Talk:2024 United States drone sightings

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)

Requested move 18 December 2024 to 2024 United States drone sightings

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

---

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 [1] 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)
• Support: From the lead: "...additional reports and military-confirmed events were noted across the southern states, the midwest, western mountain states, and the Pacific coast." It is now clearly a more widespread phenomenon, and should be acknowledged as such in the title. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Agree with the reasons given above. Halbared (talk) 22:35, 26 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.

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 [2]. Thanks – Anne drew 20:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

AARO external link

Hi Baratiiman, I'm curious why you want to include a link to AARO's official website as an external link? It doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria listed in WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. Thanks – Anne drew 21:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

it's in the name ALL DOMAIN ANOMALY RESOLUTION OFFICE Baratiiman (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but just because the name sounds somewhat related to the topic doesn't mean it's a good candidate for an external link. We don't link to thedronelifenj.com just because the name sounds related. It should meet the criteria listed in our external links guideline. None of our sources mention AARO and these reported sightings being related, so assuming that they are related is original research. And even if reliable sources did link the two, it would be a better candidate for the see also section than an external link. – Anne drew 16:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on this Baratiiman? – Anne drew 01:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I stand correct aaro is the correct government website Baratiiman (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I saw the note at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. I have looked at https://www.aaro.mil/. I found nothing about the drone sightings on that page. I therefore find it irrelevant and recommend excluding it. Editors may also wish to review WP:ELBURDEN, which is the rule about what to do if a link is disputed.

I think that the Wikipedia article on All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office could be appropriate. I think that a well-sourced explanation of AARO's role in investigating the drone sightings (if any; none was mentioned on their website as far as I could tell) would be even better. But I do not think that a link to https://www.aaro.mil/ is providing value to anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Drones "emit no heat"

I just deleted the following:

Sheriff Mastronardy of Ocean County Sheriff's Office in New Jersey said that the drones evade detection because they don't emit heat like typical drones.

I did this because: (a) the first source doesn't actually attribute the "no heat" claim to Sheriff Mastronardy, it just randomly drops it in as a final, unsourced sentence at the end of the article, (b) the second source is from NewsNation which doesn't have a good track record on UFOs/UAPs and has a tendency to sensationalism -- I question (but don't assert) if it's a non-RS for these types of claims (though the matter has never been definitively resolved, merely discussed here and there).
If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert me immediately without waiting for discussion/resolution here. Chetsford (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems sound. I'm fine with omitting it from the article. Thanks – Anne drew 16:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Good question. I think it should be readded with other sources and by replacing "Sheriff Mastronardy…" with "The Ocean County Sheriff’s Department". NewsNation is not the best source but it's sufficient and they quite clearly write The Ocean County Sheriff’s Department said the drones do not emit heat like regular drones so I doubt it's likely they just lie about that or checked whether they actually said that very sloppily. The reason to readd is not because the sourcing is sufficient but because it's very notable in principle. I think other journalists should follow up on that and inquire (do they really claim that, how/what did they check, etc) but whether or not any other journalists do is not relevant to that this brief sentence in some shape or form shouldn't be omitted. Please readd with the following sources: and you could also add after those refs if you think that's needed or better. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I wonder what is meant by and what does it meant News Nation having a bad reputation? Also how can anyone affirm that it is "largely the result of misidentification of celestial bodies, manned aircraft, and other routine aerial objects, including hobbyist and commercial drones." The way I see it, it is largely unsubstantiated. Why there are no possibilities of a Non-Human Intelligence acting amid so much conflicting and mutually exclusive speculation also escapes me, if it were not for the modus operandi of certain wikiactors on cutting edge and so considered "controversial" cases... Dee Ann Aye (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't saying News Nation is having a bad reputation, just that as of right now it's not the best of sources. can anyone affirm that it is "largely the result of misidentification […] Thanks for your comment, I very much agree; they didn't actually affirm that – it's confident Wikipedia editors who interpret it that way albeit they do implicitly dismiss things...what they wrote is we assess that the sightings to date include a combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones, and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and stars mistakenly reported as drones. We have not identified anything anomalous and do not assess the activity to date to present a national security or public safety risk over the civilian airspace in New Jersey or other states in the northeast. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Should we definitively state, in Wikipedia's voice, the "widely believed" cause?

