could you please add this to Grusch article instead of me? The article is protected from edits of new users. The first paragraph assumes that Grusch is testifying only based on conversations not evidence. this clarifies this and adds to it.
"My testimony is based on information I have been given by individuals with a longstanding track record of legitimacy and service to this country — many of whom also shared compelling evidence in the form of photography, official documentation, and classified oral testimony," Grusch said, adding that the trove of evidence has been intentionally kept secret from Congress. [[User:AlirezaMohammadpasand|AlirezaMohammadpasand]] ([[User talk:AlirezaMohammadpasand|talk]]) 14:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:58, 21 September 2023
This is Jjhake's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
The article David Bentley Hart you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:David Bentley Hart for comments about the article, and Talk:David Bentley Hart/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Helloheart -- Helloheart (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Thank you for sharing ideas for improvements in the peer review space. I have had it listed for peer review for a few months now I think, with just one response there so far (which you'll see from user Z1720 which were brief but helpful). Jjhake (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt and Helloheart: I've nominated this article as a FAC, and I'm looking for other FACs on the current list where I can possibly be helpful and learn more. It's quite the process, and there is a lot to learn. If you see anything in my comments through the FAC process that I don't seem to be understanding, any clarifications or suggested redirections to me would be appreciated. Jjhake (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've just added two citations that are much more direct on the nominations page. Glad that it might be considered. Jjhake (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure working with you, especially since I'm glad someone gave DBH a decent article! Generally–not always, but like 90% of the time in my experience–watching the template you created is more than sufficient and you'll notice when the template is promoted to a prep/queue based on one of the admins or DYK team leaders closing the discussion and leaving an edit summary of "Promoted to X preparation area". Watching the approved page might not accomplish much because the edit summaries not terribly explicit and the page is so cluttered. I'll watch your DYK, too, and ping you when I see it get promoted! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: Someone else had idea the of pitching a second idea for Hart's DYK nomination that would include this image of him with Roland . Do you think this would be an improvement and worth doing? I don't know how to do it when there is already one suggestion in place (which I also like). One idea would be to reference Roland as a bodhisattva who once dwelled in the Tuṣita Heaven as currently cited in the Roland in Moonlight article. I'm not inclined to go through the extra work, but if you thought that this idea for including an image was a substantial improvement (and if you could spell out the steps that I should take), I could give it a try. Jjhake (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the multiple messages here, but I'm thinking it's best to keep it simple and about the New Testament and fairies as it is. Roland will be a fun surprise for those new to Hart who follow the DYK link to read more... (And I don't think I've got the time to consider this any time soon.) Jjhake (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no problem getting my attention and I appreciate you asking! If I'm being honest, people love dogs and that would get the DYK fact more views. However, if you're not inclined to do the work, why worry about that? I think I saw that you're working towards FA for the article, so people will probably get to see the dog photo on the main page soon enough! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: Well, now you are tempting me. :) If I get Hart's article to FA status, the image will be the one at the top which is Hart with a coffee mug in hand (no dog). So I might give this new DYK hook with the image included a try later this evening. Is the best way simply to update the current DYK with the new hook text, the image, and the new source info? If so, I'll likely go for it this evening and give you an FYI here should I manage it. Jjhake (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you do get around to it, add a comment immediately after the last one on the DYK nom template with ALT1 preceding it. I can take care of the formatting on the sourcing and all the rest, that way you can see how it works. If you want to give it a try yourself, just check out some of the other noms currently approved and see how they did it! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: I nominated this DBH article as a FAC, but I'm wondering if it is okay to have it in both places at the same time (FAC and DYK)? This is my first time with either process, and any advice would be great regarding how best for me to communicate, etc. Thank you. Jjhake (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Btw, would it be bad form for me to start implementing some of the recommendations from SchroCat? Some of them look clear and great to me, but I don't want to make edits on the article if that is considered unhelpful at this stage.