Talk:Pentagon UFO videos

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

The pilots themselves have addressed and dismissed some possibilities

I noticed this: "Publicity surrounding the videos has prompted a number of explanations, including drones or unidentified terrestrial aircraft, anomalous or artefactual instrument readings, physical observational phenomena (e.g., parallax), human observational and interpretive error, ..."

Various sources have addressed many of those possibilities, but they are not mentioned in the article. The pilots themselves have addressed and dismissed some possibilities.

The article also says: "According to Kloor, 'Cursory attention has been given to the most likely, prosaic explanations...' "

That's actually not true, as I previously pointed out. So this is a violation of WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources indicating that the pilots have systematically ruled out prosaic explanations (nor would pilots necessarily be able to do so in these contexts). I'm not sure why you think otherwise. jps (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Some observations

First of all, I am familiar with this topic. With the exception of Ancient Aliens and the Pseudo-skeptic organisation known as Skeptic inquirer, very very few people, especially Americans thought of this incident as evidence of little green men from mars. In fact most citizens were not even interested in it. According to the polls at the time, Many Americans were just becoming aware that Donald Trump had used assistance from Russian organisations & Putin himself to win the vote in 2016. In other words Americans were hardly interested in this incident from 2004. In my opinion, it seemed that the Skeptic Inquirer was the one claiming everyone thought of the 2004 incident as being about Little Green men from Mars. Time Travler. TimeTravler777777 (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any actual evidence for your weird claims that:

• the "Skeptic inquirer" thought it was "evidence of little green men from mars",
• "the Skeptic Inquirer" claimed "everyone thought of the 2004 incident as being about Little Green men from Mars"

and how is your brain-dump above supposed to improve the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, Objectivity, "psuedoscience"

The term "psuedoscience" is obviously perjorative and presupposes falsehood. The idea that the objects in the videos are extraterrestrial in origin is a valid hypothesis. The article generally skews towards rejecting that explanation, but this example is particularly egregious, and violates WP:NPOV. An idea's popularity has no bearing on it's validity. It's even listed as an explanation for the Fermi Paradox in the Wikipedia article for the topic. A better qualifier is needed. Betamaleparticle (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no violation here of WP:NPOV. I suggest that you read that policy again, along with WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:GEVAL. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

In Support of the claims above by TimeTravler777777, Betamaleparticle, and my input to the article

After a few attempts of adding the following points to the article, first under the "possible explanations" section and then, on an effort to "undermine myself" and with the hopes of having the information remain in the article, I even opened a new category called "controversy" and worded carefully every sentence to make sure the information provided was unbiased and neutral, as adhering to Wikipedia policies. Every single time the information keeps getting taken down, the last time under the monosyllabic response "UNDUE weight on a podcast interview" seems somehow to invalidate all my carefully compiled information backing up the "right to exist" for the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

I cannot put it in better words than as described above by fellow collaborators: "The idea that the objects in the videos are extraterrestrial in origin is a valid hypothesis. The article generally skews towards rejecting that explanation."

As stated by user TimeTravler777777, the pilots involved in the sightings AND recordings of the videos have addressed and dismissed most of the explanations and possibilities that discard the extraterrestrial hypothesis. My input to the article was in support of this argument, quoting non less than the reliable testimony of a U.S Navy COMMANDING OFFICER. yet somehow the people behind the article seem to find this source "pseudoscientific and fringe".

The information compiled, rests below, in the hopes that it can find it's home at the very least... in the talk section.

Commander David Fravor, a Navy pilot who reported other U.F.O sightings and is a colleague of one of the pilots who filmed the "GIMBAL" video, expressed in an interview with host Joe Rogan his point of view, stating the following points:

• The observed crafts demonstrate no effect in high winds of +90 knots, instead just remain static and unaltered.

• The new radar on the Super Hornet aircraft is "extremely capable" so the false target hypothesis is extremely unlikely. Pilots used targeting flares and recieved a return signal, confirming an object was in fact there.

• "The craft didn't have any wings, any rotors, any markings and it outperformed anything we have."

• "These things sit out there for hours" a high performance airplane does not have hours worth of gas, so we do "mid air refueling." A Hornet when on a mission and performing manouvers would have an estimate of an hour and a half of fuel, some airplanes are even less, like the f 16 that doesn't have external fuel tanks, and the soviet airplanes are the same way. The MiG-29 "doesn't have a lot of gas." Even our intercontinental bombers, the B 2 takes off and refuel mid air.

Chad Underwood, another pilot under the command of Fravor, and the responsible man for filming the FLIR video stated the following during an interview:

• "The thing that stood out to me the most was how erratic it was behaving. And what I mean by “erratic” is that its changes in altitude, air speed, and aspect." "It was just behaving in ways that aren’t physically normal. That’s what caught my eye. Because, aircraft, whether they’re manned or unmanned, still have to obey the laws of physics. They have to have some source of lift, some source of propulsion. The "Tic Tac" was not doing that. It was going from about 50,000 feet to a few hundred feet in seconds, which is not possible".
  Underwood has explained that he does not wish his name to be related to the "U.F.O Community" and that he, at no point wanted to speculate what the object was. "I'll let other people do the math, I just happened to be the person that brought back the video". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabsterr (talk • contribs) 07:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

There actually is no controversy, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Our policies require us to look to the relevant expert community to summarize scientific opinion regarding such things as videos purported to indicate the appearance of alien spacecraft in the earth's atmosphere. Within this community, the alien hypothesis is deprecated, so that's who we cite and what our article reflects. Regarding pilot's opinions given in interviews and recorded on cockpit comms: they range from "it's a drone" to "it's not of this earth", so they are given no conclusive weight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gabsterr: I agree with LuckyLouie, and based upon your editing history I will assume good faith and proceed from the assumption that you are a new editor to Wikipedia (WP). I will further assume that, being new, you have not yet learned much about the basic policies and approaches attached to editing the site. I will briefly attempt here to help advance your understanding of editing WP, and in so doing perhaps help you to understand why your proposed additions to this article were rapidly removed (i.e., reverted) by other, more experienced editors. It usually, if not typically, requires much time, reading, and on-site activity for editors to gain such understanding. You are not unique in this: we all began as new editors. What I write below is in no way intended to be an exhaustive primer on editing WP, nor is it meant to initiate here a debate or detailed back-and-forth discussion about policy or protocol. If you do not like what you are about to read, or believe it is flawed, unfair, inappropriate or wrong, I encourage that you click the "Community portal" link, which is included among the links on the far left of the screen, and there seek further help/assistance/clarification/guidance/advice.

WP is an encyclopedia with certain, defined standards. It is not a blog or social media site upon which anything and everything can be posted. Perhaps the best place for you to become acquainted with this fact is WP:NOTEVERYTHING, whereat a great amount of specific information (with links to further reading) is available. One of the encyclopedic standards is that content in WP articles requires explicit support by reliable sources. The best place to begin learning about what are, and what are not, reliable sources is WP:RS. With respect to your recent edits, proclamations and interviews from blogs and/or podcasts (and similar things, including YouTube videos) are almost always, and by definition (again, please read WP:RS), considered to arise from unreliable sources. It does not matter if you, me, Seth Rogan, the Queen of England, or the ghost of Galileo make such statements or conduct such interviews, it does not matter who is interviewed or quoted, and it does not matter what is specifically written or said.

Being an encyclopedia, WP is not a place for exhaustive presentation of every single claimed theory or hypothesis, especially those that are considered fringe. There is insufficient space and time for me to go much further on that topic, but I refer you directly to some of the relavant on-site pages: WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE; the latter two are within the larger page WP:NPOV, which I also encourage you to read.

