Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 8, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 19, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2023[edit]

This entry needs to be updated - in at least the final section of the history of the contrary views on the Roswell Incident - with the information provided by Richard Doty - career counter intelligence officer for the Air Force and John Ramirez - career counter intelligence officer for the CIA in the 2023 documentary "In Plain Sight." The information these officers provide is highly significant in helping to resolve the debate over what occurred in the event that is referred to as the Roswell UFO Incident/Crash. Thomas A. Burns, PhD. 75.142.142.119 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done Please use this template after consensus has been achieved for a change; it's unclear what exactly is proposed but it sounds WP:PROFRINGE. Bon courage (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done Hello Dr. Burns, thank you for the suggestion. Unfortunately, Doty and Ramirez do not meet our standards for Reliable Sources. Doty claims to be a disinformation agent working for the USAF, but we have only his word to verify that, which obviously isn't trustworthy. Ramirez claim to be CIA, but again, it just comes back to his word. How do we know these two individuals are truthful in any way? We don't. Feoffer (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this helpful?[edit]

Here’s the Proof There’s No Government Alien Conspiracy Around Roswell Doug Weller talk 13:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. Also helpful is Adam Frank's latest book, "The Little Book of Aliens," which covers the same material (and much more). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intriguing notes re. "Alien" bodies[edit]

NOTAFORUM ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There are accounts of a very similar incident in 1897, in Aurora Texas. In actual fact the parallels are very evident: a mysterious craft seemingly hit a windmill and disintegrated. In this case parts of the craft may have been recovered along with the pilot who alas didn't survive. Could it be that somehow the original account got mixed up with the earlier case? Some reports of non human beings have them about 4 to 5 feet in height, grey or light blue with large eyes and possibly ESP abilities. They may also have some sort of natural cloaking ability that is augmented by advanced technology so they can mimic (for a short time) human appearance or at least a close approximation. The working hypothesis here is that if we are being visited by aliens they would need to assume human form or at least look "humanish" to blend in. Legends of "Shape Shifters may actually be folks observing this effect. I did look into this a few years back and actually concluded that a few MUFON reports may indeed describe an accurate appearance, which allows a limited amount of information to be deduced such as an unusually high metabolism and as a result extreme (48c) body temperature. This could also explain reports of a heat wash when people have close encounters. 78.111.195.1 (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are speculating, and asking others to do the same. That's not how Wikipedia works. We report what reliable sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does the news article say?[edit]

This image of the Roswell Daily Record newspaper article with headline "RAAF Captures Flying Saucer on Ranch in Roswell Region" can be found in many places on the web. However, in spite of all that is written about the subject, and after searching for some time, I haven't been able to find a high-resolution version of the image, where the text of the article is legible. Nor can I find a transcript of the original text. Is this because of some kind of fabled so-called government conspiracy, or what? And why does no one else here seem to be curious enough to want to read the article? I mean, where else would you start in your research into aliens and UFOs? A5 (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeshifter, I hope you don't mind if I ping you. I see on the commons that you're uploading a higher quality image. Is the plan to replace the grainy image, or will they be hosted under two separate file names? Rjjiii (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Great suggestion! No government conspiracies, just us being dumb and not including text that a reader really should expect us to provide. :). The text has been added to Wikisource and linked to from the article! Looks like others are on top of finding you a high-res image too. Thanks for suggestion. Feoffer (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, this is not the first time that Wikipedia has been more useful than any search engine. A5 (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems that the Wikisource text of the article was deleted on 30 November by Jan.Kamenicek. A5 (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! They just moved it, but I've fixed the link! Feoffer (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See: Wikisource: RAAF Captures Flying Saucer on Ranch in Roswell Region.
The full text is also here:
Commons:File:Roswell Daily Record. July 8, 1947. RAAF Captures Flying Saucer On Ranch in Roswell Region. Full front page.jpg#Full text of article
The text is an accurate copy of the article since it has been compared and corrected according to the image there. That image is the full front page, and has the full article. It is readable at the larger sizes linked under the image. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Folklore scholars?[edit]

The article contains the odd claim

Folklore scholars have traced the development of the Roswell narrative throughout its history.

I don't think any source verifies this. The article will never get to WP:GA if we have WP:V problems. Bon courage (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your insight, perhaps the statement needs rewording. The folkloric sources note the development of the narrative as it evolved from a simple tale of unusual debris to a complex tale that involved bodies, autopsies, etc. Can you suggest non-"odd" verbiage that gets at this basic idea? Feoffer (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose the question would be: what are the sources saying about what these scholars have done? Bon courage (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate the dialogue and insights :). What kind of sources do you want to weigh in on what the folklore scholars have done? Obviously, I can find plenty of further folklore scholars to say their predecessors were awesome, but I suspect you want something more? Like, are we looking for more mainstream sources to say it is just folklore?? I don't know if we could source that -- folklore is an important lens to view Roswell, but not the only one. Please help me understand how the article can be better from your perspective. Feoffer (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just want our readers to be assured the article is paraphrasing sources rather than analysing sources (which would be WP:OR). So something that says "Scholars have ..." (or somesuch) which can be cited, so the claim can be verified to text which directly supports the claim. Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good feedback! I've taken another stab at it. Feoffer (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, so we seem to have a book written (not published) by Saler (anthropologist), Ziegler (political scientist) and Moore (meteorologist), which in the opinion of a reviewer (Amanda Carson Banks, engineer and computer scientist) is a "focused and detailed summary of the process of the formation of a specific narrative that is the core for almost all contemporary UFO narratives and belief." Is that right? Bon courage (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I think I'm starting to see your perspective. You're questioning whether the authors and their reviewers qualify as "folklore scholars" for lack of formal degrees in the field, whereas I'm specifically focused on the fact that their approach to the subject was folkloric. Is that right? Feoffer (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just want there to be robust text-source integrity, with a GA reviewer in mind particularly. This books sounds like an important source (I haven't read it). Isn't there something actually in the book which can be cited about "folklore"? Bon courage (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're questioning whether the authors and their reviewers qualify as "folklore scholars" for lack of formal degrees in the field, whereas I'm specifically focused on the fact that their approach to the subject was folkloric. No, the question is what source made the observation that folklore scholars (in general) have traced the development of the Roswell narrative throughout its history? We should be paraphrasing what sources say rather than what Feoffer has observed while reading those sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

break

About these 'folklore scholars', the paragraph says "According to their research, the genesis can be traced back to the waning days of World War II", and the second source cited is from 1995. How can a 1995 source be commenting on a 1997 book? Bon courage (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both '95 and '97 were independently relaying the same fact about MOGUL history, not one commenting on the other. I've tightened and relocated the language. Feoffer (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

genesis earlier?

About the Roswell myth, the article asserts "the genesis can be traced back to the waning days of World War II (1944-45), a time when Japan unleashed thousands of Fu-Go balloon bombs" and the first source given is to page 7 of the 'folklore scholars' book (in fact, on inspection, this is to a chapter written solely by Ziegler). Yet looking at the source on page 6 it specifically cites the beginning of the "modern era of UFO sightings" to the Kenneth Arnold incident of June 24, 1947 and suggests the "flying saucers" reported from that would have been on W Brazel's mind when he found the Roswell debris days later.

In general, I am becoming increasingly concerned that some article text bears only a distant relationship to the cited sources in a way which is hard to investigate and unpick. Bon courage (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll see what I can do to tighten language. MOGUL predates the 1947 flying disc craze, which was ignited by Arnold in June. Feoffer (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Walter Haut affidavits signed in 1993 and 2002. Video made in 2000[edit]

Article does not mention that there were 2 affidavits. Article sounds like it is only discussing a later one. Does not mention the video at all.

News media articles still available that cover the Walter Haut affidavits released to the public in 2007 after his death in 2005. They were signed and witnessed in 1993 and 2002. Also a Walter Haut video made in 2000 that was released to the public in 2021.

17 Aug 2021: “My father saw the bodies”: chasing the truth about Roswell. By James Jennings. Archived here.

5 June 2022: Roswell officer's deathbed confession about theory of alien cover up. By Declan Carey. Archived here.

14 May 2021: Ex-Army officer ADMITS he saw ‘alien the size of a 10-year-old child’ after famous Roswell UFO crash in incredible video. By Emma Parry. Archived here. This article has a short excerpt of the video.

May 2021: Roswell Officer Speaks From the Grave: Video Released, Confesses that Alien was "the size of a 10 year old". By Anthony Bragalia. Archived here. From article (emphasis added): "This video clip is part of a memoir video / oral history over two hours in length that covers many personal and professional aspects of Haut's life. The video was taken at the Roswell Museum in 2000 with friends Dennis Balthaser and Wendy Connors."

September 2007. Haut's Daughter Tells How Affidavit Came to Be. By Julie Shuster (his daughter). MUFON UFO Journal. Issue 473. Page 15. Dec 2002 affidavit is on page 14.

30 June 2007: Roswell officer's amazing deathbed admission raises possibility that aliens DID visit. By Nick Pope. Same article also published here and here. Archived here and here.

2002 and 1993 affidavits. Archived here. Scroll down for the affidavits.

This version of the Walter Haut article is pretty good. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added mention of the 1993 and Haut's prior interview statements, where he denied being an eyewitness. The video clip is interesting, in that, if genuine, it would confirm Haut privately saying things that he denied in public interviews during his life. But without better sourcing, we can't know the video is genuine, and even if we did, it's probably UNDUE for this article. Feoffer (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In his 1st affidavit in 1993 he did not deny he was an eyewitness. He just didn't say he was. The archive is more readable.
In his 2nd affidavit in 2002 he opened up more. He claimed there were 2 sites, and that he was a first hand witness of wreckage samples, a craft, and alien bodies.
His doctor at the time in 2002 said he was of sound mind. That info is in the first link below. Along with both affidavits and much more:
See: https://web.archive.org/web/20211028182152/http://www.roswellproof.com/haut.html
The 2002 affidavit is here, too.
September 2007. Haut's Daughter Tells How Affidavit Came to Be. By Julie Shuster (his daughter). MUFON UFO Journal. Issue 473. Page 15. Dec 2002 affidavit is on page 14. I recommend reading her whole article. From page 14 below the 2002 affidavit: "It was verified as the accurate text by Lt. Haut’s daughter, Julie Shuster, who is the Director of the International UFO Museum. See her comments on page 15". EXCERPTS: my father and I verbally discussed each and every sentence. ... My father died in December 2005. The statement was completed in December 2002. Three years difference makes a statement an affidavit of information, not a “deathbed confession.” END.
17 Aug 2021: “My father saw the bodies”: chasing the truth about Roswell. By James Jennings. Special Broadcasting Service. Haut's daughter, Julie Shuster, said it was no deathbed confession, and that she had gone over the 2002 affidavit with him word by word, sentence by sentence.
The 2002 affidavit, and much more, is here too:
See Google Books: Witness to Roswell, 75th Anniversary Edition. Unmasking the Government's Biggest Cover-up. By Thomas J. Carey, Donald R. Schmitt. 2022.
Google Books can search inside the book.
Search for Haut. And Haut affidavit. And 2002 Haut affidavit. The 2002 Haut affidavit is on page 240 according to that search. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are the most reliable WP:FRIND (non-ufology) sources on the Haut affidavits? Rjjiii (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:FRIND at the top says (emphasis added):
"Fringe theories in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear."
The Haut affidavits are in Roswell incident#Witness to Roswell (2007). References 139-144. It's a mixture of books and skeptics, and a couple of articles from media that cover a lot more than UFOs. Special Broadcasting Service. And The Sunday Telegraph.
So, I think it meets the WP:FRIND guideline of having a mix.
I only added one reference to that section; the article by Special Broadcasting Service (SBS). "Australian hybrid-funded public service broadcaster. About 80 percent of funding for the company is derived from the Australian Government."
The links in my posts above come from a mix. The bottom line is the existence of the 2002 notarized sworn affidavit is well established by both UFO media and mainstream media. That affidavit is the one that matters. The SBS article explains why Haut exposed so much more in the 2002 affidavit than in the 1993 affidavit: EXCERPT: “Walter [Haut] confirmed to Don and I that the reason he kept everything a secret is because he promised Colonel Blanchard that he would not divulge the secret while he lived,” confirms Carey. END. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but the SBS article is mostly an interview with his daughter, who in her longer MUFON explanation says the affidavit was written by the book's author and approved and signed (but not drafted) by Haut. Are there independent reviews out there of the book? Or ideally something peer-reviewed? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about book reviews. I only have so much time, health, and energy nowadays. So for this article I have been focusing on the 2002 Haut affidavit. In the SBS article Haut's daughter, Julie Shuster, said it was no deathbed confession, and that she had gone over the 2002 affidavit with him word by word, sentence by sentence before he signed it with notarization. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only have so much time, health, and energy nowadays. Take care of yourself; life can be much. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2002 affidavit completely removed from article

