Talk:2024 United States drone sightings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Middlesex

Saw them in East Brunswick last night 2601:84:837F:FE50:A02B:B798:E020:79E3 (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Drone sightings in South Jersey and other counties

"Most of the initial drone sightings last month were in North Jersey, including Morris County. Eventually, the sightings stretched to Sussex, Warren, Bergen, Somerset, Essex, Passaic, Union and Middlesex counties. In more recent days, police confirmed drones were spotted in Monmouth County and Ocean County, as well as Camden County in South Jersey." https://www.nj.com/news/2024/12/mystery-drone-sightings-expand-across-nj-heres-what-we-know.html Anathemastudio (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Anathemastudio! I've added this to the article as a footnote since having the whole list in the article body seems like a lot. – Anne drew 15:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good. Anathemastudio (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Potential drone crash in Lebanon New Jersey

Article: Video shows drone crash in Lebanon, New Jersey

"Video of the large drone that reportedly crashed near Round Valley State Park in Lebanon, NJ on the night of December 7th. Video taken by my friend who lives very close to the park. This does NOT show the drone crashing. It crashed shortly after this video...

Other users were also excited about the video. One commented: “I appreciate that the sound is on in this video. This is, in my opinion, the first video that shows that the drones people in NJ are reacting to do not behave like regular airplanes. Thanks for sharing.”

Another said: “This one looks more like a UAP to me.”

If the footage was indeed taken yesterday in Jersey, it could be substantial evidence that perhaps it's not just ordinary drones flying around, but something more exotic."

https://ovniologia.com.br/2024/12/interessante-video-mostraria-o-drone-que-supostamente-caiu-em-lebanon.html Anathemastudio (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Funny that someone would say "This one looks more like a UAP to me." Which translates as "it looks more like something else, what it is? I don't know." Weird way of saying it doesn't look like a drone.

And "ovniologia.com.br" is obviously not a reliable source. VdSV9•♫ 14:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Aliens

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

---

Maybe it's a Cyborg attack from outer space ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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

What the drones are not - supposedly

Article: "US military research center denies NJ drones are theirs"

"The base commander of a New Jersey military research center said the mysterious drones flying over the area are not theirs, but confirmed sightings to a local media outlet. "While the source and cause of these aircraft operating in our area remain unknown, we can confirm that they are not the result of any Picatinny Arsenal-related activities," Lt. Col. Craig Bonham II said in a news release obtained by the Morristown Daily Record."

"White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuesday that drones flying over New Jersey were not foreign, adding that President Biden has been made aware of the situation, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FBI are investigating. When pressed if the federal government had ruled out that the drones are being controlled by foreign entities, Jean-Pierre promptly responded, "Yeah.""

https://www.aol.com/us-military-research-center-denies-120357822.html

"Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh told reporters Wednesday that “our initial assessment here is that these are not drones or activities coming from a foreign entity or adversary.”"

https://apnews.com/article/fbi-drones-new-jersey-a978470fa3bb07ed3e98c5b7c18f0abb

Anathemastudio (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Image

Added an image I took a bit ago from my home; the quality sucks, but it should decent enough until we can find a better image. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 00:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems fine. When did the 95 image get pulled? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It's nice to have an image of course, but we'll look pretty silly if this turns out to be a plane. It's treading on original research including it in the article imo. – Anne drew 06:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

PteroDynamics

I just created a stub for PteroDynamics. Their drones may possibly be the commonly sighted aircraft over the past month. Thriley (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Their drones may possibly be the commonly sighted aircraft over the past month If you have any reliable source that suggests so, it may be worth to add a sentence about that (and other potential companies). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Aaro

I added a video now it is deleted https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_New_Jersey_drone_sightings&diff=prev&oldid=1262844025 Baratiiman (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The video hasn't been deleted, it's just unclear whether it's from NJ and Dec. 2024 so removing it from the article makes sense except if you got a source that includes it that says it's from NJ Dec. 2024. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A question regarding the expression "manned aircraft"

Is the expression "manned aircraft" currently being used in the article automatically interpreted by readers as what it being meant here: regular, registered, mostly commercial, airplanes and helicopters usually with passengers in them. It sounds ambiguous to me, but maybe that's because I'm a non-native English speaker, so I feel like I have to ask. VdSV9•♫ 14:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If you're referring to Kirby's statement about many being manned aircraft that are being operated lawfully, that regular, registered, mostly commercial, airplanes and helicopters usually with passengers in them is meant with that is an interpretation – even if deemed likely by you. We shouldn't put words in people's mouths that they didn't say so the current wording is adequate and shouldn't be altered; I don't see any issues with the current wording like any problematic ambiguity and think it's fine. If you'd like to have some more clarity or clearer language one should wait for sources / journalists to ask about such. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

To me, "manned aircraft" unambiguously means "aircraft with crew onboard", and strongly implies that a pilot is onboard. I also think keeping the current wording is fine. – Anne drew 19:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Explanations

All of the "experts" are from Community Colleges? Seriously? That's laughable, to say the least. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 08:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Going to a community college does not make someone less credible...nor does a PHd make someone an expert in the entire field of study. MediaGuy768 (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I live on planet Earth. (1) Going to a community college absolutely make someone less credible. (2) A Ph.D. absolutely makes someone an expert in their field of study. Let's not kid ourselves. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This is getting a bit off-topic but, in point of clarification, none of the persons cited in this section went to a community college. Joshua Tan's AB and PhD are from Princeton and Columbia, respectively. [1] William Austin's lower degrees are from Embry Riddle and Temple University and his Ed.D. is from Nova Southeastern University. Amie Gallagher went to Fordham. Chetsford (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

What are you saying? These people earned their degrees at the colleges you mentioned ... and then went on to become professors at these community colleges? Sheesh, that's almost worse. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

"What are you saying?" This is what I'm saying: [2]. Chetsford (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I'm familiar with reading ... and reading comprehension, also. Yourself? What I asked was: These people earned their degrees at the colleges you mentioned ... and then went on to become professors at these community colleges? A pretty straight forward question. And, as I said: IF that's the case, that's almost worse. Translation: Geez, let me go get a Ph.D. at Yale so that I can become a "teacher" (i.e., a babysitter) at some fifth-rate community college. Yeah, cuz that makes sense. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there a specific edit you're suggesting be made? Chetsford (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ramstein?

