Talk:Disclosure movement

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 22:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the TV show Ancient Aliens speculated the CIA caused Hillary Clinton to lose the 2016 U.S. presidential election in order to foil UFO disclosure?

• Source: https://insidesources.com/john-podesta-pushes-conspiracy-theories-on-season-premiere-of-ancient-aliens/

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2001 Hutchinson gas explosions, Template:Did you know nominations/Broadway Jones (performer)
  • Comment: Please hold for July 2 (World UFO Day)

Created by Chetsford (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 163 past nominations.

Chetsford (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• New article. Long enough. 2 QPQs done. This is being actively developed, but all the changes look solid and productive. For example, early history with Keyhoe was added, Steven Greer seems to be better contextualized as a notable figure rather the movement's leader, and much recent political activity has been added. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

---

@Chetsford, Rjjiii, SL93, and Gatoclass: I've pulled this off the Main Page per a discussion at ERRORS; the sourcing in the article for this hook is really weak, so the claim that it's DUE to feature this fringe viewpoint (even if non-indulgently) very shaky. Further discussion/source digging can continue here, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

theleekycauldron - contrary to your assertion that Inside Sources is a "group blog" it's the landing page for the publisher of the New Hampshire Journal and Delaware Valley Journal, two of the regional politics outlets that proliferate in the NE US (e.g. PoliticsPA, FITSNews, etc.). The author, Michael Graham, is a contributor to CBS News , . It's not the New York Times, but I don't think there's any serious case to be made the claim was fabricated. Insofar as DUE, I wasn't aware there was a DUE standard for DYK hooks. It seems we may have to rethink many of our hooks if that's now the case. Chetsford (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

There's certainly a DUE standard to include a claim in an article, and I can't find any evidence that Inside Sources or any of its subsidiaries has a serious editorial staff, an editorial policy, or a fact-checking policy. Could you point me in the right direction? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

"There's certainly a DUE standard to include a claim in an article" Your position is that one sentence in a 19 paragraph article is UNDUE? "I can't find any evidence that Inside Sources" Sounds like a discussion better had at WP:RSN. I'll start pulling stuff together and open it there. Chetsford (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

In the WP:ERRORS discussion, Gatoclass comments "an internet search does not reveal much support for the claim that this website's content syndicates to nearly 300 of the nation’s top newspapers, which certainly rings alarm bells." "Top newspapers" may be hyperbole but they syndicate to many regional newspapers including the Miami Herald. Podesta's conspiracy theory and appearance on Ancient Aliens are covered by other conservative outlets like the Examiner. If you look for coverage in news sources that are more clearly WP:RS, you'll find the the Washington Post and so on covering Podesta's views on aliens, UFOs, and disclosure leading up to the November 2016 election, but not after it. Most of our WP:RS are center to left, and after the election they covered the Clinton campaign in this lens of trying to figure out "why she lost", and so did not cover Podesta's appearance on the show or his allegation.

I may be misreading them, but Pokelego999 and maybe Bagumba seem to be saying that someone could read the hook as not about Ancient Aliens or Podesta, but as citing them for a claim on Hillary Clinton? I found it to be clearly about the show, especially in the article itself, but do not mind reviewing additional hooks if that is the issue. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It definitely meets WP:USEBYOTHERS, with its reporting sourced by Politico, the Washington Post, the ABA Journal, the Boston Globe, KVUE-TV , Factcheck.org, MSNBC, the Huffington Post, the New Hampshire Union Leader, The Independent, The Hill, etc. I'm a bit out-of-pocket today so it will take me a few days to open an RSN RfC with links to publication ethics statements, author lists, etc. I'll try to get around to that later this week. Chetsford (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

from WP:USEBYOTHERS: If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. In other words, USEBYOTHERS is limited in how much DUE weight it can give a source that wouldn't otherwise even be considered reliable. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you're conflating two different and unrelated things. My USEBYOTHERS comment is only related to the incontravertible fact Inside Source is RS. Like I said, I'll present a full RfC at RSN later this week as I don't have time to complete writing it up with links to author lists, editorial policies, etc. today. Your comment as per DUE is a separate matter and hinges, apparently, on the novel position that one sentence in a 19 paragraph article constitutes UNDUE weight. I respectfully disagree. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

