Talk:USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents

POV push

I have reverted to a previous version as this edit introduces WP:ASSERTions that are not appropriate in Wikipedia's voice as well as unvetted WP:YOUTUBE postings. Not good. Also, here's a reminder that articles about UFO incidents are subject to discretionary sanctions. jps (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You have reverted 4 edits which are all accompanied by specific edit descriptions and sources. Have you seen them? Please let me know what your issues are with each specific edit. To help in discussion I report below the 4 edits you reverted and their descriptions. Let's proceed inline. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit 1 - the Sources

• [1] Not just those two [sources]. The article has 14 sources with various outlets reporting on this. e.g. POLITICO, WASHINGTON POST just to name a few.
  • Hardly matters. Our sentences is pretty much tied to the sources we immediately cite and not to the other sources. jps (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph that sentence precedes includes more than those 2 sources. We can link them all if you want but it would be WP:OVERCITE which is usually the result of edit warring. I don't think we need to go that far. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is most of those sources do not support the precise wording of that sentence. And a lot of the sources are just rehash of the NYTimes piece and so are not independent verifications. jps (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A couple of independent verifications already included in the article (with independent sources or confirmations). Happy reading, let me know once you are done you opinion of each and why you choose to ignore them: AIAAPolitico, one of the many Washington PostTIME I could go on. But sources are already in the article. Just need to read them before making stuff uf. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Shitty reporting is shitty. I stand by my evaluation. jps (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the statement needs qualifying, but it is not necessary to intrude "Source X says..." into an article. There's a guideline about that somewhere; if the cite says it already, there is no need to say it again. Can we just say something like "Press reports stated that dozens....[x][y]"? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Reasonable and more accurate. I agree with the version proposed by User:Steelpillow --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think these press reports corroborate the "dozens". In fact, the NYTimes does not have a count, only Popular Mechanics, and even then, only vaguely as stated. jps (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That would change things a little. Do other reports talk about dozens or similar high quantities? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This is why the original phrasing didn't start the paragraph like this but simply linked the various sources when appropriate for each statement of information. Expecting total conformity in different sources reporting different aspects is unnecessary and irrealistic --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit 2 - Paraphrasis of Navy Spokesperson

• [2] Complete Navy Spokesman statement paraphrasis
  • Unnecessary and WP:POVPUSH trying to impose a UFO report fetish. jps (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I report the exact text from the source. We can use a direct quote if you prefer (emphasis mine): Joseph Gradisher, a Navy spokesman, said the new guidance was an update of instructions that went out to the fleet in 2015, after the Roosevelt incidents.“There were a number of different reports,” he said. Some cases could have been commercial drones, he said, but in other cases “we don’t know who’s doing this, we don’t have enough data to track this. So the intent of the message to the fleet is to provide updated guidance on reporting procedures for suspected intrusions into our airspace.”). You may be inadvertently imposing your own POV without verifying the sources properly. Read the sources thoroughly before making edits. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

"In some cases" — is pretty clear that it's not in all cases. Wikipedia isn't written like the script of a horror movie trailer. We don't cherrypick dramatic quotes to hype a feeling of mystery or urgency. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the diff? Please refrain from commenting before you have reviewed the material. Here is the paraphrasis we had in the article before the revert so you can compare it to the original above. Please point out exactly what passage is not an accurate representation (emphasis mine):

According to a Navy spokesman, there have been a number of reports and, while some cases could have been commercial drones, the source of others remains unknown as not enough data is available for accurate tracking, prompting new classified guidance on reporting procedures "for suspected intrusions into our airspace.”--Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG is appropriate here. jps (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

In what way? Nobody is making any extraordinary claim in the text reported. It's the prudent statement of a Navy spokesman who has been interviewed by several major sources.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't trust your "prudent Navy spokesperson" as an "extraordinary source". Find me a Nature or Science article showing that it is AMAZING! jps (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

TBH I am with Gtoffoletto on this one. All this edit was doing was to help clarify the context for the push on better reporting. There is nothing "extraordinary" about that, nothing. The only purple prose and overreaction I see in this subthread comes from the nay-sayers. I wonder if it might be best to actually present the spokesperson's words as a direct quotation, along the lines of "A Naval spkesperson was reported as saying...", so we can see there is no editorial PoV involved. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem is, the spokesperson is quoted by New York Times authors who are, in part, taken in by the ufology hype. We have no independent verification of what the spokesperson said as a matter of verbatim quotes. If we had an interview or something, that would be one thing, but instead we have cherry-picked quotes that are contextualized by the New York Times rather than the Navy. jps (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem with that is, you are happy to accept NYT for many other facts in this very article, indeed you accept parts of the very quotation you now question. There is no additional unreliability about this particular phrase, quite the reverse - a point you have not denied. You have absolutely no rational grounds for making some arbitrary part of the quotation a special case. However the PoV you transparently express here speaks volumes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should be relying on the article as much as we are. It represents a unique failure of the newspaper that the article ran without skeptical vetting. Be that as it may, it is far better than the sources that come from the company with whom they coordinated the publication. jps (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

"Joseph Gradisher, a Navy spokesman" has been quoted by most reputable sources reporting on this event. Including the NYT, TIME, Washington post et al. I could understand skepticism if he was an anonymous source. But calling into question the accuracy of those sources is preposterous and the Navy would have surely corrected such a blatantly incorrect statement if it was untrue. Given the concerns expressed are not valid I will reintroduce this into the article in full. Agreed? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