Greetings. Sighted over US Airbase Ramstein in Germany Foerdi (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Added to the "Background" section. – Anne drew 02:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Quick sanity check on applying, or not, WP:NYPOST

We have a news source that is not the New York Post (which is disallowed on Wikipedia as a source) citing a New York Post reporter. Are NY Post staff allowed a backdoor into Wikipedia sourcing like this, is it fine, should it be pulled? I'm inclined to leave it, since it's not to "nypost.com", but wanted to ask. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The strict construction of the deprecation is "There is consensus the New York Post is generally unreliable" and makes no mention as to whether current reporters, former reporters, subscribers, people interviewed by the New York Post, etc. are also unreliable and carry that unreliability across time and space. I don't think the intent of RS is to brand individual people with scarlet letters by sin of association. Ergo, an article in the New York Times that quoted an employee of the New York Post does not, I don't believe, lose some of its reliability through six degrees of separation. Chetsford (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, and works for me. So directly anything NY Post is straight out of bounds (and related actively working individuals in that role, like their socials would be 'out') but if covered by otherwise reputable WP:RS (unlike the Post itself), then it's fine. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, that's just my understanding and I may be mistaken. Others here, or at WP:RSN, may have a different take. If it is non-RS we should probably remove it. Chetsford (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI - a user nominated this for WP:ITN at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#US Drone Sightings

Link to the discussion is here: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#US Drone Sightings -- posting for those watching this page but not ITN. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

New title

The title should be changed to “2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings” or something similar, since they have been spotted in other states besides NJ, such as NY, PA and MD. Tinton5 (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

This makes sense. Another alternative would be to split the article or keep this one as is and create a new one that for example transcludes its lead into a section about New Jersey in specific. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose splitting, as I doubt those spinoff articles would survive deletion discussions. Also reliable sources are treating these sightings as one incident, so we should reflect that in this article. – Anne drew 17:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

That is a more accurate name, but reliable sources still overwhelmingly refer to them as "New Jersey" sightings (see WP:COMMON). – Anne drew 17:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to link WP:COMMONNAME. – Anne drew 23:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Reminds me of the Lebanon exploding pagers vs. exploding devices discussion... 41.66.123.11 (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed: Since the drones have spread to other states including New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and now Connecticut, I think we should do a request move to "2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings." SpringField23402 (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I also agree, it’s a multi-state phenomenon. Jusdafax (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Just mentioning, it is happening in other countries too. Might be worth using an umbrella type category or listing with a page for each country's drone encounter info maybe. Anathemastudio (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It's happening in Argentina too. Not just USA. Andrew012p (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2024 to 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings

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

---

2024 New Jersey drone sightings → 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings – Drone sightings first began in New Jersey, but then it spread to other states across the Northeast, first in New York, then Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Ohio, and New Hampshire. If any information is updated, reply to this. SpringField23402 (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support- Due to all of the news coverage that has been published recently. 2600:1702:5870:5930:FD7E:B7CE:7A6:71B3 (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support move - Drone sightings have since spread to more states, including New York and Ohio. I would also support a move to 2024 United States drone sightings. GWA88 (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support either this proposed move or my own. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral I'd prefer something less POV like "2024 Alleged drone sightings in [Geography]" but won't be obstinate on that point. Chetsford (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  We can't really do alleged since we have DOD, Congress, and various states confirming them. Some may be alleged, but some definitely aren't. We have to go with the sourcing/officials, right? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  There's a CNN article saying the drones have been seen in at least six states, including New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Ohio in addition to New Jersey. Could this be used as a basis for changing the name? NoTreesInSpace (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, my understanding of this article is that it is about the so-called "mystery" drone sightings and not literally any drone anyone happened to see in New Jersey (though, I guess the title does leave some room to the imagination in that sense). Unless I've missed something (which is possible), I don't think anyone has confirmed the existence of "mystery" drones, merely mundane and routine drones. Chetsford (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  The article itself we've curated doesn't call them mystery drones at all. We have several references from sources (all fine) that refer to them as 'large' which we must hew to--to do against the WP:RS is WP:OR; editor POVs are backseat to WP:RS. It would be WP:SYNTH for us to insert any bias of any sort. There's nothing to allege about these being drones in general--the only counter to that is a handful of skeptics who have neither clout nor standing against the JCOF, DOD, multiple state governments/governors, and various other officials who do say drones were involved in things like the two airport shutdowns. If we in wiki-voice try to say alleged, that is WP:OR given that the Pentagon and more say they are rather real. The article does nothing to definitively speak to their nature or size because we have no WP:RS that cover that. But the fact there are drones is patently unambigious if you sort and consider sources by who is the authoritative speaker. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  There was a drone show at halftime of last weekend's Seattle-Green Bay NFL game, we have RS that document it [3], and the drones were seen by thousands of people. However, presumably, including content about the halftime drone show is out-of-scope for this article? It's clear this article deals with a specific type of drone sighting; so-called "mystery drones". The verifying sources you're citing all seem to merely acknowledge people are seeing run-of-the-mill drones, but stop short of verifying anyone has seen a "mystery drone". Chetsford (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Right, but that's why we don't even need to get into the 'mystery' angle here, until we (assumingly) inevitably get to RS for that. Are they the size of a 4runner or just teeny? No RS, no avenue to get into it, beyond the passing mention or two in there related to what people claim. Easily covers any WP:WEIGHT concerns there, I suppose, too. There's no hurry on that part, I think. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support : while focused on New Jersey, there are others in the surrounding area. It’s be premature, but it might be better to say East Coast, as it seems the phenomenon is reaching further and further into the US, down, up, left etc IEditPolitics (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support It's not just occurring in New Jersey but in the Northeast American region. Once the paged is moved, a redirect from 2024 New Jersey drone sightings → 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings would be more appropriate. Rager7 (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support The first sightings were in New Jersey and that may still be where the majority have been, but it's pretty clear by now that they have been reported from several other states in the Northeastern US. Ira Leviton (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support since it's more accurate and it looks like reliable sources are trending towards labelling it this way. My only reservation is that lots of sources still call them the New Jersey sightings. – Anne drew 03:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Not only that but I live up in the Midwest and a drone flew around my house and its been spotted all around the nation Yesyesmrcool (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support - We may have to change this later to 2024 U.S. drone sightings but this is clearly called for now. Jusdafax (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support Most of the sightings seem to be a in handful of states and much of the documentation on the page now expands out of NJ and into NY, PA, etc. Also, Sentators of surrounding states of NJ are responding and have been mentioned on this page.Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Current redirects, there wouldn't be any more yet?

This seems to be thorough enough, with the current article name now as 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings? Redirects:

• 2024 New Jersey drone sightings
• 2024 United States drone sightings
• 2024 North American drone sightings

Is there anything that may be reasonably absent from this list? It seems plenty. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Keeping subsections as chronological as we can?

