Talk:Roswell incident

Reviewing sources

I went through the sources planning to remove the page number flag, but there are still some without a visible page number. When I examine the URL for a lot of these, it seems that the page is embedded in the URL, but it would be easier to verify sources if the page numbers for those citations was also made explicit via p/pp= for either the shortened footnote or the full citation (whichever makes more sense).

Remaining citations of long works without visible page numbers:

• Bloecher, Ted (April 29, 1967). Report on the UFO Wave of 1947. Archived from the original on April 28, 2021. Retrieved April 28, 2021 – via Google Books.
• Gildenberg 2003
• Grossman, Wendy M.; French, Christopher C. (2017). Why Statues Weep: The Best of the "Skeptic". Routledge. ISBN 978-1134962525. Archived from the original on April 28, 2021. Retrieved April 28, 2021 – via Google Books.
• Peebles, Curtis (March 21, 1995). Watch the Skies!: A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth. Berkley Books. ISBN 9780425151174 – via Google Books.
• Interview footage included in UFOs: The Secret History (2010) [Convert to full reference plus {{harvnb}} with timestamp?]
• Dunning, Brian (June 5, 2018). Conspiracies Declassified: The Skeptoid Guide to the Truth Behind the Theories. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781507207000. Archived from the original on April 21, 2023. Retrieved April 18, 2023 – via Google Books.
• The Skeptical Inquirer. Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. April 29, 1998. Archived from the original on April 18, 2021. Retrieved April 18, 2021 – via Google Books.
• The Skeptical Inquirer. Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. April 29, 1998. Archived from the original on April 18, 2021. Retrieved April 18, 2021 – via Google Books.
• Korff, Kal (August 1997). "What Really Happened at Roswell". Skeptical Inquirer. 21 (4). Archived from the original on April 18, 2014. Retrieved February 5, 2013.
• Goldberg 2001 [is it possible to convert the page range in the full citation to more specific pages or ranges of pages for the shortened footnotes?]
• Dunning, Brian (June 5, 2018). Conspiracies Declassified: The Skeptoid Guide to the Truth Behind the Theories. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781507207000. Archived from the original on April 21, 2023. Retrieved April 18, 2023 – via Google Books.
• Klass 1997
• James MacAndrew (March 31, 1997). Roswell Reports, Volume 1. Department of the Air Force. Archived from the original on July 10, 2017. Retrieved February 26, 2017. [maybe intentional if there is no conclusion timestamp to point towards]
• "Roswell incident, on season 8 , episode 2". Scientific American Frontiers. Chedd-Angier Production Company. 1997–1998. PBS. Archived from the original on 2006. [Roswel begins around 19 minutes in. Not sure if different time stamps for each short note should be used.]
• Gulyas, Aaron John (February 22, 2016). Conspiracy Theories: The Roots, Themes and Propagation of Paranoid Political and Cultural Narratives. McFarland. ISBN 9781476623498 – via Google Books.
• Gulyas, Aaron John (January 23, 2014). The Chaos Conundrum: Essays on UFOs, Ghosts & Other High Strangeness in Our Non-Rational and Atemporal World. Andrews UK Limited. ISBN 9780991697588 – via Google Books.
• Huyghe, Patrick (June 1, 2001). "Chapter 24, 'Blaming the Japanese for Roswell'". Swamp Gas Times: My Two Decades on the UFO Beat. Cosimo, Inc. ISBN 9781931044271 – via Google Books. "Edward Doty, a meteorologist who established the Air Force's Balloon Branch at nearby Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico beginning in 1948, calls the Japanese Fu-Go balloons 'a very fine technical job with limited resources.' But 'no way could one of these balloons explain the Roswell episode,' says Doty,'because they could not possibly have stayed aloft for two years.'"
• Philip J. Corso; William J. Birnes (1997). The Day After Roswell. Pocket Books. ISBN 0671004611.
• Bara, Mike (2016). Hidden Agenda: NASA and the Secret Space Program. SCB Distributors. ISBN 978-1939149749. Archived from the original on April 28, 2021. Retrieved April 28, 2021 – via Google Books.
• Rutkowski, Chris A. (September 20, 2010). The Big Book of UFOs. ISBN 9781770704572
• Erdmann, Terry J.; Block, Paula M. (2000). Deep Space Nine Companion. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0671501068. Archived from the original on April 27, 2021. Retrieved April 27, 2021 – via Google Books.
• Nickell, Joe; McGaha, James (May–June 2012). "The Roswellian Syndrome: How Some UFO Myths Develop". Skeptical Inquirer. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. 36 (3). Archived from the original on January 26, 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013. [Page number for the quote]
• Erdmann, Terry J.; Block, Paula M. (2000). Deep Space Nine Companion. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0671501068. Archived from the original on April 27, 2021. Retrieved April 27, 2021 – via Google Books.
• Carey, Thomas J.; Schmitt, Donald R. (2020). Roswell: The Ultimate Cold Case : Eyewitness Testimony and Evidence of Contact and the Cover-up. Red Wheel/Weiser. ISBN 978-1632651709. Archived from the original on April 18, 2021. Retrieved April 18, 2021 – via Google Books.
• Klaver, Elizabeth (2012). Sites of Autopsy in Contemporary Culture. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0791483428. Archived from the original on April 18, 2021. Retrieved April 18, 2021 – via Google Books.
• Carey, Thomas J.; Schmitt, Donald R. (2020). Roswell: The Ultimate Cold Case: Eyewitness Testimony and Evidence of Contact and the Cover-Up. Red Wheel/Weiser. ISBN 978-1632657640. Archived from the original on April 18, 2021. Retrieved April 18, 2021 – via Google Books.

Remaining dubious sources:

• Printy, Timothy (1999). Roswell 4F: Fabrications, Fumbled Facts, and Fables. Timothy Printy. Archived from the original on January 20, 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2013.
• http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/Roswellmain.htm [link for above, Printy seems sincere, but the work appears to be self-published. Printy is not a primary source and also (I think) not an expert. On the site, he documents his time working on nuclear submarines in the US Navy, which is an unrelated field.]
• Todd, Robert (December 8, 1995). "Jesse Marcel: Folk Hero or Mythomaniac" (PDF). The KowPflop Quarterly. 1 (3): 1–4. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 11, 2007. Retrieved January 4, 2007. [sincere but self-published]
• [unreliable source?]"Kevin Randle of the UK-UFO-NW #UFO Channel". Center for UFO Studies. Archived from the original on June 30, 2012. Retrieved February 6, 2013.

Bare URLs:

• https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1990/01/22165233/p30.pdf[bare URL PDF]
• https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/UFOsandUAPs/RoswellReportCaseClosed.pdf?ver=2017-05-22-113519-430, p. 75

General references not cited by {{harvnb}}, {{harv}}, {{harvtxt}}, {{citeref}}, or {{sfn}}:

• Carey, Thomas; Schmitt, Donald (2007). Witness to Roswell: Unmasking the 60-Year Cover-Up. New Page Books. ISBN 978-1564149435.
• Friedman, Stanton; Berliner, Don (1992). Crash at Corona: The U.S. Military Retrieval and Cover-Up of a UFO. Paragon House.
• Friedman, Stanton (2005). Top Secret/MAJIC : Operation Majestic-12 and the United States Government's UFO Cover-Up. Marlowe & Co. ISBN 978-1569243428.
• Randle, Kevin (1995). Roswell UFO Crash Update: Exposing the Military Cover-Up of the Century. Global Communications. ISBN 978-0-938294-41-2.
• Randle, Kevin; Schmitt, Donald (1994). The truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell. M Evans. ISBN 978-0871317612.