Why was the Witness to Roswell (2007) section completely removed on Dec 17, 2023? See the article version before the removal. So the eyewitness testimony of Walter Haut (via the 2002 affidavit) has been completely removed from the article. Affidavit where he states that there were 2 crash sites, and that he had seen a craft, wreckage samples, and alien bodies. See that section:

Extended content

Witness to Roswell (2007)

In 2007, Donald Schmitt and Tom Carey published the book Witness to Roswell,[1] which prominently featured a 2002 document said to be a sworn, notarized affidavit by Walter Haut, who had written the first Army press release about the Roswell crash in 1947.[2] In 1993, Haut had sworn an affidavit containing recollections of the Roswell incident; in that document, and in later interviews, Haut consistently denied being a firsthand witness.[3] The 2002 affidavit, alleged to have been left by Haut and opened only after his death in 2005, contradicts Haut's prior statements by claiming that there were 2 sites, and that he had seen a craft, wreckage samples, and alien bodies.[1][2][4] The claims, however, drew an unimpressed response from some ufologists: Dennis Balthaser said that the document was not written by Haut, and that by 2000 Haut's mental state was such he could not recall basic details about his past, making the detail contained in the affidavit seem dubious.[2] Physicist and skeptic Dave Thomas commented: "Is Roswell still the 'best' UFO incident? If it is, UFO proponents should be very, very worried."[2] Haut's daughter, Julie Shuster, said it was no deathbed confession, and that she had gone over the 2002 affidavit with him word by word, sentence by sentence.[5]

References

  1. ^ a b Carey & Schmitt 2007
  2. ^ a b c d Thomas 2009, p. 52
  3. ^ Alexander 2011, p. 246
  4. ^ "Roswell Theory Revived by Deathbed Confession". The Sunday Telegraph. July 1, 2007. Archived from the original on January 27, 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013.
  5. ^ ""My father saw the bodies": chasing the truth about Roswell". Special Broadcasting Service. 23 July 2021. Archived from the original on 13 Aug 2021. Retrieved 7 December 2023. Article updated 17 August 2021.

--Timeshifter (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a FRINGE source, of course -- no one can verify Haut's supposed late-life statements; but it's not a source that seems to have influenced the mythology/folklore. You don't need to know about the 2007 book to know about the Roswell Incident. Feoffer (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Multiple people verified the 2002 affidavit, including his daughter. And it was notarized while he was alive. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, since Donald Schmitt wrote the 2002 affidavit, I see 2 quite viable places to discuss Schmitt's book:
  • I've made Donald R. Schmitt a redlink in this article, if you want to do a subarticle there going over his books and theories.[1] An even older, larger version of this article had a lot of Schmitt content that was cut.[2] I think he would likely pass WP:GNG, and it would be fairly straightforward to do a bio section and a section on his books.
  • After I asked about sources, I gathered the print interview with Julie Shuster, an audio interview with Schmitt, a thorough book review, and the existing skeptical criticism. I've updated Walter Haut to try to make clear the nature of the document (based on interviews with Haut, composed by Schmitt, and signed by Haut).[3]
  • I do not think Schmitt's 2007 book is due in this article. I don't see reliable sources about the Roswell Incident discussing Haut. If you think I'm in the wrong about WP:DUE, feel free to ask for an outside opinion (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, or Wikipedia:Third opinion)
Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the changes to the Walter Haut article. The 2002 affidavit was signed in front of a notary on Dec 26, 2002:
Page 240 of the 2022 edition of the Carey & Schmitt book has the affidavit too. Excerpt shows the date.
There needs to be a link to the 2002 affidavit that anybody can read without buying a book. See links above. The affidavit is not just in the Carey & Schmitt 2007 book. It is also in their 2022 edition.
4 main points of the affidavit need to be mentioned: Haut states that there were 2 crash sites, and that he had seen a craft, wreckage samples, and alien bodies.
If the info is good enough for the Walter Haut article, then it is certainly good enough for the Roswell incident article. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the info is good enough for the Walter Haut article, then it is certainly good enough for the Roswell incident article
Oh, if only it were so simple. I understand your pain at seeing info you care about removed and left to sub-articles: I've had a lot of my words chopped from the article recently -- on some level I want to say "hey, if it's good enough for the Gray Aliens article, it's good enough for here". But wiser minds caution us that we should stick to the CORE Roswell story, and that's something from the 1970s and 80s, not a story from the 60s about gray alien abduction and not a story from the 00s that never really gained traction. Feoffer (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. WP:ONEWAY is a consideration. Bon courage (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hangar 18, Aztec discs, Twin Falls[edit]

The article seems to be going into details on these other topics, the relevance of which is unclear. I think all this material should be removed. Bon courage (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twin falls probably needs trimming and should be included more briefly in the general millieu of the 1947 craze, so readers do know that Roswell was just one of many of "crashed disc" incidents. But Aztec and Hangar 18 are reported to have directly influenced Roswell mythology -- there were no dead bodies, no hieroglyphs or control panels in the original Roswell story of 1947, those elements were incorporated from Aztec and Hangar 18. I've added text and sourcing to help clarify this. Feoffer (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I moved Twin Falls back down. The possible significance I see is that it was a kind of final straw for taking bizarre UFO reports seriously. I've tried to put it into that context. Rjjiii (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Feoffer and Bon courage: I started reworking the tagged sections in a sandbox here: [4](permanent link) If this looks promising, I'll continue and anyone else is welcome to edit the sandbox version. I think the best path is:
1. Focus these other events as described here on specifically how they affected the Roswell narrative and conspiracy theories.
2. Trim specific details here and move them into the articles about the subjects if they aren't already covered.
Thoughts? Rjjiii (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC) (Updated to permanent link after moving content into the article) 03:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good. The problem was extensive detail about things with no reason apparent why they were even included. Bon courage (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks great to me, I'd encourage you to update the article with your version as soon as you feel comfortable. Feoffer (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rjjiii:, I noticed that in the shuffle, we lost track of the fact that Carr spread claims of a nurse who witnessed an alien autopsy. I wonder if we could restore some mention of that to the text. I , readded it, but you've been knocking it out of the park on this article so I'd more trust you to fit it in where/how/if you see best using your own words.

Thanks Feoffer, I took a look at it. And yes, feel free to be bold; I don't want my attempts to clean up the article to discourage other editors. Are there any sections you'd like another pair of eyes on? The lead looked alright so I didn't touch it. I've gone through the first few body sections, but haven't done much aside from formatting references in the conspiracy and culture sections.Rjjiii (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference cleanup[edit]

While cleaning up the references, I noticed an edit summary from VdSV9 commenting on issues.[5] So I'm dropping a ping and also inviting broader input on any references that seem confusing or ill-formatted. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also Bon courage, regarding the citation style, do you see any issues up to footnote [91] in this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roswell_incident&oldid=1190401722 The remaining full citations in ref tags should be shorter works (but I may have missed some). This seems to me how the references were reorganized back in 2013.[6] Thanks, Rjjiii (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no strong opinion, other than that we should be consistent. That old versions looks like a good basis ... Bon courage (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotcha. I think it's there now in this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roswell_incident&diff=1192896898&oldid=1192886367 Rjjiii (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pushing towards GA[edit]

Above, Rjjiii (talk · contribs) asks Are there any sections you'd like another pair of eyes on?. I have my answers, but I should also ping @Lingzhi: and @Bon courage: to add their own answers. Rjjiii has done a LOT of great work fixing the issues raised in last April's GA nom and recent talk page concerns. Lingzhi made a lot of really productive suggstions at the GA, and Bon's recent insights helped up trim a lot of unnecessary verbiage. So here's my list:

Other input deeply welcomed. Feoffer (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One problems is tone. Much of the article is written as a narrative rather than adopting a dispassionate, detached and formal WP:TONE. Perhaps the most egregious example is the "Debris recovered" section (title and text), but it's a wider problem too. Bon courage (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Bon. I want to admit I have been tagged for Tone on multiple articles by multiple independent editors, so it's something I need to lean on others to get right. Feoffer (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have any ideas for a better title than "Debris recovered"? Seemed anodyne to me, but I have a blind spot. Feoffer (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bon courage, Feoffer, and LuckyLouie: I started experimenting with that section (combined with debunking) to make it more spare. I edited these bits earlier but my focus has been on verifiability (including reference formatting), NPOV, grammar and clarity. This is the same sandbox that I used before (previous link updated to a permanent link). And again this is in user space but I'm putting an open invitation for others to edit it:
User:Rjjiii/sandbox11
I also copied the version from before Feoffer began expanding down below on that page for comparison. I looked it up in case anything of value had been lost, but it's problematic in other ways (many quotes, cited to primary and self-published sources, etc). I'm kind of hesitant to focus on tone personally, because I still want to check other sections for coherency, sources, formatting, and so on. And it also feels like a squishy part of the MoS. Some articles, e.g. Cottingley Fairies, have reached featured article status with what seem to me highly narrative structures. Once the other issues are resolved a few thoughts are to maybe put it up for the Wikipedia:COPYEDITORS? Or perhaps ping an editor familiar with the article, if Canada Jack, JoJo Anthrax, or anybody in recent discussions are interested. Rjjiii (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking over your draft, I notice you've cut the mention of a teletype operator who plausibly claims she was ordered to end transmission of a news story about the debris. This is one of the "sticky wickets" I've struggle with -- it's obviously a cover-up DID occur; Multiple civilians report being told not to talk about the debris. These "cover-up" events almost-certainly did occur in '47, but at the same time, they weren't widely known until they were featured in the FRINGE publications of the 80s.
Where do we cover the "cover-up" of the Mogul crash? In 1947 when it happened , or in the 1980s when it was publicly revealed? Feoffer (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try to give a proper answer to that when I'm on my laptop and can better check the sources. I'll see how the most reliable of the sources locate it. From memory, I snipped Sleppy from 1947 because Pflock Korff was giving this really nuanced explanation that she did have that job, it was possible, but she didn't give any statements until decades after the incident and Pflock Korff could find no way to corroborate the operator beyond her word. The other person in the phone call (again from memory) apparently refused to get in any way more involved with Roswell stuff.
Ultimately though, I don't plan to merge anything back in without consensus. I'm happy to be wrong and am just trying to get a ball rolling. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [Korff not Pflock] 02:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I've moved the Sleppy material to the 90s when she was interviewed and became part of the lore. The rest of your sandbox looks good to me. Feoffer (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping. There's a lot going on here, and I'll try to help out when able. I note that I agree with the comments below, namely that the article currently lacks an encyclopedic tone. Well written, yes, but the tone needs to be changed a bit, and that should involve condensing much of the material and (IMO) removing some of it. I'll try to find some time to contribute to the process. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think Feoffer is (wrongly) crafting a story using evocative writing and transitions designed to engage the reader. The overall impression is of a single, expert author with a distinctive flair and point of view at work And the section headers are over-explained, e.g. "Mortician's second-hand claim of a Roswell alien autopsy (1989)" instead of simply "Glen Dennis". "Jesse Marcel renews interest in Roswell (1978)" instead of simply "Renewed interest" etc. Encyclopedic writing need not be clumsy, but it's much much simpler and more starkly factual. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I implemented your proposed changes for section headings. I do wonder a bit about whether "Glenn Dennis" is an appropriate section heading though -- new readers will likely know of Dennis's claims but not know his name when perusing TOC. Feoffer (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well new readers or not, TOC and headings are not meant to be a substitute for reading the text. Focus on laying out a dry exposition of facts, not telling a story that builds from section to section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I yield to others judgement, I'm the one who implemented your suggestion. But is "Glenn Dennis" really the best heading? Wouldn't a heading that mentions mortician and autopsy be more infomative? Feoffer (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO, section headers need not be summaries of the section. Readers are expected to read further. The Attack on Pearl Harbor article is a good example. Note the first section is not "Japan and US: diplomacy fails, suspicions rise, actions considered", but simply "Diplomacy". Of course I'll go with whatever consensus decides. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Son of Pushing towards GA[edit]

I am going to start this by noting that the article is well written. Absolutely. No question about it. If it was expanded into a magazine article someplace, I would definitely read it, and perhaps even use it as source material. But as I wrote above, I believe the article currently lacks the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia entry. Much of the content, which often highlights content that in my opinion are tangential or topical minutiae, can be either condensed or removed. The sandbox entry posted by Rjjiii here is a good step in that direction, and perhaps that's a model for achieving edits going forward. Relatedly, I fully recognize that given the amount of time and effort that some editors have expended creating the current article, boldly altering the article might not, at present, be an optimal approach. Instead, I offer here some of my broad thoughts and suggestions. Specific edits can come later, dependent of course on how these broad suggestions are received - I am not going to engage in edit wars or acrimonious debates here. I also admit that achieving GA status is not of particular interest to me for this (or any) article, but there's certainly nothing wrong with that goal, and perhaps these suggestions might help in that effort.

