Talk:2024 United States drone sightings

Suggested rewrite of second paragraph of lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 18 December 2024 to 2024 United States drone sightings

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support - News shows it is more widespread than the east coast. :Shotgunheist ^💬 17:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - A now-widespread phenomenon. Jusdafax (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support: From the lead: "...additional reports and military-confirmed events were noted across the southern states, the midwest, western mountain states, and the Pacific coast." It is now clearly a more widespread phenomenon, and should be acknowledged as such in the title. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Agree with the reasons given above. Halbared (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

political bias and misinformation

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

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

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

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

AARO external link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drones "emit no heat"

I just deleted the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

What do you think about any of these?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reverted some changes

Hi Basaatw, unfortunately I had to revert some of your recent changes to the article. As you can see in your most recent revision, many of the citations that normally look like this: , have been replaced by text like this: [1][2]. I'm sorry to have to revert your work, but those citations took a great deal of effort to add to the appropriate locations in the article so they should be preserved.

• Your most recent revision
• All of your changes as a diff

Apologies for the inconvenience, please let me know if you have any questions.

– Anne drew 23:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Anne drew,

Thank you for explaining why you reverted my recent changes. I understand now that my edits inadvertently affected the citation formatting that had been carefully placed throughout the article. I apologize for any disruption this caused.

I will:

1. Review your restored version carefully to understand the proper citation format

2. Make note of how the references should be structured ([1][2] format)

3. Reapply my content changes while ensuring I preserve all existing citation formatting

Would you mind if I make another attempt at my edits while being extra careful to maintain the citation structure? I'll make sure to preview all changes before saving to verify the references remain intact.

Thank you for helping maintain the article's quality. Please let me know if you have any additional guidance.

Randall N. Brock (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You can go ahead and reapply your changes, but keep in mind that others might alter or even revert your changes again, which is a normal part of the consensus-building process. If you think your changes might be controversial, it might be best to propose them in a new discussion on this page first. – Anne drew 02:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

References

• User:Basaatw, are you using large language models to post replies on talk pages? BusterD (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi BusterD,

Thanks for asking. I aim to contribute quality edits to Wikipedia and use various writing tools to help ensure my work is clear, accurate, and properly formatted. This includes tools like Grammarly, ProWritingAid, search engines for research, and other available software that helps with professional writing and editing.

I believe using such tools responsibly helps maintain high standards in Wikipedia contributions. Just as many editors use spelling checkers and reference managers, I use available tools that help me provide well-structured, properly sourced content while following Wikipedia's guidelines.

The key is that all edits are reviewed, verified, and ultimately made by me with Wikipedia's best interests in mind. I'm happy to discuss my editing process further if you have any specific questions.

Kind regards,

Basaatw Randall N. Brock (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes. BusterD (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks,

@BusterD for your continued engagement. Have you had a chance to review the my reorganization proposals for the "Specific Incidents" and "Possible Explanations" sections? I'd welcome your substantive thoughts on the suggested chronological structure and content grouping, as I've invested considerable effort in ensuring these changes would improve readability while maintaining all sources and factual information.

I'm actively working on additional proposals for clarification purposes throughout the article. Since you're taking such an interest in my contributions, I'll be particularly looking forward to your substantive feedback on these improvements. The focus, as always, remains on making the article more accessible while preserving its comprehensive coverage - which I trust is our shared goal.

Looking forward to your content-focused feedback and suggestions.

Sincerely,

Basaatw --~~~~ Randall N. Brock (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I will choose not to help you. BusterD (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

December 30 revisions

Hey Randall N. Brock, I've started going over some of your recent changes. Nice job keeping the citations intact this time 🙌

I'm not sure about the changes to section structure. Possible explanations now lives under the Official Responses section. Those explanations are also sourced from independent experts - not just government officials. I would recommend bringing that section and its children back up a level. Also putting local, state, and legislative responses under Federal Executive Branch doesn't really make sense. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 05:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Anne,

Thanks for taking the time to review my recent changes. I totally understand your points, and appreciate your attention to detail.

I know editing is a process, and our goal is to get it right. After considering your comments, I'm working on a few ideas:

"Possible Explanations" Section

I understand your point about placing "Possible Explanations" under "Official Responses." It makes more sense for it to stand on its own to highlight the different sources—both official and independent. I’ll propose moving it back to a separate section for clarity.