Rjjiii (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Edit: crossing out issues as fixed.Rjjiii (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC) Crossing more issues out as fixed, Rjjiii (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This source is problematic from a practical standpoint that there are no page numbers, just chapters:

• Printy, Timothy (1999). Roswell 4F: Fabrications, Fumbled Facts, and Fables. Timothy Printy. Archived from the original on January 20, 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2013.

Drocj (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

That's no big deal. You can cite by chapter, and if the chapters are long are you can use a brief quote in the citation. Like <ref>{{harvnb|Printy|1999}}, ch. X, "Lorem ipsum".</ref> in this article, or using ref= or loc= for other templates. I replaced some of the self-published sources in a recent edit. I noticed that you titled a section on the official narrative as "Cover Story", that's almost certainly against WP:NPOV. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Correct, I changed it to Alleged Cover Story. Thanks. Drocj (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd add that 'page numbers embedded in URLs' are often incorrect (esp for Google books). Bon courage (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the books into the sources section and made the pinball links with {{harvnb}}. The only remaining citations that may need page numbers are:

• Grossman & French 2017
• Peebles 1995
• Weeks 2015 (page 67?)
• Pflock 2001
• Goldberg 2001
• Korff 1997
• Klass 1998
• Thomas 2009

I don't think I'm going to look at those soon. Many thanks, Feoffer and Drocj, I noticed a bunch of stuff was fixed before I came to it. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank YOU for all you've done! I'll work on those! Feoffer (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Think I got 'em. Feoffer (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Broad Discussion Questions

These are my notes & questions for improvement of each section:

Events of 1947 (good for now) gives context (flying disc craze), What took place, places events in context of 1947 (Project Mogul)

Modern Views - Should it mention how the formation of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office has invigorated the Ufology community regarding UAPS & public interest interest on this topic?

Roswell in UFO conspiracy theories - Should section be renamed something like "Continued competing narratives" as this is more neutral?

Should we move Air Force response (1994–1997) to it's own section?

Evidence - currently written like a conclusion, instead of deathbed confessions or descriptions of debris/crash site given by witness testimony,

Should we have a separate conclusions section?

Cultural Impact - Roswell as Myth part seems a little repetitive with prior parts of the article, I think it should be more focused. Drocj (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drocj, welcome to the page and thank you for your improvements! It really helps to have other minds looking at this!

I also have noticed the Air Force response section as being a little out of place inside its current section.

"Evidence" def needs lots of work.

I think your idea of a conclusions section has a lot of merit! I've sort of have "writer's block" on this article and your excellent insights have helped me

I think you'll find quite a lot of support for the use of the term "conspiracy theory" -- it's important to let readers know those ideas are very very far from consensus reality. "Competing narratives" would be false balance. If it were up to me, I might prefer the gentler terms "UFO mythology" or even "UFO folklore" -- something gentler that places UFO believers on par with, say, Mormons. But I think "Conspiracy Theory" has so much support, I honestly haven't proposed even that subtle change because I didn't think I could sell it to other editors.

Again, welcome! Feoffer (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Feoffer I appreciate your feedback. A conclusions section allows us to summarize in more detail than in the lead summary.

My position is I think we should be more neutral to be more fair to the UFO believers which are only the result of there being so much attention on this event and the failure of the US government to be forthcoming, maintaining such a secretive posture on so many things for so many years. Maybe a US government secrecy section is warranted. Things naturally take on a life of their own because of information vacuums & positive feedback loops where people think more attention = the more chance something big is going on. We have to address everything in this wikipage including explanations for why people claim they saw bodies. One theory does that which was not included before, I have just added it. 108.14.160.79 (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

"Fairness" towards people who believe in crap is not a goal of Wikipedia. It does not matter why they believe in crap. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

you must be fun at parties. Neutral does not always mean a false balance, that's an argument you can always wage against neutrality. Matter of fact, since you have inserted yourself into this topic and know all the answers, tell me: What did Vernon the son of W.W. “Mac” Brazel see that gave him such trauma he took his own life 20 years after the Roswell incident? Drocj (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutral does not always mean a false balance In this case it does. See WP:FRINGE.

You should discern between real people and the fantasy versions of those real people you carry around in your brain - I did not say I know all the answers.

You should also discern between a chatroom and a page like this, the purpose of which is improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI this is the very first Wikipedia article I have sought to volunteer my time to improve, there are ways to be helpful without being rude. I recommend that approach to everyone. Drocj (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Drocj, I am not sure if you are still editing, but still thought it would be courteous to ping you. After the reorganization, I've gone through and tried to verify the "Events of 1947" section and base it more on secondary analysis. Something you mentioned a few times, was the government secrecy around their tests in the desert. I think I have managed to include that background info. I don't know if a separate section would make sense, as secrecy was a part of the Cold War and could be much more thoroughly explored in the Cold War article. Take care, Rjjiii (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2023

The Game made by Rogueside Guns gore and Cannoli 2 Includes Roswell in this series giving the hint that Vinnie escaped from Germany with a Haunebu-V, eventually crash-landing in the desert of roswell in mid-1947.2600:1700:1170:6890:80C7:990A:C9ED:3A6F (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Thanks for the suggestion, but it's a bit tenuous of a connection. Feoffer (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This and some other UFO-related pages need to be locked and other editors involved

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.

---

This is alluded to under the heading "Broad Discussion Questions" but I think it's worth breaking out separately. According to recent sworn testimony in congress by a former intelligence official, there is a known disinformation campaign against the dissemination of UAP's/UFO's/flying saucer discussion. It's for a wile been documented that intelligence and government law enforcement groups edit Wikipedia pages to push a narrative (e.g. https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/media-channel-cia-and-fbi-computers-used-for-wikipedia-edits). I don't especially have a horse in this race, this piece on Roswell doesn't strike me as particularly neutral. I would suggest the page be locked and other editors come in to review, some of the comments I'm seeing here strike me as unnecessarily aggressive. Indieshack (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2023 (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.

Independently of whether or not the above discussion should have been closed, I note that Indieshack nevertheless edited it more than 40 minutes after it was closed, apparently missing the two bold red "Please do not modify it" instructions. That edit was primarily removal of the following: I'm neutral on whether extraterrestrial UFOs exist or not. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Indieshack, articles are not "locked" by administrators unless there is significant disruption, personal attacks, vandalism, edit warring, etc. I don't agree with your conclusions about the article content, but if you want uninvolved editors to review the article's neutrality, WP:NPOV/N is the place to make such a request. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2023

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

 Not done Please use this template after consensus has been achieved for a change; it's unclear what exactly is proposed but it sounds WP:PROFRINGE. Bon courage (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Hello Dr. Burns, thank you for the suggestion. Unfortunately, Doty and Ramirez do not meet our standards for Reliable Sources. Doty claims to be a disinformation agent working for the USAF, but we have only his word to verify that, which obviously isn't trustworthy. Ramirez claim to be CIA, but again, it just comes back to his word. How do we know these two individuals are truthful in any way? We don't. Feoffer (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this helpful?