In the section "Events of 1947," the subsection "'Flying disc' craze" can be deleted. The other subsections, "Project Mogul," "Debris recovered," and "'Flying disk' debunked" can be combined into a single, untitled set of paragraphs, with considerable condensation of content.

The section "Roswell forgotten (1947–1978)" should be re-titled to something like "1948-1978," as 'forgotten' is clearly not an accurate descriptor.

The sections "Renewed interest (1978)" and "Roswell in UFO conspiracy theories (1978–present)" can be combined into something along the lines of "1978-present." The subsections therein, such as "The Roswell Incident (1980) by Berlitz and Moore," "Competing accounts and schism," and "Air Force response (1994–1997) and aftermath" could all be significantly condensed if not removed, particularly the first of those. This article is about the Roswell incident itself, not the subsequent books/articles/interviews/debates. Yet such subsequent material is given exceptionally high, and perhaps undue, profile in the current article.

Lastly, I note that about 10% of the article (that is, 10% of the references) is sourced directly to the Saler et al. book (UFO Crash at Roswell). Indeed, that source is used throughout as not just an authority, but THE authority for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Maybe it should be. But I suggest that we consider reducing reliability on that source, as several paragraphs currently feel like a recapitulation of the book, and not all of it seems WP:DUE. Two examples of statements referenced to that book, that are treated here as hard conclusions but perhaps should not be, include: "Two key cultural changes influenced the Roswell narrative" and "This version of the myth began the elevation of Marcel's narrative above that of Cavitt." Such prose makes for fun reading, but I do not believe it is encyclopedic.

So, sling those arrows. I am not going to touch this article until you all go Saint Sebastian on me. Or is that to come later? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the excellent observations and feedback. Thoughts:
  • This article is about the Roswell incident itself, not the subsequent books/articles/interviews/debates. Well, this gets to the heart of the matter -- from my perspective, the article is about the myth / conspiracy theory. "The Roswell Incident" isn't a phrase from the 1940s, it's a term from the conspiracy literature and popular culture of the 1980 and 90s. Helping our readers to understand the evolution of the myth, and the way it incorporated obviously-hoaxed elements, is a powerful tool in the toolbelt to equip the reader to understand FRINGE conspiracy theories. That said, despite the differences in approaches, I find myself agreeing with your suggestions.
  • It's been in the back of my mind for a long time that we need to go collapse the events of 1947 into fewer/one sections. Some of them are literally 1-para sections. We can't delete all mention of the ongoing disc hysteria but we don't need a dedicated section.
  • 'forgotten' is clearly not an accurate descriptor I think it's mostly accurate, but our text obviously needs to make that more clear. So far as I'm aware, Roswell was NOT discussed in UFO circles AT ALL from fall 47-78. "Forgotten" might not be the best word, because it wasn't literally "forgotten" by the participant/witnesses. I don't think it'd be good to just list the dates as a section heading and leave the reader to just guess what the significance of that epoch is.
  • If Rjjiii concurs, it'd be fine to move the Renewed Interest into the UFO conspiracy theories section. I separated the two because Marcel wasn't really a conspiracy theorist in the sense of dead alien bodies or crashed flying saucers -- he just said the weather balloon story was a cover and sort of "mused" in late age that it might have been extraterrestrial. But he was being interviewed by Friedman, who's certainly in the fullblown UFO conspiracy theory camp.
  • I don't have the best handle on Competing Account and Schisms, and there's lot of room for improvement. The latter parts of the article seem ripe for condensation and farming to subarticles. The entire book about Stalin-Mengele seems UNDUE to me. I will defend the Alien Autopsy material, which grew to become a central element of Roswell lore and popular culture and was completely debunked.
  • Saler et al is just what I happened to have open in front of me when I wrote some of the passages -- there's an abundance of supporting sources. Rjjiii and I have already added supporting sources] for the specific points you raised.
Thanks for your truly great feedback! I feel like Rjjiii "has the ball" and I'll let them take the lead, but I have no arrows to sling lol.  :) Feoffer (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, many thanks to JoJo Anthrax for taking this in a peer review kind of direction. I have made a couple of edits based on the feedback, as I have written some of the noted material. For example, I introduced the "This version of the myth" language after I noticed a section that used low-quality sources.[7] I've tried to go back and make the section more objective, and expand the field of sources.[8] And thanks to Feoffer for inviting/enduring all of this scrutiny. The research that's gone into writing this has to have been a great deal of work. I appreciate the faith you're putting in me but when you say I have the ball, please feel welcome to be bold and continue editing the article. I think you're currently the author of nearly half the content.

I'll offer much commentary and observation on what I think the article needs to improve. I hope none of this comes off as an invitation to "acrimonious debate".

If there's no objection, after cleaning up the early parts of the article, I could go on to the next section, again doing a sandbox draft. And, Feoffer, if you're willing, I'd like to get your input section by section because on the one hand, I don't want to come off like I'm dismantling your work and on the other hand I think you have a massive amount of knowledge on this subject. If anyone else would want to participate in that, I could also send out a ping each time I open a sandbox revision draft.

And again thanks to all for participating in this discussion, Rjjiii (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All looks good to me. Your formula for condensing 1947 looks great, we really don't need to linger on it as much as I did. I don't think Redfern or the Haut book do much for the reader, they're sort of narrative dead-ends than didn't really go anywhere.
As the article adapts, the "conceptual map" may have to adapt with it, and I'm happy to help update or recreate something else going forward. Currently, there's a "mainstream history narrative" to Roswell (labelled in blue) that runs from Fu-Go to Mogul to Roswell to Marcel the USAF reports. That narrative has no bodies (dead or alive), no flying saucers, and is well supported by RS. Meanwhile, a FRINGE mythology (red) born out of pranks and hoaxes developed, featuring bodies that move from place to place with every telling. Arrows would be descent, not influence -- Marcel influences EVERYBODY, but only DuBose and the Air Force reports can truly be called consistent with his observations; Everyone else is up to their knees in corpses from Frank Scully's book.
Finally, one little item to put on the wishlist. As look you through the sources and work on the article, keep this in mind: the FuGo balloons were covered up and censored during World War Two, both to prevent a panic but also to prevent a foreign power from learning of their weapon's success. The reader will have a better understanding of the Air Force covering up the potentially-foreign balloon from Roswell if they are reminded that the military had a standing policy of covering up potentially-foreign balloons during WW2. There's lot of sources connecting FuGo to Roswell, but I could never find a source to connect those precise dots.
Great work, keep it up. Feoffer (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check out:

☛ Talk:Roswell incident/sandbox

To invite contributions and create a better edit record, I've made a subpage of this talk page (and redirected my user sandbox). I hope this provides a space to heavily edit sections but keep the reader-facing article stable. I've written a lot and so will step back for a minute to let consensus form. @Feoffer: Regarding the FuGo balloons, I haven't seen that Fugo–saucer–Roswell censorship connection made explicit. I can give a breakdown, of what I've found if you're planning to continue hunting for it. And thanks again, Rjjiii (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sandbox looks good! I really like restoring "first summer of the Cold War" as a lead sentence and putting Mogul first. Great work summarizing the flying disc wave and how it affected Brazel. It works for me!
You don't need to write up anything about Fugo -- just keep an eye out if you should ever happen to see someone point out symmetries. Keel got close, but not close enough. :) Feoffer (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instability a problem for this being a Good Article[edit]

There is a lot of commendable working going on to make this a good article. My concern is that no matter how much great work is done today, this particular article will always attract nutters in large numbers who will add nonsense to it tomorrow (metaphorically speaking). I'm sure several editors will continue to watch the article closely, and fix inappropriate changes as quickly as they can, but there will always be a lot of such changes. For more than most GAs, there will be a lot of times when this article stops being a GA, albeit briefly. I'm not entirely comfortable about that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is semi-protected, which should prevent the worst of that. If Homeopathy can become a GA, and Assassination of John F. Kennedy FA, then maybe there's hope for us all? Bon courage (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"A scholarly consensus emerged …"[edit]

We say this, and is another case of where I am concerned about the gap between source text and what Wikipedia says. Sourcing for statements about consensus requires WP:RS/AC. How does the Olmsted source WP:VERIFY this text? Bon courage (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4475615 In 2020, the article just straight up reported the Mogul explanation as fact:
"The military decided to conceal the true purpose of the crashed device—nuclear test monitoring—and instead inform the public that the crash was of a weather balloon"
Out of my own concerns about WP:V, I attributed it to a "scholarly consensus" rather than complete metaphysical certitude. Digging through history further, we find softer language that we might want to revert back to.
The military decided to conceal the true purpose of the crashed device – most likely a massive series of top secret nuclear test monitoring balloons with reflectors from Project Mogul – and instead inform the public that the crash was of a weather balloon.
Feoffer (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the source is certain, Wikipedia is certain and needs to WP:ASSERT. But you agree the source says nothing about "scholarly consensus" (an odd concept for this topic!) Bon courage (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chopped the objectionable language in favor of naming the scholars. Olmsted's conclusions are Olmsted's. Not consensus facts. -- we can't assert one scholar's very informed opinion as if it's fact: The entire article would lose all credibility in the minds of even skeptics if it falsely asserted Olmsted's conclusion was universally-agreed-upon fact -- it's not. Mainstream opinion concurs that Olmsted's conclusion is correct, but it can't be misrepresented as historical fact, as if the USAF declassified documents revealing they knew all along it was Mogul.
In particular the statement "The military decided" is a completely-unverifiable claim about the mental states of historic personages. Olmsted offers no sources for this conclusion, because there are no sources to document the mental states of the people in 1947 who, presumably, made that decision. And Olmsted never suggests it is a historical fact, rather than a single sentence in a well-supported, logical narrative based on a historian's informed conclusions. Weaver & McAndrew, upon whom Olmsted depends for their conclusions, never suggest it is a historical fact either.
TBH, it should be obvious on its face that disputing the existence of a "scholarly consensus" for the Mogul theory is incompatible with a proposal to simply assert it as fact. (We can, of course, assert as fact that it was not alien.) Feoffer (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Err what? It's a fact. RS says this is what happened and no RS says otherwise, so WP:YESPOV and WP:ASSERT apply. We even know which balloon it was (and say so as fact). This has been discussed at length before. Do we really need to return to FT/N for this? (BTW, the next text is direct against WP:RS/AC which says "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors".) Bon courage (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can't verify as a historic fact that it was MOGUL. Olmsted never says that, Weaver & McAndrew never say that. We can't "fudge the math" on this article. No one in this discussion is pro-FRINGE -- if we can verify MOGUL, there will be universal celebration; So far, no scholar is providing proof ("showing their work") so we can demonstrate to the reader that it is a historic fact that it was MOGUL. Please, prove me wrong, I genuinely believe it was MOGUL but I can't prove it to a NPOV reader yet -- help me! :) Feoffer (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Olmsted does say that ("When one of these balloons smashed into the sands of the New Mexico ranch, the military decided to hide the project's real purpose.") (also the New York Times, FWIW). This was discussed and decided many years ago. Bon courage (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Olmsted narrative includes that sentence, but it makes absolutely no arguments for its veracity beyond a hand-waving footnote to Weaver & McAndrew who, of course, never conclusively identified it as MOGUL. Imagine me as the grizzled old Newspaper Editor or District Attorney who says "Sorry, kid, but ya don't have the sources to prove it... Keep digging.". We'd love nothing more than to prove to our readers it was MOGUL, but waving our hands and pretending Olmsted et al have a crystal ball won't convince anyone. Feoffer (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I imagine you as a anonymous Wikipedia editor with no standing to decide the facts, and I imagine Olmsted as.a history professor writing an academic book published by a University press. Which do you think Wikipedia is bound to follow? I have posted to WP:FT/N for a wider view. Bon courage (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's really inappropriate to personalize this and to use FT/N as a "brigand threat" as you have. (and I'm very pro-FT/N in general) I don't think you really believe anyone in this discussion is Pro-FRINGE. Feoffer (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, but input is useful on how to deal with FRINGE material (i.e. the implication we don't know what crashed at Roswell despite sources saying otherwise). Bon courage (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
implication we don't know
Who said that? Scholars know. Feoffer (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not just scholars. Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In other words, without the personalizing (which was provoked by "Imagine me as"): Olmsted is a RS. We do not second-guess RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You were obviously solicited into this discussion by Bon. You grossly misrepresent (to the point of bad faith) my argument that Olmsted's narrative is not supported as historical fact (nor does Olmsted claim it is) Feoffer (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