Maybe we should make efforts on this, as data and statements change... for example, if some Federal agency or official says X on December 10, but then updates to Y on December 16, we need to note that transition in some way to reflect the evolving scenario based on sources? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I've gone back and forth on this, but I think we should continue organizing things more thematically than chronologically. We're building an Encyclopedia, not a news source. Our goal should be to build an overview of this topic that will stand the test of time. If someone reads this article in five years, I doubt they will care exactly what day each statement was made. That said, if the order in which events happen matters (like in your example), then we should include dates on a case-by-case basis. Some relevant reading: WP:PROSELINE and WP:PYRAMID. If anyone has relevant policies or guidelines, I'd be interested to read them. – Anne drew 17:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

100% agree; I just mean in the short term as we constantly rejigger and tweak... just based on the news here seemingly be speeding up a little more each day. At least that way, we can know how/when to pull or modify around invalidated/updated data. "X department says 'bupkis'" on December 10, but then the same folks say on December 18... "Actually..." so that we know to pull or contextualize outdated stuff. Does that make sense...? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Anne drew. Moreover, even though much of the reporting is originating from RS, it's largely taking the form of quote-heavy articles. WP:PROFRINGE suggests that "a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents". So, even if a RS quotes a proponent of a fringe theory, we should exercise caution in elevating it to parity with more sane comments. I'm disposed to believe that a chronological sequencing may tend to elevate and privilege much of the more wild beliefs of adherents of the "mystery drone" mythos. But maybe I'm wrong! Chetsford (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

What is fringe here? This isn't a UFO article. I realize some small number of skeptics is treating it that way, but this is all rather past of the pay grade of people like West et al if it's to the point of President-Elects, the Joint Chiefs and Cabinet secretaries all saying the 'things' in that they are drones are real. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings#Investigations and findings

I went ahead and tweaked this one section to be more (as closely as possible) chronological as it will be the section most likely to evolve and grow going forward. The others can be nudged thematically or however works out best, but this is the one that is the closest to a timeline, and there isn't that much. Overview, Federal early, state level responses (myriad), Federal again, and that's about a week or so's worth. It's crazy it's only been that long since this article started. I slipped in a few hidden tags as well just for housekeeping, so we can add into the section easily now at the end for new developments, and have places to site prior Federal/state level info we missed. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Great map, one for states?

@Chetsford love the county map for NJ. Do you mind doing one for the states with reports too? The links are all in the lede. I haven't looked yet to see if any new states popped up last night. I think Wyoming I saw on MSNBC or CNN around Laramie? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

okay, will do Chetsford (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Patrick Ryder "Not unusual"

The sentence as of now says

"While branches of the U.S. armed forces confirmed unauthorized fly-overs of military sites, U.S. Air Force Major General Patrick S. Ryder indicated that drone flyovers were "not unusual" and were generally not nefarious."

In the 2 sources I added, the "not unusual" seems to be directed at drones in general, not at flyovers of military bases. Might require judgment FergusArgyll (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The source you added is the New York Post, which has been determined to be generally unreliable (see: WP:NEWYORKPOST). The source present in the body of the article makes it clear he's referring to military site flyovers (emphasis added): ""It's not that unusual to see drones in the sky, nor is it an indication of malicious activity or any public safety threat, and so the same applies to drones flown near U.S. military installations; some fly near or over our bases from time to time," Ryder said. "That in itself is not unusual, and the vast majority pose no physical threat to our forces or impact our operations." [4] As a reminder, we generally don't need sources in the lead, as long as the statement is sourced in the body (see: MOS:LEADCITE). Chetsford (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I'm stupid and didn't read the body...

thx FergusArgyll (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, for this article I think citations in the lead are appropriate due to the controversial (not the right word, German prob has a word for "easily causes conspiracy theories") nature of the story FergusArgyll (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a great observation, FergusArgyll. It makes sense to me that we keep refs in the lead. (I think the word might be Verschwörungsanfälligkeit maybe? Maybe not --- my DE is shaky.) Chetsford (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

„Lawful“

That repeatedly used argument is very weak IMO. Even if in the US these are registered and licensed and whatever term you want to use over there on the other side of the Atlantic, they are not lawful in UK or in Germany! Nonetheless, the Germans and the British don’t do anything against those. And no Euro-official is asking what’s happening.

I suggest having one single combined drone article, because globally they are the same reports of the drones over the airbases Foerdi (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Unable to detect drones using conventional methods

Article: Shoot them down already!’: NJ legislators frustrated by State Police drone briefing

"Among the challenges lawmakers were told that authorities face is that current radio frequencies do not pick up drone signals. The State Police deployed helicopters over Raritan Bay but could not detect drones, even with infrared cameras, according to Kanitra.

It is called an electro-optical infrared camera, which can detect a drone within one to two miles and has the ability to see in the dark via heat spots, Kanitra relayed. It's the latest kit they have but was taken out of service and sent back to be retrofitted after being unsuccessful in detections.

Now, they're trying to add drone-specific radar to it and believe it should be operational again in a few days."

https://www.app.com/story/news/local/new-jersey/2024/12/11/nj-drones-lawmakers-paul-kanitra-dawn-fantasia-greg-myhre-frustrated-with-state/76921367007/ Anathemastudio (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Half the photos in this piece (1, 3, 4, 5, and 8) are of a helicopter. Some of the others look like airplanes, but it's hard to say. This is such a flap. VdSV9•♫ 14:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you should add a brief sentence about that to the article. Don't know about that source, I can't access it and suggest this or this. The second is definitely a WP:RS but I also can't access it either (except using the Wayback Machine so please link that).
VdSV9, I wonder if you read Anathemastudio's post or only the link, the pictures of this article are irrelevant, please read the text. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The pictures in these articles are quite relevant when analysing the context of what people are actually seeing in the sky and calling them drones. It's part of a critical analysis of the sources, something that should be done by anyone when researching anything. People are freaking out about "drones", looking up and seeing airplanes, and I mean regular airliners, sometimes helicopters, and calling them drones. The media feeds into the paranoia, as do some politicians, and WP shouldn't be contributing to it. It should be a source of actual information. VdSV9•♫ 16:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I doubt anyone disagrees, but desires of editors are ultimately irrelevant against policy and WP:RS. Our job is to put the article out as it should be versus how we want it to be. It's beyond our authority to decide outcomes--only convey what we are allowed by policy. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Almost all reports are of lawful manned aircraft

@Very Polite Person: Why did you remove that [5] bit from the lead? Your explanation makes no sense to me: there is no OR, no SYNTH. There are more sources to back this up, some already in the article (Misidentification section). But I found that the one source I used should suffice, with the quote About 100 sightings of mystery craft have been identified as warranting further investigation, FBI officials confirmed during a background briefing Saturday. They have dismissed the bulk of some 5,000 other sightings as manned aircraft. There is a 50/1 ratio of "manned craft" to "we haven't been able to figure it out yet". Realistically speaking, there are a bunch that have also been verified to be planets and stars, but I'm sticking to what the source says. Isn't 98% "almost all"? Is it the word "lawful"? That's implied, but if you don't like it, remove the word, not one of the only bits of reason that can be found in the lead. VdSV9•♫ 02:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2024 to -- 2024 United States drone sightings