If I inserted a sentence into Jimmy Kimmel's article that he went to some random diner fifteen years ago because a local newspaper mentioned in passing that he went there, yeah, I think that's UNDUE despite being one sentence in god knows how many paragraphs. Inserting random details into articles because they're fun trivia can absolutely be a violation of WP:BALASP and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, so no, i wouldn't say it's a novel position. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

An interesting hypothetical scenario, to be sure. And while it doesn't at all apply in this case — there's three sources in the article (two I added post-pull) and, as soon as I'm able, I'll drop a few more in there as there's plenty and plenty of references to support this as the most cursory search would reveal — it's a salient reminder in general. Had I anticipated an editor would find such an innocuous statement required a broadside of sources be fired into the article I would certainly have added them before now; this is an active article with several involved editors and not a single one had raised this very unique perspective in the active Talk discussion there, nor in the DYK review, nor during its promotion, nor really at any point prior to now. Chetsford (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

My main comment was that I don't think there was a BLP issue, but the hook could be a concern if WP:DYKHOOK's Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided was broadly construed to include Clinton's losing the election. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a broad construction, indeed. Chetsford (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

In my case, I was less so worried about the source itself (Even if there seems to have been a discussion on it) and moreso the fact we were treating what is inherently a minority viewpoint from an unreliable source (Ancient Aliens) on the main page. Leeky's discussion on USEBYOTHERS above cements basically what I'm saying: putting a minority claim on the main page as if it were a major point is just giving more stock to something that inherently is something we shouldn't be putting stock in. A TV show referencing a theory isn't something crazy, but Ancient Aliens is something that peddles a lot of unreliable information and conspiracy theories on the daily; what about this theory in particular indicates it's true in any way compared to what they usually put out? The fact we don't even clarify if the info is true or false or not in the hook could also convince some people that this completely unverified theory from an unreliable source could be true, which at best is just spreading misinformation. It's not helped by the absolutely minimal coverage this theory received.

I will clarify though my beef is mostly with the hook itself, less so the base article. Including a brief mention in the article isn't going to harm anybody, especially in the context it's written in, but the way the hook is written puts a lot of UNDUE emphasis, as described above. This also wasn't me bringing up a BLP issue, but I can see how it can be construed that way; admittedly BLP stuff is out of my usual topic scope, so I can't speak much on that. Hopefully this clarifies my stance a bit, since I was pinged above about this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

"the way the hook is written puts a lot of UNDUE emphasis" While I appreciate your opinion, DUE/UNDUE isn't a criteria applied to DYK hooks. It defines the amount of weight given to a particular perspective in an article relative to its treatment in reliable sources. In this case, the amount of weight in question is one sentence in a 19-paragraph article so it can't really get more DUE than that. In the context of DYK, DUE only comes into play to the extent that an otherwise DUE fact may be inappropriate for DYK if it obliterates context to paint a BLP in a false light as per WP:DYKBLP, which this doesn't do.
Per WP:DYKINT, the purpose of a hook is to present a fact that is so "unusual" and "intriguing" that it inspires the reader to click on it: The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic. Intriguing hooks leave the reader wanting to know more – we want people to see the new articles our volunteers have put time and effort into crafting, and a hook that excites the reader into wanting to know more goes a long way towards that goal.
"The fact we don't even clarify if the info is true or false or not in the hook could also convince some people that this completely unverified theory from an unreliable source could be true, which at best is just spreading misinformation." I believe we typically assume our readers have IQs higher than a houseplant, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Chetsford (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

"In my case, I was less so worried about the source itself (Even if there seems to have been a discussion on it) and moreso the fact we were treating what is inherently a minority viewpoint from an unreliable source (Ancient Aliens) on the main page" You're the first person to say that the source was unreliable. "The fact we don't even clarify if the info is true or false or not in the hook could also convince some people that this completely unverified theory from an unreliable source could be true, which at best is just spreading misinformation." Do you really think our readers are that stupid? I would feel insulted. SL93 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you really think our readers are that stupid? There's a growing set of disgruntled people in certain parts of the world that are putting more stock in conspiracy theories. It's perhaps easy to write them off as "stupid" when presumably editors here are more likely to have gone on to higher education compared to the general population.—Bagumba (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's input and, while I disagree in the most intense terms with this pull, to mitigate the waste of any editor resources that will arise due to my inability to coherently argue against it -- the three editors advocating to pull apparently each doing so due to different reasons (BLP, DUE, and RS) while seemingly disagreeing with each other as to which actually applies -- I consent to abandon it. I reclaim both QPQs for future use. Chetsford (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