break

In fact the whole article is rather confused on this. The opening sentence asserts as fact "The Roswell incident centers on the July 1947 recovery of metallic and rubber debris from a crashed military balloon", then by the last sentence of the lede it's more equivocal, mentioning "explanations" and "links". Then by the article body we're into suggesting it's just the view of "scholars". Really the article needs to be plain & consistent about this core fact. We know from RS the exact type of balloon and where and when it was launched so why the difficulty? Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bon, we're on the same team and I'm doing my best. We all agree it's not a flippin alien. But the jury is skeptical, and if we "over-sell it", we'll lose 'em. All the king's scholars and all the king's men agree it was MOGUL -- that's good enough. Let's present that and rest our case -- we'll win 'em all over. Feoffer (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think being coy to try and be persuasive is a bad idea. We have policy WP:YESPOV and guidance WP:RS/AC on this type of issue; we need to follow those. Bon courage (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I repeatedly reached out with AGF, but you have only personal attacks and fulfilled threats for bad-faith briganding. I genuinely appreciate all you've done to fight FRINGE. Feoffer (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you have been told by an admin, there are no personal attacks. So continuing to make that allegation is unhelpful. I don't know what 'bad-faith briganding' is meant to be but it doesn't sound good. Rather than edit war here, posting to a relevant noticeboard is of course best practice when it comes to WP:DR. I am quite interested in seeing this article progress to WP:GA, but it won't happen if it drifts away from the WP:PAGS, now will it? Bon courage (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't know that to tell ya, guy. Olmsted's one sentence, devoid of footnotes, doesn't get us there. I wanna get there too, but we're not there yet, and me pretending otherwise does no one any favors. Feoffer (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From NPOV: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice". This is the case here. Bon courage (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine by me if you can produce a consensus of RSes that says it's uncontested MOGUL; but I know this subject inside and out, but I can't produce that. Here's what we 'can' produce: a consensus of RSes that says its not alien and almost certainly MOGUL. That a winning jury verdict -- but push it beyond the bounds of WP:V and we fail. There's a SMALL chance it might really just been a weather balloon, or some other damn freak thing. None of the historians say they got the goods, the point is it's not alien. Feoffer (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't need "a consensus of RSes" (although we in fact have one, if consensus is defined as the absence of substantive opposition). We are bound by policy to assert what we have. Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Olmsted's one sentence, devoid of footnotes, doesn't get us there. Maybe I'm missing something. How is this not conclusive? How is this not conclusive? Etc., etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're trying to verify that people in July 1947 decided to do a coverup (as opposed to merely failing to identify the balloon). The Air Force report argues that Roswell personnel had no need to know and that Ramey and staff may not have known. We are foreclosing, without evidence, the possibility that nobody in the military knew it was MOGUL until '94. Feoffer (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question of whether the cover-up was 'decided' or not is a different one. What was at issue was whether we could assert as fact that the balloon that crashed was a MOGUL one. I am glad that now seems resolved and we are moving on to other matters. Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clean up work in sandbox[edit]

Clean up: 'Weather balloon' as cover story for Project Mogul

☛ Talk:Roswell incident/sandbox [ starting point permanent link ]

Hello all, I've merged the section I was working on from the sandbox into the article. Considering the interactions above, I've moved that section into the sandbox to give us more room to edit. Regarding previous discussions, check out the section Reference scratchpad. I've started two bundled citations. The nuance I see in reliable sources post-1997 is whether they are talking about a military program, Mogul overall, or Flight number 4 specifically. I don't think there is a reliable sources that casts any doubt on it being from a military program. Many sources outright say it is Mogul, and the ones that don't are citing someone who says it is or saying it likely is. For Flight 4 specifically, there is less certainty, and some sources that do outright say it is Flight 4, cite Charles B. Moore who says it "seems likely ".

Feoffer, do you think there is enough in the existing sources quoted in the sandbox[9] plus the Smithsonian and NYT sources linked by LuckyLouie to call it Mogul? If not, what is the threshold you're looking to pass? Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the current question is can we verify that "The military decided to conceal the true purpose of the crashed device – nuclear test monitoring – and instead inform the public that the crash was of a weather balloon". So far as I can tell, that it's not verifiable as fact. Note the Smithsonian scholar's quote (emphasis mine): “Apparently, it was better from the Air Force’s perspective that there was a crashed ‘alien’ spacecraft out there than to tell the truth". The Air Force source consistently attributes conclusions to the Weaver & McAndrew report, nobody asserts it as fact, not even Olmsted tbh. I'm very open to alternate wordings, but we can't declare a decision took place -- we can say "scholars conclude", we can go stronger with "scholarly consensus" even. We could even say the military "apparently" decided -- we can source that. Feoffer (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think consensus is clear we can assert as fact that is a MOGUL balloon and the military decided to conceal that. Bon courage (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does this seem more verifiable, "The military concealed the true purpose of the crashed device – nuclear test monitoring – and instead informed the public that the crash was of a weather balloon."? That's just cutting "decide" out. Rjjiii (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weaver's conclusion section is clear (emphasis mine):
  • "All available official materials, although they do not directly address Roswell per se, indicate that the most likely source of the wreckage recovered from the Braze1 Ranch was from one of the Project MOGUL balloon trains."
  • "Although the Air Force did not find documented evidence that Gen. Ramey was directed to espouse a weather balloon in his press conference, he may have done so because he was either aware of Project MOGUL and was trying to deflect interest from it, or he readily perceived the material to be a weather balloon based on the identification from his weather officer, Irving Newton."
  • "It appears that the identification of the wreckage as being part of a weather balloon device, as reported in the newspapers at the time, was based on the fact that there was no physical difference in the radar targets and the neoprene balloons (other than the numbers and configuration) between MOGUL balloons and normal weather balloons."
Weaver is clear -- they might not have concealed anything, they might have just not connected it to Mogul. Hell, it might not be connected to Mogul, though all scholars agree that's "most likely". Feoffer (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alternatively, go the secondary source and simply WP:ASSERT what it says. That would be policy compliant. Bon courage (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see you've editwarred to do just that. You should self-rv back to the stable version while we discuss this. Feoffer (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Bon courage, Hob Gadling and Rjj. In this case, the secondary sources support a simple WP:ASSERTion. Feoffer, you may feel you know this subject inside and out, but it may be time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Bon courage As a matter of habit. I appreciate the work you two do fighting fringe, but deletions, editwarring, and frankly bullying don't write an encyclopedia. Weaver says most likely -- we don't get to misrepresent his conclusion. You can't just fudge or yada yada over WP:V. It might have been a non-MOGUL military balloon and the entire article falls apart if we lie to the reader on this point. Feoffer (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree the stick needs to be dropped on this. Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not the problem here. I'm not the first to object to WP:ASSERTing this material as fact, I won't be the last. Nobody gets to GA by failing WP:V. Feoffer (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus is what it is. There has been no sustainable opposition to asserting the crashed balloon was a MOGUL one since the Olmsted source was in play. Before that, there was a push to keep the article suggestive about 'an object' crashing. As you know, on many WP:FRINGE articles there will be periodic objections to neutral text, and I would expect that to happen here too. That, in part, is why getting to WP:GA is desirable, better to 'lock in' the desired neutrality. Bon courage (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if editors agreed to assert as fact that it was MOGUL (we don't), the current text that asserts as fact the the military consciously concealed that fact. You don't get to GA by making up history as you go along. Feoffer (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus is not unanimity; maybe read WP:1AM? The question of concealment is a different one, and I don't think there is consensus on that because it has not been much discussed. Personally, I have no firm view on how the sources fall on that matter. Bon courage (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question of concealment is a different one, and I don't think there is consensus on that because it has not been much discussed. Personally, I have no firm view on how the sources fall on that matter.
I appreciate that very much -- but that's exactly what I have been debating. The disputed sentence begins "The military had decided at the time to conceal" and its NOT verified. We can attribute that conclusion to Olmsted, to a list of scholars, to scholarly consensus in general, or any other verbiage. With the excellent Smithsoninan source Louie dug up, we could even say they "apparently" decided to cover it up. But Weaver is clear -- they might have just taken one look at it, assumed it was a weather balloon, and tossed it in the garbage; People at Roswell didn't have a need to know about MOGUL, the people in Texas might not have either.
In a larger sense, I don't think Wikipedia articles should "assert" the material they're trying to "prove" -- it's bad writing and it's bad education, even in subjects of complete certitude like math. In History, like Geometry, a true assertion can't be marked "correct" unless you can show the "proof". What does it buy us to assert as fact that it could NOT have been a weather balloon or other military balloon? Weaver doesn't exclude that possibility, why should we? It certainly doesn't help us to concede to the UFO nuts that the only two possibilities are MOGUL and aliens. Feoffer (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weaver is one old outlier source and his co-author went on to clarify this was deffo a MOGUL balloon. Any general push not to assert historical fact on Wikipedia is extremely ill-advised, and would feed (for example) Holocaust denial (so yes, it is fact Jews were gassed at Auschwitz in large numbers), 9/11 truther narratives (so yes, it is a fact hijacked planes flew into buildings causing their collapse), and so on. Just align with the WP:BESTSOURCES and all will be well. Bon courage (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright well, setting aside the theoretical; On this article, how would you feel about us NOT asserting as fact that a conscious decision to conceal occurred in 1947. You say you have no firm view on whether that occurred, would you like to brainstorm alternate wording for the disputed sentence? Feoffer (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's could be as simple as "the military apparently decided..." and citing it to Louie's Smithsonian source. Feoffer (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Goldberg flat out refers to "the 1994 admission that the weather balloon story was a cover for the secret Mogul Project". And the current text is currently well-verified by Olmsted. If by the "Smithsonian" source we mean Peebles, I don't think that is relevant since it apparently was written before the MOGUL information came to light. Bon courage (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh no, Louie hooked us up. It's from 2017 [10]:

“Apparently, it was better from the Air Force’s perspective that there was a crashed ‘alien’ spacecraft out there than to tell the truth,” says Roger Launius, the recently-retired curator of space history at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.
“A flying saucer was easier to admit than Project Mogul,” Launius adds, a chuckle in his voice. “And with that, we were off to the races.”