Should we state, in Wikipedia's voice in the lead and other pertinent places, that the cause of the drone sightings was "widely believed to be the result of misidentification of celestial bodies, manned aircraft, and other routine aerial objects" or something essentially similar?
I make this suggestion based on our WP:WIKIVOICE policy which states that "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice". Currently, this article cites two governmental investigations (the DHS/FAA/FBI one, and the Connecticut State Police one) that establish this is their conclusion; three independent experts (Jamey Jacob, Mick West, William Austin) who have come to identical conclusions; and several agencies and experts who all but come right out and say this as well (framed with mildly ambiguous language like "the vast majority are probably" or "almost certainly", etc.). Chetsford (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd want to see the specific wording, but I'm fine with stating in Wikipedia's voice that this wave of sightings was largely caused by misidentifications. I just would want to avoid making an overly broad statement not supported by sources. The consensus of RS seems to be that the vast majority of cases can be explained by misidentification of other objects, with a small number of cases that may have been bonafide drone sightings. Nobody is really denying that some real drone sightings happened; the FAA said that there are 2.8 million drones operating in the US and Mayorkas said that "there's no question that people are seeing drones". Additionally, there are some reported sightings at military bases and airports that remain unresolved. – Anne drew 01:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you think about any of these?

• Reported sightings were the result of misidentification of celestial bodies, of manned aircraft, and of other routine aerial objects, including hobbyist and commercial drones.
• Reported sightings were generally believed to be the result of misidentification of celestial bodies, of manned aircraft, and of other routine aerial objects, including hobbyist and commercial drones.
• Reported sightings were largely the result of misidentification of celestial bodies, of manned aircraft, and of other routine aerial objects, including hobbyist and commercial drones. Some overflights of sensitive military areas remain unresolved, though experts like Jamey Jacob have indicated they were probably "careless actors" and the Pentagon stated that such drone flyovers were "not unusual" and were generally not nefarious.

Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I like the last one, so I've boldly introduced it to the lead, with some slight tweaks. I also made some other changes, including moving content that only existed in the lead to the body per WP:SUMMARY, consolidating some duplicate content in the lead, and adding a summary for the "responses" section.

As always, feel free to revert or make your own revisions as you see fit. Thanks – Anne drew 16:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The lead definitely should not contain "widely believed to be the result of misidentification of…" but it could state which notable entities have claimed that this can explain this. I also oppose the wording "The reported sightings were largely the result…" because that confuses later sightings and overall sighting count with the overall subject which appears to be a combined claimed increase of drone sightings as well as sightings of peculiar flying objects – to claim that they "were largely the result of…" without any qualifications is not neutral or warranted and should be changed to at least something like "Most sightings reported have largely been determined to likely be xyz" or "According to xyz, the reported sightings were largely the result…". Prototyperspective (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"The lead definitely should not contain "widely believed to be the result of misidentification of…" but it could state which notable entities have claimed that this can explain this." Are there reliable sources contesting that this is a case of misidentification? Chetsford (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

1 2 (section "What are these flying objects?") 3. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that purports these are not cases of misidentification. Perhaps I'm missing it, though. Can you quote the relevant passage? Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

1. "Mystery drone sightings continue […] On Thursday evening, the state’s Democratic-led Assembly passed a resolution calling on the federal government to conduct a “rigorous and ongoing” investigation into the drone sightings in the state. […] Trump has said he believes the government knows more than it’s saying."
2. "Fantasia said the drones appeared to avoid detection by traditional methods such as helicopter and radio. Fantasia said the aircraft were up to 6ft (1.8m) in diameter, travelling with lights turned off and "operate in a co-ordinated manner". […] It is unclear who might be operating them. […] Illinois Democrat Raja Krishnamoorthi said there was a "non-trivial" chance that China could be involved."
3. "Over a month later, the northeast drone mystery remains unsolved […]".