the three editors advocating to pull apparently each doing so due to different reasons (BLP, DUE, and RS) ...: I'm not sure if I'm considered one of those three. I was more musing after the pull if DYKHOOK's "negative aspects" caveat applied. With Clinton being a public figure politician, I'd say any negative aspect here is minor compared to others I've seen posted. Don't count me as a formal oppose. I can see how DYK doesn't have a clear process on handling verifiable hooks regarding (arguably) false claims, which makes this frustrating for you.—Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It's certainly not frustrating. It's really more a question of my confusion under what maxim of ours this was removed. As our protocol for main page errors is that only "actual errors" should be actioned, and we have thus far been unable to describe any "actual error" (rather, merely, Pokelego999 opining on their well-meaning concern that the wording isn't clear enough for the dumb segment of our readership) I'm left befuddled by which authority an approved and promoted hook was removed. It seems my confusion may go unsatiated. Chetsford (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear -- as I think my last comment ended the discussion on an unnecessarily negative note -- I very much appreciate the work LC and others do in building preps and queues. I'm very aware this is a thankless job and is rendered even less appealing when noms (like myself) moan and whine ... while simultaneously not volunteering to help out in any way! With that said, I think it would be appropriate to close and archive this discussion. Chetsford (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Just to make it clear: per WP:QPQ, even if you withdraw this nomination, the QPQs you provided are already used up and cannot be used in another nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

External video box

The desktop version looks fine, but the layout is distorted on the mobile version: it mashes the "History" header vertically inside the box. Check it out and maybe adjust parameters? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

What does it look like now? I narrowed it to 225px and dropped it. If it still looks odd we can just axe it and drop the video into an external links section (or omit). Chetsford (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks fine on both mobile and desktop now. Maybe the secret was placing the box a bit *after* the header. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Data without context

@User:Feoffer; I see you're trying to expand the article in good faith, but a lot of it appears to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Filling paragraphs with anything said about UFOs since 2017, e.g. and , is not an improvement IMO. These need context to avoid being merely a vaguely related collection of data points. Do cited sources say how they proliferate/influence/represent/ the concept of disclosure, the movement, its advocates, etc. ? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This is excellent feedback, but both of my expansions were actually inspired by the pre-existing text which mentioned Trump and Podesta. Certainly the Trump-Roswell comment is the most FRINGE and I'd called it "high-notability but ultra-low reliability". I would find it easy to excise, but it does seem relevant as something that's added fuel to the fire of 2020s UFO CTs.

Podesta, on the other hand, is very clear cut, having been listed in the article before I got here. I didn't add him to the article, I just fleshed out the details and merged him into the chronology. His inclusion by others made sense to me, as he uses the term "disclosure" in his 2015 statement.

Does that make sense? I honestly consider the 2010s to be a little TOOSOON to even attempt to cover, but here we are. Feoffer (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree, TOOSOON in the sense that historical profilers and tertiary sources haven't yet written about the disclosure era's significance, named milestones and events, etc. In our eyes, anything could be interpreted as adding fuel to the fire. So don't be reluctant to consolidate. I don't think Chetsford would mind a little trimming of their initial draft. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

By all means, chop the Trump-Roswell content, it honestly hasn't gotten much traction. But Podesta's been verifiably spreading "Disclosure" lore in public since 2015 at least. Feoffer (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Infobox image

I replaced the infobox image with this one . I don't think a grainy video that even the U.S. Department of Defense is unable to identify the objects contained in meets our requirements of MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. Also, a conventional flying saucer is more readily understood and recognized by the public, versus a Tic Tac shaped UFO whose connection to this topic may be understood only by those with a technical knowledge. Chetsford (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The artist's impression of the Maury Island hoax of 1947 is even more anachronistic than the legends of black triangles of the 1990s! We're going in the wrong direction here! I don't know of any RSes that use the Maury Island drawing to illustrate the events of the 21st century. I don't know of any RSes that even mention Maury Island in the context of disclosure. Even UFO CT believers think Maury Island was a hoax.

