User:Very Polite Person/test

Sources review

Seeing what sources are primary, secondary or tertiary against the authoritative standards at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Main article: [[:Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources]]

Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, Wikipedia:Based upon, and Wikipedia:Published

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. Even a given source can contain both primary and secondary source material for one particular statement. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows:

"WP:PRIMARY" redirects here. For the article naming guideline, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

• Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. Historical documents such as diaries are as well.

  Policy: Unless restricted by another policy,

  1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
  2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.
  3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
  4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
  5. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
  6. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.
  7. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.

• A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary, or scholarly review.

  Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.

• Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize, and often quote, primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is considered to be a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

  Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Category:Wikipedia and Category:WikiProject Wikipedia articles).

UAPDA article sources

Primary

1. Main legislation page linked here on article, obviously primary. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Schumer_et_al_US_Senate_UAPDA_2023-07-11-1
2. Senate announcment on Senate.gov, obviously primary. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Schumer_Rounds_UAPDA_announcement_2023-07-14-2
3. "Gen. Glen VanHerck, Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and United States Northern Command, Holds an Off-Camera, On-The-Record Briefing on the High-Altitude Surveillance Balloon Recovery Efforts". U.S. Department of Defense. February 6, 2023. Primary. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-VanHerck_DOD_site_Balllon_2023-02-06-11

Secondary

1. Barnes NYT -- clearly secondary. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Barnes_NY_Times_UAPDA_2023-07-13-3
2. Tingly space.com -- secondary. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Tingley_Space.com_UAPDA_2023-12-27-4
3. Wall, Mike (2023-02-07). "Previous Chinese spy balloons over US were classified as UFOs: report". Space.com. Secondary. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Wall_Space.com_Balloons_2023-02-07-6
4. Barnes, Julian E.; Cooper, Helene; Wong, Edward (February 7, 2023). "Previous Chinese Balloon Incursions Initially Went Undetected". The New York Times. Trivially secondary. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Barnes_Cooper_Wong_NYT_Ballon_2023-02-07-7
5. Banco, Erin (March 21, 2023). "What the Biden administration isn't telling Congress about spy balloons". Politico. Secondary. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Banco_Politico_Balloon_2023-05-25-8
6. Trevithick, Joseph; Rogoway, Tyler (February 6, 2023). "U-2 Spy Planes Snooped On Chinese Surveillance Balloon". The Drive. Secondary. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Trevithick_Rogoway_Drive_Balloon_2023-02-07-10
7. Newman, Lily Hay (14 February 2023). "The More You Look for Spy Balloons, the More UFOs You'll Find". Wired Secondary https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Newman_Wired_Balloon_2023-02-14-12
8. Vincent, Brandi (2023-07-25). "Senators aim to set a mandatory timeline and process for agencies to declassify all UAP records". Defense Scoop. Secondary... https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Vincent_UAPDA_Defense_Scoop_2023-07-25-14
9. Feiritear, Níall (2023-09-05). "UFO technology to be revealed in 'controlled disclosure campaign', US legislation says". Sunday World. Secondary. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Feiritear_Sunday_World_UAPDA-15
10. Mautner Markhof, Diana; Shestunov, Yegor (2023-07-21). "US Congress Act on Disclosure and Explanation of UAP". iGlobe News. Secondary. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Mautner_Markhof_Shestunov_iGlobe_News_UAPDA_2023-07-21-16
11. Mizokami, Kyle (2023-12-14). "A New Law Forces the U.S. Government to Collect UFO Sightings—But Not Release Them to the Public". Popular Mechanics. Secondary https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Mizokami_Popular_Mechanics_UAPDA_2023-12-14-17
12. Harper, Jon (2023-12-07). "Government UAP records repository on the verge of becoming law, opened to public viewing". Defense Scoop. Secondary. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Harper_UADPA_Defense_Scoop_2023-12-07-18

Unclear which?

1. BBC News. February 3, 2023 spy balloons. Is this primary or secondary? Seems primary? https://web.archive.org/web/20230206203218/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64515033
2. Roque, Ashley (2023-02-06). "Other Chinese balloons slipped through 'domain awareness gap' in US defenses: General". Breaking Defense. Most likely secondary? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Roque_The_Drive_Balloon_2023-02-06-9
3. Walker, Josephine (2023-07-15). "Senators move to require release of US government UFO records". Reuters -- is this primary or secondary? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act#cite_note-Walker_Reuters_UAPDA_2023-07-15-13

UAPDA article

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024

Long title	An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2024 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
Acronyms (colloquial)	NDAA
Enacted by	the 118th United States Congress
Citations
Public law	Pub. L. 118–31 (text) (PDF)
Legislative history
Introduced in the House as H.R. 2670 by Mike Rogers (R–AL) on April 18, 2023 Committee consideration by House Armed Services Passed the House on July 14, 2023 (219–210) Passed the Senate on July 27, 2023 (with an amendment by unanimous consent) Reported by the joint conference committee on December 6, 2023; agreed to by the Senate on December 13, 2023 (87-13) and by the House on December 14, 2023 (310-118) Signed into law by President Joe Biden on December 22, 2023

The Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act (UAPDA) was a series of bipartisan bills passed by the United States Congress and signed into law on December 22, 2023. The law mandated the National Archives and Records Administration assemble a UAP Collection of unidentified anomalous phenomenon (UAP) data. The UAPDA was introduced as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024.