I appreciate that a significant amount of reading was suggested above, but I believe that after familiarizing yourself with that material you will not only have an improved understanding of why your edits were reverted, but as a result you will gain a more positive and pleasant experience editing WP. Remember also that the primary model of determining what is, and what is not, included as content in WP pages is consensus, which you can learn about at WP:CONSENSUS. If there is consensus among editors to include content that does not otherwise violate WP policy (or even external laws, such as copyright laws), then the content is included. If there is no consensus for particular content, no matter how much you or I might like or promote said content, it is not included. Along those lines, I refer you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

Lastly (I promise), when posting to Talk pages or fora, it is good form to "sign" your content. You do so by typing four consecutive tildes immediately after your final period. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

JoJo Anthrax Thank you for your kind and dedicated explanation about the WP policies. I too do not desire to initiate a debate, but if I may ask one last thing of you, is to kindly look at the "1952 Washington, D.C. UFO incident" Wikipedia article. if "within this community, the alien hypothesis is deprecated". I'm not sure if you mean a) the scientific community, b) the Wikipedia community or c) the editor community of this particular article. But assuming you mean either of the first two options, how is it possible for the "1952 Washington, D.C. UFO incident" article to exist? if it's very existence in Wikipedia would contradict your statement.

Even more so, I ask you kindly to look at the "Criticisms of the Air Force explanation" section of the article and ask you to please explain how it's any different, aside from the length of the text, to the contribution I was trying to make in this article, and how that section doesn't violate WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE policies, but my contribution does. Sentences in the article that begin with "according to Ruppelt", "he had "heard from a good source", "There were also witnesses who claimed to see" seem equal, if not less reliable than the sources I quote in my information.

I don't need my specific contribution to be included in the article, I simply ask that the article must reflect a truly neutral point of view, as expressed by Betamaleparticle . Excluding the statements from the Navy pilots criticizing some of the traditional explanations seem to fail this purpose. So if someone else can transcribe or word the pilots' statements better or quote more sources in a way that doesn't violate the WP policies please be my guest.Gabsterr (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't reviewed that article before. That section, as well as the one before it, had some real problems with WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I removed lengthy argumentation in WPs voice, as well as innuendo about the Air Force trying to quash press interest and "persuading" witnesses to go along with it's explanation, which was apparently cherry-picked from WP:PRIMARY sources thgat are not exactly independent. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Pilots' account

I see some pilots' accounts included in this article. These accounts are personal and the accuracy has never been confirmed by any official source. Can we get someone to add this important information, maybe after the first paragraph of the Background section. It's probably important to make the readers know that these are anecdotes, or so-called personal stories. Aleral Wei (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Pilot accounts are certainly exciting, but considering they have been sensationalized in press reporting, they are of dubious encyclopedic value. But you are correct, there is a sentence that one editor included in the article: something said by David Fravor (which upon checking the source turns out to be something he told a reporter which was an anecdote told to him by someone else). - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The "In popular culture" section mentions the interview by David Fravor on "The Joe Rogan Experience". It doesn't mention his nearly 4-hour interview on Lex Fridman Post #122, titled "David Fravor: UFOs, Aliens, Fighter Jets, and Aerospace Engineering". Among other things, Fravor discusses why he thinks, 15 years after the incident, that this was not secret human-created technology. The description of the incident is somewhat more detailed than what he gave to Joe Rogan. In part, this may be because of the strong science and engineering make-up of the audience. ... Alas, I can't figure out if it should be cited or in what form. (It's a YouTube video.) Given all the fairly famous people he's interviewed, there are *lots* of occurrences of the Lex Fridman podcast in Wikipedia, and none of them is a link to the podcast series or specific episode. RocketSci (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Fravor has been a "media figure" since at least 2008 when he was featured on Carrier and he has an imdb page, but as much as I'd like to make an article that lists all his media appearances, there just isn't enough biographical material about his life as a whole to create a good biographical article. I'm uncertain where else such a list would be appropriate. Feoffer (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note on Vietnanese Wikipedia article

If you open the Vietnamese Wikipedia to the Pentagon UFO article using Chrome, Google will offer to Translate to English. This translation follows the English Wikipedia for the most part, except the paragraph under Explanations yields a sentence reading "Kill foreign objects in the air", but refers to formal reporting of objects in the English version. Does the Vietnamese version contain different content, or does Google Translate hiccup on this content? This is sensitive because of the potential inflammatory historical context of the Vietnam War. SalineBrain (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Since it appears to be a spurious sentence inserted between two correctly translated sentences, it is likely a translation glitch, human (editor) error, or vandalism. There's no problem with the English version article, so it's an issue for the Vietnamese Wikipedians if they choose to address it. Also, there's no danger of an inflammatory interpretation connecting this to the Vietnam War that I can see. - LuckyLouie (talk)

Split

I propose this article be split, at least a different article be made on the Nimitz incident which is the most famous one, and definitely one of the most known UFO cases in recent times. It is often discussed in media aside from the context of the videos per se, given the notoriety of Fravor and the AATIP program. The account in this article is way too short and misses a lot of details (which again, are covered extensively in WP:RS) Loganmac (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

See this discussion from May 2020 in which, in an effort to achieve WP:NPOV and avoid issues of WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:SENSATIONAL, there was a strong consensus to merge two articles; that is, the operational opposite of what you propose. I also suggest to you WP:NOTEVERYTHING. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of that decision, but since then, there have been extensive developments covered in RS. Regarding WP:UNDUE, I find it particularly strange Wikipedia has articles on way less famous UFO cases instead of the Nimitz one. I understand, judging by your history, of your WP:OWN position regarding these topics, actively campaigning for the deletion of numerous articles and deleting tens of thousands of characters of good faith edits, mostly WP:BITEing. Because of this, I'd like for others to weight in on this discussion. Don't confuse fighting WP:FRINGE with fighting WP:RS at your own personal discretion. Loganmac (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

In contrast, I've seen almost no developments in this subject since the merger. The claims that the Nimitz event in particular is notorious is pretty much a WP:RECENTISM argument that does not hold up to facile scrutiny, in my estimation. jps (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, Loganmac, you could say that JoJo Anthrax is doing a great job of keeping fringe material out of encyclopedic articles. Would you complain about this edit? Drmies (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If your "understanding" is that I have engaged in WP:OWN, WP:BITE and/or other problematic behaviors, please file a report against me at WP:ANI. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly concur with statements made by Loganmac about "Don't confuse fighting WP:FRINGE with fighting WP:RS at your own personal discretion.". As an encyclopedia anyone can edit, we have a special duty to be free of fringe, but we've crossed a line into deleting well-sourced material simply because we anticipate could be misinterpreted as promoting fringe conclusions. The NYT broke this, not the National Enquirer -- We don't need to be scared of stating the basic facts of these incidents. Feoffer (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The outlets where wild FRINGE claims are published do not matter. They are still FRINGE claims. See WP:SENSATION and WP:REDFLAG. jps (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Because WP:SENSATIONAL coverage was taken at face value, selectively cited, and given WP:UNDUE weight, it became a problem that needed to be addressed. Which led to the May 2020 discussion that eventually formed a consensus on how to handle it, which was agreement to merge all the Navy "UFO incident" articles into one under the primary topic, i.e. the videos, and edit with special attention to WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:FRINGE guidelines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Bad editing in the past is not justification for deleting well-sourced material. This article doesn't adequately cover its subject and people are going to keep complaining about it until we do our job. Feoffer (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

What "bad editing" are you talking about? What well-sourced material do you think is lacking here? What "coverage" are you hoping for? Breathless pilot reports? Aping To the Stars arguments? Joe Rogan podcast snippets? jps (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"What coverage is lacking"? Well, I'd start with a basic narrative of what is alleged to have occured in the Nimitz incident. The solution to Fringe is to explain and debunk, not delete and stubify. Take a look at Patterson–Gimlin film#Encounter -- The story of "That Time I Met Bigfoot" is obviously pure, uncut FRINGE -- but it's sufficiently notable fringe that it merits detailed coverage. Nimitz itself isn't actually that FRINGEY, pilots see unidentified stuff all the time in a sky full of drones. Feoffer (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