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

---

2024 New Jersey drone sightings → 2024 United States drone sightings – Simple and clear reason and logic -- the news coverage, reporting, myriad WP:RS, and official statements now put this on both US coasts plus the midwest, with Wright-Paterson AFB in Ohio now also impacted. There are Canadian and Mexican reports too but they seem less solid. We can always expand and rename again if needed later to 2024 North American drone sightings or similar at a later junction. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral Despite the occurrence of "sightings" in other parts of the U.S., the nature of the delusion seems to be generally associated or linked with New Jersey and makes this name the most indelibly linked to the topic. On the other hand, I could see a situation in which this evolves quickly over the course of days or weeks so that such a move could be warranted in short order. Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's already shutting down airspace/airports in Ohio military bases and NY airports. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral The drone sightings were only spotted in the Northeast of the United States. It's unclear if the aircrafts spotted in the West Coast, Canada, or Mexico are actually drones or planes. SpringField23402 (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support They are spotted in different parts of USA. --Andrew012p (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Category:Mass psychogenic illness in the United States

Hey VdSV9, I removed this category which you recently added to the article. Since the article currently makes no mention of mass psychogenic illness or mass hysteria, that categorization seems inappropriate. If you can add some well-sourced information that links these sightings to mass psychogenic illness, please do so and feel free to add the category back. Thanks – Anne drew 01:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Identified as mass panic in this article [6]. jps (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a reprint of this article. It's also labeled as an opionion piece and editorial, and I don't see any medical or scientific qualifications listed for the author. What WP:RS actually call the events in this article specifically a Mass psychogenic illness? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is another article identifying it as a mass panic. [7] Note that "mass psychogenic illness" is just Wikipedia's preferred synonym for mass panic of mass hysteria. jps (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to the wording, mind you. It's not like a single word in the article today is binding in any conceivable way on what the article will read as tomorrow or next week, unless someone is a time traveler; news and facts will or won't change things. We'll just report what is reported as it's reported by WP:RS. That doesn't look like WP:RS, though, 404media? The author is a professional journalist and editor. Is that an editorial? It reads like one. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is a piece identifying the flap as mass hysteria: [8]. jps (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Good source but all it says is: "Given history's various episodes of mass hysteria, from UFO sightings to 2016's epidemic of clown sightings — remember those? — it can't be altogether discounted." -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Anne drew: You were probably right to remove it. I jumped the gun. Although this is quite clearly a case of mass hysteria, I didn't have any sources for it, so my inclusion was OR and I should have waited for sources instead of just including it. I don't mind waiting a few more days until someone... Oh wait. jps found a few mentions and I think it's enough to include the category. Call me biased, but is it really bias to have a leaning towards reality? VdSV9•♫ 12:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

VdSV9, I agree. Wikipedia definitely has a bias toward reality. The article should be leaning away from WP:SENSATIONAL coverage emphasizing mystery and awe. There's plenty of mainstream opinion out there deserving of primary weight in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we're doing a good job of labelling witness accounts as "sightings" and "reports" rather than calling it actual drone activity in Wikipedia's voice. There probably is room to include speculation from both experts and the general public on the cause of these sightings, including this mass hysteria theory. That should be balanced, however, against the large number of RS labelling them as drones. – Anne drew 19:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is extraordinarily tame compared to the rapidly expanding and escalating national media coverage. It's all over every station today! And now the US Military, I saw, just confirmed these over a German base. I'm amazed this article isn't being hammered by users. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Chetsford, I wonder how appropriate it is to reference the mass hysteria theory in the lead. That is an actual medical condition that, according to our article, involves the rapid spread of illness signs and symptoms and involves physical symptoms. It seems like a lot of these commentators are saying "mass hysteria" but what they really mean is "people are being gullible". Are there any reliable medical sources backing the mass hysteria theory? I worry about giving it undue weight if no medical professionals have supported it. – Anne drew 02:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it's appropriate at all to use the phrase "mass psychogenic illness" [9]. None of the sources say MSI. They say "mass hysteria" which, whatever its connection to the mental illness, also has a pedestrian usage which I inferred to be the meaning being invoked here. Chetsford (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm okay I see your point, people do use the term informally. I've removed the wikilink and put the term in quotes to reduce possible confusion. Please let me know if you disagree with any of my revisions. – Anne drew 02:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Anne drew -- just to clarify, I'm 100% fine with excising it from the lead entirely (i.e. the entire paragraph) if you or anyone thinks it's likely to create confusion that a medical diagnosis is being proferred. (Sorry, I didn't notice this thread before I added it.) Chetsford (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC); edited 02:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Another good point, and one more reason why I was wrong before. Too bold, I guess. I'm usually more careful than that, but I think this discussion is important. To quote the article: MPI is distinct from other types of collective or mass delusions by involving physical symptoms. I haven't seen reports of people claiming health effects of these things. What's the correct term here? This thing is sometimes referred to as a flap.

Robert Bartholomew, the sociologist and expert in mass psychogenic illness, has published as a guest in Michael Shermer's substack, here. He calls it a "panic" several times. And, responding to one comment, he says It's not mass hysteria and never was. It is a social panic involving an exaggerated threat that is being projected onto the skies.

So, probably not a great ref to use in the article, but I think relevant to this discussion. I'll have to take a look at the social panic page. I guess there is no Category:Social panic? VdSV9•♫ 14:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the closest categories we have are Category:Crowd psychology and Category:Social phenomena. For what it's worth, the mass psychogenic illness category is a bit of a mess and includes events that are definitely not related to the medical condition, such as the 2016 clown sightings. It might make sense to introduce a new category for similar social panics. – Anne drew 19:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Medicalisation is inappropriate here, i.e. psychiatry is the wrong lens. Let the studies sift out and social contagion, if not mass hysteria and The Dress will all feed into it.

kencf0618 (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Tracking

To date none of these sightings of whatsoever have tracked. None whatsoever. It has been suggested that (citation 3) that they be checked against flight apps, and a certain Tom Adams, whose business is drone defense—there is such a thing—includes both celestial objects and satellites in the mix (citation 117). Drones come and go; ephemerides are forever. kencf0618 (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't look like you're suggesting a change to the article, but I also don't understand what claim or argument you are trying to make here. I'm tempted to reply, but WP:NOTAFORUM. VdSV9•♫ 15:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Drones don't appear on radar or shut off in FAA restricted zones. New Robin Radar systems to be used.

Article: New Jersey Pilot 'Lost Power' After Approaching Mystery Drone

"Michael B, the CEO of Terror Talk Productions, said his drone "spun out, lost power and the battery died" when he tried to approach a mystery drone flying in a restricted zone in New Jersey last week. This week, he experienced something similar again.

Michael B's drones did not lose power because of the other mystery drones, but because they were flying in a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) restricted zone.

Speaking with Alex Witt on MSNBC Reports about the phenomenon, Michael B explained that, while his drones lose power upon entering the zones, the mystery drones in New Jersey appear to retain their ability to fly in those areas." https://www.newsweek.com/mystery-new-jersey-drones-2001211

Radar not affective, but good article for suggesting other methods to use for tracking called Robin Radar systems. These radar systems and CEO are referred to in next article. https://www.robinradar.com/why-traditional-radar-isnt-effective-at-tracking-drones#:~:text=Unlike%20the%20manned%20aircraft%20that,of%20flying%20in%20huge%20swarms.

