he has any information that the rest of us don't have. It looks very cherrypicked. I mean, I watched the interview, can my opinion be included in the article? -Jordgette 16:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- C'mon people. It's so dumb to include this. It just looks like someone scoured the internet for a supporting opinion from someone who would appear credible, and found this bottom-of-the-barrel source. The disconnect between Grusch's sweeping, bombshell allegations, and one random guy speaking to a tiny newspaper, is ridiculous. This does not belong in the article. ETA: At the very least, the header "Response from ex-military" should be changed to "Response from one random ex-military guy." -Jordgette 14:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I changed it to the temporary heading of "response from ex-military". I don't think this content is a good fit as it is, but it's possible that it could be somehow worked into the article, but I'm not sure about that. Project Blue Book records a famous UFO incident at Minot Air Force Base in October 1968. Schindele left in May 1968, and the newspaper describes his report that occurred in September 1966. I'm not convinced this is the best fit for this article right now, and I'm leaning towards exclusion in agreement with Jordgette. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm a little sensitive to the idea that if 3rd parties haven't noticed this connection, then WP maybe ought not to make it. On the other hand, I have no doubt that your analysis is correct, Jjhake. This is one in a long line of similar claims from similar types, and it's a little weird that the people most enthusiastic about this story don't seem able to admit that. jps (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've taken a shot at "Response from an Air Force veteran with a UFO story" as the section title for now, trying to make the context and all as clear as possible. It still strikes me as a good example of the bigger picture that few people seem to be keeping in view just now, but perhaps I'm trying too hard. Jjhake (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate your time and effort. However, neither the section heading (veteran with a story?) nor the content work for me and I still think it should be removed. I recommend setting it aside and coming back to it. Regarding the comments above from jps about a "long line of similar claims from similar types", that appears to be the way to go, so consider developing a section that shows that the so-called UFO mythology has a long history. One of the points skeptics continue to make on this subject is that nothing Grusch is saying is new or different from what has come before it. I think that’s a worthy topic to write about and maybe you can work Schindele into that, but right now it doesn’t work. Perhaps a good place to start is with the Roswell incident. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Best source I’ve found on the long history of such stuff is Greg Eghigian, and we’ve placed two key points from him in the Background section:
- ”There have been many instances over recent decades in the U.S. of people "who previously worked in some kind of federal department" coming forward to make "bombshell allegations" about the truth regarding UFOs, and the whistleblower claims by Grusch fit this pattern. Eghigian writes that "the crusading whistleblower dedicated to breaking the silence over the alien origins of unidentified flying objects" is a kind of American public figure that was first invented in the 1950s.” Jjhake (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate your time and effort. However, neither the section heading (veteran with a story?) nor the content work for me and I still think it should be removed. I recommend setting it aside and coming back to it. Regarding the comments above from jps about a "long line of similar claims from similar types", that appears to be the way to go, so consider developing a section that shows that the so-called UFO mythology has a long history. One of the points skeptics continue to make on this subject is that nothing Grusch is saying is new or different from what has come before it. I think that’s a worthy topic to write about and maybe you can work Schindele into that, but right now it doesn’t work. Perhaps a good place to start is with the Roswell incident. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Fringe religious opinion
On the same day, Jeff Reed from the Church of God International, a nontrinitarian Christian denomination, stated that the existence of non-human intelligent life would not fit into God's plan, writing, "Jesus did not die for the sins of extraterrestrial aliens. Mankind has a special place in the universe".
This doesn't appear to be in a secondary source, and doesn't represent the mainstream religious opinion on ET life. Per our article on the potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact: "Surveys of religious leaders indicate that only a small percentage are concerned that the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence might fundamentally contradict the views of the adherents of their religion." That article goes on to explain the topic in greater detail. I am not convinced that the Church of God International, as represented in this article, is a good fit. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it belongs in this article. jps (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed that this is entirely extraneous (and also from a “ministry” blog kind of source). Jjhake (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I added it and have now removed it. Guess it was just in an attempt to add as much material as possible and later cut down on it. Marginataen (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I love your sense of humor. I have no objection to a discussion of exotheology in this context, provided the sources are good and the material is relevant and balanced. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I added it and have now removed it. Guess it was just in an attempt to add as much material as possible and later cut down on it. Marginataen (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Leslie Kean on Ezra Klein
Link should get you behind the paywall.