That section was poorly sourced and the current article seems to suffice for explaining the claims in the appropriate amount of detail as it has been noticed by properly WP:FRIND sources. What details specifically are missing that others have focused on? jps (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The current article seems to suffice" -- Maybe for you, but it's incomprehensible to a first-time reader who shows up to the article without prior knowledge of the subject. We're not even covering the very basic "Five Ws" of basic communication. Where was the Nimitz video shot? When -- what day and what time? Who aboard the Princeton observed radar returns, who was Fravor's wingman? How did the pilots first notice the drone and what did they report about the water underneath it? How was the video ultimately recorded? The reader has no way of knowing these very basic details. We have a whole section on possible explanations without ever telling the reader what it is that is actually being explained. Feoffer (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The current article says when the video was shot. I am unclear why a specific date and time are necessary for the reader. Can you explain why? We don't need to know the identities of the people who saw this or that, or, at least, I fail to see what the relevance is to this situation. What does it matter who the wingman was? Can you explain why that is germane to the explanation? The question of "how" the pilots first noticed the drone is discussed to my satisfaction in the article. What do you think should be explained that is not explained? I don't really understand the question you have about how the video was "ultimately" recorded. Is there something particularly unusual about the manner in which it was recorded? How are these "basic details" at all relevant to the main notability and prominence of the stories in this article? The video itself seems fairly well explained to me. What do you think is confusing? jps (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The 5Ws are so basic I've never tried to justify them before, but I'll take a stab at it before defaulting to argument from authority, lol. Journalists know the "Who" is important because it matters that these are real people who have gone the record with their real names, the public knows how the journalist got the info allowing for independent verification, just like when we cite the authors we rely on. The "where" and "when" matter for the same reason -- it's a specific time and place, not just a vague rumor, and the fact that it occurred in safe 'training' waters for the Nimitz is important to understanding the context. "How are these 'basic details' at all relevant"? The eyewitness accounts are an integral element of reliable sources' coverage of this subject, but to hear us tell it, there were no eyewitnesses. I'm sympathetic to the need to remove fringe, but something must be done.Feoffer (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This rather misses my point. The article as it currently stands seems to do a decent job of explaining the relevant information. It seems to me you want excessive detail. This is problematic because certain excessively detailed accounts have not been vetted by independent sources. jps (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

If, as you write, "pilots see unidentified stuff all the time," there seems little justification to add a lengthy, highly detailed narrative about pilots seeing unidentified stuff to an article that, in its current form makes it perfectly clear, with supporting RS, that pilots saw unidentified stuff. As for your "solution to Fringe," although I understand your point/opinion, perhaps WP:GEVAL, being part of the WP:NPOV policy, provides us with a more appropriate strategy for addressing Fringe topics on Wikipedia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"If you're going to do something, do it right". If we're to have an article, make it a good article. I think this particular event meets notability, but I'd shed no tears if it was deleted. But the current article is a source of frustration to readers and a source of embarrassment to us. The name "Fravor" is dropped in the reader's lap without us ever telling the reader ANYTHING about his role. We don't tell the reader he flew that day, we don't tell the reader he saw anything, we don't tell the reader he gave any interviews! This is just plain bad writing. Feoffer (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that it is "dropped" in the reader's lap and his role is fairly clear. I cannot imagine a reader coming away from this article thinking that this pilot did not fly a plane. I really don't understand what you think is missing! jps (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"I cannot imagine a reader coming away from this article thinking that this pilot did not fly a plane." -- Read closely: we never tell anyone Fravor was ever on the Nimitz. Feoffer (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that's sufficiently implied. I just showed this article to someone else who had no trouble understanding that this pilot was on the Nimitz. There is no requirement we make our prose so turgid that an untrained natural language processor can parse it on first pass. jps (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, we're gonna hafta do better than implied. Fravor flew and reported seeing something, that needs to be in the article or the article needs to be deleted. We can't HALF-cover a subject. Feoffer (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is at all unclear. Did you know that every time Abraham Lincoln was in Washington D.C. his left foot was also in Washington D.C.? This is the kind of pedantry you seem to be advocating. What alternative meaning could possibly be gleaned from the current wording? jps (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Show me where in the article it says that Fravor saw something. Go find it and show me where we say it. Feoffer (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You mean like a witness statement? This isn't a court of law. The video is what we have. The rest of the Tic Tac fantasy is an un-commented upon witness statement that has no WP:FRIND context that I can see. jps (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The text about Fravor was apparently shoehorned into the article by someone who felt it was urgently important, but upon examination proved to be an entirely anecdotal third hand claim, hence, of no value (It was previously discussed here). Maybe best to just take it out. It sounds like you want to put a lot of weight on pilot’s comments as reported by primary sources like contemporaneous news reports and cable news segments. I prefer weight given to high quality secondary sourcing from the relevant expert community, as previously discussed here. Overexcited pilots are not the relevant expert community for claims about UFOs. Astronomers, scientists, and technical experts are. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"It sounds like you want to put a lot of weight on pilot’s comments as reported by primary sources like contemporaneous news reports". News reports are actually secondary sources, and I don't particularly think our readers need to hear conclusions from the pilots -- they're not experts. We do need to report what reliable source tell us the pilots reported seeing and doing. Feoffer (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

While news reports themselves are secondary sources the actual text and quotes from interviews are primary sources. jps (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"If you're going to do something, do it right". Absolutely. In this case, however, "right" refers to a writing style that is based upon the specific policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Nothing else. The reader of this material has available to them all the necessary information, and more: explicit citations to reliable sources from which they can learn topical minutiae that, because of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and other policies/guidelines, is not included in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a textbook, not a professional journal, not a popular magazine, not a blog, not a vlog, not a television show, not a sensationalist webpage. Because those different platforms typically serve different purposes, the respective styles of writing and presentation will also be different. If you are embarrassed by how Wikipedia policies and guidelines inform the content of its articles, well, that's your issue. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

For a basic idea, compare the current article with this version [1], the reader is left with a way more detailed picture of the Nimitz encounter with that version, but it still has proper skeptic voices. For example, now we have no mention of prior radar readings, the map of the location was for some reason left out (the only location given is "off the coast of southern California"), there's no specifics on time, weather, there's no mention of their weapon systems officers (meaning there were 4 pilots in the first encounter, not 2 as the article now implies). There's hilariously no mention of the word "Tic-Tac" which is how this whole case is known for across dozens of reliable sources, yet we now have TWO WP:OR pictures/animations of the parallax effect, as if it was an official explanation.

Both pilots gave specifics of the appereance of the object which were sourced by multiple RS, this was again left out, only left with "40 feet long and oval in shape", when the original wording was "a large bright white Tic Tac, 30 to 46 feet (9.1 to 14.0 m) long, with no windshield nor porthole, no wing nor empennage, and no visible engine nor exhaust plume." (again, these are pilots, their explanation of another aircraft should be relevant), and there's also no mention of how the encounter ended, "Princeton radioed the jets that the radar target had reappeared 60 miles (97 km) away at this predetermined rendezvous point. [...] Two other jets went to investigate the new radar location, but "By the time the Super Hornets arrived [...] the object had already disappeared."

We even had the original leaked internal report of the incident attached [2], now missing. The wording of the second encounter, the source of the video itself, now says "Underwood's fighter was equipped with an advanced infrared camera", but the original article detailed what that camera was, it linked to its article (Forward-looking infrared, explaining the title of the video: FLIR) and even had a picture of it to illustrate.

I could go on and on, like how the only mention of Luis Elizondo is "Luis Elizondo, a former employee of the Department of Defense working with To the Stars on UFO-related matters", ignoring that he was the head of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, a former intelligence officer and worked in the Pentagon, the disclosure of this program being the actual title of the New York Times article that made the videos popular, the only mention of AATIP now is in the See also section.