Article: N.Y., N.J. drone mystery to be tackled by high-tech detection system. Here's how Robin Radar Systems work. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/newyork/news/new-york-new-jersey-drone-sightings-robin-radar-detection-system/

Anathemastudio (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Any URL / link? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I added them now. Anathemastudio (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

We generally approach WP:NEWSWEEK with great caution. I'd suggest if Newsweek is reporting on paranormal activity cited to someone named "Michael B" that may be something that we don't need to include right now. Chetsford (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of other stories just like his that can be used instead if you want. That's why US fed gov is switching to Robin Radar systems to track these drones instead of running into problems that Michael B CEO of Terror Talk Prod ran into. Anything flying in FAA restricted airspace is supposed to shut down automatically but the mystery drones don't. That's the main point of that first article Anathemastudio (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If you can find other sources we can see about integrating it all at appropriate 'weight', like a sentence or two perhaps. Wikipedia goes higher level. Like, if we later get far more data, maybe there's an article about specific unique drones or incidents, but we're not anywhere near that (today!). -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Mainly the mystery drones can keep flying in FAA restricted airspace, aren't detected by conventional radar or our cyrrent drone detection systems, so US fed gov is switching to the bew Robin Radar systems. The second and third links go over some derails about those new systems and why our current radar systems don't work for these drones. Both links reference the CEO of Robin Radar. Anathemastudio (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Those are the new systems the US fed gov is switching too. To not use that info on wiki would just be making work for yourself at a later date, so up to you. Anathemastudio (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Anathemastudio: "Anything flying in FAA restricted airspace is supposed to shut down automatically..." is an extraordinary claim that requires a much better source than this Michael B. quoted by Newsweek. Speaking from my knowledge as a licensed drone pilot this is certainly not a legal requirement, however one of the most popular manufacturers, DJI, has taken it upon themselves to build geofencing software into their drones. The drone will stop at the edge of the geofenced area and may land or return to the takeoff point, but it will not suddenly lose power or deplete the battery. Their restriction maps often don't align with the actual controlled airspace around airports, and pilots with proof of FAA authorization can unlock them as needed.

Most other drone brands will take off and fly in controlled or restricted airspace even if it's illegal to do so. This is common knowledge within the drone community and it's ridiculous to claim that the ability to fly in restricted airspace indicates anything besides an off-the-shelf consumer drone. –dlthewave ☎ 03:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Although most drones come with some sort of programming not to enter restricted airspace, in some cases you can override that by going to a menu and just tapping a "I take responsibility" or similar button that appears below a message on screen. Also, the programming is such that a few of them just stop moving forward at a "virtual barrier", most go back to base and land, and some just show a warning message and simply go on. They don't just "shut down". The claim that his drone "spun out, and the battery died because he was entering restricted airspace" makes no sense. More likely he didn't realize he lost connection, or he didn't notice he was running low on battery (and his drone wasn't programmed to go back to base when it was low) or something else. This is bad infomation. It seems to imply that the other drone had something unusual about it, but is no evidence of anything nefarious or unusual. VdSV9•♫ 15:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I reverted some changes

Hi Basaatw, unfortunately I had to revert some of your recent changes to the article. As you can see in your most recent revision, many of the citations that normally look like this: , have been replaced by text like this: [1][2]. I'm sorry to have to revert your work, but those citations took a great deal of effort to add to the appropriate locations in the article so they should be preserved.

• Your most recent revision
• All of your changes as a diff

Apologies for the inconvenience, please let me know if you have any questions.

– Anne drew 23:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Anne drew,

Thank you for explaining why you reverted my recent changes. I understand now that my edits inadvertently affected the citation formatting that had been carefully placed throughout the article. I apologize for any disruption this caused.

I will:

1. Review your restored version carefully to understand the proper citation format

2. Make note of how the references should be structured ([1][2] format)

3. Reapply my content changes while ensuring I preserve all existing citation formatting

Would you mind if I make another attempt at my edits while being extra careful to maintain the citation structure? I'll make sure to preview all changes before saving to verify the references remain intact.

Thank you for helping maintain the article's quality. Please let me know if you have any additional guidance.

Randall N. Brock (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You can go ahead and reapply your changes, but keep in mind that others might alter or even revert your changes again, which is a normal part of the consensus-building process. If you think your changes might be controversial, it might be best to propose them in a new discussion on this page first. – Anne drew 02:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

References

• User:Basaatw, are you using large language models to post replies on talk pages? BusterD (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi BusterD,

Thanks for asking. I aim to contribute quality edits to Wikipedia and use various writing tools to help ensure my work is clear, accurate, and properly formatted. This includes tools like Grammarly, ProWritingAid, search engines for research, and other available software that helps with professional writing and editing.

I believe using such tools responsibly helps maintain high standards in Wikipedia contributions. Just as many editors use spelling checkers and reference managers, I use available tools that help me provide well-structured, properly sourced content while following Wikipedia's guidelines.

The key is that all edits are reviewed, verified, and ultimately made by me with Wikipedia's best interests in mind. I'm happy to discuss my editing process further if you have any specific questions.

Kind regards,

Basaatw Randall N. Brock (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes. BusterD (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks,

@BusterD for your continued engagement. Have you had a chance to review the my reorganization proposals for the "Specific Incidents" and "Possible Explanations" sections? I'd welcome your substantive thoughts on the suggested chronological structure and content grouping, as I've invested considerable effort in ensuring these changes would improve readability while maintaining all sources and factual information.

I'm actively working on additional proposals for clarification purposes throughout the article. Since you're taking such an interest in my contributions, I'll be particularly looking forward to your substantive feedback on these improvements. The focus, as always, remains on making the article more accessible while preserving its comprehensive coverage - which I trust is our shared goal.

Looking forward to your content-focused feedback and suggestions.

Sincerely,

Basaatw --~~~~ Randall N. Brock (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I will choose not to help you. BusterD (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

December 30 revisions

Hey Randall N. Brock, I've started going over some of your recent changes. Nice job keeping the citations intact this time 🙌

I'm not sure about the changes to section structure. Possible explanations now lives under the Official Responses section. Those explanations are also sourced from independent experts - not just government officials. I would recommend bringing that section and its children back up a level. Also putting local, state, and legislative responses under Federal Executive Branch doesn't really make sense. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 05:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Anne,

Thanks for taking the time to review my recent changes. I totally understand your points, and appreciate your attention to detail.

I know editing is a process, and our goal is to get it right. After considering your comments, I'm working on a few ideas:

"Possible Explanations" Section

I understand your point about placing "Possible Explanations" under "Official Responses." It makes more sense for it to stand on its own to highlight the different sources—both official and independent. I’ll propose moving it back to a separate section for clarity.

