Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims

notability question

@Vincelord and BoyTheKingCanDance: Thank you for noting this notability question. However, please help to specify what is needed to demonstrate notability? David Grusch meets the basic nutshell summary of "a person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." But perhaps this should be about the whistleblowing incident instead of about the person?

It is a whistleblowing incident with many secondary sources documenting it in day two. In addition to the two initial reports, I'll reference news coverage of this from the growing number of additional news outlets picking up the story. So far, the following outlets have published accounts of the story:

• The Independent
• New York Post
• New York Magazine
• Fox News
• NBC Right Now
• Newsweek
• The New York Sun
• The Daily Wire

Thanks for any help and for identifying the notability criteria that are most applicable here with either the whistleblowing incident or the person. Jjhake (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The page looks fine, but I didn't question it's notability. that was another editor. I merely added DEFAULTSORT. Vincelord (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up with me. I'll add some other secondary sources and see what the other editor might have in mind. Jjhake (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for the editor who tagged it, but I'll wager they had WP:BLP1E in mind. Schazjmd (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That's helpful. Thank you. Given the "Subjects notable only for one event" criteria, I agree that this lacks notability as a biography of a person, but it does seem to be getting enough attention to be notable as an event. Perhaps this should redirect to an new article titled "David Charles Grusch UFO Whistleblower Claim" or something like this. Thoughts from anyone? Jjhake (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jjhake, it's possible that mention of it might fit in an existing article. Hard to say yet whether this will have enduring or significant impact. (See WP:EVENTCRIT) A one-day/week media flurry (especially for a topic like UFOs) doesn't mean it will meet the bar for a stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks again. I'll wait a little and see if any others have thoughts or help out. If no new developments clarify or escalate the event or no one else cleans this up first, I'll circle back to remove this article (and perhaps post a minor note in an existing article if that seems warranted). Jjhake (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@BoyTheKingCanDance: Several more sources have been added with a couple other editors involved. Please note if you have any remaining notability question. If no reply with in a day, will plan to updated by removing tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhake (talk • contribs)

See update above. I agree that this lacks notability as a biography of a person, but it does seem to be getting enough attention to be notable as an event. Perhaps this should redirect to an new article titled "David Charles Grusch UFO Whistleblower Claim" or something like this? --Jjhake (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jjhake an event page makes sense to me. This won't be about David Grusch, it will be about the act of whistleblowing (could be linked to a category) and the content he reveals (reactions, skepticism, corroboration, etc.). Samueljcarlson (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone, when I put the notability tag on the page, I had WP:BLP1E in mind. But I'm not dogmatic and I'm happy to see what becomes of the article. A merger might be better. But I'm not an expert on the topics of either UFOs or whstleblowing, so I can't make a recommendation where the merge should occur. Best wishes, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not a proper biography article for Wikipedia. The topic should be the event, although that may turn out to be not notable by Wikipedia standards. Also, the proposed new title sounds like a newspaper headline. Probably just use the last name and "whistleblower" somehow. "David Charles" is certainly not needed. The idea is to go for neutral wording and I am not sure UFO in the title achieves that goal. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, this page can simply be moved to a new title after the article is refocused on the event - if that is what is decided. And I also agree merging this content is acceptable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed renaming: "Grusch whistleblower report" to keep the focus on the event. Or "David Grusch whistleblower report" even though I think the using the first name is probably not necessary. But others might decide otherwise. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

According to sources cited and buried beneath tons of WP:SENSATIONAL speculation about aliens and coverups, Grusch filed a complaint with the Intelligence Community inspector general, in which he alleges extraordinary things. The complaint is signed by Grusch and also by the Compass Rose Legal Group in Washington, D.C. The complaint - a legal document - is the topic, not Grusch, and not UFOs in general. Perhaps Grusch legal filing or something similar is an appropriate title. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Grusch legal filing seems fine to me. That takes care of the SENSATIONAL aspects of the title itself. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait until June 12. There’s a rumor going around that mainstream media sources are working on this and will publish before that time. This will give us additional framing for a decision on whether to keep this here, move it to another title, redirect or delete. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think waiting until June 12 is too long. That is an entire week this article will be in main space as a misrepresented biography. I think the move should happen sooner rather than later. And if the speculated main stream press coverage happens, then we can always rename and refocus as necessary. Also, you're asking us to wait based on rumor which is as substantial as the air around us. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of suggesting that this could be put in a draft space, awaiting more press coverage. But someone else might create a main space article based on this event that could be worse. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should keep it until June 12 and then make the move if needed. There’s nothing harmful about having this up for four more days. Thriley (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought that was a week from now. I was wrong. Thanks for the clarification. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Factchecking

At the end of the first paragraph, the author states that "mainstream puiblications refused to carry it." When in fact the Washington Post was the original outlet to publish the article but needed more time. However the journalists were "urgent" in their need to publish ASAP as (allegedly) they were going to be outed. I don't want to directly edit the page but the source for this information can be found here (an interview with the reputable journalists who broke the story): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TE7uJCFlGBc&feature=youtu.be

Obviously there would be a need to check with the Washington Post that this is in fact true. 147.234.72.31 (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m happy to remove it. I added it because I thought that was the claim made by Ross Coulthart. Now you’re saying the WaPo was going to publish it? I didn’t hear that part of the story at all. I’ll remove it until this part of the story can be cleared up. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I was unfamiliar with The Debrief and we don't have an article. I started searching; one of the first hits was an article in The Atlantic about UAPs and also about Grusch's claim -- "Why Everyone Is Suddenly Talking About Aliens"

This paragraph caught my eye:

"A website called The Debrief—which says it specializes in 'frontier science' and describes itself as self-funded—reported this week that a former intelligence official named David Grusch said that the U.S. government has spent decades secretly recovering 'intact vehicles' and 'partial fragments' that weren’t made by humans. (A section of The Debrief is dedicated to coverage of UFOs.) Officials, Grusch said, sought to avoid congressional oversight while reverse-engineering these materials for the government’s own purposes. In a separate interview with NewsNation, which has advertised itself as an alternative to major cable networks, Grusch said the military had even discovered the 'dead pilots' of these craft. 'Believe it or not, as fantastical as that sounds, it’s true,' he said."

(the emphasis in bold font is mine)

I recommend sticking to the other available sources for this article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m happy you raised this point here; I’m a big fan of this article in The Atlantic and hope it is included as a source. If you haven’t already seen or heard it, check out the latest episode of The Black Vault by John Greenewald. At around the 38 minute mark, he lays out an extended argument as to why we should be skeptical of these whistleblower claims. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"2023 whistleblowing"

Currently, the article has a subheadling "2023 whistleblowing" which seems to be confusing. The article from The Debrief suggests that he was legally a whistleblower in 2021 when he started speaking to the ICIG. Allegedly, he received reprisals for that whistleblowing he did in 2021. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)