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)

Images need improved non-free use rationale

Three images were removed for invalid rationale: File:Alien Autopsy Fact or Fiction vhs cover.jpg, File:The Roswell Incident by Charles Berlitz and William Moore cover.jpg,File:Roswell NM logo.png. Of the three, I feel most strongly that Alien Autopsy should be included, as there's a lot of alien autopsy stories and films out there and readers need to see the iconic cover to know which one we're talking about. I think the other two images were of benefit to the article. @Rjjiii:, you seem to know a lot about image use polices -- do you think you could rationalize their inclusion? Feoffer (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Whpq, did you find issue with the rationale as written on the file page, or more generally with using these files in the Roswell Incident article? I think they could be in an article under US fair use laws, but am not sure how strict Wikipedia's hosting policy is. File:The Roswell Incident by Charles Berlitz and William Moore cover.jpg is the cover of the book that established the core Roswell myth of the crashed saucer, alien bodies, coverup, etc.

And Feoffer, instead of using the city seal, there are likely several public things in Roswell that show the city embracing the UFO narrative including the UFO welcome sign or the alien head streetlights. Rjjiii (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Issues are on both counts. The non-free use rationales were deficient. [File:Alien Autopsy Fact or Fiction vhs cover.jpg Alien Autopsy] used the same same NFUR for both usages. The usage in this article clearly is not to serve as the primary means of visual identification, nor do I see how the use of this VHS cover would meet WP:NFCC#8. AS an additional note, the NFUR is still deficient for its use in Alien autopsy. Non-free content must meet all of the non-free content criteria and be documented in the NFUR. Stating "n.a." as the answers to how it meets some of the criteria is simply not correct. The same commentary pretty much applies to File:The Roswell Incident by Charles Berlitz and William Moore cover.jpg. It's use as primary visual identification would be acceptable for an article about the book itself, but not here. The same commentary also applies to the Roswell seal with the exception that the NFUR has been fully filled out. -- Whpq (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think I have to disagree with your current understanding of NFCC. You write Stating "n.a." as the answers to how it meets some of the criteria is simply not correct., but actually, that's how our File upload wizard autofilled those fields when uploading DVD covers. Category:Images of video covers is chock full of images that were similarly uploaded... e.g: 1,2,3, etc.

Similar, nor do I see how the use of this VHS cover would meet WP:NFCC#8. One of the purpose of the text (and indeed, the project) is to alert readers to misinformation and inform them of the facts. The image is needed to visually disambiguate it. Readers of the Roswell incident will absolutely benefit from seeing the cover art, its omission would be detrimental to the readers understanding. That's my thinking anyway. Feoffer (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That the upload Wizard filled with with "n.a." is not great (I don't think it does that anymore), but the end result is still a deficient NFUR. It's fixable, so not a big deal. On the other hand, the use of posters or cover art simply for identification in an article other than what the cover art is for not accepted. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use, under "Images", point 2. That example is for a discography but the idea applies here. The image is not needed to understand the topic of this article and so does not meet WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the patient reply. I see you've been here since 2006, wow! I addressed the "n.a."s in that one rationale. Feoffer (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Still to do