Local, State, and Legislative Responses

I agree that putting these under the "Federal Executive Branch" doesn’t quite work. The best solution might be to separate them into their own "Responses" section with subsections for "Federal," "Local and State," and "Legislative" responses. This should help keep things organized and intuitive.

I’ll revise the structure and share it with you and the group for feedback before making any further edits. I really appreciate these discussions and your input.

Thanks again,

Randy Randall N. Brock (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Since you seem to agree, I've gone ahead and made those changes to the section headings. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed chronological reorganization of "Specific Incidents" section

@Fellow editors of 2024 United States drone sightings:

I suggest reorganizing the "Specific Incidents and Airspace Restrictions" section chronologically to improve readability. Here's the proposed structure:

November 2024

• November 25: FAA issued temporary restrictions affecting Picatinny Arsenal and Trump's Bedminster golf club
• November 26: Medical evacuation helicopter delay due to drone activity

Early December 2024

• December 9-15: USMC confirms drone presence over Camp Pendleton
• December 13-14: Wright-Patterson AFB airspace closure

Mid December 2024

• December 15: Boston Logan Airport drone arrests
• December 17: Second Wright-Patterson incursion; Fort Worth incidents
• December 18: FAA's 22-city NJ drone ban; Hill AFB impacts
• December 19: FAA extends bans to NY areas

This organization would:

• Make the timeline clearer for readers
• Group related incidents by timeframe
• Maintain all existing information and citations
• Improve narrative flow

I welcome feedback and suggestions over the next two weeks (until January 13, 2025). If there are no major objections or if we reach consensus on any suggested modifications, I plan to implement these changes after the discussion period.

Please share any thoughts on:

• The proposed chronological structure
• Additional incidents that should be included
• Alternative organization suggestions
• Any concerns about the approach

--~~~~

This organization would:

• Make the timeline clearer for readers
• Group related incidents by timeframe
• Maintain all existing information and citations
• Improve narrative flow

I welcome feedback and suggestions over the next two weeks (until January 13, 2025). If there are no major objections or if we reach consensus on any suggested modifications, I plan to implement these changes after the discussion period.

Please share any thoughts on:

• The proposed chronological structure
• Additional incidents that should be included
• Alternative organization suggestions
• Any concerns about the approach

--~~~~ Randall N. Brock (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd generally support this as it implements our best practices under WP:TIMELINE. My only recommendation would be a succinct narrative paragraph at the top of the section to avoid shocking the reader with a jarring amount of detail and each item in the timeline should be a complete sentence (or two). Chetsford (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chetsford,

Thank you for your support and thoughtful feedback on the proposed reorganization. I agree that adding a succinct narrative paragraph at the beginning of the section would provide context and help ease readers into the detailed timeline. I’ll draft an introductory paragraph summarizing the key events and their significance and share it here for further input.

Regarding your point about ensuring each item in the timeline is a complete sentence (or two), I’ll make the necessary adjustments to improve clarity and readability. If you have any specific suggestions on phrasing or additional content to include in the introduction, I’d love to hear them.

Do you have further thoughts on:

• The tone or scope of the proposed introduction?
• How to balance detail with readability in the timeline entries?

Your input is invaluable, and I appreciate your time and collaboration!

Best regards,

Randall (Basaatw) Randall N. Brock (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm also okay with putting this in chronological order, but I would prefer keeping it in prose style since this isn't a timeline article. Per MOS:TIMELINE, timelines should generally only be used to supplement existing prose descriptions. Also see WP:PROSELINE for some guidance on this. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 05:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Great point. Chetsford (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Anne Drew and Chetsford,

Thank you both for the thoughtful input. I understand the preference for retaining a prose style to ensure the section adheres to Wikipedia's guidance under MOS:TIMELINE and WP:PROSELINE.

To address this, I will upload a draft of a introductory paragraph to emphasize a narrative approach while still providing a clear overview of the events

Looking forward to your thoughts, and hope to always work to address your concerns.

Best regards,

Randall (Basaatw) Randall N. Brock (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization of "State and Local Investigations" section

@Fellow editors:

I propose reorganizing the "State and Local Investigations" section to improve flow and reduce redundancy. Here's the suggested structure:

State and Local Investigations

Early Investigations and Findings

[Connecticut and early NJ findings]

Mid-December Investigations

[NYPD findings from Dec 14-15]

State Response and Federal Assistance

[Organized state-by-state responses and federal assistance requests]

Benefits of this reorganization:

• Chronological flow of events
• Removal of duplicate information
• Clearer grouping of related state actions
• Better narrative progression
• Maintained all existing citations and content

The full proposed text with all citations is provided below for review:

State and Local Investigations

Early Investigations and Findings

According to WVIT-TV, Connecticut State Police investigations "found that most [drone sightings] could be attributed to manned aircraft or those UAS devices operating in the private sector in a legal manner". Governor Ned Lamont noted that one reported drone "had the word Frontier on the back", apparently indicating it was a Frontier Airlines aircraft.