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

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

Intriguing notes re. "Alien" bodies

NOTAFORUM ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are accounts of a very similar incident in 1897, in Aurora Texas. In actual fact the parallels are very evident: a mysterious craft seemingly hit a windmill and disintegrated. In this case parts of the craft may have been recovered along with the pilot who alas didn't survive. Could it be that somehow the original account got mixed up with the earlier case? Some reports of non human beings have them about 4 to 5 feet in height, grey or light blue with large eyes and possibly ESP abilities. They may also have some sort of natural cloaking ability that is augmented by advanced technology so they can mimic (for a short time) human appearance or at least a close approximation. The working hypothesis here is that if we are being visited by aliens they would need to assume human form or at least look "humanish" to blend in. Legends of "Shape Shifters may actually be folks observing this effect. I did look into this a few years back and actually concluded that a few MUFON reports may indeed describe an accurate appearance, which allows a limited amount of information to be deduced such as an unusually high metabolism and as a result extreme (48c) body temperature. This could also explain reports of a heat wash when people have close encounters. 78.111.195.1 (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC) You are speculating, and asking others to do the same. That's not how Wikipedia works. We report what reliable sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

What does the news article say?

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

Timeshifter, I hope you don't mind if I ping you. I see on the commons that you're uploading a higher quality image. Is the plan to replace the grainy image, or will they be hosted under two separate file names? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Great suggestion! No government conspiracies, just us being dumb and not including text that a reader really should expect us to provide. :). The text has been added to Wikisource and linked to from the article! Looks like others are on top of finding you a high-res image too. Thanks for suggestion. Feoffer (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, this is not the first time that Wikipedia has been more useful than any search engine. A5 (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems that the Wikisource text of the article was deleted on 30 November by Jan.Kamenicek. A5 (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! They just moved it, but I've fixed the link! Feoffer (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

See: Wikisource: RAAF Captures Flying Saucer on Ranch in Roswell Region.

The full text is also here:

Commons:File:Roswell Daily Record. July 8, 1947. RAAF Captures Flying Saucer On Ranch in Roswell Region. Full front page.jpg#Full text of article

The text is an accurate copy of the article since it has been compared and corrected according to the image there. That image is the full front page, and has the full article. It is readable at the larger sizes linked under the image. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Folklore scholars?

The article contains the odd claim

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

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

I appreciate your insight, perhaps the statement needs rewording. The folkloric sources note the development of the narrative as it evolved from a simple tale of unusual debris to a complex tale that involved bodies, autopsies, etc. Can you suggest non-"odd" verbiage that gets at this basic idea? Feoffer (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I suppose the question would be: what are the sources saying about what these scholars have done? Bon courage (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the dialogue and insights :). What kind of sources do you want to weigh in on what the folklore scholars have done? Obviously, I can find plenty of further folklore scholars to say their predecessors were awesome, but I suspect you want something more? Like, are we looking for more mainstream sources to say it is just folklore?? I don't know if we could source that -- folklore is an important lens to view Roswell, but not the only one. Please help me understand how the article can be better from your perspective. Feoffer (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I just want our readers to be assured the article is paraphrasing sources rather than analysing sources (which would be WP:OR). So something that says "Scholars have ..." (or somesuch) which can be cited, so the claim can be verified to text which directly supports the claim. Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Good feedback! I've taken another stab at it. Feoffer (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so we seem to have a book written (not published) by Saler (anthropologist), Ziegler (political scientist) and Moore (meteorologist), which in the opinion of a reviewer (Amanda Carson Banks, engineer and computer scientist) is a "focused and detailed summary of the process of the formation of a specific narrative that is the core for almost all contemporary UFO narratives and belief." Is that right? Bon courage (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm starting to see your perspective. You're questioning whether the authors and their reviewers qualify as "folklore scholars" for lack of formal degrees in the field, whereas I'm specifically focused on the fact that their approach to the subject was folkloric. Is that right? Feoffer (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I just want there to be robust text-source integrity, with a GA reviewer in mind particularly. This books sounds like an important source (I haven't read it). Isn't there something actually in the book which can be cited about "folklore"? Bon courage (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

You're questioning whether the authors and their reviewers qualify as "folklore scholars" for lack of formal degrees in the field, whereas I'm specifically focused on the fact that their approach to the subject was folkloric. No, the question is what source made the observation that folklore scholars (in general) have traced the development of the Roswell narrative throughout its history? We should be paraphrasing what sources say rather than what Feoffer has observed while reading those sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

break

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

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

genesis earlier?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I added mention of the 1993 and Haut's prior interview statements, where he denied being an eyewitness. The video clip is interesting, in that, if genuine, it would confirm Haut privately saying things that he denied in public interviews during his life. But without better sourcing, we can't know the video is genuine, and even if we did, it's probably UNDUE for this article. Feoffer (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

In his 1st affidavit in 1993 he did not deny he was an eyewitness. He just didn't say he was. The archive is more readable.

In his 2nd affidavit in 2002 he opened up more. He claimed there were 2 sites, and that he was a first hand witness of wreckage samples, a craft, and alien bodies.

His doctor at the time in 2002 said he was of sound mind. That info is in the first link below. Along with both affidavits and much more:

See: https://web.archive.org/web/20211028182152/http://www.roswellproof.com/haut.html

The 2002 affidavit is here, too.

September 2007. Haut's Daughter Tells How Affidavit Came to Be. By Julie Schuster (his daughter). MUFON UFO Journal. Issue 473. Page 15. Dec 2002 affidavit is on page 14. I recommend reading her whole article. From page 14 below the 2002 affidavit: "It was verified as the accurate text by Lt. Haut’s daughter, Julie Shuster, who is the Director of the International UFO Museum. See her comments on page 15". EXCERPTS: my father and I verbally discussed each and every sentence. ... My father died in December 2005. The statement was completed in December 2002. Three years difference makes a statement an affidavit of information, not a “deathbed confession.” END.

17 Aug 2021: “My father saw the bodies”: chasing the truth about Roswell. By James Jennings. Special Broadcasting Service. Haut's daughter, Julie Schuster, said it was no deathbed confession, and that she had gone over the 2002 affidavit with him word by word, sentence by sentence.

The 2002 affidavit, and much more, is here too:

See Google Books: Witness to Roswell, 75th Anniversary Edition. Unmasking the Government's Biggest Cover-up. By Thomas J. Carey, Donald R. Schmitt. 2022.

Google Books can search inside the book.

Search for Haut. And Haut affidavit. And 2002 Haut affidavit. The 2002 Haut affidavit is on page 240 according to that search. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

What are the most reliable WP:FRIND (non-ufology) sources on the Haut affidavits? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:FRIND at the top says (emphasis added):

"Fringe theories in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear."

The Haut affidavits are in Roswell incident#Witness to Roswell (2007). References 139-144. It's a mixture of books and skeptics, and a couple of articles from media that cover a lot more than UFOs. Special Broadcasting Service. And The Sunday Telegraph.

So, I think it meets the WP:FRIND guideline of having a mix.

I only added one reference to that section; the article by Special Broadcasting Service (SBS). "Australian hybrid-funded public service broadcaster. About 80 percent of funding for the company is derived from the Australian Government."