No way. Not until I see a transcript. jps (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not the way Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not document perceived truth, it documents what reliable source say. These journal are reputable enough that between them, per WP:RS, they provide sufficient verification of the Navy spokesman's pronouncements, per WP:VERIFY. You may feel that you can cherry-pick from an interview you have never seen in its entirety, but that is just your own PoV-pushing - the very activity you started this thread to complain about. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

No, we are under no obligation to include selected quotes from The New York Times as though it gives imprimatur to the story. The current wording explains the situation perfectly reasonably. jps (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The current wording is cherrypicking the source to push a POV and manipulate what the source is saying. It is not an accurate representation of what the source said and the reason why the Navy has implemented new regulations. They implemented regulation because "we don’t know who’s doing this, we don’t have enough data to track this. So the intent of the message to the fleet is to provide updated guidance on reporting procedures for suspected intrusions into our airspace." --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The current source cherrypicks facts as well. We have good authorities that the authors of the NYTimes piece are problematic, so we need to tread lightly and not overly rely upon it. jps (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Since the putative phrasing adds cold, factual clarity to a Naval decision and not the slightest woo, your arguments are wholly inapplicable to this particular edit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The current wording already does that. jps (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree. I think we should reintroduce the paraphrases that has been reverted. It seems more succinct than reporting the full quote. But if someone thinks it's imprecise we can go with the direct quote. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually a mix might be more appropriate: According to a Navy spokesman, there have been a number of reports and, while some cases could have been commercial drones, the source of others remains unknown prompting new classified guidance on reporting procedures: “we don’t know who’s doing this, we don’t have enough data to track this. So the intent of the message to the fleet is to provide updated guidance on reporting procedures for suspected intrusions into our airspace.”. What do you think? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

No, this is dissembling and incorporating commentary not in the source even! jps (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Please be specific. I tried to paraphrase exactly. What is not in the source? We can remove it. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing dissembling about it. Nor is there the slightest hint of anything other than mundane causes, it's perfectly neutral in tone. As for representing sources, we are required to paraphrase and not plagiarise or quote unnecessarily. Nothing is going to change some people's minds on this, further discussion is pointless. I like it, let's go with it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for including in the article. I'll add the sources below in the coming days after checking within them if I find something interesting which is missing from the article.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. LuckyLouie and jps are editing this exact passage that User:Steelpillow has added without any discussion. Please revert your own edits to what has been discussed above. What is this discussion about if you just totally ignore it and do as you please? See diff with edits by both editors [3]. If you won't revert and engage in discussion I think the only solution will be to ask for admin intervention. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Problems with the edits: they push the POV that those were "just commercial drones" by cherrypicking sentences and misconstructing what the sources are saying. Also, consequent phrases reporting quotes by Gradisher are introduced differently making it seem like they were not said by the same person. I welcome the addition of the new source [4] that supports the NYT reporting. Still no discussion from the editors involved who I'm afraid are pushing this thread towards an edit war. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Additional sources: Here are additional sources on what prompted the Navy to draft new report guidelines to add when the above discussion is over.

1. Politico (main source)
2. Navy Times--Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

LuckyLouie has now restored much of the contended material further down the page and with new wording. It does some justice to the Navy review, which I have no problem with. Has it still left out any significant deletion? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 01:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: Sorry if this message of mine confuses the discussion. I have added clearer spacing and a small title. The discussion is above with my comment on the edits made. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit 3 - Video Metadata

• [5] Video metadata is not available. Source is NYT (this is your original research?)
  • I have no idea what your issue with this is. What do you want us to discuss? What exactly is the issue with the metadata we are citing and what is the concern you have for this article? There is a "KISS" Keep it simple, stupid principle here. jps (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    • In deference to this, I have made the commentary even simpler which is all we need, IMHO: [6]. jps (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Your edit omits some interesting details but at least now it is factual as reported by the sources. There is no reported metadata associated with the videos and the source is the NYT as per my edit.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

"Interesting details" is not a valid criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The article is factual now as you have removed the reference to metadata which was not supported by sources. As usual you could have edited instead of reverted with bogus claims if the problem were the "unnecessary details". I suggest you do so in the future to avoid all this useless discussion. I would have just pressed the "thank you" button --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit 4 - Original Video Links in External Links

• [7] Links to original videos as per WP:VIDEOLINK
  • Not a good justification at all. WP:YOUTUBE. jps (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no blanket ban on youtube videos and they should be evaluated on a case by case basis per WP:YOUTUBE. In this case I believe the parameters indicated in WP:VIDEOLINK are respected. Could you point to the exact passages that support removing those links from WP:VIDEOLINK(addendum to WP:EXT)? Those are the original links published on the "to the stars" youtube account that prompted the initial reporting by the NYT et al. Definitely relevant to the article. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to link to the charlatan To the Stars youtube account in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Source of you statement? They are the source of the video as the article states and sources confirm and verify. Does a source doubt their authenticity? Or is this your original research or personal POV?--Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That others have been duped by this racket is our concern and is why the article can exist. But we don't need to include their youtube videos. Not in anyway necessary. jps (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

