Talk:2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings

Unable to detect drones using conventional methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Mass psychogenic illness in the United States

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

Identified as mass panic in this article [1]. jps (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Here is another article identifying it as a mass panic. [2] Note that "mass psychogenic illness" is just Wikipedia's preferred synonym for mass panic of mass hysteria. jps (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Here is a piece identifying the flap as mass hysteria: [3]. jps (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree. I don't think it's appropriate at all to use the phrase "mass psychogenic illness" [4]. None of the sources say MSI. They say "mass hysteria" which, whatever its connection to the mental illness, also has a pedestrian usage which I inferred to be the meaning being invoked here. Chetsford (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aaro

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

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

Image

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

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

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

PteroDynamics

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

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

Explanations

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

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

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

This is getting a bit off-topic but, in point of clarification, none of the persons cited in this section went to a community college. Joshua Tan's AB and PhD are from Princeton and Columbia, respectively. [5] William Austin's lower degrees are from Embry Riddle and Temple University and his Ed.D. is from Nova Southeastern University. Amie Gallagher went to Fordham. Chetsford (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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

"What are you saying?" This is what I'm saying: [6]. Chetsford (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

New title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A question regarding the expression "manned aircraft"

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

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

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

Ramstein?

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  There was a drone show at halftime of last weekend's Seattle-Green Bay NFL game, we have RS that document it [7], and the drones were seen by thousands of people. However, presumably, including content about the halftime drone show is out-of-scope for this article? It's clear this article deals with a specific type of drone sighting; so-called "mystery drones". The verifying sources you're citing all seem to merely acknowledge people are seeing run-of-the-mill drones, but stop short of verifying anyone has seen a "mystery drone". Chetsford (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Keeping subsections as chronological as we can?

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

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

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

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

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

2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings#Investigations and findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested rewrite of second paragraph of lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick Ryder "Not unusual"

The sentence as of now says

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

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

The source you added is the New York Post, which has been determined to be generally unreliable (see: WP:NEWYORKPOST). The source present in the body of the article makes it clear he's referring to military site flyovers (emphasis added): ""It's not that unusual to see drones in the sky, nor is it an indication of malicious activity or any public safety threat, and so the same applies to drones flown near U.S. military installations; some fly near or over our bases from time to time," Ryder said. "That in itself is not unusual, and the vast majority pose no physical threat to our forces or impact our operations." [8] As a reminder, we generally don't need sources in the lead, as long as the statement is sourced in the body (see: MOS:LEADCITE). Chetsford (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Great map, one for states?

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

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

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

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

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

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

„Lawful“

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

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

Requested move 18 December 2024 to 2024 United States drone sightings

2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings → 2024 United States drone sightings – I know we just did the move from New Jersey to Northeastern United States but at this point, it's gone coast to coast, the midwest, and the mountain region -- everyone but Alaska and Hawaii going by time zone now has these, as confirmed by the United States military. We may as well do due diligence and keep up.

On the plus side, once this is done--assuming it doesn't spread past the USA--we're done. And if it goes further, we can always just do 2024 North American drone sightings and so on. But this ought to settle the naming of the article for a while. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the question isn't where are these reported sightings occurring?, it's how are reliable sources labelling this event? (see WP:COMMONNAME). There's lots of sources calling them "New Jersey sightings", and in recent days many of them have been calling them "sightings in the Northeastern US". I'm less convinced that reliable sources are broadly referring them as "US sightings". In my opinion we should wait and see how coverage shakes out over the coming weeks. There is no rush to rename the article, let's take our time and get it right. – Anne drew 00:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak Oppose ... for now. This is a very long article and to have to expand it to cover the entire U.S. for all 2024 will make it even longer. There are millions of drones in the U.S. that are viewed tens of millions of times annually, with some of those viewings / sightings getting reported by RS. For instance, do we include this [9] story of an Alabama woman who complained after she spotted a drone being used by her neighbors to spy on her changing clothes? On the other hand, I do understand the appeal of changing the geographic scope given the fact reporting is spreading to other states outside the Northeast. Chetsford (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Soft Oppose We have to yet wait if this occurs across America not just in the Northeast region. Rager7 (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Not only United States but globally at least United Kingdom and Germany sightings are confirmed Foerdi (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Just because someone saw what they think is a drone doesn't mean it's actually a drone or that it's anything to be concerned about. Nothing actually spread, only some hysteria. Reywas92^Talk 16:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support They are spotted in different parts of USA. --Andrew012p (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Lead paragraph says they have been spotted throughout the Midwest and West Coast. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 16:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support - News shows it is more widespread than the east coast. :Shotgunheist ^💬 17:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - A now-widespread phenomenon. Jusdafax (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Almost all reports are of lawful manned aircraft

@Very Polite Person: Why did you remove that [10] bit from the lead? Your explanation makes no sense to me: there is no OR, no SYNTH. There are more sources to back this up, some already in the article (Misidentification section). But I found that the one source I used should suffice, with the quote About 100 sightings of mystery craft have been identified as warranting further investigation, FBI officials confirmed during a background briefing Saturday. They have dismissed the bulk of some 5,000 other sightings as manned aircraft. There is a 50/1 ratio of "manned craft" to "we haven't been able to figure it out yet". Realistically speaking, there are a bunch that have also been verified to be planets and stars, but I'm sticking to what the source says. Isn't 98% "almost all"? Is it the word "lawful"? That's implied, but if you don't like it, remove the word, not one of the only bits of reason that can be found in the lead. VdSV9•♫ 02:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Tracking

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

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

political bias and misinformation

https://www.newsweek.com/what-project-blue-beam-conspiracy-theory-erupts-over-drones-2001051

Is the source cited improperly by the biased source cited in this page claiming incorrectly that Charlie Kirk, and not Charlie Kirk News, endorsed a conspiracy theory. Follow two links and it disproves the political attack embedded in this page, what a joke. 2600:1000:B115:935A:3022:6835:5C48:5155 (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Newsweek is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia in most cases. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with you both. I've removed the offending sentence in [11]. Thanks – Anne drew 20:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)