Feoffer (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't tell us anything about the genesis of the weather balloon story, does it? Bon courage (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a little uncomfy how it "anthropomorphizes" the Air Force -- I would love to prove that Ramey had been read into MOGUL and knew to cover it up, but I can't connect those dots yet, Weaver specifically admits Ramey might not have known, because the actual components are physically identical to weather balloons, raising the possibility that it wasn't a cover-up so much as semantics -- MOGUL flights really did include a "weather balloon", even though their purpose wasn't to monitor weather. I feel like this nuance is getting lost when we just look at the Olmsted popular history book declare a coverup and adopt its narrative as consensus fact. Feoffer (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fine with saying they used the weather balloon story for a cover story, without saying they 'decided to', citing Olmsted and/or Goldberg. BTW, Olmsted's book is not really pop history, but a monograph published by the Academic division of OUP.[11] Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a big step in the right direction -- "cover story" is well sourced, "decide to conceal" is not.
My point about Olmsted is just that she gives us no way to verify her conclusions (insofar as they differ from Weaver, who shows his work). Feoffer (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a distinction without a difference really: either they 'decided' to cook something up as cover, or they 'decided' to let merely mistaken weather balloon story run as it served for the purposes of cover up. So, I'm easy about which form of words is used. Bon courage (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool.
Yeah, it's a distinction that doesn't make a lot of difference to me personally either, but I know that to a certain subset of readers, people with a certain type of susceptibility, it can be a big difference. It won't disturb me one wit if it was a planned cover-up operation -- I actually want to find sources to prove it, and hope to add more quotes from Weaver to support that conclusion. Feoffer (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the Weaver source should be used in this article. Rather, independent secondary scholarship should be preferred. Bon courage (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the Weaver source should be used in this article. Can you clarify this opinion: Weaver shouldn't be used in this precise way or it literally shouldn't be used anywhere in the article?? It's been stably cited as RS in the article since time immemorial.
While I have you -- do you have any opinions on how we should cover the teletype coverup claims and the death threat claims, or any good sources to add to that convo? Rj felt like the sourcing on that was very weak and we moved it the sections about FRINGE. It seems to be very likely a proactive coverup (as opposed to a mere cover story) DID occur, but damn if I can prove it. Please be on the lookout for source that do. Feoffer (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm leaning to not using it at all (except maybe to touch in the odd detail). The 'Roswell incident' itself includes the documents/statements made by the military, some of which are mis/disinformation. It is not our place to determine which are which, but we can use secondary WP:SCHOLARSHIP looking back on all the material and offering a settled and independent view – the "accepted knowledge" that Wikipedia wants to relay. Bon courage (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bon, we have VERY different things we want out of wikipedia articles, but C'est La Vie. :)
The idea of citing the bulk of this article without depending on Weaver is sort of blowing my mind right now, because literally EVERYONE and their brother cites Weaver as the gold standard. I can't even fairly respond to that suggestion until I've taken the time to really think about it :) lol. In principle, I'm on board to help find and add independent sourcing, but in practice I think we'll find all roads lead back to the 1995 Air Force report; '97 never contradicted 95, it tried to explain the bodies (that no one in 1947 ever actually saw) might have been crash test dummies -- which is more likely than alien bodies of course. Feoffer (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
literally EVERYONE and their brother cites Weaver as the gold standard ← that's cool then: use everyone and their brother as sources. Bon courage (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'm happy too when possible -- but when they cite Weaver, we should also ref Weaver so they can click through to him too, right? I guess what I'm getting at is that you're certainly not denying 1995 AF report is a RS, right? lol. When I first read your words, I think my hair caught on fire, but experience had taught me it's prob a miscommunication lol Feoffer (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's reliable for what it says. Whether it's accepted knowledge or not relied/relies on the reaction of others. It's fine to quote it alongside independent sources. A warning flat would be any delta between Weaver and historians, or if Wikipedia paid attention to stuff in the USAF reports that the rest of the world had ignored. Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good answers, we see eye to eye on that, I get what you were saying now.  :) Yes, Weaver could be fruitful for cherrypicking, and whenever possible we should take cues from (and cite) independent sourcing to demonstrate DUE weight, even if we supplementary link to the '95 report. I'm totally on board to help with that effort as we push to GA. (I just couldn't fathom writing an article if Weaver wasn't a RS lol). Feoffer (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
any delta Small world, I use that term too. Engineering / physics background? Feoffer (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did some maths at one time. Roswell is interesting case from a WP:PSTS perspective. If one views the 'primary' material as including the military reports and the UFOlogist lore, then the secondary material is that which looks back on that whole big bundle of stuff. Bon courage (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did some maths at one time Yeah I started off with History but took to maths like waterfowl to water. Funny how often I heard of people like us who share that overlap -- they seem like disparate fields, but they're both about putting puzzle pieces together
Strictly speaking the 90s reports don't qualify as primary sources to the events of 1947 (wouldn't that be wonderful if they were, lol? Historian's paradise, if the 95 report was written in 47! lol) . But I hear ya, we should lean on the most recent sources when possible, citing the 90s sources as supplementary when appropriate :)
Someday, in a far off future when the article is GA, I really do want to revisit the dispute about whether it might be possible to suggest to the readers that it really was just a weather balloon or other non-MOGUL military balloon. Not to be weird, but it's a little bit "pro-FRINGE" to suggest it couldn't possibly have been a weather balloon. Feoffer (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I synced the sandbox to stable (crosses fingers) live article,[12] and I've condenses and reorganized much but tried to retain the language on the controversial points above. Changes are pretty big, so feel free to offer feedback or directly improve the sandbox draft. Rjjiii (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got a gift! The language looks great to me. Feoffer (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Feoffer. I've put it into the live version. (Along with alt text for images and 2 sources to cite later on belief and tourism.)
Also, I have just realized when testing the page at different zoom levels that when condensing an earlier section I accidentally removed Template:1947 flying disc craze when removing the section header. The only reason I haven't put it back in yet, is because I'm not sure the best placement to reduce stacking. At full zoom, the Ramey photo is already pushed down to the Aztec section, but I'm hesitant to move, remove, or combine any images. I'll trust wherever you place it, Rjjiii (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I chopped the image from the sidebar (on this page), so hopefully that will fix collisions. Feoffer (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleanup: lead

☛ Talk:Roswell incident/sandbox [ starting point permanent link ]

Something Bon courage noted above was the ambiguity in the lead, so I've copied:

I'm thinking the best next steps are:

  1. Do a really clear first sentence to say that the "Roswell incident" refers to [a] a 1947 balloon debris cleanup in New Mexico, and [b] the myths that have developed around it.
  2. Condense, clarify, and just clean up the existing text, minus the final paragraph. That stuff seems mostly okay already.
  3. Probably rewrite the final paragraph, maybe stealing some phrases from circa 2013. The explanation for adding that stuff in the edit summary, "insert summary paragraph to address pop culture influence"[13] is fine, but the wording needs work. Eg, a description of pop culture shouldn't come off as contradicting reported events, scholarship, research, and so on.

The lead gets a lot more attention, so I may ping a wider group before pushing anything live, Rjjiii (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I trend toward verbosity, so ledes are my Achilles's heel. Everything else you've done looks great, I'm sure this will too. We can cut the gray alien refer in the lede since we cut that section, we could add a super brief summation of the newly-polished Aztec material. Thank you for all your incredible work, we'll be at GA in no time thanks to your efforts. Feoffer (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feoffer, thanks! I think I'm close to done on the lead draft. I've added Aztec in a brief mention. Regarding verbosity, the word count is only about 20 words shorter and everything cut was from the final paragraph. The parts about 1947 and conspiracy theories are likely a few words longer than before, but I don't have much room to trim without removing content that is given major attention in the article's body. Rjjiii (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lead in the Sandbox is a significant improvement. From my readings (i.e., WP:MOS:LEAD and the subsections therein) we are not obligated to make it four paragraphs long, or to include citations, or to mention everything in the body, or to painstakingly include every single element of "context." So long as it presents (from the Nutshell description) a summary of the body "with appropriate weight," the mission, so to speak, will be accomplished. When I have a chance tomorrow I will take a stab at condensing it further - I will create a dummy section in the Sandbox 'article' for my version. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added a modified version of the lead to the sandbox. The changes obviously reflect my opinion of how an encyclopedic article should be structured: the lead is a brief introduction free of nitty-gritty details, akin to the abstract of a scientific paper; specific details/reports/claims/concepts/tangential relationships/personalities/sequelae/etc. are in the article body (in this case, in abundance) along with their reliable citations. I believe readers are sufficiently capable of reading the entire article, and clicking on the reliable sources therein, if they are interested in the material and/or want additional information. The citation in Rjj's version of the lead seems helpful and appropriate, so it was retained. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the cutting of proper nouns in general. Ramey, Friedman, Highdive, Berlitz, Moore, The X-Files, and Star Trek are probably all names we don't need in the lede.
Marcel is an integral name, there's no understanding the article without it, we may as well introduce in the lede. We also do need to mention the 1980 book by name, that's where the article title comes from, after all. The ongoing disc hysteria needs a mention -- you can't undertand Roswell without it. We also should mention the Air Force reports and date them to 94 and 97 respectively -- those details got cut. Feoffer (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of those details were cut because, in my opinion, that information is not necessary in the lead for anyone, be they long-standing ufologists or ignorant of the topic, to understand what this Wikipedia article is about. Regarding there's no understanding the article without it (that is, Marcel's name and book title in the lead), that is not true. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JoJo Anthrax: Really appreciate it! I copied your version up to the top to work from but haven't changed much. A lot of the specific details removed (Ramey, Aztec, High Dive, X-Files) should make it much clearer to someone just trying to get the general idea.
Regarding Feoffer's notes: I've included the book title. Reliable sources mention either Marcel or (more often) the 1980 book as the starting point for the conspiracy theories. Also, if the book is not in the lead, its title is so similar to this article (The Roswell Incident (1980 book)) that it should probably be in a hatnote. Marcel and the book make almost no difference to the wording (Marcel could even just be a piped link). I added the 1947 flying disc craze as a piped link ("flying disc"). I did not add the USAF books. I think stating their relevant conclusions as unattributed facts works well in the lead. Rjjiii (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Including the book and Marcel isn't my first choice for the lead, but I can live with it. Long live WP:CONSENSUS (and WP:COLLAB). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me as well! Long live collab :) Feoffer (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tiny subtle suggestion -- can we make it clear in the lead text that The Roswell Incident is a book (as opposed to tv or movie) or perhaps a "bestseller" (if that's true). Feoffer (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see that as necessary since it's linked and has a section in this article. I've gone ahead and pushed the sandbox draft live as the current discussions are now about really minor points (link vs. name Marcel, & do we say it's a book). Reliable sources note that it was influential but not a bestseller and that it was the 90s books and documentaries that reaped the rewards. (Your favorite band's favorite band.) Rjjiii (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sandbox looks good. My only thought:
  • Obscuring the true purpose of the crashed balloon, which was nuclear testing detection, General Roger Ramey told the press that the crashed object was a conventional weather balloon. Decades later, conspiracy theories accused the government of a cover-up. There's something disharmonious about suggesting a coverup occured and then calling it a conspiracy theory to accuse the government of a coverup. Maybe intro conspiracy theory after Marcel along with the claim of ET origin, and then do Mogul? I dunno, see what JoJO thinks. In any case, much improved over current. Feoffer (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This issue has been solved. Feoffer (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before going "live," perhaps some additional editors can provide comments/suggestions here about the alternative leads, which are available here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How much weight do reliable sources put on the weird stuff?[edit]

The chart below shows the weight that reliable sources place on the main UFO books, the Alien Autopsy film, and the Aztec hoax. I didn't check the Jesse Marcel and Glenn Dennis accounts because I didn't think their significance was being debated. Ziegler lists 6 versions of the myth, and Korff lists 7 major books. Otherwise, I've just listed the approximate amount of coverage. I've used "chapter" kind of liberally to describe multi-page sections with headings. The sources vary considerably in length, so I've tried to highlight in green where it seems a source if giving signification weight to something. Also, some sources talk about Aztec and most sources talk about RiP without explicitly stating that they have contributed to the Roswell story.

Roswell myth contributors
Source
Item
 Peebles (1994) Ziegler (1997) Klass (1997) Korff (1997) Smith (2000) Goldberg (2001) Pflock (2001) ABC (2005) Olmsted (2009) Ricketts (2011) Gulyas (2014) Clarke (2015) Bullard (2016) Kloor (2019) Frank (2023)
Aztec hoax (1949) notable hoax prototype other incident none pages mention other incident none none other incident mention template none none "noteworthy"
Roswell Incident (1980) chapter version 1 pages major page pages chapter first book page paragraph first book page page page "the first"
Majestic 12 hoax chapter version 2 none chapter pages pages chapter none page none pages none mention none none
UFO Crash at Roswell (1991) paragraph version 3 pages major pages pages page none none mention none footnote footnote none none
The Roswell Report (1991) none footnote none major none none footnote none none none none none none none none
Crash at Corona (1992) paragraph version 4 pages major none paragraph mentions none none mention none none none none none
The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell (1994) NA version 5 pages major mention page page none none mention none none none none none
Roswell in Perspective (1994) NA version 6 other narrative other narrative none mention mentions none none none none none none none none
"Alien Autopsy" (1995) NA sentence none chapter paragraph paragraph chapter paragraph none paragraph none mention page none notable hoax
Roswell UFO Crash Update (1995) NA none none major none mention footnote none none none none none none none none
Top Secret/MAJIC (1996) NA NA NA major none mention paragraphs none footnote none footnote none mention none none
The Day After Roswell (1997) NA NA NA NA pages mention pages none none footnote none pages pages none none
Area 51 An Uncensored History (2011) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA none paragraph none paragraph none

Hopefully this is useful when deciding which weird items need more weight [The Roswell Incident (1980)] and which need less weight [Crash at Corona (1992)], Rjjiii (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Update: I moved the columns so that the works are in chronological order.03:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serious kudos for that (who needs a Christmas tree?). This will help with NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is incredible work, thank you!! I thought about doing something like this several years ago and instantly balked at the thought of how much effort it would entail! Per Bon, thank you for our Christmas present! wow. Feoffer (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alien autopsy hoax[edit]