"Unidentified gauzy blobs" on cockpit displays" is directly from the Aerospace America source cited. The NYT source is quite specific that the "sphere encasing a cube" description was made by only one pilot. I have corrected these issues. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. And I have reinstated this correction after it was reverted. jps (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I would place the source closer to the direct quote for clarity. I know the sources quite well and I couldn't tell where that specific sentence came from. However, I would contend that "Gauzy blobs" doesn't seem like an accurate description to be included in an encyclopaedia especially since it's definitely not the description given by any of the witnesses. Curious that both you and jps, who are normally very strict with quotations when I introduce them, didn't have any issues with this one.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Gauzy blobs are exactly what I see in those videos, so I'm not sure why that's not "accurate". The citation is at the end of the sentence, so it seems fine to me. I didn't have any problem verifying it. jps (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is this additional detail "gauzy blob" from one of the sources you have described yourself as "shitty reporting"[8] necessary and appropriate when the existing and more accurate description of "infrared detections" is already present? Suddenly it's an accurate statement from a reputable source because it supports your personal POV? The NYT cannot be quoted but this specific sentence in that source can? I'm really enjoying the double standards clearly on display for all to see. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Gauzy blob is more accurate than "infrared detections". We have no independent corroboration of an infrared detection. It is easy to verify that these look like gauzy blobs. jps (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually only one source is using the term "Gauzy blob" in the journalistic introduction to the article. I note from that source [9] (emphasis mine): The APG-79 can track multiple targets dozens of kilometers ahead, but it cannot image a radar reflection or identify what is producing it. So, the pilots closed in until the targets were in range of their video pods, called the Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared or ATFLIR (pronounced A-T-FLIR) system consisting of an electro-optical camera that senses visible wavelengths and an infrared camera to sense heat. [...] These are the pods referenced by the Raytheon executive. Once the ATFLIRs locked on, “that kind of took away some of the uncertainty for us,” Graves says. “We’re getting them on radar and then picking them up on the FLIR.” What you are looking at and "independently verifying" as a "gauzy blob" is an infrared recording/detection.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you think a gauzy blog is an infrared detection lays bare your POV problem. jps (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That is unjustified and preposterous. Let's wait for other editors to comment on this. P.s. Raytheon has commented on your "gauzy blobs" https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/uap_atflir and I quote We might be the system that caught the first evidence of E.T. out there,” said Aaron Maestas, director of engineering and chief engineer for Surveillance and Targeting Systems at Raytheon's Space and Airborne Systems business. “But I’m not surprised we were able to see it. ATFLIR is designed to operate on targets that are traveling in excess of Mach 1. It’s a very agile optical system with a sensitive detector that can distinguish between the cold sky and the hot moving target quite easily.. Other parts of that source can be used in the article especially when the "skeptical" angle seems to suggest this was an instrumental malfunction. The maker doesn't seem to thing so (last update to that article 06/21/2019)--Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: Gtoffoletto is arguing that you are making the misidentification. "Unjustified and preposterous" is putting it mildly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Junk videos would not normally be allowed. But how junk are these? Does this To The Stars account have a track record of posting faked videos or over-hyped commentaries? If not, then regardless of our own PoV we should not ban revelvant videos just because we disagree with theirs.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Still waiting for a source for their statements other than their personal beliefs and original research --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

My thought was to try and tease out some objective findings about the source. Worst case, we'd have to gain community consensus on the reliability of the poster. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

To the Stars has an explicit agenda of Disclosure (ufology). They don't pretend to be objective. Why should we treat them as such? jps (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a good reason, thank you. I trust it is our consensus view? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree. The goal of "To the stars" is reported here [10] (emphasis mine): Our vision is to collect, triage, and partition signature data, utilizing forensic and scientific methodology, into a central database that can be used to shed light on anomalies, trends, and patterns. We believe these data, when analyzed rigorously, could lead to a better understanding of our reality, including some of the most fascinating and mysterious phenomena in the universe. In turn, our vision is to involve the public with the discovery of revolutionary breakthroughs in science and technology.. They certainly do not have an "explicit agenda of Disclosure." That statement is just blatantly false and, as always, your own personal POV. They take themselves very seriously. So I think we should do the same (especially since several reputable sources ARE taking them seriously) unless some reputable source says we shouldn't be listening to them. If they weren't reliable, this article (and several others) would simply not exist. Please remember Wikipedia is not a place for WP:ORIGINAL research and that it is important to WP:CITE. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

They take themselves very seriously. I'm sure they do. Blink-182's frontman no doubt thinks he's smarter than all the rest. Never mind that they're an entertainment company (LOL) making claims about scientific phenomena with nothing more than Hal Puthoff of The Men Who Stare at Goats fame to back them up. Excuse me while I roll my eyes. jps (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That's funny. The company has been contracted in October for a five year research program (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)) by the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command [11]. You can read yourself what the contract is about (spoiler: not producing media). Now, either you have sources that claim To the stars is a deceitful company that fabricates evidence and lies routinely or I am afraid your jokes are funny but are not really encyclopaedia material. I will then restore my edit. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't gie a flying rats ass about what kind of money these charlatans have swindled out of the military. Just read our article on Hal Puthoff. There's all the evidence you need. jps (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is at all. We need some source directly related to the organisation "To the stars". Your claim that they are "charlatans" fabricating evidence while we have multiple reliable sources claiming they are credible and serious (NYT, Washington post, Politico, and the US Government and Army) is unsubstantiated and original research so far. Unless you can prove what you say we must restore the source supported edit (which is central to this article in any case). We can then edit To the Stars (company) which lacks any source supporting your statements. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but Hal Puthoff as a director is completely disconfirming. We've done our part simply by linking to that article. jps (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a fallacious argumentum ad hominem. Not a source. Anything else? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Having just checked out our articles on Puthoff and his company, as well as the company website, it is clear that both are unreliable on any kind of paranormal phenomenon. The reverse is true when it comes to technology and defense; Puthov's CV is impeccable and he has a darn strong team behind him. So the key question has to be, do these videos include para-woo commentary or are they plain factual accounts? Sorry I don't have media on this workstation, so I can't see for myself. Nut given the utter failure to date to put up evidence behind the criticisms, I think we can keep them unless and until such evidence is produced. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with Steelpillow. I confirm no claims are made regarding the origin or explanation of what is shown in the video. Only subtitles and technical details. When you have time to review yourself I would ask you to reinsert them into the "External links" as per the original diff. (I won't do it myself to confirm this was consensus)--Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:ELNO. I removed the cruft. Get them published in a reliable outfit, not by an entertainment company and not on WP:YOUTUBE fercryingoutloud. jps (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