Background

Main article: 2023 Chinese balloon incident

On January 12, 2023, the Pentagon's Office of the Director of National Intelligence's (DNI) report found that 171 UAP reports were "uncharacterized", concluding the sightings "continue to represent a hazard to flight safety and pose a possible adversary collection threat". From January 28 to February 4, 2023, a high-altitude balloon originating from China flew across North American airspace, including Alaska, western Canada, and the contiguous United States.

On February 4, the United States Air Force shot down the balloon over American territorial waters off the coast of South Carolina. The military revealed that three similar Chinese balloons had penetrated North American airspace in the prior years, but top American military officials had not been alerted because they had been classified as unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). In 2022, the DNI said that there had been at least 171 reports of unexplained aerial phenomena in the United States, and the United States Intelligence Community had been unable to determine their precise nature. The commander of United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), General Glen VanHerck, said that United States failure to detect and identify all such incursions is "a domain awareness gap that we have to figure out". In response, the United States changed the sensitivity of its radar detection systems, which enabled it to detect additional UFOs.

UAP Disclosure Act

Main article: National Archives and Records Administration UAP Collection

The bill was introduced in July 2023 by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Mike Rounds of South Dakota. Schumer described the bill as having been modeled on the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. The bill was attached as a 64-page amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (NDAA), with Marco Rubio of Florida and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, co-sponsoring the amendment. The UAPDA has been called directly in the legislation passed into Federal law part of a "controlled disclosure campaign," and defines such a campaign for government disclosure of known UFO, UAP, and non-human intelligence related topics.

The House of Representatives approved their version of the 2023 NDAA with the UAPDA attached on July 14, 2023. The NDAA with the UAPDA for 2024 was passed on December 22, 2023.

With enactment of the 2023 NDAA, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the Archivist of the United States were ordered to "commence establishment of a collection of unidentified anomalous phenomena." The "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Records Collection will consist of 'copies of all Government, Government-provided, or Government-funded records relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena, technologies of unknown origin, and non-human intelligence (or equivalent subjects by any other name with the specific and sole exclusion of temporarily non-attributed objects).'" The law mandated that detailed records and materials of non-human intelligence origins "shall be transmitted to the National Archives in accordance with section 2107 of title 44, United States Code." In 2024, the National Archives and Records Administration and major Washington, D.C. area law firms such as Covington & Burling began advising and directing clients and government agencies to begin compliance with the enacted UAPDA requirements. On February 6, 2024, the National Archives and Records Administration formally notified all United States government records administrators to begin their mandated compliance with UFO/UAP disclosure requirements.

Reactions to the 2024 UAPDA

Then-Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy was supportive of UFO and UAPDA related transparency. "If we had found a UFO, I think the Department of Defense would tell us because they’d probably wanna request more money. I’d love to see what other facts and information we have. I’m very supportive of letting the American public see what we have," he said on Fox News. Senate Majority Leader Schumer remarked, "The American public has a right to learn about technologies of unknown origins, non-human intelligence, and unexplainable phenomena. We are not only working to declassify what the government has previously learned about these phenomena but to create a pipeline for future research to be made public." It was reported in The Hill that Member of congress Anna Paulina Luna said the UAPDA faced resistance from others members of Congress. The Hill reported that additional resistance to the UAPDA came via Senator Mitch McConnell, House members Mike Rogers and Mike Turner, and House Speaker Mike Johnson. Senator Marco Rubio stated, "We’ve taken some important steps over the last few years to increase transparency and reduce stigmas, but more needs to be done. This is yet another step in that direction, and one that I hope will spur further cooperation from the executive branch." Of the weakened version of the UAPDA passed for 2024, House Representative Tim Burchett stated, "We got ripped off. We got completely hosed. They stripped out every part."

Tyler Cowen, writing for Bloomberg News, argued meanwhile to exercise caution and that the government may have valid and legitimate reasons to maintain secrecy around the topics of UFOs, UAP, and non-human intelligence. Ryan Graves, a United States Navy aviator who was among the flight crews involved in the Pentagon UFO videos, said "Right now, there is very little formalized support for UAP aircrew witnesses, and Americans for Safe Aerospace has the expertise to mobilize and fill that gap. From my own experience, I know firsthand the stigma around the UAP topic and the very real fear of professional consequences so I want to help others navigate the process of coming forward." On March 5, 2024, Graves authored an opinion piece for The Hill titled "Spy balloons, drones and advanced UAP pose a clear and present danger". In March 2024, a protest rally in support of the UAPDA was held in New York City. The UAPD was described by Kevin Wright of the Roswell Daily Record as an alternative to an uncontrolled "catastrophic disclosure" scenario, where government would have little to no direct control over how UFO-related information is disseminated to the public.