In contrast, I can find RSes that illustrate the disclosure movement with the Pentagon UFO videos ,e.g. GQ. I don't concur that MOS:IMAGEQUALITY argues against using the actual images; Bigfoot uses a still from the Patterson–Gimlin film instead of an artist's conception, and that makes sense. Feoffer (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, there are no 'actual' images to use as the theory of Disclosure is that some images are alien spacecraft (in the same way unicorn is not bound to only use photos of actual unicorns in the infobox). So any image we use will, by necessity, either be an illustration or a hoax. But, if we go with an illustration, it should be of an artistic and representational style that it's not potentially mistaken as a photograph. Here are some additional options we could consider that are stylistically unmistakable:

Flying saucer tractor-beaming a cow; this would address two of the four aspects of the typology of ufology (cattle mutilation and UFO sighting)

Spooky space aliens; this would be instantly recognizable by the lay public due to the cultural imprint of Communion

A basic unicode flying saucer

Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, there are no 'actual' alien spaceship images, just as there are no 'actual' Bigfoot images. But there are 'actual' images that have been claimed to be of alien spaceships and Bigfoot, and I'd argue those are the best images to use, because they let the reader judge the images directly for themselves. As for the art image suggestion, to my knowledge "Disclosure" doesn't include 1940s flying discs, cattle mutilation, 'bad greys', or 1950s Adamski-hoax flying saucers. Disclosure iconography has shed the 20th century "alien spaceship" look in favor for more 'abstract art' UFOs: orbs, Tic-Tacs, and triangles. Feoffer (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, all good points and you have me convinced. I'll ruminate on this for a bit. Chetsford (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, I'm very out of my element editing topics about the 21st century. My background is centered around 1820-1950, where we have LOTS of rich sourcing. I'd never have tried to create an article on Disclosure so soon, but I'm happy to help out. I monitor those sources because they often cite historic folklore that is "new to me", and I get to add another piece to the jigsaw puzzle. But I never expected to be writing about them without the help of tertiary sourcing. Feoffer (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Pulse check

This is *not* an RfC, just a pulse check presented as a survey for ease of dealing with a wide number of different possible options to get a sense of what would be best for the infobox image. Here are some possibilities:

1. Illustration of a flying saucer
2. Illustration of a black triangle
3. Illustration of a Tic Tac
4. Illustration of space aliens
5. Hoax/misidentified photo of a flying saucer
6. Hoax/misidentified photo of a black triangle
7. Hoax/misidentified photo of a Tic Tac UFO
8. Photo of a TBD U.S. Government building (e.g. Pentagon)
9. Photo montage of prominent disclosure advocates (i.e. similar to what we are now using as a body image set)
10. Something else?

Chetsford (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'm partial to 1, 4, 5, but think 8 or 9 could be workable as a fallback. A flying saucer is instantly recognizable by the lay public and we mention flying saucers twice in this article (once in relation to Greer and once in relation to the GIMBAL video). Space aliens, though we'd have to determine which image would be correct, are an enduring element of Disclosure mythology and are mentioned several times in the article. I initially added the black triangle image but, on further consideration, I think this is a bit too esoteric and we don't mention triangles in the article in the first place. Chetsford (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• 10: The 2004 Nimitz footage. A majority of RSes on the "Disclosure movement" make some mention of this incident, the footage, or the supposed eye-witnesses. Is it compelling? No it is not. But perhaps that's what readers need to take away from the article, rather than some fanciful artwork about space invaders. Feoffer (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