UFOs are "paranormal phenomena". That's the whole point of their ludicrous company. jps (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

What part of WP:ELNO are you referring to? Note that if you cared to check out the company web site, you might notice that Science and Aerospace form two-thirds of their business, so "just entertainers" is more of your unsubstantiated hyperbole. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The science and aerospace division is all about pseudophysics as it is led by Hal Puthoff. jps (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

From their tabloid embrace [12], I think it's pretty obvious obvious TTSA is primarily if not wholly focused on fringe science aka pseudoscience, which puts the encyclopedia at risk of linking to factually inaccurate material, unverifiable research, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, you aren't really suggesting that the Daily Mail is a reliable source are you?! OK OK I jest, maybe it just takes one to know one or something. You have convinced me, thanks very much for the enlightening link. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The edit by User:Steelpillow has been reverted by jps [13]. Not sure what part of WP:ELNO he is referencing (I've reviewed and none seem to apply) or why he hasn't mentioned it during this long discussion before. But please say what exact part applies in your opinion or I will revert the edit per discussion above. Maybe try being more precise when you cite a guideline or policy. Your edit descriptions are often unintelligible leading to unnecessary discussions. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail link provided by LuckyLouie highlights the company's pervasive ufology in a way I find hard to argue is libellous. Accordingly I have changed my mind and now assume the videos to be equally unreliable. Had I seen it earlier I would not have tried to restore them here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 00:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Two questions for my information: Is the Daily Mail considered reliable? And does the primary focus on ufology by a source automatically disqualify them as a reputable source?

Please bear in mind that my intent here is to include the videos in the article as they are a key element in this story. The intent is not to include "To the stars" directly in the article. Are there alternatives to those links? In the Nimitz article someone has just uploaded the video to commons (no copyright since DOD material) but I'm not sure how to find a source to upload with no subtitles etc. which are copyrighted material. We are left with this source (which is the one all subsequent reporting by several RS is based on) at the moment. Unless someone can find a "clean version".--Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No, the Daily Mail is a notoriously unreliable rag. But it does (mostly) try to stay out of the libel courts. It very obviously picked the "To the stars" story for its ufology spin, and found what it wanted all right; "Last week, a spokesperson for To The Stars told the New York Times its newest discovery is 'exotic material samples from UFOs,'" and later on, "'We have been able to establish that the material shows highly advanced anomalous engineering capabilities,' the [co-founder] wrote. 'This acquisition will allow us to expand the scope of our ADAM Research Project and accelerate R&D that could lead to numerous aerospace and engineering breakthroughs.'". I am sorry, but encouraging that kind of X-Files fodder to go out in your name is about the surest way there is to get it banned from Wikipedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems you are falling into the fallacy you have reported lower in the page (the sensationalist reporting by the Daily Mail doesn't help). UFO is not equal to aliens. They claim those "exotic materials" are advanced technologies not that they are of "extraterrestrial origin" or "alien". I don't see any statement claiming they know the origin of those materials.

Last week, a spokesperson for To The Stars told the New York Times its newest discovery is 'exotic material samples from UFOs,' declining to comment further. And also:'The structure and composition of these materials are not from any known existing military or commercial application,' Steve Justice, former head of Advanced Systems at Lockheed Martin's 'Skunk Works' who now leads To the Stars' Technology and Aerospace team, said of the find, according to DeLong.'We currently have multiple material samples being analyzed by contracted laboratories and have plans to extend the scope of this study,' he added. Steve Justice is a Former Director of Skunk Works Special Programs with over 30 years of experience [14][15]. Is he a "quack" as well? Even the singer Tom de Longe just said on his instagram account:they believe the material came from an 'Unidentified Aerial Vehicle.We have been able to establish that the material shows highly advanced anomalous engineering capabilities,' the singer wrote. 'This acquisition will allow us to expand the scope of our ADAM Research Project and accelerate R&D that could lead to numerous aerospace and engineering breakthroughs.'