'It's known that it's all just normal drones doing entirely normal activity at a normal rate, normal planes and Venus: case closed' is not acceptable per WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Moreover, 'misidentification' here is largely not the right term either since people do not identify the flying objects except usually as to be 'drones' which is consistent with the non-airplane flying objects all being hobbyist and commercial drones. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

While that's interesting, Dawn Fantasia and Donald Trump are not physicists, meteorologists, or aerospace engineers. WP:REDFLAG directs we be cautious with "Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions". In this case, the expert community for this subject is in widespread agreement this is a case of misidentification. Meanwhile, WP:FRINGE directs we not present "fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views". While I respect Dawn Fantasia's B.A. degree in education from Rutgers, her belief that the drones are mystery objects that defy physics is probably not appropriate to elevate to the lead as an equally valid point of analysis on par with Jamey Jacob or Vijay Kumar. But certainly it's fine to shove it down into the body somewhere with the shape-shifting Iranian mothership stuff. Chetsford (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree of course that those quotes from the policies you cited are important. Nevertheless, 1. that which the lead states is not "scientific or academic consensus" 2. that which the lead states is not what the sources state and WP:OR that violates WP:NPOV – they wrote that the sightings as expected include a lot of these and that they didn't identified anything anomalous but the lead claims something else 3. It's not just those 2 people, it's those sources themselves that summarize the situation. 4. I don't know why you left out Raja Krishnamoorthi. Moreover, her belief that the drones are mystery objects that defy physics seems another case of twisting things to ridicule this as is shape-shifting Iranian mothership stuff. Again please see WP:NPOV and also WP:AGF. You could also write in the lead what the statement actually said and next to it that some are not satisfied with that rough assessment in text letter form. 5. You have not substantiated that this would be the prevailing view within the relevant community. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

"You could also write in the lead what the statement actually said and next to it that some are not satisfied with that rough assessment" We could, but it would go against our WP:FRINGE guideline: "a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight". If an article is about aerospace engineering, like this one, the lack of satisfaction that a former tax attorney (Raja Krishnamoorthi) and a lady with a B.A. degree in education have with what appears to be the overwhelmingly dominant view of aerospace engineers does not need to be placed in the lead. That it's widely reported by RS is certainly reason to include their views somewhere, but maybe that somewhere is down in the body with the people who believe the sightings involve Mantids conspiring with Iranians aboard a trans-dimensional Chinese starship or whatever? Chetsford (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You continue to ridicule and you continue to ignore most of my points. If you want to address them, address my prior comment, not this one which will just repeat what I already said: what you wrote is not "scientific or academic consensus" and it is not what the FBI/DHS joint letter or the used sources say. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not my intent and I apologize if I came off that way. But the essence of your point (forgive me if I'm misunderstanding) seems to be that you want to advance, in the lead, that these are possibly a case of spooky, "mystery drones" that have supernatural properties like defying the laws of thermodynamics? I'm just saying, per FRINGE, we probably need some people other than a tax attorney and a lady with a B.A. degree in education to advance that perspective before we equivocate it with what people are saying who are, you know, sane. Maybe this is a question for an RfC, though? Chetsford (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not the case. I again refer to this cmnt. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then I guess I'm not sure what you're proposing. Chetsford (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting the the lead doesn't say that the cause of these sightings was entirely misidentified objects, just that the sightings were largely the result of misidentification. This seems unobjectionable based on the reliable sources I've seen, but maybe we could put more emphasis on the unresolved military and airport sightings, and the 100 drone sightings tips that the FBI deemed credible. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)