The links in my posts above come from a mix. The bottom line is the existence of the 2002 notarized sworn affidavit is well established by both UFO media and mainstream media. That affidavit is the one that matters. The SBS article explains why Haut exposed so much more in the 2002 affidavit than in the 1993 affidavit: EXCERPT: “Walter [Haut] confirmed to Don and I that the reason he kept everything a secret is because he promised Colonel Blanchard that he would not divulge the secret while he lived,” confirms Carey. END. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but the SBS article is mostly an interview with his daughter, who in her longer MUFON explanation says the affidavit was written by the book's author and approved and signed (but not drafted) by Haut. Are there independent reviews out there of the book? Or ideally something peer-reviewed? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about book reviews. I only have so much time, health, and energy nowadays. So for this article I have been focusing on the 2002 Haut affidavit. In the SBS article Haut's daughter, Julie Schuster, said it was no deathbed confession, and that she had gone over the 2002 affidavit with him word by word, sentence by sentence before he signed it with notarization. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I only have so much time, health, and energy nowadays. Take care of yourself; life can be much. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hangar 18, Aztec discs, Twin Falls

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

Twin falls probably needs trimming and should be included more briefly in the general millieu of the 1947 craze, so readers do know that Roswell was just one of many of "crashed disc" incidents. But Aztec and Hangar 18 are reported to have directly influenced Roswell mythology -- there were no dead bodies, no hieroglyphs or control panels in the original Roswell story of 1947, those elements were incorporated from Aztec and Hangar 18. I've added text and sourcing to help clarify this. Feoffer (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I moved Twin Falls back down. The possible significance I see is that it was a kind of final straw for taking bizarre UFO reports seriously. I've tried to put it into that context. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Feoffer and Bon courage: I started reworking the tagged sections in a sandbox here: [1](permanent link) If this looks promising, I'll continue and anyone else is welcome to edit the sandbox version. I think the best path is:

1. Focus these other events as described here on specifically how they affected the Roswell narrative and conspiracy theories.

2. Trim specific details here and move them into the articles about the subjects if they aren't already covered.

Thoughts? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC) (Updated to permanent link after moving content into the article) 03:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. The problem was extensive detail about things with no reason apparent why they were even included. Bon courage (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks great to me, I'd encourage you to update the article with your version as soon as you feel comfortable. Feoffer (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Reference cleanup

While cleaning up the references, I noticed an edit summary from VdSV9 commenting on issues.[2] So I'm dropping a ping and also inviting broader input on any references that seem confusing or ill-formatted. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Also Bon courage, regarding the citation style, do you see any issues up to footnote [91] in this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roswell_incident&oldid=1190401722 The remaining full citations in ref tags should be shorter works (but I may have missed some). This seems to me how the references were reorganized back in 2013.[3] Thanks, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion, other than that we should be consistent. That old versions looks like a good basis ... Bon courage (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Pushing towards GA

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

• Not sure if we still need the "Roswell as modern myth and folklore" section now that the 'meat' of the section has been incorporated into main narrative. This could be trimmed extensively. I don't think we need to go into "Roswell Syndrome".
• Roswell in Spirituality may not be necessary. Right now, it's an uncited mixture of UFO religions, but it's not clear that they actually are inspired by Roswell, rather than being generic UFO religions. It'd be good to have a well-sourced section on this, but right now it seems just to be harbor for OR and a barrier to GA.

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

One problems is tone. Much of the article is written as a narrative rather than adopting a dispassionate, detached and formal WP:TONE. Perhaps the most egregious example is the "Debris recovered" section (title and text), but it's a wider problem too. Bon courage (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Bon. I want to admit I have been tagged for Tone on multiple articles by multiple independent editors, so it's something I need to lean on others to get right. Feoffer (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas for a better title than "Debris recovered"? Seemed anodyne to me, but I have a blind spot. Feoffer (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage, Feoffer, and LuckyLouie: I started experimenting with that section (combined with debunking) to make it more spare. I edited these bits earlier but my focus has been on verifiability (including reference formatting), NPOV, grammar and clarity. This is the same sandbox that I used before (previous link updated to a permanent link). And again this is in user space but I'm putting an open invitation for others to edit it:

User:Rjjiii/sandbox11

I also copied the version from before Feoffer began expanding down below on that page for comparison. I looked it up in case anything of value had been lost, but it's problematic in other ways (many quotes, cited to primary and self-published sources, etc). I'm kind of hesitant to focus on tone personally, because I still want to check other sections for coherency, sources, formatting, and so on. And it also feels like a squishy part of the MoS. Some articles, e.g. Cottingley Fairies, have reached featured article status with what seem to me highly narrative structures. Once the other issues are resolved a few thoughts are to maybe put it up for the Wikipedia:COPYEDITORS? Or perhaps ping an editor familiar with the article, if Canada Jack, JoJo Anthrax, or anybody in recent discussions are interested. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking over your draft, I notice you've cut the mention of a teletype operator who plausibly claims she was ordered to end transmission of a news story about the debris. This is one of the "sticky wickets" I've struggle with -- it's obviously a cover-up DID occur; Multiple civilians report being told not to talk about the debris. These "cover-up" events almost-certainly did occur in '47, but at the same time, they weren't widely known until they were featured in the FRINGE publications of the 80s.

Where do we cover the "cover-up" of the Mogul crash? In 1947 when it happened , or in the 1980s when it was publicly revealed? Feoffer (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to give a proper answer to that when I'm on my laptop and can better check the sources. I'll see how the most reliable of the sources locate it. From memory, I snipped Sleppy from 1947 because Pflock Korff was giving this really nuanced explanation that she did have that job, it was possible, but she didn't give any statements until decades after the incident and Pflock Korff could find no way to corroborate the operator beyond her word. The other person in the phone call (again from memory) apparently refused to get in any way more involved with Roswell stuff.

Ultimately though, I don't plan to merge anything back in without consensus. I'm happy to be wrong and am just trying to get a ball rolling. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [Korff not Pflock] 02:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved the Sleppy material to the 90s when she was interviewed and became part of the lore. The rest of your sandbox looks good to me. Feoffer (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. There's a lot going on here, and I'll try to help out when able. I note that I agree with the comments below, namely that the article currently lacks an encyclopedic tone. Well written, yes, but the tone needs to be changed a bit, and that should involve condensing much of the material and (IMO) removing some of it. I'll try to find some time to contribute to the process. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think Feoffer is (wrongly) crafting a story using evocative writing and transitions designed to engage the reader. The overall impression is of a single, expert author with a distinctive flair and point of view at work And the section headers are over-explained, e.g. "Mortician's second-hand claim of a Roswell alien autopsy (1989)" instead of simply "Glen Dennis". "Jesse Marcel renews interest in Roswell (1978)" instead of simply "Renewed interest" etc. Encyclopedic writing need not be clumsy, but it's much much simpler and more starkly factual. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I implemented your proposed changes for section headings. I do wonder a bit about whether "Glenn Dennis" is an appropriate section heading though -- new readers will likely know of Dennis's claims but not know his name when perusing TOC. Feoffer (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Well new readers or not, TOC and headings are not meant to be a substitute for reading the text. Focus on laying out a dry exposition of facts, not telling a story that builds from section to section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I yield to others judgement, I'm the one who implemented your suggestion. But is "Glenn Dennis" really the best heading? Wouldn't a heading that mentions mortician and autopsy be more infomative? Feoffer (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

IMO, section headers need not be summaries of the section. Readers are expected to read further. The Attack on Pearl Harbor article is a good example. Note the first section is not "Japan and US: diplomacy fails, suspicions rise, actions considered", but simply "Diplomacy". Of course I'll go with whatever consensus decides. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Son of Pushing towards GA

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the excellent observations and feedback. Thoughts:

• This article is about the Roswell incident itself, not the subsequent books/articles/interviews/debates. Well, this gets to the heart of the matter -- from my perspective, the article is about the myth / conspiracy theory. "The Roswell Incident" isn't a phrase from the 1940s, it's a term from the conspiracy literature and popular culture of the 1980 and 90s. Helping our readers to understand the evolution of the myth, and the way it incorporated obviously-hoaxed elements, is a powerful tool in the toolbelt to equip the reader to understand FRINGE conspiracy theories. That said, despite the differences in approaches, I find myself agreeing with your suggestions.
• It's been in the back of my mind for a long time that we need to go collapse the events of 1947 into fewer/one sections. Some of them are literally 1-para sections. We can't delete all mention of the ongoing disc hysteria but we don't need a dedicated section.
• 'forgotten' is clearly not an accurate descriptor I think it's mostly accurate, but our text obviously needs to make that more clear. So far as I'm aware, Roswell was NOT discussed in UFO circles AT ALL from fall 47-78. "Forgotten" might not be the best word, because it wasn't literally "forgotten" by the participant/witnesses. I don't think it'd be good to just list the dates as a section heading and leave the reader to just guess what the significance of that epoch is.
• If Rjjiii concurs, it'd be fine to move the Renewed Interest into the UFO conspiracy theories section. I separated the two because Marcel wasn't really a conspiracy theorist in the sense of dead alien bodies or crashed flying saucers -- he just said the weather balloon story was a cover and sort of "mused" in late age that it might have been extraterrestrial. But he was being interviewed by Friedman, who's certainly in the fullblown UFO conspiracy theory camp.
• I don't have the best handle on Competing Account and Schisms, and there's lot of room for improvement. The latter parts of the article seem ripe for condensation and farming to subarticles. The entire book about Stalin-Mengele seems UNDUE to me. I will defend the Alien Autopsy material, which grew to become a central element of Roswell lore and popular culture and was completely debunked.
• Saler et al is just what I happened to have open in front of me when I wrote some of the passages -- there's an abundance of supporting sources. Rjjiii and I have already added supporting sources] for the specific points you raised.

Thanks for your truly great feedback! I feel like Rjjiii "has the ball" and I'll let them take the lead, but I have no arrows to sling lol.  :) Feoffer (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

First, many thanks to JoJo Anthrax for taking this in a peer review kind of direction. I have made a couple of edits based on the feedback, as I have written some of the noted material. For example, I introduced the "This version of the myth" language after I noticed a section that used low-quality sources.[4] I've tried to go back and make the section more objective, and expand the field of sources.[5] And thanks to Feoffer for inviting/enduring all of this scrutiny. The research that's gone into writing this has to have been a great deal of work. I appreciate the faith you're putting in me but when you say I have the ball, please feel welcome to be bold and continue editing the article. I think you're currently the author of nearly half the content.

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

• I'm fine with moving Renewed Interest into the conspiracy section. Marcel is not exactly a conspiracy theorist, but reliable sources frame his interviews as part of the foundation for all the conspiracy theories.
• Regarding the flying disc craze: Something about this has always been in the article, going back to the 2007ish rewrite. Nearly all major reliable sources include it for context. I expanded this when checking the sources for it, but have no objection to it being condensed, even aggressively down. The key points in order of prominence in the reliable sources are [a] flying discs were a new concept, [b] everyone was reporting them, and [c] the modern idea of "ufo=alien spaceship" didn't exist yet. (Some people did think they were aliens early on, but the leading early idea was an experimental and foreign aircraft.) Points a and b could be knocked down into a single sentence for 1947. Point c should be mentioned, but doesn't need to be mentioned in the 1947 section necessarily. If there's consensus for that direction, I'll update the sandbox draft, to be a 1947 draft combining all sections.
• Regarding the books: I find reliable sources talk about the incident almost as two separate things: a 1947 balloon crash and a pop-culture mythology that developed around it. For a quick way to check this out, look at how Gildenberg (2003) visually breaks it into two separate timelines one for the real Roswell incident and one for the Roswell myth. If this isn't something coming across, perhaps that is an issue in its own right. The one book that every source places weight on is The Roswell Incident (1980), noting how Roswell had been largely dormant until Friedman interviewed Marcel. Korff mentions "7 major books" on conspiracy theories but not all sources discuss every book. Also, nearly all major sources written post-1997 discuss the two Air Force books.
• As for removing books or other cultural references, two stick out to me. Body Snatchers in the Desert (2005) by Redfern is not discussed in the major sources about Roswell. Some may mention him and he's discussed briefly in a few books about conspiracies. I'm thinking that section could be moved to Redfern's article, and maybe this article could have just a linked mention of Redfern somewhere? And I've been unable to find a good way to retain Witness to Roswell (2007). No book reviews on Witness or The Ultimate Cold Case give enough secondary coverage to explain what happened with Haut. From primary sources, it seems that Schmitt interviewed Haut, wrote the document, sent the document to Haut, and Haut signed it without any changes. Perhaps some of the material could be moved to a Donald Schmitt (ufologist) article, but I think for now it should be removed. If there are no objections, I could begin moving and removing both of those sections.
• The diagram: I like the idea of giving readers a conceptual map. I think the current version lacks specific citations and a key/legend. It is cited to two books. I'm thinking the proper footnote would look something like: <ref>The diagram illustrates the development of the Roswell myth as described in the article and cited to the following sources: *{{harvnb|||p=}} *{{harvnb|||p=}} *{{harvnb|||p=}} *{{harvnb|||p=}} *{{harvnb|||p=}} *{{harvnb|||p=}}</ref> using duplicate citations from the article's body text. After reading more of the sources, I came away with questions about the diagram. [a] What do the colors indicate? The pink disc craze box is labeled, but I'm not sure why, for example, some events are blue and some purple. [b] What do the arrows indicate? I thought "influence" at first, but Aztec (1949) and Dubose (1991) are both discussed in the USAF books. Feoffer, if you would be okay with this, I'd like to revisit the diagram (or the creation of a diagram in general) when the article approaches a more stable state.
• Sources: In one way it's probably silly to comment on something I intend to fix, but there are still a few problematic sources in the article. Rodeghier (1992) and Printy (1999) lack a reliable publisher. One of the news sources looks fringe. There are some I haven't checked but intend to.
• Ufology: I know a few people have commented about condensing the article. I like context so this is less of a concern to me. One area that potentially sticks out for condensing is anywhere a claim from a ufologist is introduced and considered. For example, the section "First claim of alien bodies (1980)" seems like it could be condensed way down because the length seems to come from analyzing the ufology claims within the Wikipedia article, but I don't know if we need to do that. Can't we just cite the sources where the analysis takes place? Klass 199b, p. 45 says nobody can corroborate Barnett, Korff 1997, pp. 50–51 says there is no proof of Barnett's bodies, Greer 2009, p. 70 says that Roswell Incident reproduced elements of the discredited Aztec crash, Gildenberg 2003, p. 64 says no first-hand witnesses saw bodies and that the story was updated: "It is important to realize that the original story comprised this single chain of events. In 1947, there were no reports regarding alien bodies, autopsies, or multiple crash sites. Nor do these original accounts ascribe magical properties to the debris, such as imperviousness or the ability to liquefy like the evil robot from the motion picture Terminator 2. None of the original impact site witnesses reported bodies. Other New Mexico saucer legends had long since adopted the alien bodies convention when, 40 years after the fact, secondary witnesses began updating Roswell to include the first such descriptions." And so on.

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

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

All looks good to me. Your formula for condensing 1947 looks great, we really don't need to linger on it as much as I did. I don't think Redfern or the Haut book do much for the reader, they're sort of narrative dead-ends than didn't really go anywhere.