No aliens. No pseudoscience. Just UAVs, advanced technology and exotic materials. The rest is commentary by an unreliable source that should be discarded. it is clear they are being very careful to avoid the subject in order to be taken seriously. And this is probably why the government and other reputable sources have given them so much credit. And so should we unless some more reliable source calls them into question (I've looked and I don't see any and none has been brought forth).--Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

A final crucial detail. I'm sorry but I have only just understood what User:LuckyLouie meant by From their tabloid embrace... That statement appears to be false and a mischaracterisation of the source. None of the reporting by the daily mail is based on direct quotes or comments. Everything they wrote is from secondary sources reported in the article (New york times, public statements on social networks etc.). As far as I can tell no comments were given to the tabloid by To the stars or any of it's key people. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, $(exotic\ material\ samples\ from\ UFOs)+(advanced\ anomalous\ engineering)=aliens$; it is classic woo-speak. Moreover, contrary to your "No aliens" claim, the "a" word gets eight explicit mentions, for example; "what is believed to be material that could have come from alien spacecraft" - yes, that material. It is totally damning. You absolutely need to grasp this straight up and stop wriggling. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Steelpillow: please review the second comment I have posted above (should have only posted that one but realised late what the other user meant by "embracing tabloids"). The "a" word and your quote are written by the Daily Mirror (an unreliable source sensationalising the story). They are not quotes by "To the stars" who had no direct involvement with that story. Not even once did To the stars use the term aliens in any reporting I have seen and certainly not in this one. I hope my point was more clear now. Sorry for the confusion. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, it is classic woo-speak. You absolutely need to grasp this straight up and stop wriggling. Sorry, I have no more to add. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I just wanted to make sure you weren't basing your conclusions on incorrect data. I disagree those statements are disqualifying per-se but accept the local consensus achieved. Case closed. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

General discussion

As a general point, I'd like folks to bear in mind that a unidentified flying object is, as our linked article makes clear from the word Go, officially just that; something the observer does not recognize. There is no "woo-aliens" connotation in reporting sober instances of the phrase in the present context. We just have to make sure we don't introduce any either. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Not all editors grasp that fact. The sources and text reported sometimes even use Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon which is even less defined to avoid negative connotations and the irrational reactions they generate in some people. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no "official" definition of UFO. It is a pop-cultural phenomenon associated, for better or worse, with the absolute "woo-aliens" beliefs of those who rally to claim there is something phenomenological beyond observations that certain people are unable to explain using their own limited resources. For better or worse, that's the context. In an ideal world, we would right great wrongs and excise the "woo-aliens" from these articles, but as these are essentially the only people making these claims (and the WP:SENSATIONalized media who breathlessly parrots their woo), we are stuck in that regime. The best we can do is give WP:WEIGHT to those who are throwing cold water on all this business. That's the essence of WP:NFRINGE, after all. jps (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the US armed forces know exactly what they mean when they mention in official reports some unidentified object flying around the sky. Perhaps I am mistaken. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Back in the days of Project Blue Book, there was some method to the madness, but part of this article is the complaints by the (now ex-)military officials who aren't taken seriously in their sounding of the alarm about these sightings. There is no "official" reporting channel essentially because the woo got so mixed in it became impossible to disentangle. This latest dust-up is a reaction to some concerns that some sightings may be indicative of drone incursions, but To The Stars wants it all to be about the aliens, and as they are the main sources for information about these "incidents", we're basically stuck in that waystation. jps (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not clear that a term ceases to be official just because people are afraid to use it. Lots of terms have different meanings in different contexts, we just have to present the usage in RS as faithfully as we can. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, "UFO" was never an official term even though it was proposed for such a purpose. jps (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

So you'll be heading over to the unidentified flying object article to edit out this, then; The term "UFO" (or "UFOB") was coined in 1953 by the United States Air Force (USAF) to serve as a catch-all for all such reports. In its initial definition, the USAF stated that a "UFOB" was "any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.", or you'll be telling me that your "official" is not my "official", or whatever. Whatever. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

or maybe you might find that my accounting is not inconsistent with that? Whatever. It's not a hard thing to figure out. jps (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

jps(now ex-)military officials blatantly false and uninformed. The MAIN source of this article (Lt. Ryan Graves) is active military (10 years) and a pilot/officer in the Navy. He continues to be trusted to fly multi million dollar machines around the sky protecting a nation and has testified to congress and to the pentagon. Many other sources related to the "to the stars" reports are still active military. You are badly informed and keep spewing false information to support your POV.

indicative of drone incursions this may be the case and should be included in the article as per sources that all report possible drone incursions. There should be a "Possible Explanations" section like the one you reverted today for no good reason. However: the high performance demonstrated by those "drones" are not achievable with current publicly known technology. So someone has something which is very advanced. Black project for the US? China? Russia? And they have had it for a long time. Unless this is all a mass illusion/hallucination and several technical instruments have been malfunctioning at the same time like the sources you included in the article seem to suggest. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Nah. This is all just a Luis Elizondo cash cow. The rest of your fantasies are not relevant for comment. We have poor sources here and that's how it's likely to remain because this is all just another flash in the pan for the ufologists who wish they were taken seriously. jps (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Your judgement may well be correct. But it has generated sufficient coverage that, per WP:NOTABILITY, it deserves an article. Our challenge is not to judge that coverage but to reflect it objectively. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not objecting to the existence of this article, but I do object to a fetishization of the story as though it has more credibility than any other UFO report. jps (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You are entitled to your own opinion. That shouldn't effect the article in any way though. And it clearly is. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