Local, State, and Legislative Responses

I agree that putting these under the "Federal Executive Branch" doesn’t quite work. The best solution might be to separate them into their own "Responses" section with subsections for "Federal," "Local and State," and "Legislative" responses. This should help keep things organized and intuitive.

I’ll revise the structure and share it with you and the group for feedback before making any further edits. I really appreciate these discussions and your input.

Thanks again,

Randy Randall N. Brock (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Since you seem to agree, I've gone ahead and made those changes to the section headings. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed chronological reorganization of "Specific Incidents" section

@Fellow editors of 2024 United States drone sightings:

I suggest reorganizing the "Specific Incidents and Airspace Restrictions" section chronologically to improve readability. Here's the proposed structure:

November 2024

• November 25: FAA issued temporary restrictions affecting Picatinny Arsenal and Trump's Bedminster golf club
• November 26: Medical evacuation helicopter delay due to drone activity

Early December 2024

• December 9-15: USMC confirms drone presence over Camp Pendleton
• December 13-14: Wright-Patterson AFB airspace closure

Mid December 2024

• December 15: Boston Logan Airport drone arrests
• December 17: Second Wright-Patterson incursion; Fort Worth incidents
• December 18: FAA's 22-city NJ drone ban; Hill AFB impacts
• December 19: FAA extends bans to NY areas

This organization would:

• Make the timeline clearer for readers
• Group related incidents by timeframe
• Maintain all existing information and citations
• Improve narrative flow

I welcome feedback and suggestions over the next two weeks (until January 13, 2025). If there are no major objections or if we reach consensus on any suggested modifications, I plan to implement these changes after the discussion period.

Please share any thoughts on:

• The proposed chronological structure
• Additional incidents that should be included
• Alternative organization suggestions
• Any concerns about the approach

--~~~~

This organization would:

• Make the timeline clearer for readers
• Group related incidents by timeframe
• Maintain all existing information and citations
• Improve narrative flow

I welcome feedback and suggestions over the next two weeks (until January 13, 2025). If there are no major objections or if we reach consensus on any suggested modifications, I plan to implement these changes after the discussion period.

Please share any thoughts on:

• The proposed chronological structure
• Additional incidents that should be included
• Alternative organization suggestions
• Any concerns about the approach

--~~~~ Randall N. Brock (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd generally support this as it implements our best practices under WP:TIMELINE. My only recommendation would be a succinct narrative paragraph at the top of the section to avoid shocking the reader with a jarring amount of detail and each item in the timeline should be a complete sentence (or two). Chetsford (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chetsford,

Thank you for your support and thoughtful feedback on the proposed reorganization. I agree that adding a succinct narrative paragraph at the beginning of the section would provide context and help ease readers into the detailed timeline. I’ll draft an introductory paragraph summarizing the key events and their significance and share it here for further input.

Regarding your point about ensuring each item in the timeline is a complete sentence (or two), I’ll make the necessary adjustments to improve clarity and readability. If you have any specific suggestions on phrasing or additional content to include in the introduction, I’d love to hear them.

Do you have further thoughts on:

• The tone or scope of the proposed introduction?
• How to balance detail with readability in the timeline entries?

Your input is invaluable, and I appreciate your time and collaboration!

Best regards,

Randall (Basaatw) Randall N. Brock (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm also okay with putting this in chronological order, but I would prefer keeping it in prose style since this isn't a timeline article. Per MOS:TIMELINE, timelines should generally only be used to supplement existing prose descriptions. Also see WP:PROSELINE for some guidance on this. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 05:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Great point. Chetsford (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Anne Drew and Chetsford,

Thank you both for the thoughtful input. I understand the preference for retaining a prose style to ensure the section adheres to Wikipedia's guidance under MOS:TIMELINE and WP:PROSELINE.

To address this, I will upload a draft of a introductory paragraph to emphasize a narrative approach while still providing a clear overview of the events

Looking forward to your thoughts, and hope to always work to address your concerns.

Best regards,

Randall (Basaatw) Randall N. Brock (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization of "State and Local Investigations" section

@Fellow editors:

I propose reorganizing the "State and Local Investigations" section to improve flow and reduce redundancy. Here's the suggested structure:

State and Local Investigations

Early Investigations and Findings

[Connecticut and early NJ findings]

Mid-December Investigations

[NYPD findings from Dec 14-15]

State Response and Federal Assistance

[Organized state-by-state responses and federal assistance requests]

Benefits of this reorganization:

• Chronological flow of events
• Removal of duplicate information
• Clearer grouping of related state actions
• Better narrative progression
• Maintained all existing citations and content

The full proposed text with all citations is provided below for review:

State and Local Investigations

Early Investigations and Findings

According to WVIT-TV, Connecticut State Police investigations "found that most [drone sightings] could be attributed to manned aircraft or those UAS devices operating in the private sector in a legal manner". Governor Ned Lamont noted that one reported drone "had the word Frontier on the back", apparently indicating it was a Frontier Airlines aircraft.

On December 13, Bridgewater, New Jersey police chief John Mitzak stated that "many of the reports received involve misidentification of manned aircraft".

Mid-December Investigations

The New York Police Department investigated approximately 120 drone-related calls during December 14-15, finding most were actually manned aircraft, meteor showers, or the planet Venus. Some confirmed drone sightings were identified as hobbyist drones responding to reports of unusual activity, which the New York Times noted was "triggering even more reports".

State Response and Federal Assistance

Multiple states implemented investigation measures:

• Connecticut deployed drone detection systems, particularly in Fairfield County
• Massachusetts State Police coordinated with federal and local authorities as Governor Maura Healey acknowledged increasing sightings
• Virginia State Police investigated due to the state's "significant number of national security and critical infrastructure sites"
• Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro directed State Police to use helicopters for drone pursuit and origin determination

On December 15, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced federal deployment of a drone detection system. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer requested similar assistance for New Jersey.

By December 17, New Jersey officials reported that specialized "drone-detecting devices" deployed over the previous week found "little to no evidence" of threatening activity.

I welcome feedback and suggestions over the next two weeks (until January 13, 2025). If there are no major objections or if we reach consensus on any suggested modifications, I plan to implement these changes after the discussion period.

Please share thoughts on:

• The chronological organization
• The grouping of state responses
• Any content that should be added/modified
• Alternative organizational suggestions

--~~~~ Randall N. Brock (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd welcome a new way of organizing this section, however, the proposed organization is confusing. It begins by offering the investigations in chronological format ("early december", "mid december") and then suddenly veers left and organizes them by subject matter ("state reponse"). Chetsford (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chetsford,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on the proposed reorganization. You raise an important point about the potential confusion caused by mixing chronological and thematic structures in the same section. To address this, I’d like to propose two potential solutions and welcome further input from you and other editors:

1. Fully Chronological Approach: We could reorganize the entire section by strict chronology, ensuring that all events—investigations, findings, and state responses—are presented in the order they occurred. This would simplify the narrative and maintain consistency.
2. Fully Thematic Approach: Alternatively, we could group all content by thematic categories, such as "Investigations and Findings" and "State Responses." This would mean including all relevant events within their respective themes, regardless of when they occurred, to create clear subject-based groupings.