As the article adapts, the "conceptual map" may have to adapt with it, and I'm happy to help update or recreate something else going forward. Currently, there's a "mainstream history narrative" to Roswell (labelled in blue) that runs from Fu-Go to Mogul to Roswell to Marcel the USAF reports. That narrative has no bodies (dead or alive), no flying saucers, and is well supported by RS. Meanwhile, a FRINGE mythology (red) born out of pranks and hoaxes developed, featuring bodies that move from place to place with every telling. Arrows would be descent, not influence -- Marcel influences EVERYBODY, but only DuBose and the Air Force reports can truly be called consistent with his observations; Everyone else is up to their knees in corpses from Frank Scully's book.

Finally, one little item to put on the wishlist. As look you through the sources and work on the article, keep this in mind: the FuGo balloons were covered up and censored during World War Two, both to prevent a panic but also to prevent a foreign power from learning of their weapon's success. The reader will have a better understanding of the Air Force covering up the potentially-foreign balloon from Roswell if they are reminded that the military had a standing policy of covering up potentially-foreign balloons during WW2. There's lot of sources connecting FuGo to Roswell, but I could never find a source to connect those precise dots.

Great work, keep it up. Feoffer (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Check out:

☛ Talk:Roswell incident/sandbox

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

The sandbox looks good! I really like restoring "first summer of the Cold War" as a lead sentence and putting Mogul first. Great work summarizing the flying disc wave and how it affected Brazel. It works for me!

You don't need to write up anything about Fugo -- just keep an eye out if you should ever happen to see someone point out symmetries. Keel got close, but not close enough. :) Feoffer (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Instability a problem for this being a Good Article

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

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

"A scholarly consensus emerged …"

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

4475615 In 2020, the article just straight up reported the Mogul explanation as fact:

"The military decided to conceal the true purpose of the crashed device—nuclear test monitoring—and instead inform the public that the crash was of a weather balloon"

Out of my own concerns about WP:V, I attributed it to a "scholarly consensus" rather than complete metaphysical certitude. Digging through history further, we find softer language that we might want to revert back to.

The military decided to conceal the true purpose of the crashed device – most likely a massive series of top secret nuclear test monitoring balloons with reflectors from Project Mogul – and instead inform the public that the crash was of a weather balloon.

Feoffer (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

If the source is certain, Wikipedia is certain and needs to WP:ASSERT. But you agree the source says nothing about "scholarly consensus" (an odd concept for this topic!) Bon courage (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Chopped the objectionable language in favor of naming the scholars. Olmsted's conclusions are Olmsted's. Not consensus facts. -- we can't assert one scholar's very informed opinion as if it's fact: The entire article would lose all credibility in the minds of even skeptics if it falsely asserted Olmsted's conclusion was universally-agreed-upon fact -- it's not. Mainstream opinion concurs that Olmsted's conclusion is correct, but it can't be misrepresented as historical fact, as if the USAF declassified documents revealing they knew all along it was Mogul.

In particular the statement "The military decided" is a completely-unverifiable claim about the mental states of historic personages. Olmsted offers no sources for this conclusion, because there are no sources to document the mental states of the people in 1947 who, presumably, made that decision. And Olmsted never suggests it is a historical fact, rather than a single sentence in a well-supported, logical narrative based on a historian's informed conclusions. Weaver & McAndrew, upon whom Olmsted depends for their conclusions, never suggest it is a historical fact either.

TBH, it should be obvious on its face that disputing the existence of a "scholarly consensus" for the Mogul theory is incompatible with a proposal to simply assert it as fact. (We can, of course, assert as fact that it was not alien.) Feoffer (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Err what? It's a fact. RS says this is what happened and no RS says otherwise, so WP:YESPOV and WP:ASSERT apply. We even know which balloon it was (and say so as fact). This has been discussed at length before. Do we really need to return to FT/N for this? (BTW, the next text is direct against WP:RS/AC which says "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors".) Bon courage (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

We can't verify as a historic fact that it was MOGUL. Olmsted never says that, Weaver & McAndrew never say that. We can't "fudge the math" on this article. No one in this discussion is pro-FRINGE -- if we can verify MOGUL, there will be universal celebration; So far, no scholar is providing proof ("showing their work") so we can demonstrate to the reader that it is a historic fact that it was MOGUL. Please, prove me wrong, I genuinely believe it was MOGUL but I can't prove it to a NPOV reader yet -- help me! :) Feoffer (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Olmsted does say that ("When one of these balloons smashed into the sands of the New Mexico ranch, the military decided to hide the project's real purpose.") (also the New York Times, FWIW). This was discussed and decided many years ago. Bon courage (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The Olmsted narrative includes that sentence, but it makes absolutely no arguments for its veracity beyond a hand-waving footnote to Weaver & McAndrew who, of course, never conclusively identified it as MOGUL. Imagine me as the grizzled old Newspaper Editor or District Attorney who says "Sorry, kid, but ya don't have the sources to prove it... Keep digging.". We'd love nothing more than to prove to our readers it was MOGUL, but waving our hands and pretending Olmsted et al have a crystal ball won't convince anyone. Feoffer (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I imagine you as a anonymous Wikipedia editor with no standing to decide the facts, and I imagine Olmsted as.a history professor writing an academic book published by a University press. Which do you think Wikipedia is bound to follow? I have posted to WP:FT/N for a wider view. Bon courage (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's really inappropriate to personalize this and to use FT/N as a "brigand threat" as you have. (and I'm very pro-FT/N in general) I don't think you really believe anyone in this discussion is Pro-FRINGE. Feoffer (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

No, but input is useful on how to deal with FRINGE material (i.e. the implication we don't know what crashed at Roswell despite sources saying otherwise). Bon courage (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

implication we don't know

Who said that? Scholars know. Feoffer (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Not just scholars. Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

In other words, without the personalizing (which was provoked by "Imagine me as"): Olmsted is a RS. We do not second-guess RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

You were obviously solicited into this discussion by Bon. You grossly misrepresent (to the point of bad faith) my argument that Olmsted's narrative is not supported as historical fact (nor does Olmsted claim it is) Feoffer (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

break

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

Bon, we're on the same team and I'm doing my best. We all agree it's not a flippin alien. But the jury is skeptical, and if we "over-sell it", we'll lose 'em. All the king's scholars and all the king's men agree it was MOGUL -- that's good enough. Let's present that and rest our case -- we'll win 'em all over. Feoffer (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I think being coy to try and be persuasive is a bad idea. We have policy WP:YESPOV and guidance WP:RS/AC on this type of issue; we need to follow those. Bon courage (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I repeatedly reached out with AGF, but you have only personal attacks and fulfilled threats for bad-faith briganding. I genuinely appreciate all you've done to fight FRINGE. Feoffer (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

As you have been told by an admin, there are no personal attacks. So continuing to make that allegation is unhelpful. I don't know what 'bad-faith briganding' is meant to be but it doesn't sound good. Rather than edit war here, posting to a relevant noticeboard is of course best practice when it comes to WP:DR. I am quite interested in seeing this article progress to WP:GA, but it won't happen if it drifts away from the WP:PAGS, now will it? Bon courage (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't know that to tell ya, guy. Olmsted's one sentence, devoid of footnotes, doesn't get us there. I wanna get there too, but we're not there yet, and me pretending otherwise does no one any favors. Feoffer (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

From NPOV: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice". This is the case here. Bon courage (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me if you can produce a consensus of RSes that says it's uncontested MOGUL; but I know this subject inside and out, but I can't produce that. Here's what we 'can' produce: a consensus of RSes that says its not alien and almost certainly MOGUL. That a winning jury verdict -- but push it beyond the bounds of WP:V and we fail. There's a SMALL chance it might really just been a weather balloon, or some other damn freak thing. None of the historians say they got the goods, the point is it's not alien. Feoffer (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't need "a consensus of RSes" (although we in fact have one, if consensus is defined as the absence of substantive opposition). We are bound by policy to assert what we have. Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