My opinions are irrelevant and they are affecting nothing. The fact that you think they are just illustrates how blinkered your position is. jps (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Then we should be in agreement, nobody is fetishizing any story here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I beg to differ. jps (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Steelpillow. I suggest we get back to editing and end this useless squabble over what other editor's intentions are. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Refrain from editing while discussion is ongoing

jps and LuckyLouie please refrain from editing the page while discussion is ongoing. Per WP:Dispute (emphasis mine) once sustained discussion begins, productively participating in it is a priority. Uninvolved editors who are invited to join a dispute will likely be confused and alarmed if there are large numbers of reverts or edits made while discussion is ongoing. The page has already been substantially edited (see diff) from the moment the dispute began. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you are in any position to be making demands here. jps (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia policy WP:DISPUTE. I don't think you are in any position to change that. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I could ask for you to be topic banned for tendentious editing. But let's see how this develops. jps (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Except I'm not editing (only fixing typos in what you are adding to the article). And nor should you until the dispute is over. Please also stop the personal attacks and baiting. It won't work as I've learned the lesson from the last time we met:WP:BAIT--Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That last remark by Gtoffoletto speaks volumes. The discussion is effectively over. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

So I have edited the article accordingly. Please fill in anything I have missed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Steelpillow All your edits have been immediately edited or reverted by LuckyLouie and jps disregarding all discussion [16]. What a mess... --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Add Possible Explanations section

Just like the USS Nimitz incident article we should separate the description of the events and history from the various "Possible Explanations".

I did this before but it was reverted [17] with the edit description "we don't need two sections".

Keeping everything together is cumbersome and complicates reading and editing. Those sections are also expected to grow, so they need proper separation and treatment. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

When the section becomes too big, we can talk about splitting. For right now, I think we're fine. I don't see a lot of new sources being created about this. jps (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a chicken and egg problem. We are only skimming the surface of the available sources. Both in terms of possible explanations and in terms of description of the events and their publication history. Research is also ongoing with recent new events (e.g. congressional hearings). The two topics are currently intertwined complicating the article unnecessarily in terms of reading and editing. I would follow the USS Nimitz standard which is a similar page and has consensus.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Plase see MOS:BODY for relevant guidelines from the Manual of Style. It states: The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of similar articles. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Separating credulous hyperbole from critique and analysis is counter to WP:FRINGE and bad practice in any case. Years ago believers fought to have critique in paranormal articles ghettoized (when that was the big thing people were excited about). It didn't work out for a number of reasons, but mostly because Wikipedia is primarily a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia and not a tabloid. Also see WP:CRIT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree. Where is the "credulous hyperbole" you speak of in the current description of the facts in the article? I don't see any and if someone were to include it I would be the first to remove it. The USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident#Possible_explanations section which has achieved consensus proves it is an appropriate way of treating this topic. The first section details the WP:RS supported FACTS surrounding the event. Interpretation goes in the Possible explanations section.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that it is early days yet and that a separate section for explanations would currently add nothing; there is no credulous hyperbole there yet, concern focuses more on (well-documented) emerging UAV technologies, but such an inherently speculative section would at this stage be no more informative and might invite abuse. Frankly, if it were not for the congressional hearings I would be questioning the article's WP:NOTABILITY. In fact I would suggest that a broad focus around the terms of reference for those hearings would be a good way to take things forward. All in all, I think it would be better to expand and clean up the historical developments a bit more, preferably bringing in some more RS and Congressional information, before worrying overly about possible explanations. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree once again. I'm only working on the "historical" part at the moment but other editors seem intent in including possible explanations within that text to ensure no-one comes off with the idea that Wiki is saying: "CONFIRMED: aliens flying around". That's why I propose the section. To maintain a clear separation while ensuring the content is "balanced" and covers the potentially mundane explanations to those events without confusion. We can re-discuss once the above disputes are all over and we go back to expanding the article if we think this is "too soon".--Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

One last note: See the article at the time of the revert. We already had several paragraphs for each section and we are expanding the text by resolving the disputes above and adding the new sources. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I've expanded the article and added an "Aftermath and analysis" section. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

GOFAST.wmv & GIMBAL.wmv

Videos now on navy website as GOFAST.wmv & GIMBAL.wmv:

https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents

if no one else gets there first I'll convert it to wikipedia format when I get time.©Geni (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC) GOFAST.wmv and

@Geni: I have uploaded all three videos as new versions of previous TTSA uploads. I converted them to WebM format using FFMEG, do check if they are fine.

ffmpeg -i "3 - input.wmv" -c:v libvpx-vp9 -b:v 0 -crf 12 -pass 1 -row-mt 1 -an -f webm -y NUL && ffmpeg -i "3 - input.wmv" -c:v libvpx-vp9 -b:v 0 -crf 12 -pass 2 -row-mt 1 -c:a libopus "3 - output.webm"

 Ohsin  23:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks guys, that was fast! Great addition to the article. I've been trying to get the videos on here for months -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Mick west analysis videos

I haven’t seen hem anywhere but before editing the article I thought to add them here as there might be some ongoing debate.