As I demonstrated, this isn't fighting WP:FRINGE, they aren't particularly extraordinary claims by themselves, it's fighting WP:RS. --Loganmac (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Much of what you are lamenting that has been removed was original research. Just to take one example, the maps were not verified by any secondary source (specific location data was not released). Previous prose treated the incident as representing something that verifiably happened with real honest-to-goodness objects when WP:RSes that we have do not actually indicate such things and instead either quote witness statements or quote people who are quoting witness statements. Current wording is much better, including the avoiding of such WP:PUFFERY as making Elizondo out to be more important than he is, for example. jps (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why is it so important we include Fravor saying he saw an object hovering over the ocean - and describe it in detail when it doesn't appear in the videos? Are we implying it was the object seen in the videos, except later it changed shape and was hovering over the ocean? Also, some of the NYT coverage that's being cited is a perfect example of WP:SENSATIONALism, e.g. emphasizing "accelerated like nothing he's ever seen" etc. and even includes an editorial disclaimer at the top of the story. I'm not sure we should rely on such coverage. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

"Why is it so important we include Fravor saying he saw an object hovering over the ocean". This is quite a ridiculous question -- we follow RSes -- we either include it or we delete the article, but we can't half-cover a topic. Feoffer (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Your claim that we are "half-cover[ing] a topic" is a new one. Seems that the topic is discussed perfectly well to me. If you think deletion is appropriate, you are free to nominate it. jps (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

In Re proposed improvements

Per Loganmacs suggestions above, I've linked to FLIR and mentioned the Tic Tac moniker. Other suggestions wouldn't work. The specific map stuff was too much detail for that point in the narrative -- everyone knows California, most people don't know Catalina Island. I agree it's odd that the weapon systems officers aren't mentioned in our article, but they're not mentioned in the NYT either -- they haven't gone on the record as named individuals reporting sightings, so their existence is somewhat of a distraction. " with no windshield nor porthole, no wing nor empennage, and no visible engine nor exhaust plume" -- this is a great quote, but I can't find it in reliable secondary sources -- I think it comes from the released document, but we really shouldn't be using primary sources in ways that secondary sources haven't already used them. Feoffer (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that the linking and monikers are necessary. The rest of your points are well-taken. jps (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

And many of the sources are still too WP:SENSATIONAL to be given any weight. One example of hyperbole is Navy Pilot Who Filmed the ‘Tic Tac’ UFO Speaks: ‘It Wasn’t Behaving by the Normal Laws of Physics’. Seriously? That's an WP:EXTRAORDINARY scientific claim, from a pilot who eventually admits, "I can’t confirm that the object aggressively accelerated that way. But I have my feelings, based off of my experience with my equipment — and also just logic, when it comes to, you know, physics". Are we really using such fluffy journalism as serious citations? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that if we're detailing eye witness accounts, their quotes and descriptions shouldn"t be half-assed (as long as they're covered in RS) in the name of fighting pseudoscience/fringe. Wikipedia has countless articles where initial descriptions of events are what the witness claims (to put an extreme example like someone above did, the Patterson–Gimlin film article), and then proper explanations given by sourceable skeptics. This has been the usual way for all articles dealing with these subjects. I was interested in the recent reveals of the Congressional hearings and protocols for pilots with similar accounts, and I found the explanations of the events in this article pretty lackluster, specially considering our writing in way less famous UFO cases articles, and that previous versions did a way better job at this.

Regarding the map, it was merely a graphic description of the "100 miles off the coast of San Diego" wording from PopularMechanics [3], WashingtonPost [4], TheNewYorkTimes [5], Fox News [6], etc. personally I have no problem with it either way, it was just to show how we seem to have "cleaned up" so much when renaming/moving the Nimitz incident article, which survived in that state for years. --Loganmac (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The difference between "half-assed" and "excessive detail" may be in the eye of the beholder, but unless you have specific wording you think needs to be in the article that is not currently in the article that you can offer us to discuss, there isn't much point in continuing. jps (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of visual sighting

This article needs to include this fact:

"Fravor reported seeing an object that he described as white, oval and about 40 feet long, hovering above the ocean."[7]<ref>NYT</ref>

Its repeated deletion is going to be a problem. Feoffer (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Good thing it's in the article, I guess. jps (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed! Just seemed like a useful place to draw a line between good faith edit-disputes and the effective-equivalent-of-rank-vandalism. Fravor's visual sighting is an integral part of this story and people need to know that no matter what he thinks he saw, he was NOT the person who filmed "FLIR". We cannot successfully debunk fringe if it's too taboo to first explain what fringe we're talking about. Thanks again for all your constructive edits!!! Feoffer (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

people need to know. I don’t think we should be basing editorial decisions on what one editor thinks people need to know. But thanks for using the Talk page rather than edit warring. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur completely -- the article will be based on editorial decisions by the NYT, not one random wikipedian. Feoffer (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Given that the editorial decisions of that newspaper have been criticized by even more reliable sources for this topic, it's probably best that we don't pretend that the NYTimes is the highest possible standard here. jps (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Good faith edits are certainly...good, and as LuckyLouie writes above, they (and their accompanying TP discussions) are better than edit warring. Somewhat less than good, however, is tossing around vaguely-threatening comments like effective-equivalent-of-rank-vandalism and repeatedly removed to asserted WP:OWNership. STOP and repeated deletion is going to be a problem. If you truly believe that editors are engaging in disruptive behaviors, especially vandalism, your path ahead is clear: immediately report such intentionally abusive edits to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. As for the comment by jps: Okay. Good thing it's in the article, I guess. I couldn't have said it better. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I gotta say, accusing editors of vandalism [8] isn’t cool. If you really believe that’s the case, take it to ANI. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, other editors have said it better. I'm not sure ANI can be particularly helpful, probably more of RFC once we see who stands where. Salty talk aside, it's not technically a behavior problem to be a really really awful writer who creates a D- article devoid of the absolute basics we would expect from a schoolchild. Just needs more eyeballs from good writers. Feoffer (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It would be great if you could learn to format references instead of pasting in bare urls. It would lessen the amount of cleanup work required. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent deletions

• Direct link to Joe Rogan video that is referenced in secondary source. Totally appropriate per WP:PRIMARY
• Image Captions -- three grainy videos with weird codenames that all look alike. Totally appropriate to add source and date.
• Underwood was too far to see anything -- I'm puzzled by this deletion -- it's wellsourced and its deletion has the effect of promoting the fringe "cloaked" BS

Feoffer (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to link to Joe Rogan. He is not a reliable source for anything at all. The image captions are fine. The metadata can be discovered fairly easily by the reader by clicking on the file. Otherwise, there is nothing to be gained from additional metadata in the caption (it doesn't illustrate anything that is necessary for understanding). There are no third-party reliable sources which confirm that there was any relevant distance whatsoever. His estimation of the distance is done under assumptions that the video is of an actual coherent object which is unconfirmed. jps (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Rogan is def not a reliable source, but we don't use him as one -- we have a RSes about the appearance.
• "His estimation of the distance is done under assumptions that the video is of an actual coherent object which is unconfirmed" This is an incredible point, thank you. We definitely don't want to concede that the FLIR recording was an actual physical object. I'll think on this one, and see if we can have our cake and eat it too, but we're making real progress. Feoffer (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Since Rogan is not a reliable source, I think the source we have which mentions the appearance is good enough. We don't need the YouTube link. I'm hesitant to say that an appearance on Joe Rogan's show is all that noteworthy even "in pop culture". He has done some thousands of shows, no? jps (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean, it's obviously not that noteworthy, but it happened and it's verified. I don't get why we're writing like we're under pressure to keep the word count down and cut out every possible piece of information. Feoffer (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Because in these areas article bloat is a real problem. We are at the mercy of sourcing and, in spite of what you seem to think, the sensational story-telling that has been swirling around these videos hasn't been analyzed in a properly balanced way that allows for satisfying a WP:PROMINENT explanation of every possible detail. The thing we need are sources that take a sober look at the subject and, so far, that hasn't been particularly forthcoming because the journalism surrounding these claims (even that published by otherwise fairly reputable sources) has been such garbage. This is due in no small part because the journalists writing these articles are themselves WP:PROFRINGE and intentionally avoid attempts to provide proper context lest the sensation have cold water thrown on it. Wikipedia cannot be in the business of propping up this churnalism. We need to stick to clear-eyed explanations of what can be verified without spending so much time in the weeds. jps (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

the journalism surrounding these claims (even that published by otherwise fairly reputable sources) has been such garbage You can say that again. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Tic Tac moniker