I couldn't make it through the entire podcast due to a lack of time. Ezra Klein is just a tad too deferential to Kean for my liking (which, to be fair, is probably why she agreed to appear). Nevertheless, her framing comports with a lot of what I was saying above which was being (gently) questioned by others. Not enough focus on the balloons and how that may have influenced her and not enough discussion of how, for example, The New York Times balked at breaking Grusch's story, but a datapoint in any case.
jps (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Have not finished it, but will likely to do so eventually. Interesting to hear a current NYT author speaking with Kean, and it does add some more details regarding Kean's thought processes as you say. Separately, I appreciate how Ezra Klein says at the start that conspiracy theories actually thrive on coverage that just falls into one of two extreme polarized camps: true believers vs. dismissive skeptics. The truth is always a messy story that is not served by such black-and-white alternatives and that has plenty of different cultural layers to be noted and kept in view. Jjhake (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- The problem as I see it is that both Klein and Kean dismiss, more-or-less out-of-hand, a number of prosaic explanations on the basis of bizarre arguments from incredulity. For example, they make a lot of hay about the reports saying that there is no evidence that it is Russian or Chinese technology. The implication is left unspoken. They ought to come right out and say their piece, but obviously neither wants to do that for fear of being made the fool. But that's rather the point. The Sagan standard and Ockham's Razor are there precisely to identify options as being more plausible than another in the absence of evidence. "It cannot be just a light effect if instruments register it." was another canard I had to wince at not yelling at the podcast on. Still, for better or worse, Kean has been able to get the ear of a certain segment, and so here we are. Now, if we could just focus a bit more on how "prosaic explanations" are actually possible for all this (I think Klein is still open to this but Kean is most certainly not), we could actually have a "middle". Of course, that "middle" gets maligned as "dismissive skepticism" by those who want to believe. jps (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- That all makes complete sense to me. But I also think that Klein is interested in the long-term and crazy cultural history (which we may very well be stuck with for a long time regardless). Jjhake (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like Klein changed the title from "So About Those U.F.O. Stories..." to "What the Heck Is Going on With These U.F.O. Stories?" over the course of the day. Jjhake (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- The problem as I see it is that both Klein and Kean dismiss, more-or-less out-of-hand, a number of prosaic explanations on the basis of bizarre arguments from incredulity. For example, they make a lot of hay about the reports saying that there is no evidence that it is Russian or Chinese technology. The implication is left unspoken. They ought to come right out and say their piece, but obviously neither wants to do that for fear of being made the fool. But that's rather the point. The Sagan standard and Ockham's Razor are there precisely to identify options as being more plausible than another in the absence of evidence. "It cannot be just a light effect if instruments register it." was another canard I had to wince at not yelling at the podcast on. Still, for better or worse, Kean has been able to get the ear of a certain segment, and so here we are. Now, if we could just focus a bit more on how "prosaic explanations" are actually possible for all this (I think Klein is still open to this but Kean is most certainly not), we could actually have a "middle". Of course, that "middle" gets maligned as "dismissive skepticism" by those who want to believe. jps (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Topics being archived far too frequently and quickly
There are topics created only yesterday which have been archived from this page.
Stop. Asperthrow (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I raised this issue last week, but apparently my concerns were ignored. Auto-archiving should be setup. I was going to add it, but I’m a bit busy right now. If someone could add the auto archive to the header that would be great. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Would be glad to have auto archiving setup. I’m not sure how. I’m scrolling far too much, but I’ll not archive again as it is apparently an issue. Jjhake (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)