Future laws and a UAP Review Board

The initial proposal for the UAPDA included plans for UAP Review Board, with specific professional qualifications and requirements for each member to be eligible, and each member would then require confirmation in the United States Senate to access UAP Records Collections generated by legal requirements. The listed qualifications mandate the President and Senate assign a UAP Review Board, stating they "shall be impartial citizens, none of whom shall have had any previous or current involvement with any legacy program or controlling authority relating to the collection, exploitation, or reverse engineering of technologies of unknown origin or the examination of biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." Additionally, the UAP Review Board would be required under law to be composed of specific professionals by their experience and training, to consist of one each: current or former national security official; current or former foreign service official; one scientist or engineer; one economist; one professional historian, and one sociologist. Among other provisions in the UAPDA were strong protections for whistleblowers.

The UAP Review Board would have subpoena power to access classified information, which is governed by executive order of the President, and restricted data controlled by the United States Department of Energy as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The UAP Review Board, examining all materials without restriction, would determine whether a given asset or piece of information shall be made public for disclosure, or postponed further, with the presumption of defaulting to public disclosure of any materials if discovered. The President would then act upon the UAP Review Board's guidance, and all materials would be mandated for public disclosure within twenty-five years of the passage of the UAPDA, unless the President detailed to the Congress why that given item should remain restricted, with threats to national security as an eligible reason for delaying disclosure. Disclosure of specific items could also be delayed in accordance with privacy laws for private individuals and their personal information. Additionally, under the UAPDA, no private non-governmental parties or private citizens would going forward be allowed to keep or maintain any UAPDA-covered assets if they possessed them, and all such materials would be seized by the Federal government of the United States under eminent domain.

The timeline for the UAPDA would mandate the President and Senate establish the UAP Review Board within 90 days. Following that, similar to the previous format of the concept in the Intelligence Authorization Act, all parts of the United States government and private parties would be required to turn over all UFO/UAP data to the Review Board within 300 days. The UAP Review Board would then have 180 days to review all data, and then must release their findings to Congress within an additional 14 days.

After bill emerged from United States congressional conference committee, which is composed of both House and Senate members who modify bills passed respectively by the House and Senate to synchronize them for a final vote to forward the proposed law to the United States President, a modified and reduced in power version of the UAPDA was attached and made live as part of the NDAA for 2024. Two reportedly key provisions were ultimately removed from the final reconciled version of the UAPDA that passed for 2023 and enactment in 2024. For the 2024 cycle, that included the UAP Review Board itself, as well as the eminent domain provisions. According to the New York Times, the Defense Department objected to some UAPDA measures, saying a "person familiar with the talks who insisted on anonymity to describe them noted that the Defense Department also had pushed back forcefully on wider measures" in the proposed law.

In the summer of 2024, the full UAPDA with all prior required powers that did not survive passage on the first attempt was again introduced to Congress for a second consecutive year, to be attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025.

Extraterrestrial conspiracy theories

Main article: UFO conspiracy theories

Beginning with the 1947 flying disc craze, reports of unidentified flying objects have been linked in the popular imagination with spacecraft piloted by extraterrestrials. This was partly fueled by civilian pilot Kenneth Arnold's story of witnessing disc-shaped objects which headline writers dubbed "Flying Saucers". By the mid-1950s, Donald Keyhoe's book The Flying Saucer Conspiracy alleged that elements in the government were conspiring to cover up knowledge of extraterrestrial spaceships, as reported by aerospace historian Curtis Peebles in his 1994 book, Watch the Skies! A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth.

Jim Semivan, a Central Intelligence Agency veteran, told USA Today, "It is unlikely the U.S. Government nor any other government that has UAP-related research programs knows exactly how to selectively release information on UAPs. You can't just say, 'UAPs are real and we are not alone;' the questions would never stop... the people would demand more information. It is all or nothing.".

Skeptical investigator Mick West questioned the act, posting to social media: "Here's the problem. The UAP Disclosure Amendment seeks to set up a process for documenting UAP based on six observables. Yet no clear evidence has ever been shown that such a thing exists. @DoD_AARO EXPLICITLY said they have no such evidence. So what's the basis? Talk? Stories?"

External links

• National Archives and Records Administration formal UAPDA compliance page for government agencies and offices.
• Records Related to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs) at the National Archives.

References

 This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the United States Government.