So, the other thing rattling around is how can we work in the TicTac moniker in light of jps's excellent points above about the distance estimate -- namely, how can we let reader know about the name without confirming such an object ever actually existed. This is a big WP:NODEADLINE kinda thing, but if we never say TicTac at all, the reader will come away vulnerable to misinformation about a flying tictac without knowing they just read an article debunking it. Feoffer (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm unclear why "TicTac" is so important. It was a term that was used by the pilots, but why does it matter? Is there any particular reason that the reader needs to know about it? What sources indicate that this turn-of-phrase is important to these "incidents" and videos? jps (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME and disambiguation, in essence. There's lot of weird things people see in the sky, but only the Nimitz 2004 pilots used the label "TicTac". How can I learn the TicTac is BS if the article isn't allowed to use the term TicTac -- it's like trying to debunk Roswell without using the word Roswell or disprove the Loch Ness Monster without mention the word Loch -- I can't debunk what I'm not allowed to say, and we can't expect readers to automatically find our article on "The TicTac" if we don't use the term. Feoffer (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources for COMMONNAME? jps (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, there's no end to sourcing -- I actually think I'd be hard pressed to find a source that mentions the Nimitz 2004 pilots without using the name TicTac. Just from today's news I see a headline referencing "The infamous tic-tac UFO". Another example just off the top of my head, Pilot Who Filmed the ‘Tic Tac’ UFO Speaks. Note the definite article: "the" tictac, or even "the" infamous tictac, as if the reader may already know of it. Feoffer (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The Ibtimes source is pretty rough around the edges and uses the "TicTac" name in an article that makes hay about a rather ho-hum interview with John Brennan you can find here: [9] Thing about that interview is that the "TicTac" is not mentioned. Often what happens in instances of WP:SENSATION like this is that the churn of claims coming from the, shall we say, "incredulous" media promotes certain ideas that stay as the provenance of fringe vocabulary and in-groupspeak among the True Believers. For us to take these ideas and monikers as something to discuss at Wikipedia takes sources that aren't aping this network that actually deal with the idea itself. That's not what we have so far. jps (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"Ibtimes source is pretty rough around the edge" -- just proves COMMONNAME, I literally didn't read it and don't suggest actually using it a source, but that shows you how common the name is, that I can type it in and find a headline using it just from today. Feoffer (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's a bad source and it's just aping stuff from To the Stars. What you need is a good source from some journalist or rational actor who lets us know something like, UFO enthusiasts tend to refer to this video by calling it "The TicTac.". jps (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that's the threshold for COMMONNAME. Remember we're not trying to tell the reader that this is the common name, we're telling the reader that Fravor described it as a tictac, something that's obviously verified.

When you asked me why we shouldn't delete verified information, I explained to you the benefit to our readers. You then asked me "Is this thing really commonly called the tictac?", and of course, it was easy to show you the answer just by looking at today's headlines.

Now you want a meta-source not just employing the TicTac name but actually commenting on it?! That's a bit ridiculous --- I don't provide that level of sourcing for my talk page explanations of why we don't delete verified material -- I provide quality sources for the verified material.

But JUST out of an abundance of good faith, I'll play one more round of go fish for ya. CNN: "Retired Navy pilot Commander David Fravor joins 'Full Circle' to talk about his encounter with what came to be known as the “Tic Tac UFO" Feoffer (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:AGF. The Andersoon Cooper interview confirmed my suspicions that there is motivated reasoning post hoc for his descriptions. "Just like a tic tac" was the agreed upon description. So I put it in the article. I don't think we should include much more than that. jps (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

UFO or UAP?

Technically, it would be less fringey and more accurate of us to use the Pentagon's verbiage in the title. People hear UFO and think saucers and little green/gray men, not a new drone system. Add in the fact that it's not at all clear there were any "flying objects' at all, as opposed to hovering drones, floating balloons and optical artifacts. But on the other hand, "UFO Videos" is clearly the more common term, and does "UFO" really mean "flying" anymore or has it transcended its original definition as an initialism? Anyone have strong feelings or way or the other? Feoffer (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Euphemism treadmill is a problem in these areas. Sticking with UFO is the best thing to do per WP:ASTONISH. If we quote someone who uses unidentified aerial phenomenon, we can link back to our UFO page. jps (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, when you put it that was, I definitely agree. It's just a euphemism isn't it, and we should use straight talk. Feoffer (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine either way. UAP seems to be the "official" name in sectors of government, but there have been several euphemisms throughout history to dettach from the UFO term stigma, and most likely there'll be many others. --Loganmac (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Wired/Keith Kloor

I noticed a statement in the "Release of videos" section quoted to one Keith Kloor, a freelancer writing for WIRED, that says "Those stories have been criticized by journalism professor Keith Kloor as "a curious narrative that appears to be driven by thinly-sourced and slanted reporting." According to Kloor, "Cursory attention has been given to the most likely, prosaic explanations. Instead, the coverage has, for the most part, taken a quizzical, mysterious frame that plays off the catchy “UFO” tag in the headline."

His article appears severely outdated or plain wrong in quite a few aspects, I'll note:

1. He says "Many news consumers did lap up the story like a new X-Files episode but nobody ran for the hills, and nobody in Congress called for hearings about the “revelation” and its seemingly huge implications for civilization"

This is the opposite case, as there have been Congressional hearings on the topic covered in RS. [10] [11] [12]

2. In the next paragraph he says "And yet there is not a peep, in all this sensational reporting, from concerned military brass; and nary a call for further investigation from national security wonks. You can search the credentialed defense-industry press, which covers every Pentagon policy, procurement and turf battle in minute detail, and be hard-pressed to find any mention of wily UFOs that have been menacing Naval aviators"

This ignores the establishment of the "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force" by the DoD on August 4th, 2020, in their website they state "As DOD has stated previously, the safety of our personnel and the security of our operations are of paramount concern. The Department of Defense and the military departments take any incursions by unauthorized aircraft into our training ranges or designated airspace very seriously and examine each report. This includes examinations of incursions that are initially reported as UAP when the observer cannot immediately identify what he or she is observing." [13]

And Susan Gough, the Pentagon spokeswoman saying "[The Navy] confirmed that the three videos that are in wide circulation are indeed recordings made by naval aviators, recorded during their training evolutions.”, that the Navy “has always considered the phenomena observed in those videos as unidentified." and they "have been part of a larger issue of an increased number of training range incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena in recent years”

3. Regarding Luis Elizondo, the article states "There’s just one problem. As I reported last year, “There is no discernible evidence that he [Elizondo] ever worked for a government UFO program, much less led one.” Perhaps that’s why the latest flying-saucer story in the Times doesn’t mention him at all; while the one that came out last month makes no claims about the nature of his prior work for the Pentagon."

