Talk:The Disclosure Project

Criticisms Section

Made some grammatical and vocabulary changes to make the paragraph flow more smoothly. For example, "critical criticism" while not inaccurate is awkward, and is somewhat redundant. "At present" is better language than "right now" for an encyclopedia. Also the project makes "claims" supported by "evidence" (rather than "presenting evidence" supported by "evidence" etc... JimZDP 03:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Title part of name

I propose that the title of the people in the witnesses list be transferred to the occupation cell for visual clarity. __meco 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

From the archive

The human mind/soul needs 'ascension' and 'physical recycling'. Dec-22-2012 is supposed to be the date (end of Mayan calendar). Human minds/souls are in extreme disharmony with itself, with nature, and the rest of this 'physical' universe, and under suicidal worship of matter and physical. For sake of all the suffering (human) minds/souls (beyond comprehension and negating all possible definitions of justice), as well as the rest of the (consciousness in/of this) universe/infoverse..., humans need to be recycled. Whatever is willing and ready to ascend into pure-energy-vehicle (physical form) as one merged human consciousness (the mind/soul driving that pure energetic form in symbiosis with all the information, including that form itself) should ascend, naturally with the 'backup' of all the human morphic fields 'database', containing complete human experience through its entire 'evolution', and human bodies should all be destroyed not to abuse and pollute this planet any more. Ndru01 12:45, May 27, 2006 (UTC).

Let me eat your body. Genjix 23:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And you are who/what?... Demons DO 'eat' human bodies (matter=quantum energy, but fueled by orgones as all organic forms are) in certain ways, faster or slower, either indirectly, via 'polluting' human thoughts, or more directly... But that won't be possible anymore after Dec-2012... Ndru01

And ascension is not 'destroying' human bodies! Only the physicial vehicle (which is an 'informational illusion' anyways) is 'transformed'. The human race as one merged consciousness will after ascension continue to exist, in a significantly better way. All the previous experiences of human race are already preserved in the Akashic Records. There will be no more entrapment in numerous various physical forms/bodies, but only 1 pure energetic form (capable of manifesting itself in all kinds of superiour ways) as a 'vehicle' for the whole human race, and all new experience will count as OUR/MY/YOUR experience of One super-(new)'human' being (super-conscious entity), whether gained through that (energetic) super-vehicle as a whole, or as some part of it (but always conscious of-, and in harmony with- the Whole)... Ndru01

documentation

1. The specific quotes made in the table need specific documentation--it is not acceptable to make only a single general overall reference to an outside source--the original in each case should be found and cited. The quotes from the NPC conference must be documented either also by specific page numbers from a transcript, or from a specific 3rd party RS that reports the conference, or specific time reference from the video if there is no available transcript.
2. In the references section, references 1, 4, and 7 are unacceptable, and possibly ref 4 if it is self-published.
3. But in a more positive way, from the further reading, the Fox item could be used as a reference, and possibly one or two of the others. DGG (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Unless someone can fix them, I am about to remove the unacceptable material. I will also place a fact tag after each quotation, and remove it if unsourced. DGG (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOVing and trimming

I have conducted a massive purge of the article, in an attempt to make it respect WP:NPOV, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, and WP:N. Some of the material I removed may be suitable to be re-added, but please discuss it here before doing so. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A preliminary question, why did you remove several obviously appropriate categories from the article, such as categorization by year of establishment? __meco (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Complete list of category changes: removed 'black projects', 'organizations based in the US', 'Advocacy groups', '1993 establishments', added 'conspiracy theories'. The Disclosure Project is very obviously not a black project and fits under conspiracy theory. I removed 'advocacy groups' because it isn't clear what the Disclosure Project's goals are - they may say they want Congressional hearings on UFOs, but since they've had no success in this, there's been a change of emphasis towards getting any sort of widespread recognition. You could make a case for adding back the last two, but remember that 'organizations based in the US' and '1993 establishments' are flagged for sub-category tagging rather than putting things in the main category. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the implication of that tagging. It should not be understood to mean that articles should not be placed into those categories if an appropriate sub-category cannot be found. In fact, having an aggregation in those parent categories are exactly how sub-categories are incepted. __meco (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well enough. Included 'organizations based in Virginia' and 'organizations established in 1993'. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links Section

Although in this article it states: "A complete list of people supporting the Project and claiming knowledge of UFO-related activity and their employment history and testimony, is available in the "Briefing Document" in the external links", this is not the case, as no external links are present in this article. 121.44.215.132 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the External Links section was earlier removed, (justifiably IMO), thus the sentence refers to a link that is no longer there. I might support including the link to the "Briefing Document" in the references, if only so a reader can find the list being referred to. Due warning, though, that list makes ludicrous claims as to claimed support for UFO's (quotes out of context, etc, etc). Thoughts anyone? The briefing document is here. Plvekamp (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is backwards