On December 13, Bridgewater, New Jersey police chief John Mitzak stated that "many of the reports received involve misidentification of manned aircraft".

Mid-December Investigations

The New York Police Department investigated approximately 120 drone-related calls during December 14-15, finding most were actually manned aircraft, meteor showers, or the planet Venus. Some confirmed drone sightings were identified as hobbyist drones responding to reports of unusual activity, which the New York Times noted was "triggering even more reports".

State Response and Federal Assistance

Multiple states implemented investigation measures:

• Connecticut deployed drone detection systems, particularly in Fairfield County
• Massachusetts State Police coordinated with federal and local authorities as Governor Maura Healey acknowledged increasing sightings
• Virginia State Police investigated due to the state's "significant number of national security and critical infrastructure sites"
• Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro directed State Police to use helicopters for drone pursuit and origin determination

On December 15, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced federal deployment of a drone detection system. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer requested similar assistance for New Jersey.

By December 17, New Jersey officials reported that specialized "drone-detecting devices" deployed over the previous week found "little to no evidence" of threatening activity.

I welcome feedback and suggestions over the next two weeks (until January 13, 2025). If there are no major objections or if we reach consensus on any suggested modifications, I plan to implement these changes after the discussion period.

Please share thoughts on:

• The chronological organization
• The grouping of state responses
• Any content that should be added/modified
• Alternative organizational suggestions

--~~~~ Randall N. Brock (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd welcome a new way of organizing this section, however, the proposed organization is confusing. It begins by offering the investigations in chronological format ("early december", "mid december") and then suddenly veers left and organizes them by subject matter ("state reponse"). Chetsford (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chetsford,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on the proposed reorganization. You raise an important point about the potential confusion caused by mixing chronological and thematic structures in the same section. To address this, I’d like to propose two potential solutions and welcome further input from you and other editors:

1. Fully Chronological Approach: We could reorganize the entire section by strict chronology, ensuring that all events—investigations, findings, and state responses—are presented in the order they occurred. This would simplify the narrative and maintain consistency.
2. Fully Thematic Approach: Alternatively, we could group all content by thematic categories, such as "Investigations and Findings" and "State Responses." This would mean including all relevant events within their respective themes, regardless of when they occurred, to create clear subject-based groupings.

Would either of these approaches align better with your concerns? I’m happy to work on refining the draft based on your preference or any other suggestions you might have.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

Best regards,

Randall N. Brock Randall N. Brock (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This reply to sysop Chetsford is 100% ChatGPT created. BusterD (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization of "Possible Explanations" section

@Fellow editors:

I suggest reorganizing the "Possible Explanations" section with proper citations and links:

Possible Explanations

Official and Political Theories

US Rep. Michael McCaul, Chair of House Foreign Affairs Committee, suggested some unidentified aircraft were 'spy drones' from China, citing Chinese government ownership of farmland near U.S. military bases. Congressman Jeff Van Drew claimed information from "very high sources" about an Iranian "mothership" launching drones, but the Pentagon refuted this, stating no Iranian ships were present and no evidence of foreign adversaries existed. New Jersey Governor Murphy questioned Van Drew's claims' credibility. Van Drew later modified his stance, suggesting possible Chinese involvement.

Expert Analysis

Former U.S. Air Force general James Poss questioned foreign involvement, noting the aircraft used FAA-compliant lighting. Drone expert William Austin analyzed imagery and concluded many reported 'large drones' were misidentified manned aircraft or smaller personal drones. By December 15, Austin reported that "100 percent" were either misidentified airplanes or small drones under 55 pounds.

Scientific Explanations

Amie Gallagher, Raritan Valley Community College planetarium director, discussed autokinesis creating motion illusions. LaGuardia Community College professor Joshua Tan suggested confirmation bias in public interpretation. Skeptic Mick West attributed many sightings to smartphone camera limitations.