Here’s Mick West playlist of analysis of the videos:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-4ZqTjKmhn5Qr0tCHkCVnqTx_c0P3O2t

He goes into a lot of details, uses trigonometry from the available hud Data, as well a compariosns with infrared videos of his own to make a compelling argument that these are videos of objects that are much farther away than the pilots thought, or stationary and that the sudden movements are result of a parallax illusion, flares and camera rotation. I think they deserve their own session. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avsa (talk • contribs)

I think these are valuable. There are two publications on military.com, it seems. I think we can use them. jps (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree very interesting. Do you have a link to military.com picking them up? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Oops, the military.com was a different source. The Mick West videos were discussed at petapixel: [18]. jps (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What's PetaPixel? Is is reliable? Never heard of it. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 01:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto Established in May of 2009, PetaPixel is a leading blog covering the wonderful world of photography. We love photography, and we want to see others love it too. Our goal is to inform, educate, and inspire in all things photography-related.https://petapixel.com/about/

Edit warring

The recent warring here and elsewhere has been reported at WP:ANI#Ufology sprawling edit war. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Combine and rewrite to avoid fringe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose USS Nimitz UFO incident and this article be combined into one article, focusing on the three videos, and that this one article be rather drastically rewritten (as compared to the existing articles) to focus on the explanations for the videos (e.g. these sources [19] [20] [21] [22]), rather than (as currently) presenting the controversy as if it were unexplained. Although the Nimitz video is from 2004 and the TR are 2014-2015, all three became notable at the same in time when they were released in 2017. Both articles share nearly identical sources, from 2017 or later. The RSes treat these three videos as a group, and so should we. I have no idea what the one proposed merged article should be called (US Navy UFO videos? Pentagon UFO videos?). Thoughts? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Levivich:, those are two different events. I don't think it makes sense to merge them. The videos have been released together but those are completely independent events with different witnesses, events, sources, evidence etc. Surely a strong link between the two though (and the article reflects that).

In total favour of adding more sources to the article:

• [23] 2018. Might be outdated but I'll read it.
• [24] 1 May. Let's add it!
• [25] from 3 days ago. Let's add it!
• [26] April 27, 2020. Let's add it!

Those are very recent sources. Complaining that the article doesn't include them is a bit extreme :-) Remember that on Wikipedia:There is no deadline. No rush. We are all doing our best. I will also read those sources but please add them yourself if you wish! p.s. I am very aware of Mick West's analysis and am talking with him on Metabunk on the flaws with his explanations. Please join us there if you are interested in the subject! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Air & Space/Smithsonian magazine's February 2020 article, "The Year of UFOs" is not currently used in the article, but I think it's an excellent source for a potential merged article on these videos. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose These are clearly two separate notable events and should not be merged. ~ HAL333 21:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'd ask you to look again. Two separate notable events? These articles discuss more than two separate events. Is each one separately notable? Are there any sources that discuss any one of these events without discussing the others? I'd suggest that the actual "event", the topic is the release of three videos, unofficially in 2017 and officially in 2020, and not the recording of the three videos (which would be three separate events, occurring in two separate years on two different ships). The sources treat the topic as the release of these three videos, and they discuss them together. That's why all the sources are post-2017 and why both articles use the same sources. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  In response I would have to ask you to look at the titles again. This article, and the other, concerns the UFO incident(s), not the release of video concerning said UFO incidents. Secondly, to your claim Are there any sources that discuss any one of these events without discussing the others?, I would respond yes. Of the few I checked, sources 16 and 18 make no mention of the USS Nimitz incidents. Next, your point about the dating of the sources doesn't make any sense. Of course there are no sources prior to 2017 as nobody knew about them. Imagine if I demanded that the article My Lai Massacre be changed to My Lai Massacre press coverage because no references predate 1969. Finally, let me once again reiterate that these are two separate events which occurred a decade apart, thus independently notable. ~ HAL333 05:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  You are incorrect. Source 16 and Source 18 both mention the 2004 Nimitz and 2015 TR videos. I don't believe there are any sources that treat these independently; all sources discuss all three videos together. You said you checked a few; I checked them all. I could have missed something of course. You said "check the title", well, the titles are what I think need to be changed. They're misleading. There were never any UFO "incidents" on either ship. There's just videos that show something that looks weird. That's all there ever was to either "incident". Very much unlike Mai Lai. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  I hope you understand that UFO's are not alien spaceships. They're "Unidentified Flying Object(s)." By definition, these phenomena are unidentified; no one knows what they are. Your claim that there "were never any UFO "incidents" is irrational. There definitely were UFO incidents (regardless of whether it was St. Elmo's Fire, malfunction, or ETs) hence the fact that every source refers to them as UFOs. What a silly thing to say! ~ HAL333 14:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  I hope you understand that the vast majority of interest in this otherwise nothingburger of a topic is because people think they are alien spacecraft (including the To The Stars wackos spending money and time promoting these with bated breath). It's not true that "no one knows what they are". We have strong reasons to believe they are one of four things: natural phenomena (including instrumental artifacts), artificial technology (including balloons, drones, mistaken identity aircraft), delusions, or hoaxes. In fact, while many once-labeled "UFO"s have been convincingly identified as one of the four options, there has never been an identification that they have been anything else. That's the null hypothesis we start with. "UFO" as a term has basically been relegated to the junk heap of pseudoscience. You may not like it, and indeed Ruppelt if he had lived would be disappointed, I imagine, but we're not here to right that wrong. jps (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  It is still unidentified. "one of four things" is not identified! The police can't say that they've identified a suspect because they've narrowed it down to four people. And sure, many people feel that UFO has a connotation of alien spacecraft, but this is not Urban Dictionary. Here on the Wikipedia, we use the actual definition and meaning, just as all of the credible sources have. ~ HAL333 15:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This comment betrays a profound ignorance of how the rhetoric surrounding this subject actually functions and what the reliable sources about UFOs point out. While "unidentified" is a value-free term and was intended to be used as such, "UFO" is no longer value-free and is, indeed, why the Navy for example is on the euphemism treadmill of calling them "unidentified aerial phenomena". The idea that UFOs will be found to be something other than the four categories I listed is the prime focus that people have on this topic, for better or worse. The actual definition of "unidentified" as it pertains to the acronym UFO is now no longer what Ruppelt wanted it to be. We are in no position to change that. Sorry. jps (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, this has gone off on a pretty long semantics tangent. I would agree that UAP is usually a better description, because you wouldn't really describe clouds or atmospherical electricity as "flying". But per WP:COMMONNAME, most people associate UFO's rather than UAP's with the Roosevelt incidents. Also, most source on this subject refer to them as UFO's. Also, you tripped me up with the jps stuff.;) ~ HAL333 15:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be a neat idea. We can always WP:CFORK if something happens to cause the two reports to become disentangled. I am curious as to what we might call the combined article. How about something simple like US Navy UFO videos? jps (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you are entirely focusing on the aftermath of the release of the videos. We shouldn't change the emphasis of the articles simply because of a recent news push about the release of the videos, remember Wikipedia is not news. In the long run, what will be notable is not the release of videos, but the events these videos depict and the analysis of them. ~ HAL333 15:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The recent news pushes (in the last year) are the only reason these things are on Wikipedia at all. If there had been no news, there would be no coverage of this. We have no way to know what will be notable about this subject in the long run. We have to go with what the sources are today. WP:CRYSTAL. jps (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Really? Because the USS Nimitz UFO incident article has been around for three years now. ~ HAL333 15:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Has it been that long? Yes, you're right, three years. jps (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• US Navy UFO videos just doesn't make sense. Why not change the Loch Ness Monster to Photos of Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot to Bigfoot videos? There really isn't a precedent for this. This is simply RECENTISM. In the big picture, the release of the videos is only part of the aftermath. ~ HAL333 15:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think Nessie is a good comparison here. The videos are why there is any interest in these "incidents" at all while Nessie is a cultural phenomenon and a tourist attraction. jps (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I think so. What is notable is the phenomena itself, not how it became public. ~ HAL333 16:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