9: Advocate montage Comment below is very compelling, I do tend to agree that a photomontage would be best up top, given that it is a movement. A supposed 'tic-tac' still can certainly be relegated to the body. 12:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• 9: Photo montage of prominent disclosure advocates is most appropriate since it focuses on The Movement (which is made up of people) and not any particular claimed UFO imagery. There are some news stories on disclosure that use a tightly cropped panel of three headshots, usually Elizondo, Mellon, and Grusch, as the lead image. As for the 2004 Nimitz footage: despite dozens of plausible mundane explanations, average public perception is that it shows something weird and unexplained, and science and the military are baffled as to what it is. We can thank newspapers and media in general for that, since they are not under the burden of encyclopedic style and tone and know that such images when used for any reporting on the topic reliably increases clicks and engagement. AND YET, I think one Nimitz image (preferably a still grabbed from the video footage) belongs somewhere in the BODY of the article, being as it is one of the representative images of the Disclosure era. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• I have no stake in this, but I wholeheartedly oppose whatever it is we are doing now. Frames on frames on frames. Bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  I definite want that inner frame to go away, but not having much luck getting it to vanish. Feoffer (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

We have to use the photo montage template instead of the gallery template, however, to do so we need to have common oriented images, meaning we'll have to nix Greer. I took the liberty of swapping him out with Podesta. Chetsford (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that solved! It was frustrating me to no end. Feoffer (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Concision

As this is an article specifically about Disclosure, or, people who (a) claim the U.S. Government is concealing the truth about UFOs, and, (b) engage in advocacy for its de-concealment; should more general observations about UFOs be excised from the article and saved for the ufology article? Specifically:

• In October 2017, the company To The Stars Inc. was founded by Tom DeLonge (guitarist of Blink-182), parapsychologist Harold E. Puthoff, and author Jim Semivan. Personnel included Christopher Mellon and Luis Elizondo. In December of that year, the company provided the first of what became known as the "Pentagon UFO videos" to the press.
• During 2021, personalities ranging from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, to former president Barack Obama, to the former NBA star Shaquille O’Neal shared their thoughts about UFOs, with Obama saying that footage and records of unidentified objects exist, but dismissing claims of extraterrestrial encounters. In April, Harry Reid published a letter attesting that Elizondo held a leadership role in the AATIP program. In August, news magazine 60 Minutes aired an in-depth report on UAP claims.

Chetsford (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I had been going through the article, attempting to tie the existing text more specifically to the concept of disclosure. If it isn't working, then take these out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is certainly the most challenging UFO article I've ever tried to write. I tend think of "Disclosure movement" as being synonymous with 2020s ufology. Different eras call their movements different thing, rebranding every few decades. Earlier eras also claimed the US govt was covering up and should stop, but "Disclosure" refers only the 90s to 21st century flavors of ufology (a 1970s term that modern ufologists don't actually use very much anymore).

I'm pretty sure that To The Stars belongs here, it's a "disclosure" organization, Elizondo was a big part of it, lots of source connect it or DeLonge to Disclosure.

The statements by Brennan, Ratcliffe, and Obama are certainly far more nuanced, but demonstrably have fanned the flames of the Disclosure mythos. To be honest, I think even a sufficently-contextualized discussion of Trump's Roswell teaser would help readers understand why there's a Disclosure movement right now, but obviously we wouldn't want readers to buy into the claim. Perhaps we should discuss the rise of CT in general in the culture of the 2020s.

I'm not sure what Shaquille O’Neal buys us however. We have 75+ years of celebrities offering personal opinions on UFOs. Feoffer (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Separating what is ufology from what is disclosure is difficult, mostly because the two largely overlap in the 2000's and beyond. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

In an edit-conflict, I said the same thing exactly! Feoffer (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I think additions like On such and such a date, government official A commented "we have many reports of unexplainable objects that can't be explained and frankly they are unexplained" are not an improvement because they leave it up to the reader to figure out how and why they have influenced the Disclosure movement. Such quotes should have a third party context we can summarize, e.g. Disclosure adherents cite government official A's comment that many reported objects can't be explained... etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