This seems irrelevant here, and what we have is not in WP:SYNC with the main article. Bon courage (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like the Aztec and Hangar 18 material, my text obviously didn't connect the dots very well; It does come off sounding irrelevant, but it's actually probably the most culturally influential component of the Roswell story after The Roswell Incident (1980) which undoubtedly holds the top spot. Rjj's excellent chart above seems to bear this out, albeit that's not currently reflected in the text. I'll tag it to remind us it needs work. Feoffer (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Took a shot at it. Feel free to trim, modify, and amend as needed. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's unclear it has any relevance to Roswell (apart from both being about space aliens). Can we just cut it? Bon courage (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was explicitly claimed to be the Roswell autopsy, and it's a hoax -- why would we ever miss out on the opportunity to remind readers it's been debunked? Feoffer (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article doesn't mention that it is "the Roswell autopsy" at all. If the purported alien is meant to be a space alien crashed at Roswell we could say that in one sentence and link to the hoax article, everything else just seems irrelevant or off-topic (why is the X-files mentioned in this section?) Bon courage (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said before, the text needs fixing. In past drafts, I tended to trust readers to connect the dots themselves, rather than directly quoting RSes to explicitly make the connection. We know better now. The text needs work, we'll work on it. But Rjj's chart makes it clear -- RSes routinely discuss the Santelli film as part of Roswell Incident lore; We can't just "cut" it and pretend the now-debunked film never existed! why is the X-files mentioned in this section? Because RSes discuss the X-Files as evidence of how influential the Santelli film was in Roswell mythology and popular culture. Feoffer (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to be repeated in the Popular fiction section, where it doesn't have such a "huh?" factor. Bon courage (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To my eyes, the satire and replication of visual style helps the reader to recognize the conclusions of RSes: the footage is a product of the 1990s, not the 1940s.
As a personal note, we have SUCH different visions for Wikipedia's role in fighting fringe... "Let's cut the debunk of the Roswell Alien Autopsy" is a shocking suggestion to me, but I'm sure some of my ideas are shocking to you. To indulge in hyperbole, I feel like your ideal article might be a tiny one-paragraph stub that simply declares the Roswell debris to be a MOGUL balloon, while my ideal article might be summations of the entire set of Snopes articles that debunk each and every element of the Roswell mythology. But hey, with RJ's help, things seem to be improving. Feoffer (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For my own part this is nothing to do with "fighting fringe". I was just reading the text and completely baffled about why it was there. Bon courage (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough! I'm the first to admit my text needs an editor, and thankfully we have one. Feoffer (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Took another swing at it. Made connection more explicit based on the discussion above. Rjjiii (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feoffer, I left the admission and explicit "Roswell" in. I changed the ref from URL to short citation. I think that titling sections on works with the titles of those work is more clear. Bon courage, I hope this is more clear. Rjjiii (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, its relevance is now apparent. Bon courage (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bon courage, somewhat related what do you think about cutting the UFO religions? Rjjiii (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feoffer mentioned it as a problem above. After I cut out un-sourced content it's only a paragraph. Reliable sources about Roswell don't really discuss it, and the sources cited here are about UFO Religions. Even Ricketts (2011) which goes into a lot of detail about how Roswell functions in a way similar to religion, doesn't mention Heaven's Gate, Raelism, or other new religious movements. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC) Edit: This is the most any source about Roswell connects the incident, myth, or place to UFO religions: "UFO enthusiasts held confer- ences in Roswell on UFOs and religion, arguing, among other things, that God is an alien and extraterrestrials seeded the Earth with life. The fact that Roswell had experienced an actual hierophany of sorts - given that a UFO had supposedly crashed, witnesses were still alive to testify, and the government acknowledged the incident - conspired to turn the city into nothing less than a tourist mecca for people searching for meaning from the heavens (Rickets 2011, p.251)." I think even that though is more about tourism. Feoffer, I'd be fine if you want to cut the section outright, 04:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, logic would dictate that Roswell would be a huge element of and contributor to UFO religions, but the sources just don't seem to bear that out. American UFO religions tend to descend from Theosophy, not UFO Conspiracy Theory. Feoffer (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fu-go balloons[edit]

Doing some more WP:V spot-checking and wondering again about the Fu-go balloons. The article says

In 1947, a few years removed from Japan's World War II (1944–45) Fu-Go balloon bomb attacks, many Americans had attributed the saucers to a foreign military.

And this is cited to two sources. But

Thanks, going by bullet points:
  • I added a quote to make clear what in May was relevant.
  • 1947 flying saucers
  • The original press release claims possession of a flying disc which to a modern reader equals alien space ship. In 1947, that was not yet the case. Some of the actions make more sense in the context of a potentially soviet flying disc.
  • I think Feoffer added the quote from page 7.
It honestly does not come up as big focus in most Roswell sources, but does come up frequently in sources about the 1947 flying disc craze. For example, From Airships to Flying Saucers: Oregon's Place in the Evolution of UFO Lore by Robert E. Bartholomew is about the 1947 larger event and says, "The "flying saucer" story also had greater effects, encouraging those who had observed mysterious aerial phenomena to report their sightings and heightening fears of a Soviet attack. A significant factor in the importance Bequette and others gave the story was the public's recent memory of the 93,000 Japanese Fugo balloon-carrying incendiary bombs that had been launched into the Jet Stream during 1944 and 1945." Rjjiii (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I can see why it's relevant to pre-Roswell 'flying saucers' in general, but not to the Roswell debris. It just seems off-topic. If however, it's the case that "the [Roswell] actions make more sense in the context of a potentially soviet flying disc" is there a source saying this? Bon courage (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bon courage: When you say "pre-Roswell", I realize I may have been unclear. The 1947 flying disc craze/panic/hysteria includes the original Roswell debris recovery and announcement rather than preceding it. Reliable sources often contextualize the original 1947 events and press release as being not necessarily related to an alien spaceship at all. Korff (1997, p. 245) explains Haut's Roswell "flying disc" press release ending with, "It should also be understood that the term 'flying disc' was not at this time, in 1947, synonymous with 'space ship.' It denoted a disc-shaped flying object of unknown, or suspected Soviet, origin." May, Korff, Launius (discussed above), Ziegler, and others all offer this context about the 1947 craze and also about the 1947 Roswell debris events within that craze. Regarding the Fugo connection is the concern that it does not meet WP:V (and should not be in wikipedia) or that it does not meet WP:NPOV (and should be in the flying disc craze article only)? I think it meets WP:V but am ambivalent on NPOV as only some sources that I've checked place an emphasis. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't see it meeting WP:V in a way which is NPOV, if you see what I mean. While I can see the Japanese balloons may have been a factor in the general take on UFOs of the time, I can't see anything that ties it to Roswell. But, since we now have a source about 'Soviet origin' that would seem more pertinent. Why are we mentioning old Japanese balloons and not the Soviet origin concern, when that seems less tenuously connected to Roswell in RS? My concern is that Wikipedia would end up being the only source in the Universe making an explicit connection between fugo balloons and Roswell - OR in other words. Bon courage (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FuGo comes up regularly in the RSes -- as contributing to the belief that flying discs were foreign, as being suspected of having caused Roswell, and as serving as the impetus/inspiration for developing Mogul. It's discussed in Zeigler, Gulyas, Pflock, Keel, Smith (2000), and USAF reports. Feoffer (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
as being suspected of having caused Roswell ← then the article needs to say that, rather than the current text which looks like irrelevant WP:SYNTHESIS. If a source says the Roswell debris was suspected to be a Fugo balloon then it should be simple. What is that source? Bon courage (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article should not say the Fugo balloons were "suspected of having caused Roswell". Ziegler (1997) and Pflock (2001) both discount it as implausible and also portray 80s–90s ufologists as discounting it as boring. Gulyas (2014) talks about Keel and Redfern voicing this suspicion but frames it as a minority viewpoint in ufology and "at least as plausible as one involving aliens, which is probably damning it with the faintest of praise."
Regarding the original Fugo→Saucers→Roswell connection being discussed, I see 2 sources making that connection explicitly. Ziegler (1997, p. 7) makes it outright, and Smith (2000) includes an interview with Jack Williamson who makes it outright. The Fugo→Saucers and Saucers→Roswell connections are very common, but I get your concern about using those sources to bolster Ziegler. Rjjiii (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. What we have now makes a lot more sense that before (especially if reading it as a naive reader!) I think this is however undue, as it is only speculation about (the causes of) the mindset of people in general at the time of the Roswell crash, and does not tell us anything about the incident itself. I remain unconvinced that any source makes the point Wikipedia is trying to imply. Bon courage (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
only speculation I get what you're saying, but its incorrect to characterize it as "speculation" -- 1947 sources explicitly connect the ongoing wave of sightings to the recent Japanese balloon attacks.
However we get there, readers need an ironclad understanding that on July 8, "flying disc" did NOT mean "alien spaceship" to anybody, least of all the folks at Roswell.
Another point that's not mentioned in our current version -- the USAF mentions as a serious possibility that Mogul balloons could have caused not just Roswell but the much of the flying disc craze itself. Feoffer (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sources might well explicitly connect "the ongoing wave of sightings" to Fu-go balloons. But that is not the same as an explicit connection to the Roswell incident.

"flying disc" did NOT mean "alien spaceship" to anybody

Do we have a source for that? Bon courage (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you take out my hyperbole, we have lots. The Zeigler p7 quote satisfies my WP:V concerns, but you could certainly find others making identical points. Feoffer (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

break

Okay, so it seems the intent of this is to make a statement about the overall context of 1947, as something in which nobody was thinking of "aliens". But while I'm aware from 1947 flying disc craze (an article which has its own issues) that this is the Wikipedia POV, I'm not sure it's the NPOV. If we look for example at

The flood of flying saucer reports spooked the military. Were people hallucinating, or seeing something from Moscow or Mars? Experts grasped for answers. A scientist interviewed by the New York Times in July 1947 called it a “mild case of meteorological jitters” and “mass hypnosis”.

But the UFO sightings kept coming in waves over the next few years. Initially, Air Force investigators thought that the objects had been “domestically launched devices such as weather balloons, rockets, experimental flying wing aircraft, or celestial phenomenon.” Some investigators gave serious consideration to the possibility of extraterrestrials.

So from this, I think this exclusive focus on military explanations and fu-go balloons is odd. Bon courage (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well don't infer "intent" of Wikipedia OR RSes from anything I've said on talk, especially not when I'm speaking with intentionally over-the-top language. Obviously, crackpots were seeing "alien spaceships" even before 1947, but Flying Disc didn't mean "alien spaceship" in the way it does today -- Peebles makes that point for us.
I think this exclusive focus on military explanations and fu-go balloons is odd.
Why? It makes sense to me why RSes on Roswell devote more attention to the two top-secret high-altitude balloon programs than other explanations: Can celestial phenomenon or meteorological jitters be mistaken for debris from a military balloon? Feoffer (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Context:

Interestingly, virtually no one during the 1947 saucer wave believed that the mysterious objects were of extraterrestrial origin. Instead, the American obsession with the Cold War and possible atomic conflict were evident in the sighting explanations. On August 15, 1947, only a few weeks after Arnold's sighting, a Gallup Poll revealed that 90 percent of Americans surveyed were aware of flying saucers, and 16 percent believed they were U.S. or Russian secret weapons.49 "Nothing [in the poll] was said about 'alien visitors,"' one study reports, "not even a measurable 1% toyed with the concept."50 During the several weeks after Arnold reported his sighting, the FBI was seriously concerned that many reports were disinformation spread by Soviet agents who were attempting to promote fear and panic, and at least until late July, local Bureau offices conducted background checks on saucer witnesses.51

When Kenneth Arnold first saw his “flying saucers”, he imagined they were secret military aircraft. The general public, too, did not initially make a connection between UFO reports and the notion of extraterrestrial spacecraft. During that first 1947 wave, only two witnesses expressed the opinion that the objects they saw might have been spaceships. In a Gallup poll held in August that year “outer-space explanations were so negligibly held that they were not even listed in the results” [8].