Would either of these approaches align better with your concerns? I’m happy to work on refining the draft based on your preference or any other suggestions you might have.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

Best regards,

Randall N. Brock Randall N. Brock (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This reply to sysop Chetsford is 100% ChatGPT created. BusterD (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization of "Possible Explanations" section

@Fellow editors:

I suggest reorganizing the "Possible Explanations" section with proper citations and links:

Possible Explanations

Official and Political Theories

US Rep. Michael McCaul, Chair of House Foreign Affairs Committee, suggested some unidentified aircraft were 'spy drones' from China, citing Chinese government ownership of farmland near U.S. military bases. Congressman Jeff Van Drew claimed information from "very high sources" about an Iranian "mothership" launching drones, but the Pentagon refuted this, stating no Iranian ships were present and no evidence of foreign adversaries existed. New Jersey Governor Murphy questioned Van Drew's claims' credibility. Van Drew later modified his stance, suggesting possible Chinese involvement.

Expert Analysis

Former U.S. Air Force general James Poss questioned foreign involvement, noting the aircraft used FAA-compliant lighting. Drone expert William Austin analyzed imagery and concluded many reported 'large drones' were misidentified manned aircraft or smaller personal drones. By December 15, Austin reported that "100 percent" were either misidentified airplanes or small drones under 55 pounds.

Scientific Explanations

Amie Gallagher, Raritan Valley Community College planetarium director, discussed autokinesis creating motion illusions. LaGuardia Community College professor Joshua Tan suggested confirmation bias in public interpretation. Skeptic Mick West attributed many sightings to smartphone camera limitations.

Misidentification and Social Media

Multiple widely shared images were identified as mislabeled older footage, doctored film, or AI-generated content. Notable examples included:

• A viral Threads video actually showing Chinese COVID-19 disinfection drones
• An edited Instagram video with added effects
• Doug Mastriano sharing an image of a movie prop misidentified as a crashed drone
• Old drone light show footage mislabeled as current sightings

This reorganization would:

• Improve chronological and thematic flow
• Maintain all citations and factual content
• Group related explanations logically
• Enhance readability while preserving accuracy

I welcome feedback over the next two weeks (until January 13, 2025). Please share thoughts on this structure and any suggested modifications.

--~~~~ Randall N. Brock (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not think is a good idea. The current layout has a one-dimensional level of organization (possible explanations). The proposed layout has a more complex and indecipherable level of arbitrary organization (some sections represent possible explanations, other represent categories of people advancing possible explanations). Also, this eviscerates and deletes the bulk of RS that establish the indisputable fact that the drone sightings were all cases of misidentification or other mundane explanations. Chetsford (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chetsford,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You make a good point about the risk of overcomplicating the section and losing focus on the main conclusions. I’d like to suggest a middle ground that keeps things simple while addressing some of the issues with the current layout.

Revised Approach:

1. Clearer Structure We could streamline the section into a neutral and straightforward format, organized by key themes rather than categories of people. For example:
   • Initial Theories (e.g., McCaul and Van Drew’s early comments)
   • Expert Analysis (e.g., William Austin and James Poss’s input)
   • Scientific Explanations (e.g., autokinesis and smartphone issues)
   • Social Media Misidentifications (e.g., viral videos and AI-generated content)

This keeps the flow simple and avoids creating too many subcategories.

1. Focus on the Bigger Picture We can make sure the section ends with a summary that ties everything back to the consensus: that these sightings were overwhelmingly due to misidentifications, hoaxes, or mundane phenomena. This would ensure that the reliable sources on this conclusion are front and center.
2. Balanced Coverage To avoid overemphasizing speculative claims, we can briefly mention them alongside the relevant refutations, so they’re included for context but don’t dominate the section.

Does this sound like a step in the right direction? I’d love to hear your thoughts or any tweaks you think could help further.

Best,

Randall Randall N. Brock (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The above is 100% ChatGPT created. BusterD (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Proposed Introductory Paragraph for "Specific Incidents and Airspace Restrictions" Section

Hi everyone,

Based on feedback regarding the importance of narrative flow and alignment with Wikipedia’s guidelines (MOS:TIMELINE and WP:PROSELINE), I’ve drafted the following introductory paragraph for the section. This version aims to balance the chronological structure with a cohesive prose style:

Specific Incidents and Airspace Restrictions

Since November 2024, reports of unauthorized drone activity across various sensitive locations in the United States have highlighted pressing concerns about aviation safety, public security, and the protection of restricted airspaces. These incidents include disruptions at military installations, commercial airports, and emergency operations, prompting swift responses from federal authorities and local governments. The following section provides a chronological yet narrative account of these events, summarizing their significance and the measures taken to address them.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this proposed paragraph. Does it strike the right balance between clarity and narrative flow? Are there any additional points or adjustments you'd recommend?

Looking forward to your feedback!

Best regards,

Randall N. Brock Randall N. Brock (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

GPTzero shows the above is 100% ChatGPT generated. BusterD (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for Restructuring: Official Responses and Possible Explanations Sections

Hi everyone,

I’d like to propose changes to improve the structure of the article, particularly in the Official Responses and Possible Explanations sections. Differentiating official statements from independent analyses will enhance clarity and readability.

Current Structure

1. Official Responses
   • Federal Executive Branch
   • State, Local, and Legislative Responses
2. Possible Explanations

Proposed Structure

1. Official Responses
   • Federal Responses
     • Statements from the Executive Branch (e.g., Pentagon, FAA)
   • State and Local Responses
     • Governors, mayors, and regional agencies
   • Legislative Responses
     • Statements and inquiries from Congress members
2. Possible Explanations
   • Official and Political Theories
     • Comments from officials (e.g., Rep. McCaul, Gov. Murphy)
   • Expert Analyses
     • Input from scientists and aviation experts
   • Scientific Explanations
     • Phenomena such as autokinesis or smartphone limitations
   • Misidentification and Social Media
     • Examples of mislabeled images, edited footage, and AI-generated content

Rationale

• Official Responses: Reorganizing into three subsections (Federal, State and Local, Legislative) clarifies the source and scope of each response.
• Possible Explanations: Restoring this as a standalone section highlights the range of perspectives and avoids conflating official statements with independent analyses.
• Subsections within Possible Explanations provide logical flow and better organization of ideas for improved readability.

Next Steps

I’m posting this here for feedback and consensus. If there are no objections or alternative suggestions within 7 days, I’ll proceed with the revisions. Please feel free to share your thoughts or suggestions!

Thank you for your time and input.