demonstrably have fanned the flames of the Disclosure mythos Just to clarify, a third party source who says a quote from Ratcliffe or Obama had fanned the flames of the Disclosure mythos is what's needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, nobody's trying to actually include my sloppy, imprecise talk page verbiage in the actual article-text, least of all me. RSes discuss Obama and Ratcliffe's comments in the context of 2020s ufology. Feoffer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Your Talk page comments aren't sloppy or imprecise, so no worries. Overall I think this article was sorely needed (thanks Chetsford) and is coming along quite nicely. Just a few nits to pick. Like, it's not obvious to me how Brennan commenting he thinks UFOs are unexplained and might be a different form of life and that comment subsequently prompting an author to write some book (which seems an extraneous detail) -- connects to Disclosure. Do you mean that Brennan was responding to "the wave of recent reporting about UFOs"? It takes a little imagination on my part to know he was responding to the Disclosure advocates and not just generic UFO news stories. Is there a way to make the connection less vague? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Concurring with LL, thanks for creating the page Chetsford, it was solely needed. For all my bellyaching about having to change up my usual methodology, thanks for lighting a fire under us all to address this topic. I'd been avoiding it for a long time, but many hands make light work and the article is looking pretty good! Feoffer (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Quotes from one guy says UFOs are unexplained and could be aliens, followed by quotes from another guy who says there's no evidence of aliens. Still pretty generic stuff. I trust you'll eventually find a way to more explicitly connect these to Disclosure. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

How should we word it? The NYer piece on Disclosure certainly makes mention of the Brennan response, while the Acherbach piece certain talks about both Disclosure and Brennan. I guess I don't fully understand the distinction between "2020s UFOs CTs" and "Disclosure movement in the 2020s" -- Aren't they sort of synonymous, have there EVER been any UFO CT believers who didn't argue for "the truth" to be revealed? lol. Feoffer (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

To me, quotes where an Important Guy or Government Guy says the usual generic things about UFOs were obviously included as background filler in media stories about Disclosure, e.g. from the NYer piece: "Last July, Senator Marco Rubio, the former acting chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, spoke on CBS News about mysterious flying objects in restricted airspace. “We don’t know what it is,” he said, “and it isn’t ours.” I would trim all such generic filler quotes out of the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, I did comment it out of the article. It's just included in a source-code comment so my anal-retentive/OCD brain will remember where that Rubio quote fits in the narrative, if we ever want it. If you want to delete the commented-out note I left to my future self, that's certainly your prerogative. Feoffer (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I understood the Rubio quote was not being used. I meant the Obama generic statement followed by a generic rebuttal. And the Brennan generic statement followed by a generic rebuttal. IMO these generic background call-and-answer quotes do nothing for the article, so I would trim them out too. I don't think a connection to disclosure should be left up to the reader who must click on the citation. The source's title or general theme isn't an explicit connection to the topic we can make clear in the article text. I suppose you could say, "journalist X writing about those who believe the government is hiding data on UFOs and extraterrestrial technology notes that Government Big Guy A said "(generic statement)". But that would be clumsy, and the opposite of concision. And speaking of anal retentive, that's about all I will say on this nitpick. If others want these bits to stay in or come out they will say so. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm certainly not married to any of the quotes. We mention that the prophets of Disclosure proclaimed Obama would be the Disclosure President. That creates a sort of "Chekov's Gun" situation where the reader is going to want to know what Obama did and did not say about the subject. And he pretty forcefully poured cold water on "aliens and recovered bodies". Feoffer (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I will say this -- the WSJ article, though RECENT, is a folklorist's dream 'disclosure'. We've known UFO lore was used to cover up real military secrets in lots of instances (Big Sur, Mirage Men) but we now know that it was a systemic practice as part of standard security vetting. The "new form of life" comments from Grush, Brennan, and others feel way more balanced now that WSJ has verified people were spreading false stories as a loyalty test. Feoffer (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll add, you and others should take the lead. You edit RECENT articles all the time, it's a novel experience for me and I'm definitely not doing my 'best work', I don't have the sourcing I usually depend on. Feoffer (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Citing Elizondo in Non-RS Sources.

Hi,

I'm looking for some clarity on this matter. This Wikipedia article frequently cites Lue Elizondo's testimony for information about the "disclosure movement," but in cases where Elizondo is directly testifying in a so-called "not RS" source, then his testimony is deemed irrelevant. Is this correct? I am mostly inquiring because my edit here was reverted on the basis of Elizondo's statements being published by a "not RS" source. If this is indeed the standard that Wikipedia is upholding, then it appears to be a very poor one. If Albert Einstein made statements about his general theory of relativity on the New York Post's YouTube channel, then according to Wikipedia's standards, those statements should not be cited. Am I interpreting this correctly?

