Talk:2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings

Suggested rewrite of second paragraph of lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 18 December 2024 to 2024 United States drone sightings

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

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

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

Weak Oppose ... for now. This is a very long article and to have to expand it to cover the entire U.S. for all 2024 will make it even longer. There are millions of drones in the U.S. that are viewed tens of millions of times annually, with some of those viewings / sightings getting reported by RS. For instance, do we include this [1] story of an Alabama woman who complained after she spotted a drone being used by her neighbors to spy on her changing clothes? On the other hand, I do understand the appeal of changing the geographic scope given the fact reporting is spreading to other states outside the Northeast. Chetsford (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Support - News shows it is more widespread than the east coast. :Shotgunheist ^💬 17:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - A now-widespread phenomenon. Jusdafax (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support: From the lead: "...additional reports and military-confirmed events were noted across the southern states, the midwest, western mountain states, and the Pacific coast." It is now clearly a more widespread phenomenon, and should be acknowledged as such in the title. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

political bias and misinformation

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

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

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

Agreed with you both. I've removed the offending sentence in [2]. Thanks – Anne drew 20:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

AARO external link

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

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

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

Drones "emit no heat"

I just deleted the following:

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

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

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

References