Best regards,

Randy Randall N. Brock (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I object. Everything you've written above I tested for ChatGPT and is a 100% match. BusterD (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: Proposal for Restructuring: Official Responses and Possible Explanations Sections

Hi BusterD,

Thank you for your response. I’d like to take a moment to clarify my intentions and the thought process behind this proposal.

As someone actively investigating the national security risks posed by these incidents, I believe it’s essential to identify and understand the sources of unidentified drones. Ensuring public safety and protecting national security requires a clear, factual understanding of these events.

When I first reviewed the article, I was struck by how disorganized and poorly structured it was. Instead of informing readers, it seemed to create more confusion and even alarm. The excessive political rhetoric, redundancies, and lack of clarity made it challenging—if not impossible—for the average reader to extract factual and balanced information.

I rely on Wikipedia as an essential resource and contribute both my time and financial support because I believe in its mission. Articles on topics like this must be clear, well-organized, and accessible to readers from all backgrounds. If leveraging AI tools to organize and streamline content makes the article more usable and informative, I’m willing to do so—while ensuring that all content remains original and adheres to community standards.

I understand and appreciate your concerns about maintaining the integrity of the work. If there are specific aspects of the proposal that you feel need improvement, I’d be happy to revisit and refine them to better align with the community’s expectations.

I value your input and look forward to collaborating to enhance this article for the benefit of all readers.

Best regards,

Randy Randall N. Brock (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I was struck by how disorganized and poorly structured it was. Instead of informing readers, it seemed to create more confusion and even alarm. The excessive political rhetoric, redundancies, and lack of clarity made it challenging—if not impossible—for the average reader to extract factual and balanced information.

I take issue with these statements. Are these ChatGPT's beliefs or yours? If those are truly your views, I'd love to see some specific examples. Your own thoughts, put through a machine translator if necessary, will suffice. Thanks – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 20:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

GPTzero says the above response was 100% created by ChatGPT, but ZeroGPT says only 49%. BusterD (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi BusterD, Anne Drew, and all,

Thanks for your replies. I just want to clear a few things up. The ideas I shared are mine, and I put a lot of thought into them. I used AI software to help sort and write things down, but the views and plan are all from me. Please let me know your thoughts.

Anne Drew, I understand you'd like examples. Here are some things that stood out to me:

• The "Possible Explanations" section mixes official views with other opinions, which can make it tough to separate the two.
• There’s some overlap in the points, especially in "Official Responses" and "Possible Explanations." That can confuse readers.
• The current layout makes it hard to follow who said what and where the info came from.

I hope these examples help show why I think this new structure would work better.

I also want to stress that I’m here to work with everyone. This article is what matters most, not any personal conflicting. We all want it to be clear and useful for readers. If anyone has ideas or changes, I’m all ears. Let’s focus on improving the content. As a team player, I’m here to get along and make it better together.

Thanks again for your time and feedback. Let's get 'er done!

Best,

Randy Randall N. Brock (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

100% LLM-created. BusterD (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi BusterD,

Thank you for your input.

I understand your concerns, but I kindly ask that we keep the focus on the content rather than making this personal. I’ve already explained my process and how I organize my thoughts, but the ideas and contributions are entirely my own. Let’s work together to keep the discussion constructive and focused on improving the article.

Best regards,

Randy Randall N. Brock (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This is all about behavior, not content. There's exactly nothing personal in my repeatedly pointing out that this account's recent talk page contributions are entirely machine-created (ergo not attributable). I did some reading through the editor's page creations and editing history (mostly creating stubs about non-notable people which get deleted for promotional purposes). One quite excellent pagespace exception, I'm happy to say. Good work there. That's my realistic evaluation based on my lengthy watching folks here, not a chiding. And today User:Basaatw is on what any normal wikipedian would call a high-visibility article, and they're proposing to insert machine written stuff in live page space on their (machine-written) timetable. This is NOT okay with me. BusterD (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Let me know if my recent edit addresses any of your concerns. If you believe issues remain, please provide specific examples quoting from the article. Thanks – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite of second paragraph of lead

I would like to suggest the second paragraph be rewritten as follows to more accurately capture the content of the body:

A joint investigation by civilian and military agencies of the U.S. Government failed to find "anything anomalous" and attributed all sightings reported to it as the misidentification of celestial objects and lawfully operated manned and unmanned aerial vehicles. Numerous independent experts in academia and the commercial sector, including Vijay Kumar, Mick West, and others, reported similar conclusions. While branches of the U.S. armed forces confirmed unauthorized fly-overs of military sites, U.S. Air Force Major General Patrick S. Ryder indicated such occurrences were "not unusual" and were generally not nefarious.

Chetsford (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a good start, but I think it reads too much into direct quotations. There are a couple things we might want to be more precise on. Here's my alt, differences underlined:

A joint investigation by civilian and military agencies of the U.S. Government failed to find "anything anomalous" and attributed all sightings reported to it as said that sightings included the misidentification of celestial objects and lawfully operated manned and unmanned aerial vehicles. Numerous independent experts in academia and the commercial sector, including Vijay Kumar, Mick West, and others, reported similar conclusions. While branches of the U.S. armed forces confirmed unauthorized fly-overs of military sites, U.S. Air Force Major General Patrick S. Ryder indicated such occurrences that drone flyovers were "not unusual" and were generally not nefarious.

1. The statement actually says that sightings include those things, which is a subtle but meaningful difference. Source.

2. The wording in your version makes it sound like they are saying the recent military base incursions are nothing unusual, when he actually said that drone incursions in general are nothing unusual:

"It's not that unusual to see drones in the sky, nor is it an indication of malicious activity or any public safety threat, and so the same applies to drones flown near U.S. military installations; some fly near or over our bases from time to time," Ryder said. "That in itself is not unusual, and the vast majority pose no physical threat to our forces or impact our operations."

In fact later in that same article, he pointed out Langley as a base with "concerning" drone activity. Source.

Besides that, looks pretty good! – Anne drew 05:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Anne drew -- I prefer your version! Chetsford (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I have the same concerns with the 2nd/3rd paragraph see below FergusArgyll (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think the current version of the second paragraph sums up the salient points much better. The rewrite does not convey the weight of the statements confirming the objects as large, unidentified drones. Jusdafax (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  What if we made it the third paragraph? Chetsford (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. This story is moving so fast that the article is likely going to have to be rewritten often. This article from CNN is an example why I say that. Posted abut two hours ago, it shows some very high level concern along with, in my view, gratuitous reassurances that there is no threat. If they don’t know what is, how do they know things flying over airports and sensitive military installations are absolutely not a threat? Jusdafax (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, with that I've added Anne drew's version of the proposed rewrite as the third paragraph. Chetsford (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  You have it backwards. It shows reassurance that there is no evidence of a threat, with some gratuitous displays of concern, because they don't want to be perceived as not caring about this huge nothingburger. VdSV9•♫ 15:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)