Misidentification and Social Media

Multiple widely shared images were identified as mislabeled older footage, doctored film, or AI-generated content. Notable examples included:

• A viral Threads video actually showing Chinese COVID-19 disinfection drones
• An edited Instagram video with added effects
• Doug Mastriano sharing an image of a movie prop misidentified as a crashed drone
• Old drone light show footage mislabeled as current sightings

This reorganization would:

• Improve chronological and thematic flow
• Maintain all citations and factual content
• Group related explanations logically
• Enhance readability while preserving accuracy

I welcome feedback over the next two weeks (until January 13, 2025). Please share thoughts on this structure and any suggested modifications.

--~~~~ Randall N. Brock (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not think is a good idea. The current layout has a one-dimensional level of organization (possible explanations). The proposed layout has a more complex and indecipherable level of arbitrary organization (some sections represent possible explanations, other represent categories of people advancing possible explanations). Also, this eviscerates and deletes the bulk of RS that establish the indisputable fact that the drone sightings were all cases of misidentification or other mundane explanations. Chetsford (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chetsford,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You make a good point about the risk of overcomplicating the section and losing focus on the main conclusions. I’d like to suggest a middle ground that keeps things simple while addressing some of the issues with the current layout.

Revised Approach:

1. Clearer Structure We could streamline the section into a neutral and straightforward format, organized by key themes rather than categories of people. For example:
   • Initial Theories (e.g., McCaul and Van Drew’s early comments)
   • Expert Analysis (e.g., William Austin and James Poss’s input)
   • Scientific Explanations (e.g., autokinesis and smartphone issues)
   • Social Media Misidentifications (e.g., viral videos and AI-generated content)

This keeps the flow simple and avoids creating too many subcategories.

1. Focus on the Bigger Picture We can make sure the section ends with a summary that ties everything back to the consensus: that these sightings were overwhelmingly due to misidentifications, hoaxes, or mundane phenomena. This would ensure that the reliable sources on this conclusion are front and center.
2. Balanced Coverage To avoid overemphasizing speculative claims, we can briefly mention them alongside the relevant refutations, so they’re included for context but don’t dominate the section.

Does this sound like a step in the right direction? I’d love to hear your thoughts or any tweaks you think could help further.

Best,

Randall Randall N. Brock (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The above is 100% ChatGPT created. BusterD (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Proposed Introductory Paragraph for "Specific Incidents and Airspace Restrictions" Section

Hi everyone,

Based on feedback regarding the importance of narrative flow and alignment with Wikipedia’s guidelines (MOS:TIMELINE and WP:PROSELINE), I’ve drafted the following introductory paragraph for the section. This version aims to balance the chronological structure with a cohesive prose style:

Specific Incidents and Airspace Restrictions

Since November 2024, reports of unauthorized drone activity across various sensitive locations in the United States have highlighted pressing concerns about aviation safety, public security, and the protection of restricted airspaces. These incidents include disruptions at military installations, commercial airports, and emergency operations, prompting swift responses from federal authorities and local governments. The following section provides a chronological yet narrative account of these events, summarizing their significance and the measures taken to address them.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this proposed paragraph. Does it strike the right balance between clarity and narrative flow? Are there any additional points or adjustments you'd recommend?

Looking forward to your feedback!

Best regards,

Randall N. Brock Randall N. Brock (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

GPTzero shows the above is 100% ChatGPT generated. BusterD (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for Restructuring: Official Responses and Possible Explanations Sections

Hi everyone,

I’d like to propose changes to improve the structure of the article, particularly in the Official Responses and Possible Explanations sections. Differentiating official statements from independent analyses will enhance clarity and readability.

Current Structure

1. Official Responses
   • Federal Executive Branch
   • State, Local, and Legislative Responses
2. Possible Explanations

Proposed Structure

1. Official Responses
   • Federal Responses
     • Statements from the Executive Branch (e.g., Pentagon, FAA)
   • State and Local Responses
     • Governors, mayors, and regional agencies
   • Legislative Responses
     • Statements and inquiries from Congress members
2. Possible Explanations
   • Official and Political Theories
     • Comments from officials (e.g., Rep. McCaul, Gov. Murphy)
   • Expert Analyses
     • Input from scientists and aviation experts
   • Scientific Explanations
     • Phenomena such as autokinesis or smartphone limitations
   • Misidentification and Social Media
     • Examples of mislabeled images, edited footage, and AI-generated content

Rationale

• Official Responses: Reorganizing into three subsections (Federal, State and Local, Legislative) clarifies the source and scope of each response.
• Possible Explanations: Restoring this as a standalone section highlights the range of perspectives and avoids conflating official statements with independent analyses.
• Subsections within Possible Explanations provide logical flow and better organization of ideas for improved readability.