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

We're trying to verify that people in July 1947 decided to do a coverup (as opposed to merely failing to identify the balloon). The Air Force report argues that Roswell personnel had no need to know and that Ramey and staff may not have known. We are foreclosing, without evidence, the possibility that nobody in the military knew it was MOGUL until '94. Feoffer (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The question of whether the cover-up was 'decided' or not is a different one. What was at issue was whether we could assert as fact that the balloon that crashed was a MOGUL one. I am glad that now seems resolved and we are moving on to other matters. Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Clean up work in sandbox

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

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

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

Feoffer, do you think there is enough in the existing sources quoted in the sandbox[6] plus the Smithsonian and NYT sources linked by LuckyLouie to call it Mogul? If not, what is the threshold you're looking to pass? Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, the current question is can we verify that "The military decided to conceal the true purpose of the crashed device – nuclear test monitoring – and instead inform the public that the crash was of a weather balloon". So far as I can tell, that it's not verifiable as fact. Note the Smithsonian scholar's quote (emphasis mine): “Apparently, it was better from the Air Force’s perspective that there was a crashed ‘alien’ spacecraft out there than to tell the truth". The Air Force source consistently attributes conclusions to the Weaver & McAndrew report, nobody asserts it as fact, not even Olmsted tbh. I'm very open to alternate wordings, but we can't declare a decision took place -- we can say "scholars conclude", we can go stronger with "scholarly consensus" even. We could even say the military "apparently" decided -- we can source that. Feoffer (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think consensus is clear we can assert as fact that is a MOGUL balloon and the military decided to conceal that. Bon courage (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Does this seem more verifiable, "The military concealed the true purpose of the crashed device – nuclear test monitoring – and instead informed the public that the crash was of a weather balloon."? That's just cutting "decide" out. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Weaver's conclusion section is clear (emphasis mine):

• "All available official materials, although they do not directly address Roswell per se, indicate that the most likely source of the wreckage recovered from the Braze1 Ranch was from one of the Project MOGUL balloon trains."
• "Although the Air Force did not find documented evidence that Gen. Ramey was directed to espouse a weather balloon in his press conference, he may have done so because he was either aware of Project MOGUL and was trying to deflect interest from it, or he readily perceived the material to be a weather balloon based on the identification from his weather officer, Irving Newton."
• "It appears that the identification of the wreckage as being part of a weather balloon device, as reported in the newspapers at the time, was based on the fact that there was no physical difference in the radar targets and the neoprene balloons (other than the numbers and configuration) between MOGUL balloons and normal weather balloons."

Weaver is clear -- they might not have concealed anything, they might have just not connected it to Mogul. Hell, it might not be connected to Mogul, though all scholars agree that's "most likely". Feoffer (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, go the secondary source and simply WP:ASSERT what it says. That would be policy compliant. Bon courage (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I see you've editwarred to do just that. You should self-rv back to the stable version while we discuss this. Feoffer (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bon courage, Hob Gadling and Rjj. In this case, the secondary sources support a simple WP:ASSERTion. Feoffer, you may feel you know this subject inside and out, but it may be time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bon courage As a matter of habit. I appreciate the work you two do fighting fringe, but deletions, editwarring, and frankly bullying don't write an encyclopedia. Weaver says most likely -- we don't get to misrepresent his conclusion. You can't just fudge or yada yada over WP:V. It might have been a non-MOGUL military balloon and the entire article falls apart if we lie to the reader on this point. Feoffer (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree the stick needs to be dropped on this. Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the problem here. I'm not the first to object to WP:ASSERTing this material as fact, I won't be the last. Nobody gets to GA by failing WP:V. Feoffer (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is what it is. There has been no sustainable opposition to asserting the crashed balloon was a MOGUL one since the Olmsted source was in play. Before that, there was a push to keep the article suggestive about 'an object' crashing. As you know, on many WP:FRINGE articles there will be periodic objections to neutral text, and I would expect that to happen here too. That, in part, is why getting to WP:GA is desirable, better to 'lock in' the desired neutrality. Bon courage (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Even if editors agreed to assert as fact that it was MOGUL (we don't), the current text that asserts as fact the the military consciously concealed that fact. You don't get to GA by making up history as you go along. Feoffer (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity; maybe read WP:1AM? The question of concealment is a different one, and I don't think there is consensus on that because it has not been much discussed. Personally, I have no firm view on how the sources fall on that matter. Bon courage (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The question of concealment is a different one, and I don't think there is consensus on that because it has not been much discussed. Personally, I have no firm view on how the sources fall on that matter.

I appreciate that very much -- but that's exactly what I have been debating. The disputed sentence begins "The military had decided at the time to conceal" and its NOT verified. We can attribute that conclusion to Olmsted, to a list of scholars, to scholarly consensus in general, or any other verbiage. With the excellent Smithsoninan source Louie dug up, we could even say they "apparently" decided to cover it up. But Weaver is clear -- they might have just taken one look at it, assumed it was a weather balloon, and tossed it in the garbage; People at Roswell didn't have a need to know about MOGUL, the people in Texas might not have either.

In a larger sense, I don't think Wikipedia articles should "assert" the material they're trying to "prove" -- it's bad writing and it's bad education, even in subjects of complete certitude like math. In History, like Geometry, a true assertion can't be marked "correct" unless you can show the "proof". What does it buy us to assert as fact that it could NOT have been a weather balloon or other military balloon? Weaver doesn't exclude that possibility, why should we? It certainly doesn't help us to concede to the UFO nuts that the only two possibilities are MOGUL and aliens. Feoffer (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Weaver is one old outlier source and his co-author went on to clarify this was deffo a MOGUL balloon. Any general push not to assert historical fact on Wikipedia is extremely ill-advised, and would feed (for example) Holocaust denial (so yes, it is fact Jews were gassed at Auschwitz in large numbers), 9/11 truther narratives (so yes, it is a fact hijacked planes flew into buildings causing their collapse), and so on. Just align with the WP:BESTSOURCES and all will be well. Bon courage (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright well, setting aside the theoretical; On this article, how would you feel about us NOT asserting as fact that a conscious decision to conceal occurred in 1947. You say you have no firm view on whether that occurred, would you like to brainstorm alternate wording for the disputed sentence? Feoffer (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's could be as simple as "the military apparently decided..." and citing it to Louie's Smithsonian source. Feoffer (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Goldberg flat out refers to "the 1994 admission that the weather balloon story was a cover for the secret Mogul Project". And the current text is currently well-verified by Olmsted. If by the "Smithsonian" source we mean Peebles, I don't think that is relevant since it apparently was written before the MOGUL information came to light. Bon courage (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh no, Louie hooked us up. It's from 2017 [7]:

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

Feoffer (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't tell us anything about the genesis of the weather balloon story, does it? Bon courage (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a little uncomfy how it "anthropomorphizes" the Air Force -- I would love to prove that Ramey had been read into MOGUL and knew to cover it up, but I can't connect those dots yet, Weaver specifically admits Ramey might not have known, because the actual components are physically identical to weather balloons, raising the possibility that it wasn't a cover-up so much as semantics -- MOGUL flights really did include a "weather balloon", even though their purpose wasn't to monitor weather. I feel like this nuance is getting lost when we just look at the Olmsted popular history book declare a coverup and adopt its narrative as consensus fact. Feoffer (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with saying they used the weather balloon story for a cover story, without saying they 'decided to', citing Olmsted and/or Goldberg. BTW, Olmsted's book is not really pop history, but a monograph published by the Academic division of OUP.[8] Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a big step in the right direction -- "cover story" is well sourced, "decide to conceal" is not.