This has been proven incorrect by PopularMechanics and VICE sourcing official documents [14] [15]

Another more important aspect is the author is known for potential conflict of interest reporting regarding the Monsanto/Kevin Folta scandal [16] so I don't think he's a very good source in proper journalism/criticizing other journalists.

I bring this forward since I noticed this WIRED article has been used as an argument over The New York Times article's credibility in our article's editing history which is pretty contradictory --Loganmac (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

(1.) Intelligence briefings and Congressional hearings are not the same thing. (2.) Maybe not a peep, but no major statement from top "brass" describing an impending UFO crisis, and no official statements other than those in response to publicity by Elizondo, To The Stars, etc. (3.) Elizondo's status was actually being questioned by reliable sources at the time, so no fatal error here that would prevent us from citing other parts of the article by Kloor. In summary, given his track record of publishing in high quality sources like Nature and Science, your argument to disqualify Keith Kloor as somehow incompetent to comment on science topics is not very convincing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I have found that fans (for lack of a better word) tend to think that critical pieces about specific UFO incidents are more easily dismissed than they actually are. So, as LuckyLouie pointed out, there isn't much in the way of specific rejoinders to the broader points outlined by Kloor. Are there nitpicking things we can find to sneer at in his quicktake? Maybe. For example, is it true that Elizondo worked for the defense department? Yes. But is there any indication that AATIP was as monumental a program as Elizondo claims? No. Arguing that Kloor's defense of GMOs makes him less reliable is not going to cut it here. That's a fairly straightforward issue where outfits like HuffPo have come out on the side of anti-science in ways that are borderline neo-luddite. If anything, this burnishes Kloor's bona fides in this regard. jps (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The VICE reference

So I read ref #1, the VICE article https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7wjzg/the-skeptics-guide-to-the-pentagons-ufo-videos

There is a blatant violation of WP:STICKTOSOURCE policy by way of WP:CHERRYPICKING statements from the VICE article.

I've remedied the obvious on my edit. But have been reverted.

It's totally misrepresenting the VICE article. Read it.Bigbaby23 (talk)

You are obviously POV-pushing here. Understand that there are discretionary sanctions. Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. It is not an edition of UFOLOGY TODAY. jps (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Very funny. All my edits are from mainstream sources.They seem to clash with your personal POV. You are willing to violate a foundational Wikipedia policy for that. Sorry, that's not going to happen, because it's too evident in this articleBigbaby23 (talk)

I've also added more information from other reliable sources.(popular mechanics etc.) The article was not representing the mainstream sources. Former pentagon investigator & former aviation editor of Jane's Defence Weekly, opinions matter , more than Shermer (naturally I represent his opinion too) Bigbaby23 (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned before, the material you wish to add gives WP:UNDUE weight to WP:SENSATIONAL coverage. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

No LuckuLouie, now you are WP:LAWYERING. You and I both know it had nothing to do with WP:SEN.

I'm warning all of you. This is not a legitimate POV discussion. You are comitting (very obvious) fraud by way of the aforementioned policy, with a reference you you're self have chosen to put in and stay in the article. If you continue with this . I will go directly to ANI Bigbaby23 (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It does seem likely that this will end up at ANI (or maybe AE) sooner or later. Why wait? - MrOllie (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI it is Bigbaby23 (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Shermer quote

This appears to have been added to the article in a misguided attempt at “balance” to justify adding more hyperbolic pro-ufology material. The Shermer quote adds nothing, no useful analysis, etc. so I recommend it be removed. There are much better and more substantive skeptical opinions available to choose from if we want them. With WP:PARITY in mind, there's other critiques of the NY Times stories we could include, like this from Robert Sheaffer, and this from Jason Colavito. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the Shermer quote as it's not a "potential explanation," so it's really out of place in that section. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

List of sources we could use

The most mainstream , and due weight secondary sources I could find are probably these two. They seem to also report on the views of all the notable relevant skeptics and ufologists:

Air & Space/Smithsonian https://www.airspacemag.com/space/year-ufos-180973965/

Space.com https://www.space.com/amp/39325-us-government-ufo-program-legacy.html Bigbaby23 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Both of those sources are already being used in the article. It would be helpful if you describe what text you want to add and what source you want to cite it to. Bear in mind we want to avoid WP:UNDUE weight on WP:SENSATIONAL coverage as well as giving equal weight (WP:GEVAL) to fringe views, or a series of claims and rebuttals and counter-rebuttals such as what you've done here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead and due weight explanation is the Ministry of defence official statement and classification of the phenomenon as "unidentified". Pseudoscientific claims can go to both extremes.

1. Ufology - its an alien vessel.

2. Skeptics - it's not something unidentified.

The Pilots definitely have Parity as a rebuttal to Mick West pseudo explanation. It is pseudo because it insinuates the Navy didn't discount these obvious reasons. The quote from the political scientist makes this point clear. Bigbaby23 (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not really how this works. There is a WP:REDFLAG argument here and there does not seem to be any reason to preference credulity or breathlessness over the normal explanations (as West dutifully delineates). jps (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

West does not have due weight over the Ministry of Defence explanation https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2165713/statement-by-the-department-of-defense-on-the-release-of-historical-navy-videos/ And since "unidentified" doesn't fall under fringe science. There is no place for his Parity and bigger paragraph than the MOD paragraph, and definitely no weight to insinuate that they are incompetent fools Bigbaby23 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No, the statement is as non-committal as usual from the DOD who don't care to indulge in this kind of UFO chicanery as a matter of course. We're fine with current wording that offers a reasonable accounting of the saner possibilities and properly maringalizes breathless "UNIDENTIFIED" arguments that are fig leafs for To the Star's "GOTTA BE ALIENS" arguments. We are honest about the DOD's position already and there is no reason it has to be clung to as the only and most prominent explanation when it intentionally offers no explanation whatsoever. jps (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"Non committal" "reasonable accounting" "saner possibilities" "breathless argument". That is your POV and pushing that POV in the article is WP:ORIGINAL. The DOD classification after it's investigation is clear - "unidentified". It is not fringe science. It had not been classified as Extraterrestrial Vehicle.

The section opening paragraph about possible explanations, makes it very clear to make that distinction. Various skeptic views are already mentioned together in the paragraph describing mundane options, in a proper due weight way. No due weight should be given to any skeptic or ufologist that would dismiss, distort or challenge the DOD classification. What should be mentioned (as I added) is that the DOD has not provided more info that it possesses, and that both UFO skeptics and proponents are calling for more information and openness in order to reach a possible definate conclusion.Bigbaby23 (talk)

We have reliable sources that provide possible explanations and these reliable sources are not in contradiction to the DODs short statement. Marginalizing WP:MAINSTREAM explanations is not something we do at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Those reliable sources also quote notable experts with possible explanations of ET origin. You are mixing the definition "Mainstream" with the definition "probable explanation". The DOD has rejected those obvious mundane explanations hence the classification "unidentified". There are also citations of the political scientist and the pilots on public record rejecting those options, that support this fact. You are pushing the "not unidentified" narative in an undue weight way.Bigbaby23 (talk)

The DOD has rejected no explanations at all. Neither have they accepted any. To claim otherwise is original research. jps (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No,not WP:OR:

Joseph Gradisher, the spokesman for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare: "Gradisher would not speculate as to what the unidentified objects seen in the videos were, but did say they are usually proved to be mundane objects like drones—not alien spacecraft" https://time.com/5680192/navy-confirms-ufo-videos-real/?amp=true

Science journalist Mindy Weisberger "There is as yet no explanation or identification — official or not — for the mysterious aircraft that the pilots recorded." https://www.space.com/amp/ufos-videos-declassified-navy-release.html

DOD: "Secretary of Defense David L. Norquist approved the establishment of an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Task Force (UAPTF)....The Department of Defense and the military departments take any incursions by unauthorized aircraft into our training ranges or designated airspace very seriously and examine each report. This includes examinations of incursions that are initially reported as UAP when the observer cannot immediately identify what he or she is observing." https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2314065/establishment-of-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-task-force/

From Nick Pope: “What I think the Navy’s recent statement does, is it probably takes off the table the first of those explanations,” he says. “I think the clear perception is the Navy thinks we’re dealing with something real and tangible here. So not misidentifications, misperceptions, glitches or such" https://www.history.com/.amp/news/navy-confirms-ufo-videos-real

Mick West elaborate explanations are undue.Bigbaby23 (talk)

You have not shown that Mick West's explanations are undue. You have shown that the DOD has rejected no explanations at all. Neither have they accepted any. Just as I said. jps (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding WP:UNDUE regarding UFO analysis

There is a dispute regarding the classification of Due Weight view in this article. This situation is quite unusual, because traditionaly it would be just 2 clear views: skeptics vs ufologists, and perhaps government denial

I categorizes the current views as 4:

View #1: U.S. Department of Defence - The UFO, after their investigation is officially classified as "unidentified".