Next Steps

I’m posting this here for feedback and consensus. If there are no objections or alternative suggestions within 7 days, I’ll proceed with the revisions. Please feel free to share your thoughts or suggestions!

Thank you for your time and input.

Best regards,

Randy Randall N. Brock (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I object. Everything you've written above I tested for ChatGPT and is a 100% match. BusterD (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: Proposal for Restructuring: Official Responses and Possible Explanations Sections

Hi BusterD,

Thank you for your response. I’d like to take a moment to clarify my intentions and the thought process behind this proposal.

As someone actively investigating the national security risks posed by these incidents, I believe it’s essential to identify and understand the sources of unidentified drones. Ensuring public safety and protecting national security requires a clear, factual understanding of these events.

When I first reviewed the article, I was struck by how disorganized and poorly structured it was. Instead of informing readers, it seemed to create more confusion and even alarm. The excessive political rhetoric, redundancies, and lack of clarity made it challenging—if not impossible—for the average reader to extract factual and balanced information.

I rely on Wikipedia as an essential resource and contribute both my time and financial support because I believe in its mission. Articles on topics like this must be clear, well-organized, and accessible to readers from all backgrounds. If leveraging AI tools to organize and streamline content makes the article more usable and informative, I’m willing to do so—while ensuring that all content remains original and adheres to community standards.

I understand and appreciate your concerns about maintaining the integrity of the work. If there are specific aspects of the proposal that you feel need improvement, I’d be happy to revisit and refine them to better align with the community’s expectations.

I value your input and look forward to collaborating to enhance this article for the benefit of all readers.

Best regards,

Randy Randall N. Brock (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I was struck by how disorganized and poorly structured it was. Instead of informing readers, it seemed to create more confusion and even alarm. The excessive political rhetoric, redundancies, and lack of clarity made it challenging—if not impossible—for the average reader to extract factual and balanced information.

I take issue with these statements. Are these ChatGPT's beliefs or yours? If those are truly your views, I'd love to see some specific examples. Your own thoughts, put through a machine translator if necessary, will suffice. Thanks – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 20:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

GPTzero says the above response was 100% created by ChatGPT, but ZeroGPT says only 49%. BusterD (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi BusterD, Anne Drew, and all,

Thanks for your replies. I just want to clear a few things up. The ideas I shared are mine, and I put a lot of thought into them. I used AI software to help sort and write things down, but the views and plan are all from me. Please let me know your thoughts.

Anne Drew, I understand you'd like examples. Here are some things that stood out to me:

• The "Possible Explanations" section mixes official views with other opinions, which can make it tough to separate the two.
• There’s some overlap in the points, especially in "Official Responses" and "Possible Explanations." That can confuse readers.
• The current layout makes it hard to follow who said what and where the info came from.

I hope these examples help show why I think this new structure would work better.

I also want to stress that I’m here to work with everyone. This article is what matters most, not any personal conflicting. We all want it to be clear and useful for readers. If anyone has ideas or changes, I’m all ears. Let’s focus on improving the content. As a team player, I’m here to get along and make it better together.

Thanks again for your time and feedback. Let's get 'er done!

Best,

Randy Randall N. Brock (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

100% LLM-created. BusterD (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi BusterD,

Thank you for your input.

I understand your concerns, but I kindly ask that we keep the focus on the content rather than making this personal. I’ve already explained my process and how I organize my thoughts, but the ideas and contributions are entirely my own. Let’s work together to keep the discussion constructive and focused on improving the article.

Best regards,

Randy Randall N. Brock (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This is all about behavior, not content. There's exactly nothing personal in my repeatedly pointing out that this account's recent talk page contributions are entirely machine-created (ergo not attributable). I did some reading through the editor's page creations and editing history (mostly creating stubs about non-notable people which get deleted for promotional purposes). One quite excellent pagespace exception, I'm happy to say. Good work there. That's my realistic evaluation based on my lengthy watching folks here, not a chiding. And today User:Basaatw is on what any normal wikipedian would call a high-visibility article, and they're proposing to insert machine written stuff in live page space on their (machine-written) timetable. This is NOT okay with me. BusterD (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Let me know if my recent edit addresses any of your concerns. If you believe issues remain, please provide specific examples quoting from the article. Thanks – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)