My point about Olmsted is just that she gives us no way to verify her conclusions (insofar as they differ from Weaver, who shows his work). Feoffer (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a distinction without a difference really: either they 'decided' to cook something up as cover, or they 'decided' to let merely mistaken weather balloon story run as it served for the purposes of cover up. So, I'm easy about which form of words is used. Bon courage (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Cool.

Yeah, it's a distinction that doesn't make a lot of difference to me personally either, but I know that to a certain subset of readers, people with a certain type of susceptibility, it can be a big difference. It won't disturb me one wit if it was a planned cover-up operation -- I actually want to find sources to prove it, and hope to add more quotes from Weaver to support that conclusion. Feoffer (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the Weaver source should be used in this article. Rather, independent secondary scholarship should be preferred. Bon courage (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the Weaver source should be used in this article. Can you clarify this opinion: Weaver shouldn't be used in this precise way or it literally shouldn't be used anywhere in the article?? It's been stably cited as RS in the article since time immemorial.

While I have you -- do you have any opinions on how we should cover the teletype coverup claims and the death threat claims, or any good sources to add to that convo? Rj felt like the sourcing on that was very weak and we moved it the sections about FRINGE. It seems to be very likely a proactive coverup (as opposed to a mere cover story) DID occur, but damn if I can prove it. Please be on the lookout for source that do. Feoffer (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning to not using it at all (except maybe to touch in the odd detail). The 'Roswell incident' itself includes the documents/statements made by the military, some of which are mis/disinformation. It is not our place to determine which are which, but we can use secondary WP:SCHOLARSHIP looking back on all the material and offering a settled and independent view – the "accepted knowledge" that Wikipedia wants to relay. Bon courage (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Bon, we have VERY different things we want out of wikipedia articles, but C'est La Vie. :)

The idea of citing the bulk of this article without depending on Weaver is sort of blowing my mind right now, because literally EVERYONE and their brother cites Weaver as the gold standard. I can't even fairly respond to that suggestion until I've taken the time to really think about it :) lol. In principle, I'm on board to help find and add independent sourcing, but in practice I think we'll find all roads lead back to the 1995 Air Force report; '97 never contradicted 95, it tried to explain the bodies (that no one in 1947 ever actually saw) might have been crash test dummies -- which is more likely than alien bodies of course. Feoffer (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

literally EVERYONE and their brother cites Weaver as the gold standard ← that's cool then: use everyone and their brother as sources. Bon courage (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy too when possible -- but when they cite Weaver, we should also ref Weaver so they can click through to him too, right? I guess what I'm getting at is that you're certainly not denying 1995 AF report is a RS, right? lol. When I first read your words, I think my hair caught on fire, but experience had taught me it's prob a miscommunication lol Feoffer (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's reliable for what it says. Whether it's accepted knowledge or not relied/relies on the reaction of others. It's fine to quote it alongside independent sources. A warning flat would be any delta between Weaver and historians, or if Wikipedia paid attention to stuff in the USAF reports that the rest of the world had ignored. Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Good answers, we see eye to eye on that, I get what you were saying now.  :) Yes, Weaver could be fruitful for cherrypicking, and whenever possible we should take cues from (and cite) independent sourcing to demonstrate DUE weight, even if we supplementary link to the '95 report. I'm totally on board to help with that effort as we push to GA. (I just couldn't fathom writing an article if Weaver wasn't a RS lol). Feoffer (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

any delta Small world, I use that term too. Engineering / physics background? Feoffer (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Did some maths at one time. Roswell is interesting case from a WP:PSTS perspective. If one views the 'primary' material as including the military reports and the UFOlogist lore, then the secondary material is that which looks back on that whole big bundle of stuff. Bon courage (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Did some maths at one time Yeah I started off with History but took to maths like waterfowl to water. Funny how often I heard of people like us who share that overlap -- they seem like disparate fields, but they're both about putting puzzle pieces together

Strictly speaking the 90s reports don't qualify as primary sources to the events of 1947 (wouldn't that be wonderful if they were, lol? Historian's paradise, if the 95 report was written in 47! lol) . But I hear ya, we should lean on the most recent sources when possible, citing the 90s sources as supplementary when appropriate :)

Someday, in a far off future when the article is GA, I really do want to revisit the dispute about whether it might be possible to suggest to the readers that it really was just a weather balloon or other non-MOGUL military balloon. Not to be weird, but it's a little bit "pro-FRINGE" to suggest it couldn't possibly have been a weather balloon. Feoffer (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I synced the sandbox to stable (crosses fingers) live article,[9] and I've condenses and reorganized much but tried to retain the language on the controversial points above. Changes are pretty big, so feel free to offer feedback or directly improve the sandbox draft. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You've got a gift! The language looks great to me. Feoffer (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Feoffer. I've put it into the live version. (Along with alt text for images and 2 sources to cite later on belief and tourism.)

Also, I have just realized when testing the page at different zoom levels that when condensing an earlier section I accidentally removed Template:1947 flying disc craze when removing the section header. The only reason I haven't put it back in yet, is because I'm not sure the best placement to reduce stacking. At full zoom, the Ramey photo is already pushed down to the Aztec section, but I'm hesitant to move, remove, or combine any images. I'll trust wherever you place it, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I chopped the image from the sidebar (on this page), so hopefully that will fix collisions. Feoffer (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup: lead

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

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

• The current lead. This most reflects the current body text.
• And several old leads to borrow from:
• The lead from 2014 when Bon did major cleanup. This is a good example of ways we can get shorter and clearer.
• The lead from 2007 after Canada Jack did a massive rewrite while openly opposed by a professional ufologist who declared C.J. to be his nemesis, openly opposed C.J., and forked a shadow article of memories. (Was it really just like this then?)
• The lead from 2013 last edited by Invertzoo. Gulyas (2014) quotes a few paragraphs from this lead as a summary of how Roswell has become a significant part of the culture absent evidence. (Courtesy to ping to let the editor know they were cited by Gulyas.)

I'm thinking the best next steps are:

1. Do a really clear first sentence to say that the "Roswell incident" refers to [a] a 1947 balloon debris cleanup in New Mexico, and [b] the myths that have developed around it.
2. Condense, clarify, and just clean up the existing text, minus the final paragraph. That stuff seems mostly okay already.
3. Probably rewrite the final paragraph, maybe stealing some phrases from circa 2013. The explanation for adding that stuff in the edit summary, "insert summary paragraph to address pop culture influence"[10] is fine, but the wording needs work. Eg, a description of pop culture shouldn't come off as contradicting reported events, scholarship, research, and so on.

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

I trend toward verbosity, so ledes are my Achilles's heel. Everything else you've done looks great, I'm sure this will too. We can cut the gray alien refer in the lede since we cut that section, we could add a super brief summation of the newly-polished Aztec material. Thank you for all your incredible work, we'll be at GA in no time thanks to your efforts. Feoffer (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Roswell myth contributors

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

Hopefully this is useful when deciding which weird items need more weight [The Roswell Incident (1980)] and which need less weight [Crash at Corona (1992)], Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Serious kudos for that (who needs a Christmas tree?). This will help with NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This is incredible work, thank you!! I thought about doing something like this several years ago and instantly balked at the thought of how much effort it would entail! Per Bon, thank you for our Christmas present! wow. Feoffer (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)