Thank you. 2603:9001:0:313:A4C2:1243:A5D0:5940 (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

In general, broad strokes, yes. Per WP:DUE, we "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". If Elizondo says the Sun revolves around the Earth, we usually wouldn't add "Elizondo said the Sun revolves around the Earth". If the Wall Street Journal reports that Elizondo said the Sun revolves around the Earth, we might include "Elizondo said the Sun revolves around the Earth". Chetsford (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. So, according to this standard, expert testimony is only admissable to Wikipedia if it occurs in sanctioned outlets. This is even if the testimony is recorded via video and authentic. This standard seems obstructive to the presentation of expert-level knowledge. It emphasizes the medium over the knowledge. Oh well. 2603:9001:0:313:A4C2:1243:A5D0:5940 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That's the difference between an encyclopedia and the internet. An encyclopedia uses WP:RS to decide for it what is notable enough for inclusion. The internet just publishes everything everyone says and leaves the reader to sort it out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems like a defunct standard because of how easy it is to publish now. Individuals who are reliable sources can now self-publish or have their work published in non-sanctioned outlets (mediums), but their knowledge is discounted by Wikipedia due to the medium of publication. This looks like an archaic legacy media standard: something is only reliable if it is published in a sanctioned legacy outlet. Print/TV/radio publishing was expensive, but now anyone can publish.

I get the sense that there should be a hybridized standard: if an individual has been treated as a reliable source by a sufficient number of reliable sources, then editors should be able to cite their statements on certain topics, regardless of the medium in which they appear. This would be something like a subclass of WP:RS: "reliable source individuals" established by RS consensus. These are my thoughts for WP:RS reform, as phantasmal as they may be.

Anyway, thanks for your take. 2603:9001:0:313:9569:6E39:E9BB:7893 (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi 2603, I saw your edit and almost reinstated it, because demons are in fact 'in the mix'. However, at present, we don't have an article on the demonic hypothesis of UFOs. It's been on my todo list for a long time, but it's a big project that would require very high quality sourcing from comparative religion scholars . For the moment, I wouldn't know where to send readers if they wanted to learn more about that theory, so it doesn't make much sense to include a single word 'demon' without being able to explain, using RSing, what that means in this context. Feoffer (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a good article. For what it's worth, Dylan Borland (who testified before Congress in September) recently said in a podcast with Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp that: "These things, whatever they are, are probably what are referred to as gods, or demons, or angels, or djinn, or insert whatever cultural or religious perspective you have. There are probably also extraterrestrials. It's not a one-size-fits all."

So, it seems people deeply involved in the disclosure movement are very concerned with the label, "demons."

Good luck. 2603:9001:0:313:86C:64B1:5FCA:9FE2 (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Podcasts featuring UFO celebrities are not good sources to cite. While they show someone may have said something, they don't demonstrate that particular thing they said is notable. However I should listen to Feoffer more. A little Google Scholar search found that Elizondo's anecdote about demons was noted and summarized by the scholar Amir Azarvan in his article "Interpreting UFO Events in a Post-Religious Culture" in the academic journal Spirituality Studies for Spring 2024, on page 72. This is exactly the kind of high quality sourcing we need for our articles, per WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

If that constitutes a high-quality source, do you figure we can add "demons" back into the first sentence of the article? 2603:9001:0:313:F47A:4CDF:E087:C9 (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

"Thanks. So, according to this standard, expert testimony is only admissable to Wikipedia if it occurs in sanctioned outlets. " Generally, though, if we're splitting hairs then not always. Under WP:SPS, recognized subject matter experts can be cited to their own publications (including blogs, self-published books, and social media posts) provided it's related to the subject of their expertise, does not involve a WP:BLP, and (as per WP:MEDRS) does not involve health or medical information. A subject matter expert is one recognized as such by WP:RS or, sometimes, someone who is just an unambiguous expert on a subject (i.e. a person with a terminal degree and who has prolifically published a number of heavily cited articles might be a subject matter expert). At present, I'm not sure any RS recognizes Elizondo as a subject matter expert on xenobiology or theology (whatever subject demons fit into), however. Chetsford (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank ye. I see that you listed some criteria for what constitutes a subject matter expert, but I don't think those appear in WP:RS. I suppose we are in the domain of fringe sourcing practices for fringe articles. Perhaps that's the nature of the beast: who can be an expert in this field when the only real experts are on the inside of highly classified programs? Probably the ones who blow the whistle on those pograms.

