Talk:Gatwick Airport drone incident

Drones, or just reports of drones?
It seems from the page that there were actual drones, not merely reports. Reports may be true or false, or even hoaxes. If there were actual drones, the article and subject need to change. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No evidence has ever been presented to confirm the existence of a drone. All we've got are assertions from people and organisations who would have egg on their faces if it came to pass that the whole thing was a hoax. The title of this article is, as a result, misleading. Essentially, it states that there was an incident, which has absolutely not been proved. Silas Stoat (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Incident" is neutral. Even if the disruption was caused by hoaxers, that could correctly be described as an "incident". -- DeFacto (talk). 18:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was cabin crew at Gatwick during this period. I saw a drone. A pilot even videoed it and it was used on tv news channels after they posted it online. A news channel even offered them payment for the footage.
 * The news clips are on YouTube, so very confused as to why they have not been included in this post. 2A04:4A43:413F:F340:C92A:4E55:7675:9871 (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

UAP
Hi, the Gatwick incident could have been a UAP, in fact. There is evidence that the police drone was misidentified however earlier sightings did suggest a large object, and also something showed up on radar albeit briefly. The working hypothesis is that this was an optical stealth equipped device, using flexible OLED panels obtained from surplus units that had failed the self test but still worked so far cheaper than the alternative, setup powered using Li AA primary cells in series so flight time would be 1-2 hours with a trivial amount of work needed to replace them rapidly and get back airborne again.

Total cost would have been within the capability of several groups and could be made to look like any drone on the market thus confusing any observers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.14 (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry this page is for improving the article, if you have a theory then it may be best to ask at one of the Reference desks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Guardian long read, 1 December 2020
Not sure if this new Guardian article is a useful source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/01/the-mystery-of-the-gatwick-drone JezGrove (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of quality FOIA, government and RAF connected defence company sources
I'd like to query the "appear to be sourced to websites Wikipedia cannot necessarily use" for the recent updates which were reverted, the sources were primarily UK FOIA responses direct from the relevant authorities, WhatDoTheyKnow is the primary website in the UK dedicated to FOIA requests, it even has a Wikipedia entry detailing its purpose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatDoTheyKnow

The links were UK government, WhatDoTheyKnow and Leonardo, the very company that was at Gatwick and included a citation of the UK government confirming its presence at Gatwick, it's credited by the RAF on official MOD website and the RAF's own social media channels. The RAF force protection force, confirmed Leonardo's presence (including photographs here) and even includes a link to the Ministry of Defence website confirming the same: https://twitter.com/RAFFPForce/status/1301863662458634240 https://des.mod.uk/counter-drone-programme-milestone/

The Guardian report which is cited on this page, itself used FOIA requests as part of its investigation, many from WhatDoTheyKnow. Many of the FOIAs cited in the update have happened since The Guardian article so now reveal additional facts that weren't known at that time.

Any additional comments around the citations to FOIAs etc were pretty much matter of fact and not opinion or speculation. If there's issue with an particular sentence or paragraph can that be detailed? UAVHive (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See also the discussion about reliable sources from two years ago, when UAVHive last added a large amount of material to this article:
 * It will explain more about the problems with this kind of edit. The short version is that without coverage in reliable secondary sources, it's difficult to justify why this information is important and due for coverage in Wikipedia, per Wikipedia's policies. Popcornfud (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue here is, most of this information was Freedom of Information, it's essentially against the law for an authority to be lying in their response, that's not to say an authority might not mislead, but generally and where the question is unambiguous the reply will provide accurate information, a journalist would typically report such an FOIA without the need for any additional analysis.
 * In the case of Gatwick much of the reporting at the time is inaccurate, sometimes arguably outright false, The Daily Mail reported Drone Dome was in use, yet it clearly wasn't, the army involved yet it wasn't. Meanwhile The Sun posted a photo which it claimed was the Gatwick drone, yet that same photo was a police NPAS helicopter and known to be a helicopter, this is also captured in a secondary source here by Dr David Clarke who is a former investigative journalist: https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2021/05/15/attack-of-the-drones/
 * The Hillsborough disaster demonstrated how newspapers could end up publishing false information around an event, where the police don't correct it and it ends up being part of the narrative for decades, while Gatwick thankfully was less serious, it's evident the reporting was poor so a policy that enshrines a secondary source as the most reliable or only one to be able to be cited, guarantees a flawed article.
 * In the case of Gatwick many of the FOIAs are supported by more than one source, for example the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner had evidence quite clearly that 9 forces were involved. Furthermore, most of those forces were specifically asked and have replied confirming they were there (off the top of my head, only The Met wasn't asked).
 * Examples:
 * https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/national_funding_for_operation_t#incoming-1908337
 * https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costs_of_ps1366_for_gatwick_treb#incoming-1940310 UAVHive (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns around the difference between what gets reported and what's true. However, I'm afraid it's not really relevant for Wikipedia, which is based principally on reliable secondary sources, even if that condemns us to a "flawed article". Take a look at WP:TRUTH for more on this issue. Popcornfud (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)