--Jjhake (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On 6 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Bentley Hart, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in a recent book, David Bentley Hart – a New Testament translator and proponent of the existence of fairies – engages in dialogues with his dog Roland (both pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Bentley Hart. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, David Bentley Hart), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi Jjhake, I have noticed that you have interest in the work of David Bentley Hart. I have enjoyed modifying a page you have invested much time in. May I be so brazenly and bluntly ask if you know of any discussion (usually critical) of "manualist" ethics in Hart's books? (Quotations and page numbers would be extremely helpful.) My intention of my request for help is for improvement of Draft:Manualism in moral theology. Thanks - and please do not feel obliged! FatalSubjectivities (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, Hart has talked about natural law theory in a couple of interviews but has not written about it from what I can remember seeing. From what it said in one interview with Tony Golsby-Smith (I think), Hart doesn't really disagree with natural law theory but he also does not find it that helpful given that we are so limited in our abilities to see the real needs of others and to help them toward those needs by use of "law and order" to enforce moral conduct. There is more discussion of natural law theory by Hart here as well on "For Now I Know in Part - A Visit with David Bentley Hart" at the Randos United YouTube channel:
Nowhere near ready or stable for a review. I would recommend withdrawing this submission and resubmitting in another month. I say this as a reviewer with many articles under my belt. I would fail this in a minute. The stability criterion is essential. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. To withdraw it, do I simply delete the tag at the top of the talk page, or is there another process I should track down and follow? Jjhake (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. The bot will then remove it from the listing within 24 hours. "To withdraw a nomination, remove the {{GA nominee}} template from the article talk page." Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing to keep in mind: the bot said you have zero reviews, and one GA. I think you should try your hand at reviewing other articles in the queue in the interim as it will give you a better handle on how far this article needs to go. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I only just noticed for the first time, that we have many prolific GA writers who have 0 reviews. I actually didn't know this. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the one article that I nominated in the past, I implemented all of the suggestions that several other much more experienced editors suggested in the course of their reviews. One of them commented in another location and it was all very confusing and labor intensive, but I learned a lot. Anyway, I’d love to try doing some reviews as a way to mature and learn more as an editor on here. It is a goal I have. Jjhake (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gotcha, but all I'm trying to say is that my assumption was wrong. You can be a good article writer without ever having touched a review. It's not something I had ever considered, so it was surprising to me to see. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary historical perspective
Hello. At this moment, I am not able to get over the talk page of the current article we are both working on. But I want to say a few words in general about the historic value of this article compared to other, more down to earth, articles.
It seems your goal is to record what is happening now for the benefit of future historians and using Wikipedia as a vehicle for doing that. This is a laudable goal. And in regards to this Grusch article I am wondering if it is worth your valuable training and experience to put so much effort into this particular article. I am pretty sure this will be merely a blip in our nation's and the world's history when looking back decades or a century from now.
I'm thinking it would be better to apply your talents to articles that are more mainstream and have a potential to impact the direction of our nation and the nations of the world. I don't think an article such as this and the other related article you recently edited will have such an impact. It seems these types of events will interest only hobbyists and true believers. And true believers do not run the world for the most part.
It may be such reports like Grush's are simply the manifestations of past unacknowledged personal trauma that resides in the unconscious. And It is Ross Douthat who seems to say this in his opinion piece when referencing Carl Jung.
Therefore it is most likely an illusion, currently covered by the press, and rogue intelligence officials failing to report classified SAP programs to Congress, also covered by the press. So, the real reason that Congress is upset is the failure to inform Congress about classified data and programs. I think the vast majority of Congressmen do not believe we are storing extraterrestrial vehicles and bodies. So how much of an impact can this story have in the end?
I don't know exactly what type of articles will best be served by your training and experience. Well, one that comes to mind is Artificial Intelligence (fondly known as AI), which is causing serious concern. Another is the work behind developing manned missions to Mars and that planet's eventual colonization. There is also the technologies being developed to ameliorate the impact of Global Climate Change, such as fusion reaction, which seems to be an interesting field of historical value all on its own.