      What is "the phenomena" that you refer to? A weather balloon? "Pilot sees weather balloon on their radar" is not an "event" or "phenomena". Whereas, "Navy releases three videos that look like UFOs" is the "event" … that's what the sources are talking about. Aside from my hammering at "all sources discuss all three videos together", I could also hammer on, "not one source discusses these events without discussing and focusing on the videos". It's the videos, it's always been about the videos, and there is nothing besides the videos. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

      • Obviously I don't know what the phenomena is, hence the fact that I called it "Phenomena" and not "weather balloon". ~ HAL333 18:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Different events in different ships, different geographic locations, and different times. The focuse should not be on the released videos but the specific events covered. Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • But all sources discuss all events together at once. We shouldn't second guess our own reliable sources by making distinctions that they don't. If they don't treat these as distinct or separate then neither should we. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • That really isn't true. Some of them are more focused on the Nimitz and Roosevelt events, but just have a passing reference to the other. Hardly "together". ~ HAL333 15:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I think that's a function of who they were interviewing, largely. I don't think that represents true "independence". jps (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge Having read the two articles in question, it seems to me that the thematic elements shared by both incidents/events, their common sequelae (including interpretations), and the articles' overlapping sources provide good motivation for a new, merged article along the lines of that suggested by Levivich. WP:NOTEVERYTHING might apply, and redirects would ensure that no one searching for one of the events would miss it. I can assist with writing the merged article if a consensus for that outcome emerges. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge these are not individually notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge As it is, each individual article is padded out with personalities, background, analysis, aftermath, etc. that are common to both articles. A single article can better contextualize both discrete incidents without unnecessary repetition. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

An appropriate name for the combined article is Pentagon UFO videos. Googling the phrase renders overwhelming results tied to all three videos within the context of the Roosevelt and Nimitz incidents, so Levivitch's rationale is correct, the primary subject is about the videos. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support merge just to be clear. Great idea. jps (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment What ජපස has done is very misleading. They have contributed to this discussion as both ජපස and jps. Whether a deliberate attempt to mislead visitors to this discussion or just negligence, I don't know. But I advise you to stop doing this and hope you do not do this in other discussions.~ HAL333 18:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)(I confused this with another talkpage.)

I suggest you learn to read and understand the difference between an account name and a signature. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support merge As has been pointed out, the commonality of sources between articles and the common To The Stars angle lend themselves to treating this as a single article. Capeo (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Merge and condense. These are basically the same narrative, being being promoted at the same time by the same people. It's not Wikipedia's role to do To The Stars's promotion for them. --Calton | Talk 14:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge Singular interface-event of US military, press, and UFOist lobby: notability not separate. Alternatively, the new euphemism "Unidentified aerial phenomena" might be a better overall title, with the possibility of including any other Pentagon-linked videos this people produce. GPinkerton (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Merge, rewrite, condense. The differences are really small. Like the significance of it all. gidonb (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge obviously the separate articles are UNDUE. The merge appears to solve this problem and the merge is in agreement with the sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge - This source suggests that they are probably about the same. I'm not sure how reliable this source is, but what I can read from it: 1) Navy gives even less info than expected 2) What was believed to be two incidents appear to be the same 3) Gov switched from UFO to UAF terminology 4) Could be deception aimed at students (speculative reasons). —PaleoNeonate – 22:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.