• Fix all fact tags
• Add to Aztec hoax -- comes across as trivial when it's actualy pivotal
• Draw contrasts during schism period, expand on Doty role per Peebles and others. Tie to cultural influence, characterize camps
• Find a way to convey that later CTs are less influential. Formatting issue or sub-article time?
• DECISIVELY refute Dennis and expand on his influence
• Track down date of National Enquirer reprint  Done Calling it nonexistent.
  • Index of National Enquirer 1977-82, no hits on "Roswell" or "Marcel', topical search of UFOs -physical evidence doesn't list title that's obviously Roswell. Index is work in progress -- contact researchers and ask them to be on the lookout? Candidates: Doggone Flying Saucer! (19780815) Producer of TV's 'Project U.F.O.'...I Chased a Flying Saucer in Real Life (19780801) Priest Among Those Who Saw Flying Saucer . . . Bank Official Runs Toward Glowing UFO And Is Hurled Back by an Invisible Force 19781031, Will 1978 Be the Year the UFO Mystery Is Solved? 19780131, Air Force Academy Has One of Largest UFO Libraries 19780314, Secret Defense Dept. Reports Uncovered: UFOs, THE BIG GOVT. COVER-UP 19780627, ENQUIRER Probe Reveals ... The Incredible UFO Encounters That Have Been Hushed Up by the Govt. 19780704 p13 *** 31st Anniversary **, Scientific Truth Evaluator Shows … U.S. Air Force Officers Lied Agout UFOs 19780815p2-3.
• Frank Joyce "Ship you off to Siberia" needs better sourcing. It's such an evocative, era-specific quote if it could be used, but it's not there yet
• Expand todo list

Feoffer (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Will 1978 Be the Year the UFO Mystery Is Solved? 19780131, No, article by Allan A. Zullo. Part of a UFO spread along with "Scientists Believe Govt. Is Hushing Up UFO Evidence", and "You Can Join Protest Against Govt. Refusal to Probe UFOs".
• ENQUIRER Probe Reveals ... The Incredible UFO Encounters That Have Been Hushed Up by the Govt. 19780704 p13 *** 31st Anniversary ** No, article by Edward Sigall. This actually lists a bunch of famous UFO crashes (illustration of Kingman, AZ, USA crash from 1953 included), but nothing about Roswell, Marcel, Mac Brazel, RAAF, White Sands, etc. Is that date July 4th? I am thinking the idea of an early NE Roswell reprint is just a mistake that's been repeated. They might not have started to cover this until the ufologists began conducting interviews.
• Air Force Academy Has One of Largest UFO Libraries 19780314 No, quote from blog: "The book, "Environmental Space Sciences" edited by retired Air Force Col. Donald Carpenter does not disclose where and when the encounter took place. Carpenter, now of North Granby, Conn., told The ENQUIRER that he no longer has the documents that would enable him to pinpoint the location and date of the incident. Carpenter once taught the space science course, which was replaced by an astronomy course in 1974."
• Scientific Truth Evaluator Shows … U.S. Air Force Officers Lied Agout UFOs 19780815p2-3. Probably not: Klass discusses this article here: https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1980/07/22165439/p46.pdf

Didn't spot the others online. If this is just an error that's been repeated over the years, it could be omitted from the article. Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Great digging!!! thank you so much! I'm content to call it solved. I mainly wanted to exclude the possibility that a story was published BEFORE Friedman met Marcel in February, and I think we've done that. Feoffer (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, and yes, I think so. If Weaver & McAndrew are the earliest version of this claim, their language could easily apply to the 1979 story cited by Pflock and could just be a typo that was later rationalized. It's a good catch, by the way. I think the more skeptical sources really put the implausible bits of the narrative under the microscope, but the National Enquirer re-running a decades old UFO story is so plausible that it didn't raise any flags.

Also, I'm going through the "Events of 1947" sub-sections and looking for the most reliable sources. Feel free to triple check me there. I'm less familiar with the UFO narratives and conspiracy theories, so I miss some connections for later in the article. Rjjiii (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

good catch, by the way thanks! It's one part of the narrative that never set well with me. Berlitz and Moore got credit for digging up the 1947 article confirming Marcel's involvement-- by why give them applause for 'digging up' something that had just been reprinted in the National Enquirer? Feoffer (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Frank Joyce's direct quote is obviously problematic, thank you for commenting it out for now, it was only there as a reminder to me to find better sourcing -- how do we even know that IS Frank Joyce? but it's a great quote I'd really like to find sourcing for -- it captures the era, the anti-communist jingoism, and the magnitude of the press release all in a few simple words. Only prob -- how do we know it's true. Feoffer (talk) 12:06, 5 July 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.