Talk:Area 51/Archive 3

1976 Area 51 report
There was a report compiled by the EPA in conjunction with ERDA regarding underground nuclear tests from 1951 to 1975. The report mentions Area 51 four times, and there is a map (page 33) with has the designation "Area 51" on it, within the "Nellis Air Force Range" location, next to the "NTS" (Nevada Test Site). The report is a PDF file on the DOE.GOV website. If anyone is interested is using this information, or uploading the relevant pages/ maps, to add to the article, here is the link Cheers -  wolf  12:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Dates
As Area 51 is in the United States, shouldn't we really be using mdy dates, not dmy dates? --Ferien (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * US military articles use dmy dates. - w o lf  21:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm ok,, is there any reason why these articles use dmy dates instead of mdy? Just curious --Ferien (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * US military articles use dmy dates because that's what the US military uses. The "Use dmy dates" template is on every US military article, (and if it isn't, it should be), per WP:MILFORMAT, which is part of MOS:NUM. You're not new here, with your number of edits and advanced permissions, including admins rights on multiple sister projects, this is something you should've been able to find rather easily. - w o lf  15:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2022
Please change "We flew over it and within thirty seconds, you knew that was the place [...] it was right by a dry lake. Man alive, we looked at that lake, and we all looked at each other. It was another Edwards, so we wheeled around, landed on that lake, taxied up to one end of it. It was a perfect natural landing field [...] as smooth as a billiard table without anything being done to it" to: "We flew over it and within thirty seconds, you knew that was the place [...] it was right by a dry lake. Man alive, we looked at that lake, and we all looked at each other. It was another Edwards, so we wheeled around, landed on that lake, taxied up to one end of it. "It was a perfect natural landing field [...] as smooth as a billiard table without anything being done to it"

Also, in contemporaneous notes taken between April 12 and May 4,1955 by Kelly Johnson he wrote, "With LeVier, Bissel and Ozzie, we flew all over Nevada looking for base sites. Mr.Greenway had come out in March and we had shown him out various sites off the government reservation. Security was not sufficient at the best site and he gave an unfavorable report to our runway deal. When we showed Ozzie and Dick this site, however, they were much impressed. We flew over Frenchman's Flats (quite illegally) and found another site in the atomic test area. Site was a dandy, but will take much red tape to get cleared.....Base location has been decided as site II for which they will accept my proposed name of "Paradise Ranch". ....Tony, Dorsey and I flew to Las Vegas, meeting with Mr.Donnell, Seth Woodruff and engineers from Silas Mason Construction Company....Flew out and located runway at the south end of the lake, marked out general area for buildings, then flew back over the atom bomb sitting on it's tower about nine hours before it was set off." Johnskunk1 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Why do you want the sentence beginning with "It was a perfect natural landing field" to be quoted within the quote? And regarding the notes of Kelley Johnson, Wikipedia requires a reliable published source be cited. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2022
Request edit of the statement related to the process of discovery and selection of Area 51 for the use of the U-2 program. The statement to be added is taken from contemporaneous notes taken by kelly Johnson. Johnskunk1 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ please add request in a "change 'x' to 'y'" format and add a reliable source to support. - w o lf  02:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"Highly classified"
That's used in the first sentence of the lede. What's considered classified is defined in 5 U.S. Code Chapter 51 (ironically) and "highly classified" is not a term that appears anywhere within that section of the code. What specifically is meant by this term? I assume this is meant to infer the activities at this facility fall under SAPs or various compartments within TOP SECRET (which is probably not something unusual for any military installation). What makes this installation unique then, in this regard? Maybe this language can be tightened up or made more precise. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The President annually issues a determination continuing the Groom exception...
Is this still true? A search of the national archives website reveals declarations from Clinton and George W. Bush era but I am unable to verify if this continued through Obama, Trump, Biden Presidencies... Violetlightwave (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

US GOV leakers and Area 51?
Is there any connections to this? Anyone wanna try finding out? 2601:603:4940:2D50:B8F3:2053:4370:4073 (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2023
In the description, it states its runway 14/32. But, if you look on google earth, its 14L 32R 125.253.44.202 (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ (but with a ref other than Google Maps.) - w o lf  07:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2024
Hello. My request is that the sentence in the section "UFO and other conspiracy theories" be changed from "Activities related to a shadowy one-world government or the Majestic 12 organization" to "Activities related to the conspiracy theory of a one-world government. I am requesting this change so that the article better falls into compliance with the neutral point of view policy. Thank you. Kimosaabe (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ GSK (talk • edits) 04:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2024
Suggest change, remove the last edit to this page by 07:53, 30 January 2024‎ Gene Stanley1 talk contribs‎ 86,310 bytes +9‎

I would recommend reverting the most recent update, which added the word "debunked," back to its previous version: "frequent subject of debunked conspiracy theories." The addition of "debunked" is potentially inflammatory, lacks proper references, generalizes the topic, and does not contribute significantly to the discussion. It may even be considered vandalism to the page. While it is true that some of these theories have been debunked, others may not have been. Additionally, certain theories have proven to be accurate, particularly those related to new military hardware that has since been officially released. Therefore, I suggest returning the recent change below to the original version:

The intense secrecy surrounding the base has made it the frequent subject of debunked conspiracy theories and a central component of unidentified flying object (UFO) folklore. It has never been declared a secret base, but all research and occurrences in Area 51 are Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI). The CIA publicly acknowledged the base's existence on 25 June 2013, following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in 2005 and declassified documents detailing its history and purpose.

This is the original version that the article should be reverted to. The intense secrecy surrounding the base has made it the frequent subject of conspiracy theories and a central component of unidentified flying object (UFO) folklore. It has never been declared a secret base, but all research and occurrences in Area 51 are Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI). The CIA publicly acknowledged the base's existence on 25 June 2013, following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in 2005 and declassified documents detailing its history and purpose. 146.200.136.91 (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

— Urro[ talk ] [ edits ] 13:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Urro[ talk ] [ edits ] 13:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Gene Stanley1 -- I too consider the edit to be somewhat polemic. Perhaps consider establishing a consensus before making changes like this.