I would guess that the growing American fascination with UFOs and aliens (for well over half a century now) has to do with both unacknowledged personal and collective trauma. One of my personal favorite authors is Wendell Berry and his book The Hidden Wound, is a great example (in my opinion) of writing about collective trauma. Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts and input. Sadly, I suspect that the American fascination with UFOs and such is only going to increase. I'd love to see people come to understand it all better together given the heightened sensationalism of the Grusch claims and some more scholarly attention to it. However, I'm afraid that we won't learn much and that the sensationalism will just keep escalating with future instances in future years. But regardless, I've got a lot of interests, and I will take your suggestions to heart with editing in other areas as well so that I don't get "stuck in a rut" over this topic. Thanks again. Jjhake (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Steve Quinn wrote. Your talents are needed elsewhere. I was just reading The Edge of Reality (1975) by J. Allen Hynek and Jacques Vallée. The case file on the Ely, Nevada, incident is truly frightening after all these years. It's hard to know what to make of it. Viriditas (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve not really researched this topic much before, but as I read a little more, it’s astonishing what a lasting place it has in U.S. history. I’m currently reading American Cosmic by Pasulka from Oxford UP. Jjhake (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the first time I’d heard of it. I’m fascinated by the wide range of studies and approaches, from the NASA team to several religious studies scholars and some academic historians. Jjhake (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned with attention to accuracy in the book. On page 143, Pasulka refers to Clarke's film 2001: A Space Odyssey, but the material in question is from the book, not the film. That doesn't really matter to be honest, because you can easily argue that elements of the book make their way to the film in some way or another, so that's not a serious problem. The issue is her interpretation of this passage of the book. She writes: "[Project BARSOOM] is part of a public relations effort by which the government hopes to acclimate humans to the reality of extraterrestrials". Well, I don't think that's actually what happened. The project in the book was intended to gauge and test the reaction of the public to aliens before they were discovered. The problem was that the test participants reacted with xenophobia, providing one of the major reasons why the government (in the book/film) decided to keep the subsequent discovery of the monolith secret. They believed the cultural shock would be too great. So she kind of got that wrong. She goes on to say, "This minor scene in the movie [actually, it was in the book, but that doesn't matter] provides an interesting framework for interpreting the cultural development of the alien abduction phenomenon, which has rested on the idea that humans can access suppressed memories through hypnotic regression." Yeah, no. That's just silly; it's creative writing on her part. There is literally no connection between the two ideas. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still reading it! Just wanted to point out something that annoyed me. I mean, I can see her POV, but she's pushing the boundaries of facts here. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’m not finished either, and good point about some sloppiness in her part. Shame on those Oxford UP editors as well. Jjhake (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, in Pasulka's book, "James" is a pseudonym for Stanford immunologist Garry Nolan and "Tyler" is a pseudonym for Timothy (Tim) Taylor the author of Launch Fever: An entrepreneur's journey into the secrets of launching rockets, a new business and living a happier life. Nolan has said that this is the case publicly since 2019 when Pasulka's book came out. Taylor has not been public about it to my knowledge, but Ryan Bledsoe evidently shared this on Twitter once (and the facts line up). Jjhake (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Kind of you. I need to let the historical and sociological and religious scholarship catch up to this Grusch stuff. I do need to take a break as only a few secondary sources are making the connections so far. Jjhake (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of you. This was fun to read. You have me figured out. The author had a lot of mixed feelings and articulated them well. Jjhake (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here I suggested that you familiarize yourself with WP:NPA. I do so again, for the final time, because Talk page comments like this (your ridiculously narrow-minded questions) and thisyou entirely misrepresent the topic and fan the flames) are personal attacks that are against policy and do nothing to improve article content. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. My use of “ridiculous” and “fan the flames” is personal language that is against policy. I would consider my serious concerns about the narrow use of strong secondary sources and academic disciplines to be legitimate, however. The editor to whom I was responding names a section in the article “relevant” above another section to clearly imply that what was below was irrelevant. He did this without any comment in the talk page and then reports me for personal attacks (which I acknowledge and will stop doing). I seriously hope that the mods like you will look at his actions as well which involve terms like “appalled” in talk page comments and section titles like “relevant” in the article to subtly ridicule and intimidate. Jjhake (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, you mention having notified me of this issue in the past, but I can’t find it. Can you kindly point me to it as I’d like to make sure that I’m aware of my own patterns. Thank you. Jjhake (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the recored, before I was reprimanded this morning, I apologized here "for the sarcasm no doubt showing up in some of my comments here this morning" as I communicated my concern that "this topic is most obviously the domain of artists, film makers and literary voices as well as historians and religious studies scholars" and that "it's sad to see such voices chopped out when they write specifically in response to this Grusch incident". Looking over your two examples is very helpful to me, however, as I look at how the policy works and is enforced. Appreciated.