View #2: UFO Skeptics - it is for sure, not "unidentified". Listing different mundane explanations.

View #3: UFO advocates - it is probable that it is of extraterrestrial origin. Listing different mundane observations analysis.

View #4 Inconclusive without more info - a call of both skeptics and Ufologists alike from the DOD to release all information for scientific critical inspection in order to reach a conclusion.

All 4 views are available from reliable sources (many times even the same source), so that is not an issue.

My view is that the DOD view is Prime, and should not be marginalized or create a misrepresentation of it's weight by either views #2 & #3. Currently the article section "possible explanations" is inappropriatly giving due weight to view #2 (via long quotations from skeptic Mick West) which contradicts and marginalize view #1. View #3 is not presented according to WP:FRINGE.

This reverted edit, corrects the current article per above https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pentagon_UFO_videos&oldid=998819223

See also talk section "List of sources we could use" for detailed discussion regarding DOD position https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#List_of_sources_we_could_use

Currently the article is mostly edited and debated in the talk page by the same UFO Skeptics, who are pushing for view #2. Hence a call for an RfC to uninvolved editors. Do you agree with the above assessment and categorization? Bigbaby23 (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Improperly formed RfC. WP:RfCs are meant to be formed with neutral language that is easy to follow with simple actionable questions. As it is right here there is no action item being asked (do you wish for the edit to be reinstated, for example?) nor is the outline of the dispute done neutrally (you had no input from those whom you oppose and it is clear from your formulation that you don't even really understand the issue). I recommend withdrawing and workshopping wording. jps (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Agree this is not an RfC as much as a faulty analysis of the situation based on a misinterpretation of WP:FRINGE. Since the present article and its editorial approach was largely formed as the result of a broad consensus, it would benefit the requestor to review that discussion here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• The above two editors jps and LuckuLouie are part of the Editors with the strong POV View #2 group of editors that demonstrate having WP:OWNERSHIP characteristics to this article that i have noted in this RfC. They are currently also involved in an ANI regarding deliberate misrepresentation of a source aka WP:STICKTOSOURCE policy violation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Pentagon_UFO_videos_fraudulent_editing

That is precisely why i welcome outside of this group commentsBigbaby23 (talk)

• It is not your place to explain what POV View group I am in. In fact, I reject your POV View #2 as a complete strawman. jps (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is not a proper answer, but a comment. "skeptics vs ufologists, and perhaps government denial": skeptics vs ufologists would be WP:GEVAL. Government denial would usually be part of ufologist conspiracy theories. "View #3: UFO advocates - it is probable that it is of extraterrestrial origin. Listing different mundane observations analysis." these are generally conspiracy theories as well as speculation and fall within WP:FRINGE. However, those can be WP:DUE when described by an independent source that interprets those claims for editors (this avoids the pitfalls of WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH other than moderating the presentation of fringe views). The above "these are biased editors" is not the proper approach, editor arguments should be evaluated in relation to sources and policies, established consensus (that can of course sometimes change per point), etc... —PaleoNeonate – 15:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• The current article composition is based upon a clear consensus that arose from a discussion in which over a dozen editors participated. Topically, nothing of note has changed since that discussion. The RfC requestor claims that the classification of Due Weight view is in dispute. That claim is at best unclear, and the suggested remedies seem based upon a misunderstanding of WP:FRINGE and WP:GEVAL. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• As others have said, you need to be more specific about what language you would want to change where. This is a mish-mash of statements which seems to be trying to make the argument for a change, but without seeing the specific change you're proposing it's hard for editors to say whether your argument supports it or not. --Aquillion (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Invalid RfC. I agree with the consensus that the request is improperly formulated. Start over and briefly describe the change you're requesting (the what) and leave out the justification (the why). The request is all "why" to the point where I don't even understand what's being discussed. R2 (bleep) 17:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

OK. thank you R2. I will make a new RfC if my current edit input is (in my opinion) inappropriately reverted. Bigbaby23 (talk)

• "My view is that the DOD view is Prime" Is the United States Department of Defense a reliable source with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? I would doubt it, but this warrants discussion. In this [articular case, it is not a disinterested, third-party source. See Wikipedia:Independent sources for the type of sources we need. Dimadick (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Suboptimal sources

Here are a few recently inserted sources that are suboptimal (there may be others):

• history.com - The History Channel is notable for dubious content
• Popular Mechanics - Currently also at WP:RSN IRT UFO related claims as it's perennial
• blogs.scientificamerican.com - As the URL shows it's the blog section, but may be due depending on author and if attributed.

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The first two are highly dubious, and while the third is by an astrophysicist, the tiny bit quoted from it doesn't really give the sense of it. XOR'easter (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, many of the recent changes are being made in what seems to be a misguided attempt to “balance” the article with selections from “coverage (that) has, for the most part, taken a quizzical, mysterious frame that plays off the catchy “UFO” tag in the headline” (i.e. WP:SENSATIONAL coverage) as noted by Kloor. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding Washington Examiner that's yellow at WP:RSP, —PaleoNeonate – 18:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

As I quoted from WP:RSP in my recent edit summary, "the Washington Examiner should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims." The content I removed, which was restored shortly thereafter by User:Bigbaby23, was indeed an exceptional claim, namely that "conventional theories have been eliminated." I also note that the same editor restored a passage cited to a blog (blogs.scientificamerican.com). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The rejection of conventional explanations isn’t what our WP:FRIND sources support, and so this viewpoint is correctly marginalized. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC regarding an edit to the article and it's compliance with WP Policies

Does these reverted additions to the article's three sections conflict or conform with Wikipedia Policies & guidelines?

The current version of this RfC relevant part of the article's Section "potential explanations" is as followes:

As of 2020, the aerial phenomena recorded from the Nimitz and Roosevelt events are characterized by the US Department of Defense as "unidentified". Widespread media attention to these events has motivated theories and speculations from private individuals and groups about the underlying explanation(s), including those focused upon pseudoscience topics such as ufology. Regarding the pseudoscientific explanations, writer Matthew Gault stated that these events "reflect the same pattern that's played out dozens of times before. Someone sees something strange in the sky...and the public jumps to an illogical conclusion."

Mundane, non-pseudoscientific explanations include instrument or software malfunction/anomaly/artifact, human observational illusion (e.g., parallax) or interpretive error, or common aircraft (e.g., a passenger airliner) or aerial device (e.g., weather balloon), with the science writer Mick West stating that the reported objects in these incidents are "most likely...a relatively slow-moving object like a bird or a balloon," and that "the jet filming it is moving fast, so this creates an illusion of speed against the ocean." West stated that the GIMBAL video can be explained as footage of a distant plane with the apparent rotation actually being the glare in the IR camera rotating.