Rjjiii (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Different sources say different things. But why when one source says "16 percent believed they were U.S. or Russian secret weapons" are we mentioning Japanese balloons and attributing only this 'military' context thought to "many Americans" and not mentioning the weather/hypnosis/Mars speculation. More to the point, why are we trying to make a highly leveraged statement about the 1947 UFO mindset here at all? Bon courage (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why... are we mentioning Japanese balloons... and not mentioning the weather/hypnosis/Mars speculation
Because we're taking our cues from reliable sources on Roswell like Zeigler and USAF who discuss the two high-altitude balloon programs but do not seriously consider weather/hypnosis/Martians.
why are we trying to make a... statement about the 1947 UFO mindset here at all Because RSes make a point of contrasting how "flying disc" is modernly understood vs what the term meant in 1947. Feoffer (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the article is pointedly ignoring "cues" from sources saying the military was seriously inclined to consider extraterrestrial origin. Like Kloor above, or https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34398-8_2 which says

However, the US Air Force, established in 1947 from the United States Army with the enactment of the National Security Act of 1947, seemed to react ambivalently, depending on the persons involved. While Nathan Farragut Twining, third chief of Staff of the United States Air Force and later chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as William Madison Garland, chief of the Air Technical Intelligence Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, seemed to have leaned towards the extraterrestrial hypothesis, Hoyt Sanford Vandenberg, second chief of Staff of the United States Air Force remained unconvinced.

Also ignored are "cues" about homegrown USA programs, mass hysteria and weather phenomenon. By limiting sources to teasing out one narrow strand, NPOV is lost. Bon courage (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
saying the military was seriously inclined to consider extraterrestrial origin. You want to include that?!?! It's not wrong, but it could amount to pouring fuel on a very fringy fire.
If we do mention that, then obviously, yes, we should mention all the "less-fringe" options you list, like rockets, weather and hypnosis . I thought we might limit the realistic possibilities to "balloon debris". But you're not wrong, there's no doubt within a few months or years, some important people in the military had fallen for the interplanetary hypothesis for UFOs (but not Roswell so far as we/I know). Feoffer (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hah. I don't think the US military believing weird shit is really news! I don't think we should be including just one part of the context (suspicions of hostile military), let alone one part of the context of the context (fu-go ballons). I think the chief problem is that Wikipedia is trying to imply what people must've had in their minds as they learned about Roswell at the time, but no source lays it out like that. Bon courage (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
lol well put!!
Anyway, I'd be happy to write up something to round out the text with the other mundane explanations like weather, celestial objects, and especially US tech. Extraterrestrial, that's gonna take some convincing, lol. Feoffer (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hang on! Looking at the Peebles source it says on July 6 the NYT had run a story suggesting that the saucers were 'visitants from another planet'. Why is this not 'context'? Bon courage (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really do apologize for speaking hyperbolically, I think it really got us off track.
It's not that people weren't speculating about the interplanetary hypothesis -- they were. It's that "flying disc" and "flying saucer" did not automatically imply "alien spaceship", as would be the case just a few years later. Feoffer (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bon courage: Regarding Different sources say different things., reliable sources that analyze or explore the question of what was a flying saucer in 1947, conclude that the modern idea (flying saucer = alien spaceship) was uncommon during the 1947 craze. By 1948 it was already gaining traction, and by 1951 it was a part of the culture. Many sources take the modern meaning for granted, but that's not disproving the scholarship that other reliable sources have provided:

Despite a considerable variety in the reports, the form of the objects was consistent with a type of aircraft. Propellers were often seen, one witness even claiming it was larger than the rest of the plane. Jet pipes, pilot's cockpits, glass domes, fins, legs, and antennae featured on some of the objects. Smoke, vapour trails, and rocket flames repeatedly marker their flights. A wide range of aerobatic stunts turn up among the reports: loop-the-loops, roll manoeuvres, banking, weaving, climbing, diving,, tipping, circling, and swooping. Some 'UFOs' buzzed cars, but unlike decades later, the car engines never died. It has been thought significant that animals sometimes reacted to the objects, yet a close reading suggests it wasn't because of their spooky alienness; the saucers were doing barnstorming manoeuvres.

Notable by its absence is any indication of extraterrestrial technology: no lasers, heat rays, paralysis rays or gases, mind control rays, power rings, levitation of people or objects, denaturalization, matter interpenetration, space-suited entities, robots, remote eyes, or even simple observation ports. Nobody was looking for aliens, and nothing was seen to suggest any were there.

At the beginning of the summer of 1947, the first summer of the cold war, hundreds of Americans began calling newspapers, radio stations, and government agencies to report mysterious, unidentified objects hovering in the night sky. By early July, a wave of “flying disk” sightings had rippled across the American West. Many of these early witnesses assumed that they were seeing secret U.S. or Soviet military vehicles, not ghostly ships from another planet.

Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Olmsted source seems on point then: "Many of these early witnesses assumed that they were seeing secret U.S. or Soviet military vehicles". But I'd suggest people thinking of extraterrestrials were probably more common than those thinking of Fu-go balloons. Bon courage (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've trimmed the sentence to remove Japanese and Soviet possibilities.[14] Flying disc craze is linked where broader context can be provided. Rjjiii (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

footnote

The relevant text of that 1947 NYT piece Peebles mentions is:

We have no disposition, however, to laugh this phenomenon off. A lot of people have seen the disks, and one and all dismiss the thought that they were sun-spots-not the whirling spots on the sun itself but the after-images of light on the human eye. The flying saucers could be real. They may be pieplates for that "pie in the sky by-and-by" once immortalized in song by the IWW. They may be visitants from another planet launched from spaceships anchored above the stratosphere. Maybe they are atoms escaping from an overwrought bomb. They could even be something as prosaic as an Army experiment in anti-radar devices. During the war we managed to gun up the German radar with silvery streamers d'opped from our planes. The flying saucers are silvery, too. Who knows? No Republican Congressman has yet come forward to claim that high-riding Government officials have been scattering quarters and half-dol-lars around, not in a sincere effort to reduce the overhead but just to see if anybody noticed.

Bon courage (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UFOs quickly became synonymous with alien spacecraft[edit]

This is another verification nightmare with twelve different pages cited in the Peebles source. Could somebody point to a single location (preferably in just one source) for this 'quickly became' thought? Again, what is this 'quick becoming' telling us about the Roswell incident? Bon courage (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I'm at a little bit of a loss myself as to what this means. I'll take a peek through Peebles and see if we can pin that down a little bit. Certainly by the 1952 flap, UFOs are alien space in the popular mindset, but I suspect Peebles will actually place that shift earlier, maybe as earlier as 1948. Feoffer (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I rephrased this to try and make the relevance more clear and have cited a single page, with a quote in the edit summary.[15] Peebles places the shift in 1950-1951. The significance is in establishing that "flying saucer" or "flying disc" had changed significantly in meaning between the 1947 incident and the conspiracy theories and so on. Rjjiii (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good solution. Feoffer (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Hills[edit]

For

By the time Roswell returned to media attention, Scully's spindly grey aliens had become a part of American culture through the Barney and Betty Hill incident and the 1977 film Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

neither of the cited sources seem to be discussing Roswell? Bon courage (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When RJ wrote this, I knew it might be controversial with you. :)
Between 1947 and 1980, the myth of the grey alien emerges in Aztec, is popularized by Barney Hill, hits the big time with Close Encounters, and is ultimately incorporated into the Roswell.
There's no shortage of sourcing about the origins of the "grey", it's only a question of how in-depth we should go. Rj has a very barebones approach, while I would prefer to see a whole section about the evolution of the "grey" in the 70s. Nothing is 100%, but it really seems to have come from an episode of The Outer Limits. But again, I get that's a little far afield from Roswell, so Rj's version works for me. But there's no shortage of sources about what we could say in regards the grey alien myths. Feoffer (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we're going to get to WP:GA, then text needs to be verified (well, in any case it does). This came up[16] a few years ago too. Bon courage (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bon courage and Feoffer: I've added the most reliable source I could find that clearly makes the connection. The Toby Smith book also makes it in a similar way. The most reliable source I could find that also connected Close Encounters were online news articles (spooky column) and an episode of PBS's Monstum (a history of monster folklore documentary show for a YA audience). Those seem too low-quality so I removed Close Encounters. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works for me! Thanks for your hard work. Feoffer (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that sews it up nice. Bon courage (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Other debunked theories' should be 'Other debunked or fringe theories' Here's why:[edit]

The existing sub header implies that everything by the authors in this section is debunked, It also implies everything in the 'Roswell in UFO conspiracy theories (1978–present)'section is debunked by the use of the word 'other' and yes a lot is debunked, the important stuff. For the same reason we have not labeled the section 'Roswell in debunked UFO conspiracy theories (1978–present)' it should not just state 'other debunked theories'; adding 'or fringe theories' is inclusive to that since a lot of this is done for entertainment value, not academic research. Drocj (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving cohesion of the 'Modern views' Section[edit]

The readability & flow of the 3 quotes by B. D. Gildenberg, Karl Pflock & Kal Korff at the top of this section felt isolated from the following sub sections including 'Roswell as modern myth and folklore' & 'Statements by US Presidents'. I attempted to mesh things together and add context + cohesion in a minimal way but would appreciate feedback because this is challenging to get right and there is still not a clear connection to the 'Roswell as modern myth and folklore' section. Drocj (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if we still need the "Roswell as modern myth and folklore" section anymore. It used to hold material about Aztec, Hangar 18, and the different versions of the myth -- all that material has now been integrated into the main body of the article. Feoffer (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am on the fence myself. I think its a good section to have but should be refined, it adds context for all the conspiracy theories. Maybe we condense it & refine it? Such as:
The mythology of Roswell has been analyzed and documented by anthropologists and skeptics. Anthropologists Susan Harding and Kathleen Stewart highlight the Roswell Story as a paradigm of fringe narratives transitioning to the mainstream, aligning with the 1980s zeitgeist of public fascination with "conspiracy, cover-up, and repression." Skeptics Joe Nickell and James McGaha labeled the myth making process the "Roswellian syndrome," where the myth cycles through five stages of development & anticipates recurring stages in UFO and conspiracy-theory stories. Anthropologists Benson Saler, Charles Ziegler and Charles Moore identify the Roswell story's resemblance to traditional folk narratives, pointing to multiple distinct storylines shaped by a transmission process involving storytellers within the UFO community, where additional "witnesses" are sought to expand the narrative, while dissenting accounts are discredited or excluded by designated "gatekeepers." Drocj (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder if we could cut the term "Roswell Syndrome" -- it seems 'hokey' to create a 'syndrome' and name it after the subject under study. It's not as if Roswell was the first myth scholars ever saw. "Roswell Syndrome" suggests something sui generis about Roswell at one extreme and tautological on the other. IF we had other examples of "Roswell Syndrome", and the name had caught on, that'd be one thing. But it seems silly for us to say "The solution to Roswell is something called Roswell Syndrome", ya know? I don't think that phrase gets us much.
The rest looks good. Feoffer (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, its the first time I heard of it, it doesn't belong. Drocj (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain why 'Air Force response (1994–1997) and aftermath' is not its own section[edit]

It makes zero sense to me that it is buried in the conspiracies section, its hard to find. I think it should be pulled out into its own section. Appreciate your feedback. Drocj (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or maybe it makes more sense in the 'Modern views' section. Drocj (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first 2 subsections in the modern views section roughly correspond to the 2 reports' main focuses. I don't think we should attribute these views to the USAF more than we have to though. They're now the mainstream position in reliable sources. Additionally the 1978-present section would likely be easier to parse if some of those lowest level subsections are condensed out of the table of contents. What was the reason the USAF reports ended up in two places initially (Modern views & the chronology)? Rjjiii (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Originally, we just have a chronology, and then someone suggested a "conclusions" or "modern views" section, so it got split over two places. I don't know how problematic that it -- the USAF reports are explicitly in response to conspiracy theories, after all. I agree condensing the TOC will help per your suggestion. Feoffer (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've changed the media using a documentary with the thumbnail showing both books for the part within the chronology on the "Air Force response" section, and using a photo of Project Mogul from the reports for the "Project Mogul" section. I'll think more about the "Air Force response" section because if this is the turning point where Randle, Friedman, etc. drop the body claims, then that is notable and also something that doesn't belong in a "conclusions" section. I need to check back over the sources. For a bit, I'll pause on using the sandbox to edit. There are a few sections past Marcel that are kind of messy and still using some odd sources.
Before I start reading and taking notes, are there any key points for each work/section that you're thinking the article needs to touch on? And at the risk of going completely off-topic do we know who faked the MJ-12 memo and/or why they faked it? The way it's written now implies that Bill Moore faked it for a government disinformation program. Rjjiii (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
do we know who faked the MJ-12 memo and/or why they faked it?
Bill Moore claims it was a overseen by a man named Rick Doty who was allegedly a "disinfo" agent for the Air Force. Doty has appeared on camera and claimed this is true, but that doesn't mean it's true. Doty claims that it was done to protect top secret programs. Also targeted were Paul Bennewitz and Bill Cooper. Meanwhile, alleged CIA UFO "whistleblower" John Lear was linked to Doty, and the famous alleged Area 51 whistleblower Bob Lazar was himself linked to Lear. Meanwhile, I'm not convinced any of them are really linked to Air Force or the CIA.
Meanwhile, Moore absolutely stands accused of promoting the MJ12 docs despite knowing they were anachronistic forgeries. This whole subject is well outside my wheelhouse, but the guy who wrote the book on Roswell definitely went on to claim he'd been lying about UFO stuff. Feoffer (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to focus the chronology section covering the reports on the timeline and the social impact. I'll revisit MJ-12 at some point. I'm also trying to go through and reduce the complexity of the citations by pruning extra cites and using a minimal number of pages where possible, but making sure to pair primary sources with secondary. Rjjiii (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should we include a mention of the Documentary film Mirage Men (2013) some place?[edit]