This will be my final note here (I hope), and I make it in good faith. Despite beginning your Wikipedia 'career' in 2004, you keep claiming that you are a newbie (I can list the diffs if you insist, but your user page makes the same claim). You have made over 3100 edits, so please recognize that you are not a newbie. Continuing to use that claim as an explanation/shield/whatever for your edits is not tenable. I write this because you seem to be bludgeoning the David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims Talk page in a manner that is verging upon disruption, and claiming to be a newbie will not excuse that. Furthermore, I and other editors have recently provided you with direct links to many Wikipedia policies and guidelines (PAGs), including WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EW, and WP:NPA. I really hope you will read those PAGs before going much further. You clearly have a high level of interest in the Grusch page, and that's cool. But please do not let that interest devolve into disruptive editing, which I fear is becoming a real possibility. Such editing could lead to a topic ban or worse, and absolutely no one wants that to happen. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Helpful. I've got a lot of edits over years but always on very dull topics and not popular, so I'm genuinely learning a lot on this more high profile article. Jjhake (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright issues
Hello. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding copying copyrighted material and placing this material into Wikipedia articles? Let me give an instance where I see this and it seems there are more:
Here is what appears to be what you wrote in the Unidentified flying object article [1] (one has to use the "find" search tool in the browser to get to it):
Inspired by the development of science fiction fan clubs and newsletters in the 1930s and 1940s, UFO enthusiasts in the early 1950s started to organize local "saucer clubs" to collect and discuss the latest developments. By the end of the decade, some had grown into vibrant organizations, with national, even international followings and monthly newsletters which actively solicited contributions from members about their own sightings and theories.
Here is the text in the Boston Review article used as a source [2]:
Inspired by the development of science fiction fan clubs and newsletters in the 1930s and ’40s, enthusiasts beginning in the early ’50s organized local saucer clubs where members could meet to discuss the latest developments. By the end of the decade, some had grown into vibrant organizations, with national, even international followings and monthly newsletters which actively solicited contributions from members about their own sightings and theories.
These are word for word copyright violations. And as I look at the text just from that edit there seems to be more that has been copy and pasted into this article. All the material that has been copy and pasted into this article has to be reverted. This includes text copy and pasted from other articles. So, I have reverted the article to the version just prior to the copy right violations. Please don't do this anymore. Repeated instances can lead to being blocked and ultimately banned. And I don't want to see that happen. Also, please remove any material that you have copy and pasted into any articles. This will be very helpful. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I’ve been very careful about that typically but pulled that long historical section together from old notes carelessly. I’ll rewrite it with attention to proper quotations and summaries. Jjhake (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I noticed your edit over at Unidentified Flying Object talk [3]. I hope you understand these violations were much more than failing to quote a historian. I wouldn't have reverted the page if it were only that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I don't really recommend bad films, but some people, like User:Drbogdan and myself, get a kick out of B movie science fiction films. The 11th Green (2020) is one of these films. I just watched it on Amazon, but I'm sure it is available elsewhere. It is very entertaining in some sense, as Christopher Münch is not a particularly bad writer or director. What I think you'll find interesting, is that the film is a fictionalized account of the modern UFO mythos that attempts to explain it in contemporaneous terms using what can only be described as hilarious plot points. For example, an actor portraying Barack Obama (quite well, I must say), uses a binaural beats app on his phone to "time travel" (in some sense, I think) to the past to talk about UFOs with Dwight D. Eisenhower and an official representative of the aliens, who if I'm not mistaken seems to resemble Jesus Christ. It's one of the weirdest films I've seen in years, so it's worth checking out, just as long as you leave your brain at the door. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn’t as bad as it could have been. It would have been better if the editing was a bit tighter and they removed some of the more extraneous scenes. The ending was a bit sudden as well. All in all the acting was good. I think the best improvement they could have made was to strip away the underlying drama (which was added to move the plot along) and just get down to brass tacks with extended dialogue and discussion. This could have become a cult classic if they did that. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Oversight hearing next week will feature David Grusch, a former intelligence employee who claimed in June that the government had a secret UFO recovery program that found a “partially intact craft of non-human remains.” While at least one Democrat has helped Republican colleagues push the issue, members say they have faced pushback from different corners and seen witnesses drop out.
Bolstering the transparency effort is a bipartisan charge on the other side of the Capitol led by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who has pushed legislation that would lead to the declassification of documents on the matter. The bill would amend the annual defense authorization to mandate government agencies to collect and submit records on UFOs to a review board within 300 days.
“The American public has a right to learn about technologies of unknown origins, non-human intelligence, and unexplainable phenomena,” Schumer said of the legislation in a release. “We are not only working to declassify what the government has previously learned about these phenomena but to create a pipeline for future research to be made public.” Amirrezaahmadi134 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Those facts about Grusch are already well represented and sourced in the Grusch article. Regarding Frevor, it would be fine to add a source with a more specific title for his rank. I'm not sure, but I would guess that he was both a pilot and a squadron commander or something along those lines. I'll keep it in mind. However, there is likely a better article space for more info on Frevor than in the article about Grusch specifically. Jjhake (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
I hope you had a chance to listen to the latest podcast from the Black Vault. It's pretty good. The end of the podcast has some surprises, particularly John's cogent argument as to why an alleged coverup might be justified (or rationalized). Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That would take a whole lot of help from others. I’d be thrilled to get the input in developing it. Do you have ideas for improving the article title? It is a rather long one. 😅 Jjhake (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Helpful comparison points and shorter name. I've moved the page to the more concise name. As an article, Identification studies of UFOs is focused on methodologies for identification. It's a helpful focus, but the Investigation of UFO reports by the United States government article is looking at the history with all factors in view at once, as historians, sociologists, and journalists do. It is therefore able to incorporate the work of journalists such as Garrett Graff and historians such as Greg Eghigian, for example, who look at the full story of U.S. government investigations with all of the factors in view (such political, cultural, national security, etc.). They both have many articles and interviews available with strong reliable sources as well as books coming out here and here).
I'll take a look later. I do better when I have a specific task at hand, so if you can delegate by pointing out a tiny area that needs work, that might help motivate me to participate. I'm just more effective when I can zero in on something small. I like the surgical approach. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Of course, I’d say to pick up on any specific area that you find interesting and already have read the most sources about. It’s a massive and messy topic. One topic would be the list of reasons why UAPs are repeatedly called a national security problem by various officials, but whatever detail jumps out at you is where I’d hope that you’d find improvements to make in filling out the story. Jjhake (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s very cool. I’ve not seen a to-do list used before except with review templates. Thanks. I’ll give it some thought. Jjhake (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know of good sources that noted and commented on how Charles McCullough (President Obama’s former Intelligence Community Inspector General who represented Grusch in his Intelligence Community Inspector General complaint) was seated directly behind Grusch in the Congressional hearings?
It’s obvious in the photos and in a few places online but no good sources point it out. This one news story from five days ago does call Charles McCullough the acting attorney for Grusch:
Oh, I thought you were talking about something else. If you listen to the latest Corbell podcast, he talks about how he (or a politician, it isn’t clear) had to lobby to get McCullough a seat behind Grusch. Give it a listen. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did hear that. It just seems like some media should include such details. Last thing reported publicly was that McCullough no longer represented Grusch, but now it’s clear that he continues to. Jjhake (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That confused me as well! But I think a few weeks back one of the podcasts cleared this discrepancy up. Not sure if it was Mick West or John Greenewald, but maybe McCullough is representing him outside the firm? Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it looks like after that press release, Mick West popularized the claim that Compass Rose had dropped Grusch as a client. But the rumor (based on the above) is that McCullough left the firm to represent Grusch. We need sources, of course, but there aren’t any. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is one good source that still calls him the attorney for Grusch and the two hour video of him sitting right behind Grusch during the Congressional hearings. But no media commentary or clarity. Oh well. More sustained confusion in an odd case. Jjhake (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got distracted by many other shiny things. Ape see nice object, ape like. Anyway, back to your outline: I was originally interested in adding material about Project Sign and Grudge way back during the Grusch article development spurt. I even downloaded a book to do it. But I need to go back into my files to find it. When I can, I will attempt to add material your article. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just created James E. Lipp. He was instrumental for helping shoot down the extraterrestrial hypothesis in the so-called "Appendix D" letter, a formerly classified Project Sign document attached to the report. This is very interesting on several different levels. On the one hand, Mark Wade summarizes it as follows: "In 1948 [Lipp] provided Appendix D to the report closing out USAF UFO Project Sign, making one of the first calculations of the number of inhabited planets in the universe, but also finding an extraterrestrial origin of UFO's unlikely based on engineering considerations." There's two other interesting things connected to this. One is that Lipp is one of a small team of engineers who helped launch the civil and military satellite reconnaissance programs during the Cold War. As you can imagine this was highly secret. If I wanted to distract the Soviets from such a program, wouldn't it make sense to popularize UFO reports to hide the true nature of the program? Just a thought. Anyway, the other interesting thing about Lipp's appendix is it turns out a lot of UFO mythos comes out of this report. I won't go into that right now, because the sourcing is somewhat weak, but the most notable example in the literature is the idea that nuclear testing on Earth attracted the attention of UFOs. Lipp was the first person to publish this idea. Lots more to say, but I wanted to at least create the biography so that we can add Lipp and his notable Appendix in the Project Sign section of your article. Of course, you are welcome to take this and do it yourself as you see fit. Just sharing where I am at this point. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: finally found the source I was talking about. I'll add it here in case you want to use it and add it before I do: Dick, Steven J. (1998). Life on Other Worlds: The 20th-Century Extraterrestrial Life Debate. Cambridge University Press. ISBN0521620120. OCLC39093581. See Chapter 5: The UFO Controversy and the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis, pp. 137-168.
Page 141:...The media and science fiction magazines were one thing, but ironically in view of subsequent history, it was only when the U.S. Air Force decided to investigate the flying saucer reports that the extraterrestrial hypothesis was recognized at an official level. During 1947 the Air Force, charged with the security of the skies for the United States, collected 147 flying saucer reports at its Technical Intelligence Division of the Air Materiel Command at Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio. On December 30, 1947, the order was given to begin a project to study the phenomenon, and an incident on January 7, 1948, reinforced the propriety of Air Force participation. On that date a large number of people spotted a UFO in proximity to Godman Air Force Base, near Louisville and Fort Knox, Kentucky. When three F-51 planes, led by Captain Thomas Mantell, went to check out the reports, Mantell’s plane crashed after he reported that he was at an altitude of 22,000 feet. Although investigators concluded that he had blacked out from lack of oxygen, speculation persisted that Mantell had been shot down by an extraterrestrial spacecraft. While it is now believed that Mantell was chasing a Skyhook balloon outfitted with a camera (later used for secret reconnaissance over Iron Curtain countries), the more colorful and exciting extraterrestrial rumors were hard to quash. This was only the beginning of many hard lessons concerning the UFO phenomenon. The Air Force would investigate this and a growing number of UFO reports through Project Sign, set up on January 22, 1948; Project Grudge, set up on December 16, 1948; and finally Project Blue Book, set up in March 1952, and continuing for 17 years.
Page 142: An illustration of a saucer-shaped UFO from a 1929 issue of Science Wonder Stories foreshadowing the phenomenon two decades later
Page 143: The extraterrestrial hypothesis first emerged officially in Project Sign, where an "Estimate of the Situation" in late 1948 concluded that the UFOs were of extraterrestrial origin. But General Hoyt S. Vandenburg disagreed, and the report was returned, declassified, and burned. For the time being, the extraterrestrial hypothesis lost ground in the Air Force, but Project Sign’s final report still left open the possibility that the UFO phenomenon might be something extraordinary and extraterrestrial. However, because it lacked the facts for an objective assessment, the study labeled the ideas of extraterrestrial space ships or atomic-powered aircraft "largely conjecture." In an appendix to the report on "the likelihood of a visit from other worlds as an engineering problem," James E. Lipp of the Rand Corporation placed thousand-to-one odds against the existence of higher life forms in our solar system and concluded that although space travelers from neighboring stars were much more likely than spaceships from Mars, this would require propulsion systems as yet unconceived on Earth. Visits from space were possible, he concluded, but they were "very improbable," and the actions attributed to flying saucers in 1947 and 1948 "seem[ed] inconsistent with the requirements for space travel."
When Project Grudge replaced Project Sign at the end of 1948, it had a less open-minded strategy. In the words of the historian David Jacobs, "New staff people replaced many of the old personnel who had leaned toward the extraterrestrial hypothesis. In the future, Sign personnel would assume that all UFO reports were misidentifications, hoaxes, or hallucinations." Project Grudge shifted the focus from explaining an unusual phenomenon in the atmosphere as something real to explaining it as illusion. A Saturday Evening Post article stated the new Air Force philosophy, backed up by Nobel Prize-winning chemist Irving Langmuir, a Project Sign consultant, whose advice to the Air Force on UFOs was to "Forget it!"
Project Grudge did, however, take one step that would be of profound importance to UFO history. It hired J. Allen Hynek (Fig. 5.2), an astronomy professor at nearby Ohio State University, to examine possible astronomical explanations for UFOs. Hynek (1910-1986) had come to Ohio State immediately after graduating with a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1935. In 1956 he would go on to become the associate director of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, and 4 years later he became chairman of the Astronomy Department at Northwestern University. The year 1949 marked the beginning of a lifelong association with the UFO problem, culminating with his founding of the Center for UFO Studies in 1973.
Wow! What a treasure trove of a historical scholar! Thank you for sharing. There is no need at all, obviously, for me to take the lead with continued work. Please share yourself if at all inclined. I’ll certainly circle back and include this soon if you don’t. I also want to read some of his books. Much appreciated. Jjhake (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of us will need to circle back and figure out how to break down the first longer quoted passage from Steven Dick here (although it is so rich that it will not be easy). Separately, I just worked in material from the second longer quoted section. Such a strong source and great content. Thanks again.
Finally, the note from page 142 about an illustration of a saucer-shaped UFO from a 1929 issue of Science Wonder Stories, sent me down a long rabbit hole surrounding some new material here. Jjhake (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’m glad to help. My user account may have more freedoms because of how many years and edits I’ve made. I’m not entirely sure. However, anyone can create a draft I am pretty sure. When you type in a term to search for on Wikipedia, it will ask you if you want to start a new page or a draft if what you searched for did not already exist. I can give some step by step recommendations and point up resources for this on Wikipedia as well that are very helpful. Would more info like that help? Jjhake (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve lost many arguments with jps, and several other editors very often jump in and back him up. Getting to the main point, the gist of what I’ve seen Grusch claim is that he and a few others spent four years interviewing about 40 witnesses some of whom had first-hand experience and from whom Grusch saw some documentary evidence and got some specific information about locations and program names and participants. Sticking to the specifics in the words given by Grusch and repeated in the best sources is the main thing to do. Eventually, most all commentary of any kind will get removed from the article unless any documentary presence ever shows up. Jjhake (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It must be extremely frustrating working with such biased editors who ignore their own rules for neutrality. Reading that Grusch entry, they were bending over backwards and twisting to rationalize their biased editorial decisions. 174.165.128.85 (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a topic that causes a lot of confusion and inconsistency. A basic rule of Wikipedia is not to cover sensational news. Jjhake (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's hysterical! We'll have to rename my talk page the one-stop shop for fringe-science related article editing. What a lovely reputation I'm getting. But this source that you shared is fantastic and does need to go into a whole long list of articles. I'm genuinely fascinated by American history and culture, and big money is a crazy factor (literally) almost every time... Jjhake (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great opinion piece. Just reread it. Even though an opinion piece, I think there are a few bits of info worth including in several articles indeed (as the position of the author). I’ll get work on some. At any rate, I’m sure that some news stories are going to start connecting some these crazy money dots more clearly before long. Jjhake (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Giordano Brunu Sir!!
This is the reason why Wikipedia is rapidly loosing interest. By the bias remarks on a subject like David Grusch. A completely one sided article. Why did you not focus on David high ranking status and employment and others on the stand?? Hellomrcrumpet62 (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia simply exists to accurately reflect whatever the majority of excellent secondary sources say. I think that the article does that, but there is always room to improve. Let me know what facts from what sources are missing in your estimation. Jjhake (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
David Grusch article
Hi, I'm a new user and wasn't able to comment on talk page for David Grusch, but I noticed this in the article:
"Reporting on past psychiatric treatment received by Grusch"
Doesn't this violate descrimation policy of wikipedia to write this about claims made by a veteran suffering from PTSD?
Thanks for the note. A strong source with relevant points about security clearances and public medical history seems likely to be okay for a focused and minor point within the article. However, it is outside my realm of familiarity. I'll look over the Wikipedia policies that you linked and raise the question on the talk page for input from others. Jjhake (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! Hope you're having a great day. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia with your article. I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Have a fantastic day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
; see Talk:David Bentley Hart for comments about the article, and Talk:David Bentley Hart/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Helloheart -- Helloheart (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of David Bentley Hart at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pbritti (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