References

The reverted edit to the same relevant part of the section is as follows:

As of 2020, the aerial phenomena recorded from the Nimitz and Roosevelt events are characterized by the US Department of Defense as "unidentified". Widespread media attention to these events has motivated theories and speculations from private individuals and groups about the underlying explanation(s), including those focused upon pseudoscience topics such as ufology. Regarding the pseudoscientific explanations. Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists told Space.com "It is somewhat dismaying to see how quickly 'unidentified' aerial phenomena are publicly interpreted and portrayed as UFOs of possibly extraterrestrial origin, Collectively, we should all be becoming more intelligent and more perceptive, not more stupid and gullible.".

Mundane, non-pseudoscientific explanations by debunkers include instrument or software malfunction/anomaly/artifact, human observational illusion (e.g., parallax) or interpretive error, or common aircraft (e.g., a passenger airliner) or aerial device (e.g., weather balloon), with the science writer Mick West stating that the reported objects in these incidents are "most likely...a relatively slow-moving object like a bird or a balloon," and that "the jet filming it is moving fast, so this creates an illusion of speed against the ocean." West stated that the GIMBAL video can be explained as footage of a distant plane with the apparent rotation actually being the glare in the IR camera rotating. Eyewitness and Navy Pilots involved in the incident, Fravor and Underwood have rejected these explanations in public. Science communicator Katie Mack stated regarding the debunking efforts that it requires experts in the fields of Military technology and Atmospheric optics effects writing "any attempt to figure it out will certainly involve a deep understanding of both those realms.". Political scientist Alexander Wendt stated "I challenge anybody to do better than the Navy to explain what's in those videos. If the Navy couldn't do it...they had every reason to want this off their plate".

Time magazine interviewed Joseph Gradisher, the spokesman for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare and reported "Gradisher would not speculate as to what the unidentified objects seen in the videos were, but did say they are usually proved to be mundane objects like drones—not alien spacecraft". Gradisher told the History channel "Those three videos are just part of a larger effort by the U.S. Navy to try and investigate a series of incursions into our training ranges by phenomena that we’re calling unidentified aerial phenomena,". Gardisher also added "these videos represent only some of the UAP sightings the Navy is investigating." Former U.K Project Condign investigator Nick Pope commented "I think the clear perception is the Navy thinks we’re dealing with something real and tangible here. So not misidentifications, misperceptions, glitches or such".

Scientific American magazine noted that the Scientific community has not commented much on the released videos stating "Part of the reason could be the apparent taboo around UAP phenomena, connecting it to the paranormal or pseudoscience,", or due to lack of specific expertise. Air & Space magazine noted the limited information coming out from official sources "The defense department has been little help in clearing up these mysteries". While most interviewed experts in the media such as space journalist James Oberg or Astronomer Seth Shostak rejected the extraterrestrial explanation as even a probability, and skeptics such as Robert Sheaffer rejected also the plausabilty of the idea, few experts have not rejected the possibility. Former Pentagon Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program investigator Luis Elizondo finds that the evidence does suggest UFOs may have reached Earth. Elizondo lists these videos as showing extraordinary, logic-defying capabilities of a UFO. Exemplifying what he calls the “five observables": Anti-gravity lift, Sudden and instantaneous acceleration, Hypersonic velocities without signatures, Low observability or cloaking and Trans-medium travel. Former aviation editor for Jane’s Defense Weekly Nick Cook stated to Popular Mechanics that the “Tic Tac” UFO was not likely some type of classified drone. And "In the balance of probabilities, I don’t think it’s ‘ours’ ". Mark Rodeghier, director of Center for UFO Studies noted that more information is needed in order to come to a conclusion, stating to Live Science "It would be extremely disappointing and frustrating if these reports are not released for scrutiny. We need high-quality data about UFOs to do better science," and that "If those reports are never released, all of this is going to be blip in UFO history,".

Following the report on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, signed December 2020, which contained what CNN described as "180-day countdown for US intelligence agencies to tell Congress what they know about UFOs.", Former U.S Intelligence offical Christopher Mellon commented ""it's now fair to say" this request has bipartisan support.", and that "Assuming the report is properly prepared and delivered, there is no telling what the impacts could be...That could range from revealing an unknown threat or military vulnerability to there having been probes visiting our planet, or anything in between.”.

References

The current version of this RfC relevant part of the article's Section "Background" is as followes:

On November 14, 2004, fighter pilot Commander David Fravor of the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group investigated radar indications of a possible target off the coast of Southern California. Fravor said that he saw an object, white and oval like a Tic Tac, hovering above an ocean disturbance. He estimated that it was about 40 feet long. A second wave of fighters, including pilot Lieutenant Commander Chad Underwood, took off from the Nimitz to investigate. Unlike Fravor, Underwood's fighter was equipped with an advanced infrared camera. Underwood recorded the FLIR video, but did not himself see any unusual object.

References

The reverted version of this RfC relevant part of the article's Section "Background" is as followes:

On November 14, 2004, fighter pilot Commander David Fravor of the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group investigated radar indications of a possible target off the coast of Southern California. Fravor said that he saw an object, white and oval like a Tic Tac, hovering above an ocean disturbance. He estimated that it was about 40 feet long. A second wave of fighters, including pilot Lieutenant Commander Chad Underwood, took off from the Nimitz to investigate. Unlike Fravor, Underwood's fighter was equipped with an advanced infrared camera. Underwood recorded the FLIR video, but did not himself see any unusual object.

After talking to the witnesses involved, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Minority Staff Director of the Senate Intelligence Committee Christopher Mellon stated "We had multiple naval aviators [reporting] what they saw [wingless UFOs, with extraordinary capabilities] in broad daylight, over an extended period of time. It was corroborated by the most sophisticated air-defense sensor systems on earth, and on multiple platforms operated by multiple independent individuals."

References

The current version of this RfC relevant part of the article's Section "Release of videos" is as followes:

On December 16, 2017, the New York Times reported on the incidents and published three videos, termed “FLIR,” “GIMBAL,” and “GOFAST” purporting to show encounters by jets from Nimitz and Theodore Roosevelt with unusually shaped, fast-moving aircraft. The reports became subject to "fevered speculation by UFO investigators." Those stories have been criticized by journalism professor Keith Kloor as "a curious narrative that appears to be driven by thinly-sourced and slanted reporting." According to Kloor, "Cursory attention has been given to the most likely, prosaic explanations. Instead, the coverage has, for the most part, taken a quizzical, mysterious frame that plays off the catchy “UFO” tag in the headline."

References

The reverted version of this RfC relevant part of the article's Section "Release of videos" is as followes:

On December 16, 2017, the New York Times reported on the incidents and published three videos, termed “FLIR,” “GIMBAL,” and “GOFAST” purporting to show encounters by jets from Nimitz and Theodore Roosevelt with unusually shaped, fast-moving aircraft. The reports became subject to "fevered speculation by UFO investigators." Those stories have been criticized by journalism professor Keith Kloor as "a curious narrative that appears to be driven by thinly-sourced and slanted reporting." According to Kloor, "Cursory attention has been given to the most likely, prosaic explanations. Instead, the coverage has, for the most part, taken a quizzical, mysterious frame that plays off the catchy “UFO” tag in the headline." To Kloor's criticism Political journalist Tom Rogan wrote "serious journalists take this seriously not because "they want to believe," but because the Navy UFOs, and a good number of other UFO incidents, simply cannot be explained with what Kloor calls "prosaic explanations." These cases are compelling precisely because conventional theories have been eliminated". New York Times investigative journalist Leslie Kean stated "As one of three people writing the Times stories, which include scrutiny by fact-checkers and multiple editors,...We stand by all our reporting at the New York Times and will continue to cover the topic whenever we can. Our first story in Dec. 2017 reverberated around the world and has made the subject respectable for many who would not have touched it before. It opened the door to classified briefings on the Hill and a chain of events involving the Navy issuing new reporting guidelines and acknowledging the anomalies in the videos".

References