As for demons and their appropriate field of study: traditionally they are considered non-biological because they are beings of pure intellect and will (non-corporeal), but if they are capable of presenting the illusion of a form when they have none, xenobiologists may be interested. Additionally, in cultures that hold metempsychosis/reincarnation, such a being may actually incarnate (take a birth). If there are sufficiently advanced beings that are attempting to control the human genome (so they can take an optimal human rebirth), then there may be a "politics of reincarnation." This is especially the case if a non-human (with a xenobiological form) knows that it is going to die and would like to take a human birth. This is where the bloodlines/hybrids/abduction angle comes into play, in fringe theory, anyway. So, "demon" was probably used a blanket term for all malevolent non-human intelligences in the past, but formally only refers to those of pure intellect and will.

In any case, I do think the citation provided by LuckieLouie above looks like a RS that justifies the inclusion of "demons" in the first sentence. 2603:9001:0:313:F47A:4CDF:E087:C9 (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

So maybe Folklore studies. Chetsford (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The big religious traditions tend to have a more precise taxonomy of sentient beings. 2603:9001:0:313:F47A:4CDF:E087:C9 (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Done . The demon thing (and all the other interpretations like time travelers, etc.) should be summarized somewhere in the body and the fat citations moved there and out of the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey. Cool. Thanks! Nice work. 2603:9001:0:313:FD72:BB9C:86B2:2AC0 (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

what a bunch of quacks. where is the CRITICISM section boys? ~2025-33875-22 (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

By what metric or sourcing is Wilcock a leading figure vs others

He doesn't seem to... ever be in any real media or news, or WP:RS, or anything to merit his WP:WEIGHT or WP:DUE level prominence here. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENG 1320 College Writing II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2026 and 13 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mariana1005 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ProfRainey (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality concern: loaded language in opening paragraph

I am raising a neutrality concern about the opening paragraph. The current text uses the phrase 'conspiracy theories' which Wikipedia's own NPOV policy describes as a term that 'may be used as a pejorative.' It also uses 'so-called,' 'alleges,' and 'prophesizes' — all of which signal editorial skepticism rather than neutral description. I am not advocating for the disclosure movement's claims. I am asking that the article describe what the movement believes without prejudging whether those beliefs are true. That is basic NPOV. I welcome discussion here. SandyBay1 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't mean we give equal legitimacy to all sides of a debate: please see WP:FALSEBALANCE. And in particular, the beliefs of the disclosure movement are fringe theories, so we need to be careful not to give undue legitimacy to them. But we can talk about the specific words you're concerned about:

• I think the phrase conspiracy theories is important for describing what the disclosure movement believes.
• I think allege is an appropriate and relatively neutral way to talk about unproven conspiracy theories.
• I could go either way on prophesizes. I think it might have an undue religious connotation, since the lead says the movement is only occasionally compared to a religious movement, but I'm not sure.
• I think the word so-called in the lead sentence is probably redundant. The quotation marks around "non-human intelligence" already convey that we're just describing how advocates use the term, not using the term ourselves in wikivoice. I'll remove it, though others should feel free to restore it if they disagree.

Cadddr (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I do agree that the OP SandyBay1 misunderstands our NPOV policy. The encyclopedia is WP:NOTNEUTRAL. We give the most weight to mainstream views, and we echo how mainstream WP:RS describe fringe theories. The quotations around "non-human intelligence" will suffice to indicate it isn't the new scientific term for aliens. But if future edits obscure this necessary context somehow, we'll have to go back to using "so called". - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

"I am asking that the article describe what the movement believes without prejudging whether those beliefs are true." Everything's fine. We can avoid stating facts as opinions (applied here more in its underlying intent and spirit, not as a literal reading of the policy). It is a fact beyond reasonable or rational dispute that there are no alien spaceships visiting Earth. Chetsford (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The language used in the article doesn't reflect the reality of the movement. Especially the use of conspiracy theory. RznCrx (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)