Why is that you take the word from that one man called James Randi, when Steven Greer has a list of over 400 withnesses in which a considerable amount of them relates or is directly connected to top government projects and high military posts, and also that the testimonies which has been recorded on tape is for everyone to see. I'll bet that most you who have written on this page hasn't even seen one of those testimonies yet, you don't consider the evidence and the status of the people who have told this, you have have just predetermined your mind like there isn't any evidence. This is what's called the status quo, and as long as you don't dear to look past what you've been told by the media and the politicans, you will newer be able to find the truth about UFO's and goverment cover-up's. Its up to you if you want to be open or not, if you want to know, you can do so. But if you don't, than nobody can force it upon you and you can continiue to be ignorant to the situation. --77.110.193.121 (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC) It was written by me :) --Nabo0o (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the testimonies. That is the entire total of Greer's 'evidence': testimonies of self-proclaimed witnesses who have some credentials. Now, just to be clear on this: these testimonies were not taken under oath, so under the law the speakers can say whatever they want, even blatant falsehoods, without penalty. That of course does not help us judge the validity of their testimony, because there is no other supporting evidence. That is Randi's point: anyone can say anything, but that doesn't make it true. If Greer would present a single functioning piece of alien technology, under conditions sufficient to reasonably exclude fraud, his claims might be believable. That he does not do so, despite claiming that there is such, is good evidence that he doesn't have anything at all. James Randi is an expert at debunking extraordinary claims, because he has spent much of his life doing so, and because he spent most of the rest as a stage magician, making him extremely good at detecting a fraud. Michaelbusch (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"If Greer would present a single functioning piece of alien technology, under conditions sufficient to reasonably exclude fraud, his claims might be believable." I agree with your point, but your reasoning is wrong. For instance, can YOU present a single functioning hydrogen bomb? No. Greer's not claiming he HAS alien technology, only that it exists. Still an extraordinary claim, but not the one you implicityl ascribed to him.68.163.65.143 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Googlegooglegoogle

I may not be personally able to produce a hydrogen bomb, but it's reasonable to say that one could be produced by a person with the authority to do so. We're not debating the existence of nuclear fusion. If alien technology exists, we need better evidence than unverifiable anecdotes. A physical example of it - "under conditions sufficient to reasonably exclude fraud" - is the standard of proof I would accept, whether the technology is in Greer's possession or someone else's. Plvekamp (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I was asked for a comment by someone who is apparently rather sympathetic to the project. Although I totally disagree with every argument he makes about the validity of the project's claims, I think it would in fact be better to avoid trying to quickly summarize what's wrong them here, which requires an analysis of the evidence respecting ufos, over-unity devices, and alien technology. This is the article about the project, and that's difficult enough to do. To find out about the various topics that it deals with, and the degree of credence that should be placed on the various theories, we have articles on them, which are tricky enough to handle individually by themselves, and this article should just refer to them. As an analogy, an article about, say, the Australian Communist Party need not go into the validity of Leninism. Personally, for someone like myself with a SPOV, simply saying the project supports the reality of some of these things is quite sufficient condemnation of it and its supporters. I might want to find out about the specific activities of this group, and that's what the article is for. For someone who entertains seriously the possibility of any of these proposals, similarly all we can do is talk about the project itself. The arguments for their reality must be elsewhere. For anyone who does not know what to make of them, again anything here is too brief to do the controversy justice, and they must read our fuller articles. And, as I have said elsewhere, If those fuller articles are written competently and objectively, presenting the claims of the ufologists etc. as they make them, no reasonable person should fail to draw the correct conclusions, and, if not, we have no business telling them what they are supposed to be thinking. This article is not about trying to decide and tell people whether Greer is correct or is self-deluded. DGG (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In the abstract, I'd agree that the reader does not need comprehensive arguments about UFOlogy in this article; rather, the reader should be referred to existing articles on the subject. Specific details, though - such as the witness list, Mitchell's objection to being included, and Randi's debunking of the project - belong here. They apply chiefly to the project, not UFOlogy in general. Just my two cents. Plvekamp (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Project has been well-received by UFO enthusiasts,

I have just read this and would have to disagree. Many, if not most now, found this event to be one of the most harmful things to have ever happened in "ufology" in years. Firstly, among the some credible witnesses we find the usual "loonies" helping to greatly discredit the "good ones". Secondly, it was only after this conference that many of these poor fools discovered that Greer is not only a 21st century "space brother" but can remote view, teach the secrets of the universe and fly!