I think the film Mirage Men adds a lot of context. Let me know if you have seen it and your thoughts. Drocj (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but very very carefully. The film seems to uncritically accept that Doty was Air Force -- I think this is a mistake. The entire subject certainly seems FRINGE, but I don't think it is -- the Pilkington book is published by Little Brown!
I worry about "losing the narrative" and I would love to sort of "yada yada yada" over the whole thing, but we can't -- Bill Moore came out as a liar, we can't not tell readers that. I don't know how much of the rest of it we should get into, but it's definitely on topic. Feoffer (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drocj I may be mistaken, but is the film not largely an arrangement of interviews? If we're not citing Doty/Moore for their dubious statements then why can we cite them for their plausible statements? It would be substituting plausibility for verifiability.
Check out the sources currently cited in the article, especially Goldberg. Gulyas, Ziegler, and Peebles all have a lot of content also. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC) misunderstanding struck, 09:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We def shouldn't be citing Doty or Moore, but the book and film feature interviews with a variety of folks who appear to be sober, reliable sources: Pilkington, Valdez. Doty's voice is present, but thoroughly rebutted as he is unmasked as being part of ongoing deception. Feoffer (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Day After Roswell[edit]

I rewrote this section Roswell_incident#The_Day_After_Roswell with only reliable secondary sources. It probably needs to be trimmed. Cut details can likely be moved down to The Day After Roswell article. Rjjiii (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making an outline for Roswell conspiracy theories (1978–1994)[edit]

Feoffer, I'm looking at the section Roswell incident#Roswell conspiracy theories (1978–1994) and have uncertainties on how to best organize some of the material. Much of the writing is new and much from a decades old version,[17] that was laid out differently. I'm thinking it may be best to create an outline first on what the key points are for each section, Rjjiii (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the old version you cite, it does seem like we lost the straightforward presentation of the books as presenting a generally consistent conspiracy theory about a crashed UFO. Textual scholarship, like Ziegler's, by its nature comes from a "splitters" not "lumpers" perspective, and it may overstate the differences between the accounts.
I think some of the important take home points are that the basic story of the Brazel ranch debris remains relatively constant albeit exaggerated, while the stories of extra crash sites and humanoid aliens were very controversial even among people who believed in the basic conspiracy theory. The story of a civil engineer, an archaeology team, and a military detail all simultaneously stumbling onto the same crash site hundred of miles away from Roswell is absurd on its face. Every version of the myth has different numbers of bodies that make up a larger portion of the tale -- Marcel says zero bodies, by Moore there's bodies 150 miles away, then bodes make to it Roswell's air field along with the debris, then the bodies actually go to the hospital for autopsy.
The section needs a lot of work -- we never really specify "what" the disagreements are about. The Majestic hoax influenced the narrative more than is captured in the current text, ditto for Glenn Dennis. So yeah, lots of room for improvements here. Feoffer (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't quite know how to pull it off, but I have always dreamt that this section might cover the material in two different "streams" or "threads". On the one hand, we have claims that are consistent with, and supportive of, the Project Mogul conclusion -- Marcel, DuBose, the many people who recall being told not to talk, probably even the people who report detention or threats, etc. And then, in a second, parallel-yet-intermingled thread, we have clearly fringe nonsense of every-evolving wild claims i.e. dead alien bodies. It would be great if we could present this material while still keeping those two threads clear and distinct in the minds of the reader. If we err too far on the side of "it was all crazy", the reader won't understand why Congress started asking for the real story (Mogul). Meanwhile, if we can somehow just tell the story of how the crazy stuff evolves over time, in a distinct thread, without talking about the people who obviously just witnessed Mogul, then it becomes quite obvious that the CT is an increasingly elaborate self-contradictory fairytale, not just "better detective work yielding new evidence". Feoffer (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I think I'm following now. I started tracking down reliable sources for MJ-12 and have started drafting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roswell_incident/sandbox&oldid=1195567567#Majestic_12_hoax
That is likely already too much information for here (not sure that Doty even needs to be named in this article). Feel free to pull anything from there to this article or Majestic 12. I think for MJ-12, the most clear structure is something like:
  • What is it? (hoax via faked memos)
    • Who spread it? (Bill Moore in the 80s)
      • How do we know that? (not sure how much evidence is going overboard here)
And then:
  • What was the MJ-12 story?
    • What did it add to the Roswell conspiracies?
I think mentioning Ziegler's versions 1 to 5 is probably confusing outside of version 1 (the Berlitz & Moore book). I'm imagining a reader dropping down to MJ-12 or Kevin Randle's book and puzzling over what the versions mean. I think version 1 is also the only one I see wider agreement on. Perhaps Ziegler's versions offer a more verifiable way to construct the diagram? Rather than descent, Ziegler is using a framework more of what does each version contribute as noted by his "(V#)" throughout chapter 1. Rjjiii (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks great to me! and yes, Zeigler could be used to make a REALLY amazing table or image. First go round, I just tried to keep things as simple as possible and only keep debris and bodies distinct. I've replaced the old text with that from your sandbox and chopped the version numbers. Feoffer (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outline of different sources[edit]

If it's helpful, I took notes of which novel elements Zeigler attributes to which sources: User:Feoffer/sandbox mythogenesis of roswell Feoffer (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This really helps. As far as historical elements, the only thing absent from the Wikipedia article is "Alamogordo stages balloon demonstration for press to divert attention from [Mogul debris found near] Roswell". Are there sources not involved with Charles B. Moore that say this? He wrote a chapter in that book, worked with Weaver & McAndrew, and corresponded with Pflock. I think they all include some version of this. This may be one of the few "cover-up" actions that have reliable, secondary coverage.
I don't think we'll have the space to cover every detail, but this looks like a good way to organize the Berlitz & Moore (1980) book. A lot of this can be sourced to other secondary sources as well, like the current lightning strike paragraph cited to Olmsted. I'm thinking anything from the book that can't be found in one of the secondary sources is likely out of scope. Rjjiii (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reformatted and trimmed the existing section in the sandbox.[18] Let me know if that's looking more clear or less clear. The primary source citations are still present for quotes, but every passage cited to the Berlitz & Moore book is marked with [citation needed]. I'll start working on checking the secondary sources soon. Those bits may be covered in the more reliable sources but in a different way. For example, Ziegler makes note of Marcel's "nothing made on this earth" comment as an example of how Marcel was pulling elements from other crashed saucer stories (16-17). Rjjiii (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking good to me! If I'm not mistaken, we have contemporary sourcing from 1947 on the Alamogordo balloon demonstration in connection with Roswell. (It might have been a demo at Ft Worth).
In the sandbox -- the archaeology group got cut from the 1980 book, but they'll come up again in subsequent versions. It is probably important for the reader to know that Barnett wasn't with the archaeology group in the legend and he didn't lead them there -- instead the claim is that three different groups descended on the same San Agustin site almost simultaneously.
Looking good. Feoffer (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've gone through the parts cited only to primary sources. I need to see why the Klass cite is so many pages and then copyedit. When I update the live article, I may ping you about the archaeologists because their significance is escaping me. They just seem like this bizarre and random nameless group that are plopped all over New Mexico. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the archaeologists because their significance is escaping me
If I'm not mistaken, Barnett and the archaeologists were a major source of schism between the Friedman camp and the Randle camp. At some point in the history, Barnett and the archaeologists get discredited and an entirely different group of archaeologists is invoked to witness a crash hundreds of miles away.
Zeigler, p.23-24: "However, some ufologists, notably Friedman, were unconvinced by the core scenario of Versions 2 and 3, which placed Grady Barnett and the archaeologists not on the Plains of San Agustin but more than 100 miles (160 km) away on the ranch operated by Brazel.... The key to Friedman and Berliner's Version 4 was the testimony of Maltais (1991) and Anderson that placed Barnett and some archaeologists on the Plains of San Agustin. At the 1992 conference, Randle, Schmitt, and Carey (1992:19) argued cogently that Anderson's tale was "no more than a fabrication." These authors also indicated that they had evidence that Barnett never claimed (as Maltais had alleged) to have seen a crashed saucer. Insofar as something resembling a consensus resulted from this conference, it appears that Version 3 triumphed over Version 4. For example, the conference moderator concluded that Anderson's story presented "warning signs of a hoax" and that evidence for the Barnett story was "extremely soft" Nevertheless, despite a general trend of commentary favoring Randle and Schmitt, their Version 3 also came under fire. One ufologist (Whiting 1992:35) noted that "the basic weakness in the Randle-Schmitt argument is that it fails to provide a credible reason for moving . . . Barnett miles [240 km] to the east," where, according to Version 3, Barnett and some archaeologists had stumbled upon the crashed saucer near Roswell.Perhaps sensing that the tide of opinion was running in their favor, in their next book Randle and Schmitt (1994) produced Version 5 of the Roswell myth. In this version Barnett does not appear, thus eliminating the need to explain why he was near Roswell rather than on the Plains of San Agustin. However, new witnesses had come forth (or had been ferreted out by Randle and Schmitt), and their testimony indicated that an archaeological team did stumble upon the crashed saucer near Roswell. This, of course, was not the archaeological team of the Barnett-Anderson story (which had been largely discredited in the eyes of some ufologists) but rather a different group of archaeologists. Indeed, in their book Randle and Schmitt (1994:191) declare that, for lack of evidence, "Barnett's story and, in fact, the Plains [of San Agustin] scenario must be discarded." It was also necessary for them to change some details, such as the date of the crash and the shape of the alien spaceship, to conform to the testimony of their new witnesses. Despite these changes the core scenario of Version 5, which follows, is essentially a replay of Versions 2 and 3 " Feoffer (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well done on incorporating this content into the narrative! It's such a luxury to sit back and watch the article be improved by leaps and bounds! Feoffer (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In re your recent removal, the Globe's significance is them being the first to report bodies actually brought to the base at Roswell (and flown to Wright Field by Pappy Henderson). I don't know we need to actually bother the readers with that level of granularity, but it is an element that gets incorporated into the narrative, and it helps to understand that it came from a tabloid. Feoffer (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The date given (1981) is likely an error. It says that the article cited his widow Sappho. Henderson seems to have lived until 1986.[19] Korff (1997) credits Randle (1991) for getting the story from surviving Henderson family members. Randle (1991) and Stringfield (1989) attribute the story to family members interviewed after Henderson's death, which would be 1986 at the earliest. The 1981 date seems to be a misreading of Stringfield (1989) who says that Sappho only heard the story in 1981 when Pappy saw an article in Globe about Roswell.[20] Rjjiii (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit: to anyone reading this who has not read the sources, I realize I should make clear that I believe an error was made by Smith (2000), not Feoffer. When looking into it, I found several other sources that repeat Smith's Globe/Henderson claim (sometimes with the almost certainly false detail that he was dead in 1981) but none of these cite an issue of the tabloid. Stringfield (1989) wrote, "On February 17, 1981 the story appeared in the tabloid Globe and Henderson admitted to his wife and daughter that the story was true." Here's a clip of his wife Sappho Henderson and daughter Katherine Groode explaining the 1981 supermarket conversation:[21] Rjjiii (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great catch, that would explain why I could never find the Globe article that actually mentioned bodies, why it didn't appear in the RSe, and why it didn't fit into the chronology! Good solution. Feoffer (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead image[edit]

Could we brainstorm a way to show a cropped image of the front page that shows the relevant headline, but still provide the reader with an easy and obvious way to click through to full page if desired? The current lead image is an invaluable resource for people who want to read the entire front page, but it's challenging to parse in thumbnail. Feoffer (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Phineas Gage#Cerebral localization section uses a cropped public domain image with an inset of the full image, which links to the full image on commons, which links to both the cropped image and the cropped image with the inset. That's a bit complicated (and I think only allowed for public domain media) but it's the example that pops to mind Rjjiii (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories