Talk:Project Grudge

message: Article is entirely cited to Brad Steiger, Jerome Clark, David Michael Jacobs, Edward J. Ruppelt and Michael D. Swords, all of whom are ufologists, with most all known for supporting a credulous narrative of government cover-ups, aliens, and ufo mysteries. Given the subject matter, WP:FRIND sources which are independent of this particular point of view, should have WP:DUE weight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I'm not finding any WP:FRIND-friendly sources. The current article is essentially an editorial, appropriate for a UFO fan site perhaps but not an encyclopedia. I'm attempting to remove/edit the worst parts. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking of WP:FRIND, the only version of Shallet's SEP article I can find is on, of all places, theufochronicles.com. Any ideas of alternate landing sites? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  There’s a summary of the SEP article here:  but can’t vouch for its usefulness. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, not sure how to use that. I have added a link to the ufochronicles reproduction of the SEP article. I know that isn't optimal, but perhaps it's better than nothing. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe I'm lucky, I located the SEP story link at the SEP website. Re Michael Swords, he's definitely pushing the view that UFOs are ET: , . - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The one place I didn't search! Serves me right. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Rtd. Captain Ruppelt wasn't a ufologist. His Wikipedia article does not list that as an occupation.Chantern15 (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I intend to add some Ruppelt. I need to find some other sources first. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you make of the New York Times article I posted below?Chantern15 (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

text:  enWiki articles are not reliable sources (see WP:WPNOTRS), and occupation is not a requirement for characterization. Additionally, and I could be completely wrong about this, being a principal of Project Blue Book and the author of The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects could readily be interpreted as bone fide evidence of being a ufologist. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it would be okay to classify him as an ufologist if the implicit assumption atleast on WIkipedia is that not all ufologists are crackpots.Chantern15 (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hynek did not volunteer himself to join Blue Book, he was hired by the Air Force as an external scientific specialist and started out as very skeptical to the whole concept of UFOs. He may have come around later to the ETH (20 years on), but describing him solely as an ufologist, undermines his credibility. Wikipedia has very little credibility, if at all for ufologists, considering the ridicule, the general disregard and words like "loon" from editors when speaking about those who think seriously about the ETH. He was not the principal of blue book, it had different directors at different times, Friend, Ruppelt, etc. Chantern15 (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

text:  What’s wrong with “astronomer and ufologist”? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  None whatsoever.Chantern15 (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

text:  I've done some article expansion from WP:FRIND sources. I'm sure I could locate a few more sources, but that's all I have time for at the moment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, whenever you have time.Chantern15 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

text: WRT Ruppelt, it's been a while since I read The Report on UFOs, but I'm still pretty surprised to see this characterisation: Edward J. Ruppelt ... was "convinced of the alien nature of UFOs and how he has seen the military and the U.S. government trying to discredit the extraterrestrial hypothesis". IIRC he did accuse some of the projects of having intentionally set out to find a negative outcome, but the bold part is the opposite of my takeaway of his opinion from the book. Daß Wölf 19:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I note the final chapter of Ruppelt's book treats conventional explanations for UFOs with doubt, claims that reported performance of UFOs is unlike anything existing on earth, and complains that his military bosses are pushing conventional explanations, ending with:  In any case, the "convinced of the alien nature of UFOs (etc.)" is a direct quote from our cited secondary source, and IMO, an accurate analysis of Ruppelt's premise. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read somewhere that in his final edition of "The Report On UFOs", Ruppelt rejected the extraterrestrial hypothesis in an additional chapter that he added on to the end, I don't know how true that is. I haven't read the final edition of his book, just the one that I found on the internet in the Gutenberg Press website.Chantern15 (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credulous, non-WP:FRIND sources  

message: This article in New York Times lays out the reason why starting in the 1950s, the US Intelligence agencies and the Pentagon just wanted the UFO issue to go away. That while it distracted the public's attention from true top-secret work, it could also be used as a mass disinformation campaign by the Soviets. This could be a possible secondary source to backup Captain Ruppelt's assertion that Project Grudge was just set up to deny UFOs at all costs.Chantern15 (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no specific mention of Project Grudge in that NYT article. Unfortunately we, as editors, can't "connect the dots" to make a connection, per WP:OR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Connecting the dots" is original research? That seems to be a very broad definition.Chantern15 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the correct definition. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Please read both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. That should resolve any questions you have about connecting dots. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look, I understand.Chantern15 (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold War Fear Behind Lack Of Transparent and Rigorous Research? 

message: Yes, Hynek was a ufologist, but he was a scientist (those two may not be divorced from each other) as well. This word carries a lot of baggage, so I think that he should be described as an astronomer first and foremost and ufologist second if at all, to maintain his credibility and not undermine it.Chantern15 (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to make that change.Chantern15 (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

text: "Scientist" is vague and should always be avoided. "Astronomer" is better, but he is mainly known as a ufologist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  My intent was only to put "astronomer" in, and not be vague about it.Chantern15 (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describing Hynek as "ufologist" instead of "astronmer" undermines his credibility 

message: UFO 105.0.1.35 (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ufo