Before I include this - and provide sources to support this view - would anyone like to comment? The7thdr (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the wording 'UFO enthousiast', it doesn't really mean anything. In case it refers to scholars on ufos, it's a highly pejorative term. Maybe 'experts in the field of ufology' would be better. Thodef (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bankrolled by the Rockefellers?

This article claims that the Disclosure Project was bankrolled by the Rockefellers. Is there any truth to this? __meco (talk)

Regarding removing non notable names/those without wikipedia articles

With respect I must disagree, it is not meant to be just a 'list of notable people' in general but rather witnesses that are notable in relation to the subject. It's meant to assert notability within this specific project and the diversity of military/governmental departments. -- œ^™ 06:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

and how do you plan to assert notability without any sources? the ones who have wikipedia articles are assumed to be notable, since notability is a criterion for inclusion. however, how do you assert notability for the ones i've removed who don't have an article? how do we know these people really exist? because one WP:SPS (the official website of the article in question) mentions them? How do we know their job title is accurate? the same WP:SPS? how do we know their job was even important and not just exaggerated in an appeal to authority? we don't. as far as i'm concerned, if a third party, reliable source doesn't mention them as being notable/important for the same reasons that the disclosure project's website says, then we are being bad editors. we have to be more discerning than that Theserialcomma (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the project, and the project claims that those people are involved with it. It's not our job to try to prove whether these people exist or the accuracy of their job titles, but only to show what the project is claiming. For this list IN RELATION TO THE SUBJECT only the one source is needed, their notability outside of this subject is irrelevant. Read WP:SELFPUB, this list meets all points. I'll revert once more but I'm not going to violate 3RR, I suggest we get a third opinion to reach a consensus. -- œ^™ 18:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP trumps WP:SELFPUB. i.e. "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material" and "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. " and "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements" Theserialcomma (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

further "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if and only if: (1) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and (2) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth." saying people are involved in this project involving the truth about aliens could be considered disparaging. I would wait for third party sources to name any names. self published sources are not good enough. this could hurt someone's reputation, conceivably. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw this pop up on Third Opinion, and in taking a quick glance I am wondering, are there sources unrelated to the Project itself that says that any of these individuals are involved with the project (or alternatively, that they are uninvolved)? PGWG (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(Found on WP:3) I'll direct interested parties to WP:NLIST - every person in a list of people must fulfill WP:Notability, and must have a WP:RS to merit their inclusion in the list. WP:SELFPUB criteria #2 then excludes The Disclosure Project's website as a WP:RS for said inclusion. So unless a reliable third-party source can be found for nearly everyone on that list, it needs to be trimmed down quite a bit. Also, FWIW, the list in question IMO does not add enough Encyclopaedic value to merit its inclusion in the first place (and it looks to be nearly directly plagiarized from the given source) - the article would be much better served by writing something like "The Disclosure Project backs up its claims with written statements and accounts allegedly from experts in the field, such as military personnel and defense industry employees" MildlyMad^Contribs 19:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

per the policy cited above, every name should be removed unless there is evidence of WP:N and mention of their relation to the project coming from a WP:RS Theserialcomma (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I could probably come back at ya with more wikilawyering, but at the risk of this article getting stubbified by falling victim to a strict interpretation of every guideline in the books, conflicting or otherwise, I think i'll defer to the third opinion and revert back to the trimmed list. :) -- œ^™ 01:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

i don't think it's wikilawyering. i think it's common sense. putting peoples' names in an article that says that aliens have been visiting earth and the government is hiding it = fringe, and possibly defamatory. if these people are substantiated as supporting this by a third party, reliable source, then it's not wikipedia's onus to prove or disprove it. and without a reliable source to state these names are connected to this project, we are editing contrary to wikipedia policy i.e. WP:BLP . Theserialcomma (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

removing notable witnesses section

as per the previous conversation, i believe that most of the section is a big BLP violation. i am removing the names for now, but feel free to add them back when there are third party, reliable sources for each name.

Before you removed these names, did you check to see whether any of these people were attendees at the 2001 press conference that the Disclosure Project trumpets? BWH76 (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Public reception

This section needs a rework. It's clearly written with a sceptical mindset, since only sources of such nature are cited. What is the worth for such a paragraph called 'public reception' anyway, if it doesn't include the fact that the press conference was, at the time, the MOST watched broadcast from the National Press Club EVER ;-) Thodef (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)?